inbetween the line: should speculation be taught as fact?
Jabriol
mind role ;-)
times write:
. "Even basic biology suggests that humanity has special status. Virtually
every other type of animal comes in multiple varieties: dozens of species of
monkeys, antelopes, whales and hawks walk, swim or fly the earth, to say
nothing of beetles, whose hundreds of thousands of species inspired
biologist J.B.S. Haldane's famous quip that God must have had "an inordinate
fondness" for them. Even our closest kin, the great apes, fall into four
species, divided into several subspecies.
But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has ever
been."
Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
and wasnt the Nean and Spaien humans, who lived at the same time?
>the half-ape known as Lucy appeared in Africa; eventually she begat a less
>apelike creature, who evolved in turn into something even more humanlike. <
well if she was half ape, what was the other half? bird?
>Except for that odd side branch known as the Neanderthals, the path from
>proto-apes to modern humans is commonly seen as a succession of new and
>improved species taking the place of worn-out evolutionary< clunkers.
so human is evolving toward perfection? and wasnt the Nean Human too?
>It's a satisfying, if slightly chauvinistic tale, but experts in human
>evolution have known for years that it is dead wrong. The evolution of a
>successful animal species almost always involves trial and error, false
>starts and failed experiments. "Humans are no exception to this," says
>anthropologist Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in
>New York City, "no matter what we like to think."<
shyooting down the ladder, I guess evolution is a thought process.. since
there is no evidence, except
half baked in the so bones.
>the fact that we've been alone since the Neanderthals vanished some 30,000
>years ago is an evolutionary aberration<
Maybe Homo-sapien wipe them out, didnt like the color of thier skin or fur..
cant have blacks in europe.
>Since 1994, four new species of hominid have been added to the human family
>tree, with the latest announced just a few months ago. These date from
>800,000 years ago all the way back to 4.4 million years B.P. (before the
>present).<
what is clasified as an homonid? anything with longlegs?
>One remarkable skeleton, announced this past spring, suggests that modern
>humans and Neanderthals may even have mated successfully<
Is science becoming politically correct? you know how people feel about
interacial marriages.
even the thought of bring the Manpanzee to existence terrify them..
except Texans, that have things for goats.. right Philip?
>The first, which happened around the time we diverged from the apes,
>between 6 million and 4 million years ago, was the development of
>bipedalism--two-legged walking rather than the kind of locomotion Tarzan
>learned from his adoptive ape family.<
so the apes are human too. And tarzan help prova theory..
right here is where the article loose credibility.
--
reply to:wol...@fiberia.com
Here is where real discussions take place:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/issues
Para asuntos hispanos:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/Boriken
David Johnston
>
> I was reading the time article, and here key phrases, that make your evolved
> mind role ;-)
>
> times write:
>
> . "Even basic biology suggests that humanity has special status. Virtually
> every other type of animal comes in multiple varieties: dozens of species of
> monkeys, antelopes, whales and hawks walk, swim or fly the earth, to say
> nothing of beetles, whose hundreds of thousands of species inspired
> biologist J.B.S. Haldane's famous quip that God must have had "an inordinate
> fondness" for them. Even our closest kin, the great apes, fall into four
> species, divided into several subspecies.
>
> But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
> simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has ever
> been."
>
> Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
Because as long as two breeds can interbreed, they aren't species.
Charles R Martin
Because they're not. "Species" has a definite meaning, and humanity's "races"
no more fit that meaning than different breeds of dog do.
--
Some boys go to college and eventually succeed in getting out. Others
go to college and never succeed in getting out. The latter are called
professors. -- H. L. Mencken
Charles R Martin
David Johnston wrote:
>
> > Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
>
> Because as long as two breeds can interbreed, they aren't species.
Right notion, wrong specifics. Horses and donkeys, for example, can
interbreed. (They're called "mules", and of course they're infertile.) The
fringy point is that sometimes two groups that appear to be species can
interbreed (if only in a lab situation or a petri dish) with a fertile result,
while still being very different morphologically.
maff91
wrote:
>
>
>David Johnston wrote:
>>
>
>> > Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
>>
>> Because as long as two breeds can interbreed, they aren't species.
>
>Right notion, wrong specifics. Horses and donkeys, for example, can
>interbreed. (They're called "mules", and of course they're infertile.) The
>fringy point is that sometimes two groups that appear to be species can
>interbreed (if only in a lab situation or a petri dish) with a fertile result,
>while still being very different morphologically.
Have you heard of ring species?
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/speciation_def.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/ring_species.html
http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/people/barrylab/public_html/classes/animal_behavior/STUDY_Q.DIR/STUDY_4.HTM
http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/shadow/sa/newbrochure/tprice.html
http://128.148.45.13/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
--
L.P.#0000000001
Charles R Martin
maff91 wrote:
>
> On 20 Aug 1999 21:55:10 -0400, Charles R Martin <crma...@iglobal.net>
> wrote:
> >David Johnston wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> > Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
> >>
> >> Because as long as two breeds can interbreed, they aren't species.
> >
> >Right notion, wrong specifics. Horses and donkeys, for example, can
> >interbreed. (They're called "mules", and of course they're infertile.) The
> >fringy point is that sometimes two groups that appear to be species can
> >interbreed (if only in a lab situation or a petri dish) with a fertile result,
> >while still being very different morphologically.
>
> Have you heard of ring species?
> http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/speciation_def.html
> http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/ring_species.html
No I hadn't but they're certainly cool. (Quick summary: there are populations
in which subpopulation A breeds with subpopulation B, which breeds with
subpopulation C, and so on; but eventually you get to subpopulation Q, which
is adjacent with subpopulation A, but won't breed with them.) It's another
one of those interesting fringy cases that test the definition of "species" --
but doesn't appear to apply to people since we'll pretty much breed with
*anyone*.
MA Lloyd
>I was reading the time article, and here key phrases, that make your evolved
>mind role ;-)
>times write:
>. "Even basic biology suggests that humanity has special status. Virtually
>every other type of animal comes in multiple varieties: dozens of species of
>monkeys, antelopes, whales and hawks walk, swim or fly the earth, to say
>nothing of beetles, whose hundreds of thousands of species inspired
>biologist J.B.S. Haldane's famous quip that God must have had "an inordinate
>fondness" for them. Even our closest kin, the great apes, fall into four
>species, divided into several subspecies.
>But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
>simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has ever
>been."
Actually it loses credibility right here, if not earlier. The author
has fallen into one of those traps that proves one doesn't understand
a classification scheme by assuming the pidgeonholes into which it
sorts the universe have sort of objective existence.
Suppose I alter the focus a little - there is only one species of Patas
monkey on the planet, so it must be unusual; or there are 10 species
of Pongids, one of them Homo sapiens, but since there are 9 others
it can't be anything special.... Indeed separating out the genus
Homo makes the the genuses of the family Pongidae paraphylatic, which
anywhere else in the classification scheme is a strong argument for
reworking the divisions. Since Homo has priority (Linne, 1758), we should
reclassify the chimpanzee species as members of Homo and remove Pan.
--
-- MA Lloyd (mall...@io.com)
Martin Crisp
wrote:
> On 20 Aug 1999 21:55:10 -0400, Charles R Martin <crma...@iglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >David Johnston wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> > Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
> >>
> >> Because as long as two breeds can interbreed, they aren't species.
> >
> >Right notion, wrong specifics. Horses and donkeys, for example, can
> >interbreed. (They're called "mules", and of course they're infertile.)
The
> >fringy point is that sometimes two groups that appear to be species can
> >interbreed (if only in a lab situation or a petri dish) with a fertile
result,
> >while still being very different morphologically.
>
> Have you heard of ring species?
No I hadn't, but the concept wasn't foreign to me (whether through hearing
of it at some stage or contemplating it on hearing that a couple of
different 'species' of whales were observed breeding - having sex at least
- I can't recall.....)
Thanks for the URLs...
Have Fun
Martin
--
Owner/Operator - Tesseract Computing
<hypercube 'at' tesseract.com.au> or just reply.
Computer Systems Officer - Tourism Tasmania
<Martin.Crisp 'at' tourism.tas.gov.au>
I speak for me.
Jabriol
On 20-Aug-1999, David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
> > simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has ever
> > been."
> >
> > Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
>
> Because as long as two breeds can interbreed, they aren't species.
hybrids?
Martin Crisp
wrote:
[snip]
> one of those interesting fringy cases that test the definition of
"species" --
> but doesn't appear to apply to people since we'll pretty much breed with
> *anyone*.
Hmm, a culturally directed form of this existed in South Africa until
recently...
Would be interesting, though I'm not proposing the experiment be conducted,
to know in the case of the gulls, salamanders etc if ends of the ring can
interbreed, even though they don't, and if so whether they would produce
fertile offspring.
I would assume a genetic assay would determine whether it was likely or
unlikely at the very least...
An interesting example of the 'fractalness' of speciation...
Martin Crisp
>
>
> On 20-Aug-1999, David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> > But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
> > > simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has
ever
> > > been."
> > >
> > > Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
> >
> > Because as long as two breeds can interbreed, they aren't species.
>
> hybrids?
Depending on your perception of the meaning of the word... yes.
Jabriol
On 20-Aug-1999, Charles R Martin <crma...@iglobal.net> wrote:
> > Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
>
> Because they're not. "Species" has a definite meaning, and humanity's
> "races"
> no more fit that meaning than different breeds of dog do.
not acording to TO faqs.
Jabriol
On 20-Aug-1999, David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
> > simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has ever
> > been."
> >
> > Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
>
> Because as long as two breeds can interbreed, they aren't species.
A greatdane can not breed with a chihuahua. so which of these two are not a
real dog?
blac...@dog-play.com
: On 20-Aug-1999, David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
:> But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
:> > simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has ever
:> > been."
:> >
:> > Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
Because the definition of the words means that a race is not a species.
It's like saying someone is "afraid" to call a fork a spoon.
:>
:> Because as long as two breeds can interbreed, they aren't species.
An oversimplified definition. A bit more accurate but still
oversimplified is "If the two animals can interbreed and produce viable
offspring they are probably a species."
: A greatdane can not breed with a chihuahua. so which of these two are not a
: real dog?
A great dane and a chihuahua can breed. If the great dane is the male it
might be fatal the the female, but not so the otherway around. Anyway
this is the inverse argument and doesn't advance the definition. A person
who mistakenly beleives that different races are different species would
just as mistakenly say that different dog breeds are differnt species.
Such belief simply ignores the defnition of words. Its a Humpty Dumpty
problem where people assign new defintions to words to suit their goals,
it doesn't mean it is true.
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Life is too short to be fretful.
Elizabeth Naime
> A greatdane can not breed with a chihuahua. so which of these two are not a
> real dog?
This got cross posted to rec.pets.dogs.breeds, from wence you will probably get more than one
comment that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua can, indeed, interbreed. A natural breeding is
possible if the female is the Dane, and of course you could do an AI.
the reason they look completely unlike is because they are both real dogs, and dogs are a
domestic species which we humans have selectively bred for a very long time. We have not
however changed the basic caninity of the species by doing so.
Michael
Since you're here already. I've heard the claim that dog breeders have to work
to keep the breeds from speciating. Is this true? Is there a danger of one breed
becoming unable to interbreed with the others?
Mike
Charles R Martin
Martin Crisp wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 8:47 PM, Charles R Martin <mailto:crma...@iglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > one of those interesting fringy cases that test the definition of
> "species" --
> > but doesn't appear to apply to people since we'll pretty much breed with
> > *anyone*.
>
> Hmm, a culturally directed form of this existed in South Africa until
> recently...
Didn't work there either, I betcha. (Isn't that what "colored" meant in za?)
>
> Would be interesting, though I'm not proposing the experiment be conducted,
why not?
> to know in the case of the gulls, salamanders etc if ends of the ring can
> interbreed, even though they don't, and if so whether they would produce
> fertile offspring.
I agree completely.
>
> I would assume a genetic assay would determine whether it was likely or
> unlikely at the very least...
I'm not certain. there's a whole new taxonomy out there (called "claddist")
which works on a distance measure (really an "ultrameasure" if it matters) on
DNA sequences. I really don't understand how speciation is defined in that
world.
Charles R Martin
Jabriol wrote:
>
> On 20-Aug-1999, Charles R Martin <crma...@iglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
> >
> > Because they're not. "Species" has a definite meaning, and humanity's
> > "races"
> > no more fit that meaning than different breeds of dog do.
>
> not acording to TO faqs.
Not according to what?
MA Lloyd
>On 20-Aug-1999, Charles R Martin <crma...@iglobal.net> wrote:
>> > Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
>>
>> Because they're not. "Species" has a definite meaning, and humanity's
>> "races"
>> no more fit that meaning than different breeds of dog do.
>not acording to TO faqs.
Which one? And where? I can't think of any standard definition of
species that overlaps with race. Of course both concepts have the
same fundamental problem, attempting to put a hard boundary around
pieces of what's at least potentially a continuum, which naturally
leads to ambiguity, but they are attempts to slice up the collection
of organisms in rather differently sized segments.
Morat
Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
> Michael <kala...@colorado.edu> writes:
>
> >Since you're here already. I've heard the claim that dog breeders
> >have to work to keep the breeds from speciating. Is this true? Is
> >there a danger of one breed becoming unable to interbreed with the
> >others?
>
> Not at all. In fact some dog breeders would probably like that, as it
> would cut down on mixes. But no, that's not a problem, and unlikely
> to be one for thousands years more yet (barring increased genetic
> manipulation abilities down the line, of course).
>
I do know that inbreeding has become a problem. Take cocker spaniels.
The trainer I'm training my mixed breed with and I discussed cockers one day.
(My
mother owns one). The trainer has been working with them for 30 years and is of
the firm
opinion that inbreeding is lowering their intelligence. They didn't have all
that big a genetic
base in the US and popularity has gone up...They have to put down a rather
large percentage
of every litter, from defects. Just a little FYI.
>
> --
> ***** tit...@io.com *** DOG FAQS AT http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ *****
> WAGGERY U-CD Terrell's Chocolate Deduction CGC CDX--Hershe LABRADORS
> ------- Delby's Wood Nymph at Waggery JH WC CGC--Angel ---------
> KT's Before the Mast--Dana
> *** Southern California Lab Rescue: http://www.sclrr.org/ ***
--
spam blocking in effect. To reply remove "not"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mankind must without a doubt be the most conceited race
in the universe, for who else believes that God has
nothing better to do than sit around all day and help
him out of tight spots? ---Alan Dean Foster
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Knutsen
Jabriol wrote:
>
> I was reading the time article, and here key phrases, that make your evolved
> mind role ;-)
>
> times write:
>
> . "Even basic biology suggests that humanity has special status. Virtually
> every other type of animal comes in multiple varieties: dozens of species of
> monkeys, antelopes, whales and hawks walk, swim or fly the earth, to say
> nothing of beetles, whose hundreds of thousands of species inspired
> biologist J.B.S. Haldane's famous quip that God must have had "an inordinate
> fondness" for them. Even our closest kin, the great apes, fall into four
> species, divided into several subspecies.
What about the fift species of Great Ape, the naked one?
> But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
We're not more different from Chimpanzees or Bonobo chimps than
Cbimpanzees are from Bonobos. There is no reason to give humans
special status.
We're somewhat smarter than the other apes (some would argue a
lot - this is when I point in any random direction (save upwards)
and shake my head), but we cannot do anything that they cannot,
in a basic way. We can think great thoughts (but only very few
of us do), apes can think too. We can commit rape and murder, so
can apes (although Bonobo chimps have never been seen murdering
other Bonobo chimps, and they're so sex-crazy I doubt that it's
technically possible to rape one).
> simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has ever
> been."
>
> Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
Because race is not species. There's a clear definition of what
a species is, race is just convenience.
> and wasnt the Nean and Spaien humans, who lived at the same time?
What is the "Spaien"?
Neanderthals has recently been reclassified as part of the
Homo Sapiens branch (i.e. very close to us), previously
they were just under the Homo branch (i.e. farther away).
> >the half-ape known as Lucy appeared in Africa; eventually she begat a less
> >apelike creature, who evolved in turn into something even more humanlike. <
>
> well if she was half ape, what was the other half? bird?
Human of course.
> >Except for that odd side branch known as the Neanderthals, the path from
> >proto-apes to modern humans is commonly seen as a succession of new and
> >improved species taking the place of worn-out evolutionary< clunkers.
>
> so human is evolving toward perfection? and wasnt the Nean Human too?
It seems that evolution is going very, very slowly. And people
of low education and people who are religious fundamentalist
(people who belongs to one of these groups have a scary tendency
also to belong to the other) produce much more offspring than
educated people who are able to think independent thoughts.
Besides, you've misunderstood evolution. It doesn't have
anything to do with perfection, only with change. Since almost
all creatures are living in harch conditions, the individuals
that are poorly adapted to their surroundings tends to die
early, producing little or no offspring, while individuals
who are well adapted to their particular surroundings will
have a long life and thus a tendency to produce much offspring.
The result of these clear and logical and concrete mechanisms
is that species will evolve towards optimal adaption to whatever
enviroment they live in.
No one said anything about perfection. Also note that evolutions
and the notion of fitness depends on the circumstances you live in.
I would not thrive if I were to live among braindead religious
(or political) fundamentalists. You wouldn't thrive if you had
to live among biology and physics professors. A dolphin wouldn't
thrive if it had to swim in the sands of the Sahara desert.
> >It's a satisfying, if slightly chauvinistic tale, but experts in human
> >evolution have known for years that it is dead wrong. The evolution of a
> >successful animal species almost always involves trial and error, false
> >starts and failed experiments. "Humans are no exception to this," says
> >anthropologist Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in
> >New York City, "no matter what we like to think."<
>
> shyooting down the ladder, I guess evolution is a thought process.. since
> there is no evidence, except
> half baked in the so bones.
Fossilization is a very rare occurence. Most bones will just
dissolve, leaving no evidence for us to study.
> >the fact that we've been alone since the Neanderthals vanished some 30,000
> >years ago is an evolutionary aberration<
>
> Maybe Homo-sapien wipe them out, didnt like the color of thier skin or fur..
> cant have blacks in europe.
It's possible that we wiped them out (tribalism in some form is
a human instinct), but it's equally possible that we simply
outcompeted them. Our skulls have a better shape than theirs,
and our brains are only slightly smaller (like 3%) than theirs.
Besides, our frontal lobes are much larger than the neanderthals,
and those lobes are the seat of abstract thinking, so even though
their brains where a little bit larger than ours (making neanderthal
births extremely difficult), it's safe to assume that we were smarter
and more adaptable.
> >One remarkable skeleton, announced this past spring, suggests that modern
> >humans and Neanderthals may even have mated successfully<
>
> Is science becoming politically correct? you know how people feel about
> interacial marriages.
Don't worry, one scientist here is not the least politically
correct. I suggest we sterilize every man or woman who prefers
to let a book do the thinking instead of using his/her own brain.
> even the thought of bring the Manpanzee to existence terrify them..
I'm terrified by the amount of offspring spawned by unthinking
fundamentalists.
> >The first, which happened around the time we diverged from the apes,
> >between 6 million and 4 million years ago, was the development of
> >bipedalism--two-legged walking rather than the kind of locomotion Tarzan
> >learned from his adoptive ape family.<
>
> so the apes are human too. And tarzan help prova theory..
The apes aren't human. We're apes. Smart apes (except you and the
other fundies), but still apes.
> right here is where the article loose credibility.
Anyone who doesn't accept the fact of evolution and the clear and
easily understandable mechanisms that have been postulated as the
cause of evolution, has absolutely no credibility in my eyes.
> --
> reply to:wol...@fiberia.com
--
Peter Knutsen
http://www.knutsen.dk
Martin Crisp
wrote:
>
>
> Martin Crisp wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 8:47 PM, Charles R Martin <
> mailto:crma...@iglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > one of those interesting fringy cases that test the definition of
> > "species" --
> > > but doesn't appear to apply to people since we'll pretty much breed
with
> > > *anyone*.
> >
> > Hmm, a culturally directed form of this existed in South Africa until
> > recently...
>
> Didn't work there either, I betcha. (Isn't that what "colored" meant in
za?)
Of course not. Humans tend to be a little more promiscuous...
> > Would be interesting, though I'm not proposing the experiment be
> conducted,
>
> why not?
Mainly so I don't get hate mail from some (one) of the cross-posted groups
(i.e. not for lack of scientific interest).
:-)
> > I would assume a genetic assay would determine whether it was likely or
> > unlikely at the very least...
>
> I'm not certain. there's a whole new taxonomy out there (called
"claddist")
> which works on a distance measure (really an "ultrameasure" if it
matters)
> on
> DNA sequences. I really don't understand how speciation is defined in
that
> world.
Likewise, I was basing the assumption on the comments regarding the reasons
mules are infertile (arrangements of genetic material required for pairing
between horse/donkey...)
Tony Suessine
Charles R Martin wrote in message <37BE09C7...@iglobal.net>...
>> But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
>> simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has ever
>> been."
For the sake of argument assume that a few species of Man
existed in the distant past. Any species that close to us
would (probably) compete for the same resources as us.
We would wipe the others out. Considering that Man is one
of the few higher forms of life that inhabits the whole globe,
the other species would have no place to hide.
(I have heard this argument re: Neanderthal but don't know if
they were close enough to call a "human species")
Tony
Dick C.
>Michael <kala...@colorado.edu> writes:
>
>>Since you're here already. I've heard the claim that dog breeders
>>have to work to keep the breeds from speciating. Is this true? Is
>>there a danger of one breed becoming unable to interbreed with the
>>others?
>
>Not at all. In fact some dog breeders would probably like that, as it
>would cut down on mixes. But no, that's not a problem, and unlikely
>to be one for thousands years more yet (barring increased genetic
>manipulation abilities down the line, of course).
I would think that speciation would make to much of a morphological
change for the breed in question. Breeders attempt to maintain a
certain standard in their breed, any deviations are not bred, at least from
what I have seen.
>
>
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
avrama gingold
the impregnated animal were the Chihuahua. On the other paw, using AI (or a
tall stepladder), a male Chihuahua could easily mate with a female Great
Dane and have viable, fertile offspring.
avrama & shomer
Jabriol <Jab...@librered.it> wrote in message
news:7pm8mi$loa$4...@talia.mad.ttd.net...
>
>
> On 20-Aug-1999, David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> > But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
> > > simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has
ever
> > > been."
> > >
> > > Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
> >
> > Because as long as two breeds can interbreed, they aren't species.
>
> A greatdane can not breed with a chihuahua. so which of these two are not
a
> real dog?
Martin Crisp
<mailto:asuessi...@gatecom.com> wrote:
>
> Charles R Martin wrote in message <37BE09C7...@iglobal.net>...
>
> >> simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has
ever
> >> been."
>
>
> existed in the distant past. Any species that close to us
> would (probably) compete for the same resources as us.
> We would wipe the others out. Considering that Man is one
> of the few higher forms of life that inhabits the whole globe,
At the moment, with a great deal of technological help. Not always (I mean
'since we've been here' for some definitions of 'we') in the past...
> the other species would have no place to hide.
> (I have heard this argument re: Neanderthal but don't know if
> they were close enough to call a "human species")
Other explanations might include (I don't know the chronology, and I'm
lazing on a Sunday afternoon - the Christian sabbath hmm..., and can't be
bothered hunting it up... sorry) one or more species being less capable of
adapting to the beginning/end of an ice age (or some other disastrous
natural phenomena).
<!serious>
of course Noah may not have thought to include 2 neanderthals in 2 of every
kind, male and female, that breathe of the air (or whatever the quote(s)
is(are), no bible at hand, thank Moloch).
</!serious>
Morat
Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
> Morat <dra...@icsi.not.net> writes:
>
> > I do know that inbreeding has become a problem. Take cocker spaniels.
> >The trainer I'm training my mixed breed with and I discussed cockers one day.
> >(My
> >mother owns one). The trainer has been working with them for 30 years and is of
> >the firm
> >opinion that inbreeding is lowering their intelligence. They didn't have all
> >that big a genetic
> >base in the US and popularity has gone up...They have to put down a rather
> >large percentage
> >of every litter, from defects. Just a little FYI.
>
> People believe a lot of things. Inbreeding has been used in a wide
> variety of domesticated animals -- not just dogs. "Lower
> intelligence" comes not from inbreeding per se, but from selection.
> If you're selecting poor dogs for breeding, you will produce poor
> puppies. Inbreeding only intensifies that selection.
>
> Do *good* selection, inbreeding will intensify that.
>
Selection doesn't account for the large percentages if still births and
puppies with severe genetic problems. Stupidity maybe..but lethal
recessives? Both together is a good sign of too much inbreeding.
Jabriol
On 21-Aug-1999, mall...@io.com (MA Lloyd) wrote:
> >But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
> >simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has ever
> >been."
>
> Actually it loses credibility right here, if not earlier. The author
> has fallen into one of those traps that proves one doesn't understand
> a classification scheme by assuming the pidgeonholes into which it
> sorts the universe have sort of objective existence.
I guess evolution losses it credibility, when they Have times Magazine
support their theory.
Charles R Martin
Jabriol wrote:
>
> On 21-Aug-1999, mall...@io.com (MA Lloyd) wrote:
>
> > >But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
> > >simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has ever
> > >been."
> >
> > Actually it loses credibility right here, if not earlier. The author
> > has fallen into one of those traps that proves one doesn't understand
> > a classification scheme by assuming the pidgeonholes into which it
> > sorts the universe have sort of objective existence.
>
> I guess evolution losses it credibility, when they Have times Magazine
> support their theory.
Uh, _Time_ magazine? Famous scientific journal, that.
Herb Huston
Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
}We're not more different from Chimpanzees or Bonobo chimps than
}Cbimpanzees are from Bonobos.
Got some numbers and a bibliographic reference to back up that assertion?
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@radix.net
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
MA Lloyd
>On 21-Aug-1999, mall...@io.com (MA Lloyd) wrote:
>>
>> Actually it loses credibility right here, if not earlier. The author
>> has fallen into one of those traps that proves one doesn't understand
>> a classification scheme by assuming the pidgeonholes into which it
>> sorts the universe have sort of objective existence.
>I guess evolution losses it credibility, when they Have times Magazine
>support their theory.
I know actual critical thought is considered optional in these debates,
and beyond the ability of a lot of the participants, but the point is
the *article* and that *specific argument* lose credibility. It is
possible for something to be true but a particular argument for it to
be wrong or a particular supporter of it to be clueless about the topic.
This is actually pretty common in popularizations of anything vaguely
technical (which both theology and evolutionary biology are), hence a lot
of material on either side of the debate is flat out nonsense even within
it's own context.
Do you therefore conclude both evolution and creation have no credibility?
That'd be interesting, you seldom see a third side, well barring the
Scientific Dismembermentism joke.
Jabriol
On 22-Aug-1999, hus...@Radix.Net (Herb Huston) wrote:
> }We're not more different from Chimpanzees or Bonobo chimps than
> }Cbimpanzees are from Bonobos.
do we know of any Bonobo-chimp hybrid?
if so.. bring on the Manpanzee
Jabriol
On 21-Aug-1999, "Tony Suessine" <asuessi...@gatecom.com> wrote:
> For the sake of argument assume that a few species of Man
> existed in the distant past. Any species that close to us
> would (probably) compete for the same resources as us.
> We would wipe the others out. Considering that Man is one
> of the few higher forms of life that inhabits the whole globe,
> the other species would have no place to hide.
> (I have heard this argument re: Neanderthal but don't know if
> they were close enough to call a "human species")
>
> Tony
so how come man can not eradicate the roach?
it seems to compte with man for resorces.
sat...@my-deja.com
> You are speaking of gentotypes that you can see expressed in the
> parent animals. You have no way of knowing what phenotypes are there
> that are not expressed but have a higher chance of being expressed in
> the next generation of two closely related offspring.
Slight mix up here.
Genotype = the genetic make up
Phenotype = how the genetic make up is expressed, to put it shortly:
what the animal looks like. Different genotypes may have similar
phenotypes.
Satu
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
blac...@dog-play.com
: trait, it will only reproduce the same trait, not a better version of
: that trait. . Biodiversity is where it's at for survival. The
: lessening of the diversity of the alleles in the population of Cocker
: Spaniels is a threat to their survival. The less diversity in a
: species, the greater the threat of disease as an epidemic.
The Cocker Spaniel is not a species. There are few animals on this earth
with greater genetic diversity than dogs. The various breeds of dogs have
more than sufficient genetic diversity among them. If you want to increase
the genetic diversity of a particular breed you have many choices
available. When choosing to increase genetic diversity it helps to know
what you are adding. That is what you get when you maintain
breeds. Cross breeding that benefits genetic health etc has not been
shown to occur in random bred animals. It has been shown to occur in
crossing of well defined breeds where there is much knowledge of the
genetics of each of the breeds.
: I think if I were a breeder of cocker spaniels, I would try to import
: some new 'blood' into the breed. I suppose this would ruin the dog
: shows, but it might save the poor dog.
Or you might introduce an entirely new problem into a new line of dogs.
Out crossing to another breed might be appropriate in some cases, but I
doubt it would benefit the Cocker Spaniel. There are so many Cocker
Spaniels available that less damage would be done (less risk of
introducing new problems) by intelligent and knowledgable breeding of
existing dogs. I recommend reading "The Control of Canine Genetic
Disease" by George M. Padgett, DVM
"Instead of controlling a trait when there are one or two dogs or one or
two families involved, we outcross the dogs and spread the trait
throughout the breed. . . . . If the trait is new or very rare in a breed
(one case per 5,000 dogs) and you outcross, you may breed that dog or
bitch until their ears fall off, and they will never produce another case,
because there are very few or no carriers of the trait in the general
population of the breed. But you can be sure you are spreading the
gene(s) for the trait throughout the breed."
Careless out crossing is no better strategy than careless inbreeding.
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com/
- - - - - - - -
"What all trainers need to understand, regardless of allegiance, is that
it is not the application of punishment or reward, but the incorrect
application of punishment or reinforcement that leads to unhappy dogs and
frustrated trainers." "Smart Trainers -- Brilliant Dogs" by Janet Lewis
Karen Mailloux
> : I think if I were a breeder of cocker spaniels, I would try to import
> : some new 'blood' into the breed. I suppose this would ruin the dog
> : shows, but it might save the poor dog.
>
> Or you might introduce an entirely new problem into a new line of dogs.
> Out crossing to another breed might be appropriate in some cases, but I
> doubt it would benefit the Cocker Spaniel. There are so many Cocker
> Spaniels available that less damage would be done (less risk of
> introducing new problems) by intelligent and knowledgable breeding of
> existing dogs. I recommend reading "The Control of Canine Genetic
> Disease" by George M. Padgett, DVM
>
Cockers don't need an outcross. Even if you remove all the puppymill and
backyard-bred crap (the dogs the original poster is probably most familiar
with) from the gene pool, the breed *still* probably has about the largest
viable gene pool of any breed.
Karen
blac...@dog-play.com
: If you breed two closely related animals, it does indeed CAUSE
: problems, not merely EXPOSE them. You have no idea what recessive
How does breeding two closely related animals cause a new mutation? That
is the only way a problem is "caused." If the mating merely matches up
two recessives that is "exposing" the problem. It becomes manifest, but
the genes already existed. It is much better to know that a dog is
heterzygous and carries a problem recessive gene than to blithly go
spreading that recessive througout the population where it ends up
appearing in the most distant of relations creating unexpected widespread
problems. That is one of the benefits of inbreeding, exposing a problem
and providing a means for identifying carriers and eliminating carriers
from the breeding population. This is especially usefull when a problem
is new and therefore has not been spread widely.
: alleles a dog is carrying. When you have two closely related dogs,
: you have a better idea that they are carrying some that are similar.
: For EVERY heterozygote allele pair these related animals carry in
: their DNA the rates of chances of producing homozygote offspring
: rises.
Yes. But that doesn't "cause" a problem. It shows whether or not a
problem (recessive gene) exists. The gene doesn't just pop into existence
because you bred related dogs, nor does it go away simply because you
bred unrelated dogs. It remains there, spreading itself throughout the
population until it is pervasive enough that it pops up even when dogs
distantly related are bred.
<snip>
: There is no getting around genetics. No matter how good a
: "*breeder*" you think you are, you are going to have problems with
: animals that are closely related. You are talking about genotypes in
: your post. You need to think about phenotypes. You can't possibly
: predict the outcome of two closely related animals based on your
: knowledge of genotypes.
Breeding by phenotype in ignorance of genotype is guaranteed to cause
problems. Paying attention to what the phenotype tells you about the
genotype is the road to avoiding problems.
<snip>
: But there is no way you can no this without DNA testing of the dogs.
: You are speaking of gentotypes that you can see expressed in the
: parent animals. You have no way of knowing what phenotypes are there
: that are not expressed but have a higher chance of being expressed in
: the next generation of two closely related offspring.
A phenotype is what you see. The genotype is what may not be apparent.
For example a black labrador retriever is phenotypically black. Its
genotype may be black or black carrying chocolate or several other
variations I'll omit for simplicity. You don't see the effects of the
genotype until you breed the dog.
Breeders who pay attention can indeed predict with a high degree of
accuracy both the phenotype (expressed genes) and genotype (actual genetic
makeup - homozygous or heterozygous) for many traits. There are DNA tests
available to determine the genotype for several traits in dogs. DNA
testing is one tool that good breeders use to avoid problems.
: This makes no sense. What you were trying to say is that it is good
: to breed two closely related dogs. What I was arguing is that because
: you want to breed two dogs to reproduce a certain genotype, you are
: going to also get problems from the inbreeding, that is, traits in the
: offspring that were not present in either parent. This is why we don
: 't marry our sisters, brothers, cousins, mothers and fathers. Why
: do you think that human breeding is different than dog breeding?
Human breeding is not based on the science of genetics.
: How is it more of a roll of the dice with humans than with dogs?
We refuse to exercise the kind of control over human breeding that a good
breeder exercises over dog breeding. We keep much poorer records, and we
don't remove problem humans from the breeding population. It is for that
reason that humans have a much higher rate of genetic problems than do
dogs.
: Do
: you know what a strawman's argument is? Your argument is a strawman's
: argument. I admit that I was being facetious by using twins marrying
: to produce genius offspring, but the facts remain (and the facts are
: that inbreeding causes problems) and you are ignoring them but the
: gist of my argument is correct because I understand genetics well
: enough to know that no amount of rationalizing is going to change the
: fact that inbreeding does cause problems. There are problems with
: inbreeding whether you like it or not. A strawman's argument is
: based on non factual information.
Bringing human breeding practices into a discussion of dog breeding is
pretty much a "strawman" if you like that phrase. They have little in
common. So far much of your argument seems to be based on the idea that
exposing problems is a "bad thing" because it is bad for those particular
dogs. I think intentionally looking for and exposing problems (recessive
genes that adversly affect dogs) might be a "bad thing" for the individual
dogs, but a very good thing for dogs in general as if it is really taken
to heart the problem can be virtually eliminated and no other dogs ever
need suffer from the problem.
: All of my arguments are based
: completely on fact and if you need the information, I will give you
: references. I have them handy. Your argument simply doesn't hold up
: to the facts. Inbreeding does cause problems. Whether you change the
: wording of the sentence or whatever, inbreeding is problematic.
Well, heck if its references you want - here is another, and its related
to the genetics of the dog. "Genetics of the Dog" by Malcom Willis. As
Cindy pointed out earlier ONLY inbreeding is indeed a "bad thing" but that
is not how responsible knowledgable breeders breed. Inbreeding is and
should be only a part of the tools dog breeders use to improve genetic
health, but it is a vital tool to use in conjunction with those other
tools.
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com
Read the puppy reports http://www.dog-play.com/report.html
- - - - - - - - -
"If others' interpretations either bother us or recur, we owe it to
ourselves and our dogs to reevaluate our own orientation carefully. If we
find ourselves becoming angry and defensive, chances are our own
interpretations are the incorrect ones. "The Body Language and Emotion of
Dogs" by Myrna M. Milani, DVM.
Jeff
<rgo...@telusplanet.net< wrote:
<Jabriol wrote:
<<
<< I was reading the time article, and here key phrases, that make
your evolved
<< mind role ;-)
<<
<< times write:
<<
<< . "Even basic biology suggests that humanity has special status.
Virtually
<< every other type of animal comes in multiple varieties: dozens of
species of
<< monkeys, antelopes, whales and hawks walk, swim or fly the earth,
to say
<< nothing of beetles, whose hundreds of thousands of species inspired
<< biologist J.B.S. Haldane's famous quip that God must have had "an
inordinate
<< fondness" for them. Even our closest kin, the great apes, fall into
four
<< species, divided into several subspecies.
<<
<< But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
<< simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has
ever
<< been."
<<
Monotremes are a sub family of Mammals and there are only 2 animals
that belong to this sub family, Platypus (1 species known) and
Echidnas (1 species known). God must have had a super-duper
extraordinary fondness for them. I always wonder if it is just at the
We Are Primates level that fundies like Jabriol kick up a fuss.
Do you believe you're a Eukaryote? Mammal? Should this sort of
heresy should never be taught in schools. Next thing they'll be
telling kids that single cells don't have souls. Oops another million
cells just bit the dust. Will I meet up with all my skin cell's souls
in heaven?
<< Many scientist are fraid of calling races species. why?
Because they would be openly admitting that they are ignorant fools.
Danae
blac...@dog-play.com wrote:
<snip>
>Diane Blackman
EXCELLENT post Diane!
I started to write my own reply, but when I read this one I just deleted it.
Very well said.
-- Danae
Lynn Kosmakos
Karen Harper wrote:
>
> If you breed two closely related animals, it does indeed CAUSE
> problems, not merely EXPOSE them. You have no idea what recessive
> alleles a dog is carrying.
Huh??? That makes no sense. Breeding 2 dogs with the recessive
alleles does not CAUSE those recessive alleles. It exposes them
when they show up in the results of that breeding. Bottom line -
breeding doesn't create (cause) genetic material that isn't present
to begin with. Good or bad.
Lynn K.
Chris Lawson
>I'm not certain. there's a whole new taxonomy out there (called "claddist")
"Cladistics", from "clades".
regards,
Chris Lawson
Marla Belzowski
arte...@home.com (Karen Harper) wrote:
> On 22 Aug 1999 11:40:07 -0400, tit...@io.com (Cindy Tittle Moore)
> wrote:
>
> >arte...@home.com (Karen Harper) writes:
> >
> >>Inbreeding causes many problems.
> >
> >It does not *cause* them. It *exposes* them. Inbreeding only
increases
> >the possibility of matching up two recessives (not seen in either
parent)
> >so that they are expressed in the offspring. *That is all*. If the
> >parents do not have the bad recessives, then the inbreeding will not
show
> >them up.
>
> If you breed two closely related animals, it does indeed CAUSE
> problems, not merely EXPOSE them.
No, Cindy is Right. Breeding two closely related animals EXPOSES the
rescessive genes that would result in a genetic problem. The CAUSE of
the problem is already there. It is the recombining of genes that will
make the problem appear, BUT, that is only if both dogs carry the same
gene for the problem in the first place. Problem genes rarely just
spontaneously occur. Inbreeding doesn't cause some spontaneous
mutation to occur.
> You have no idea what recessive
> alleles a dog is carrying. When you have two closely related dogs,
> you have a better idea that they are carrying some that are similar.
> For EVERY heterozygote allele pair these related animals carry in
> their DNA the rates of chances of producing homozygote offspring
> rises. There is no getting around genetics.
True.
> No matter how good a
> "*breeder*" you think you are, you are going to have problems with
> animals that are closely related.
Not True. If the animals are purefect to start with (that's purely
hypothetical) then they can only produce perfect offspring. Of course
I'm talking genetypically perfect.
> You are talking about genotypes in
> your post. You need to think about phenotypes.
Humm...do you know the difference between genotype and phenotype?
> You can't possibly
> predict the outcome of two closely related animals based on your
> knowledge of genotypes.
Sure you can..you can not predict the outcome based on phenotype.
Genotype is the gentic make up. Phenotype is the physical appearance.
If you know the genetic makeup you know what that animal will produce.
If you only know the phenotype, you may end up with things you don't
expect because the animal carries hidden gentic traits that are covered
by the dominate traits which influence the phenotype.
> >
> >>The chances of 'defects' in offspring depends on the familial
> >>closeness of the two mating animals.
> >
> >It does not. It depends on the percentage of matching "bad genes" in
> >the parents, regardless of the parent's relationship. It happens
that
> >the more closely related the parents are, the higher the chances are
> >that the genes will match up.
>
True!
> IT DOES TOO. What I said is true because the more closely related two
> animals are, the higher the rate of chance for a matching "bad gene"
> as you call it is going to be reproduced. Your argument against what
> I said makes no sense. You first say "It does not." and then you go
> on to say exactly why it DOES.
I missed part of this point somewhere...
> >
> >And if those genes are good ones, as opposed to bad ones, you will
> >get good puppies.
>
Yes.
> But there is no way you can no this without DNA testing of the dogs.
> You are speaking of gentotypes that you can see expressed in the
> parent animals. You have no way of knowing what phenotypes are there
> that are not expressed but have a higher chance of being expressed in
> the next generation of two closely related offspring.
You can extrapolate geneotypes by test breeding. Phenotype is what you
see from the outside. I.E.:
I have collies. 95% of collies are affected with CEA. Of the 5% that
are not affected (phenotypically clear), only 3% are non-carriers
(genotyplically clear of the problem). So if I test bred two
phenotypically clear dogs and end up with just one pup with CEA then I
know both parents are carriers. If I breed a phenotypically clear dog
to an affected bitch and all my pups are clear then that dog has a very
good chance of being genotypically clear(or a homozygote for normal
eyes)of CEA. To prove it statistically I'd need to have about 15
pups. If I were then to take that same dog that is clear and bred him
one of his known carrier daughters..I know I would only get
phenotypically clear dogs that showed no outward signs of CEA, but 50%
would be carriers and 50% would be genotypically clear. Until I bred
those pups, I wouldn't know which were genotypically clear and which
were carriers (phenotypical only).
> >
> >>What you are saying about *good* selection is simply not true. If
> >>this were true, and you were one of twins who were both geniuses,
you
> >>would probably marry your twin and produce 'better' offspring.
> >
> >Actually, this would be true. We don't do it for entirely different
> >reasons. We also don't select ourselves to eliminate or propagate
> >certain traits. So our own "breeding" is much more a roll of dice.
> >[And don't confuse an observation with a recommendation, OK? That's
> >a strawman argument.]
>
Yes, you would have a better chance of the resulting offspring being
geniusus, well if being a genius could be limited to a single gene,
which it isn't...that's why polygenetic traits such as hip dysplasia
are so hard to control.
> This makes no sense. What you were trying to say is that it is good
> to breed two closely related dogs.
At times, yes, it is!
> What I was arguing is that because
> you want to breed two dogs to reproduce a certain genotype, you are
> going to also get problems from the inbreeding, that is, traits in the
> offspring that were not present in either parent.
It is impossible for traits that are not inherent in the parents to get
passed to the offspring. Inbreeding doesn't produce spontaneous
mutations. Genotype is the genetic composition of the parents. If you
breed to closely resembled phenotypes, even those not from the same
lines, you can and do often end up expressing a negeative trait, unless
you know the genotype you are breeding. All purebreds come from a
limited gene pool and thus are more likely to end up producing a common
defective trait.
> This is why we don
> 't marry our sisters, brothers, cousins, mothers and fathers. Why
> do you think that human breeding is different than dog breeding?
The bible...
> How is it more of a roll of the dice with humans than with dogs?
We choose our own mates, usually to the deteriment of both. Humans
generally select mates for their dogs more wisely than they do their
own.
> Do
> you know what a strawman's argument is? Your argument is a strawman's
> argument. I admit that I was being facetious by using twins marrying
> to produce genius offspring,
Ok now your getting silly....
>but the facts remain (and the facts are
> that inbreeding causes problems)
No, Inbreeding expresses the problems that are already there.
> and you are ignoring them but the
> gist of my argument is correct because I understand genetics well
> enough to know that no amount of rationalizing is going to change the
> fact that inbreeding does cause problems.
It's apparent to me that you don't understand genetics. Look up the
definition for genotype and phenotype for starters.
> There are problems with
> inbreeding whether you like it or not.
Yes, there are problems with inbreeding. It's that usually people that
don't understand what can happen, get a puppy with a serious defect
that they will not euthanize. If you inbreed, all the dirty laudry so
to speak comes out and you better be prepared to deal with it. Or you
better understand genetics enough to know when you can and when you
shouldn't be inbreeding.
> A strawman's argument is
> based on non factual information. All of my arguments are based
> completely on fact and if you need the information, I will give you
> references. I have them handy. Your argument simply doesn't hold up
> to the facts.
You want facts..I have facts on a bunch of highly inbred dogs that
consistently produce excellent offspring because by being inbred, they
carry homogenious traits which they can only pass on to their
offspring.
> Inbreeding does cause problems. Whether you change the
> wording of the sentence or whatever, inbreeding is problematic.
No it is not, if you understand what you are doing. Which it is
obvious to me you don't and have no business inbreeding.
>
> >>"*good*" selection as you propose it may pass on the good traits you
> >>are probably thinking of such as the right length of a dog's tail so
> >>it can win a prize in a dog show for instance,
> >
> >You don't know what it is I do. Don't make assumptions about what I
> >do or don't breed for. I was not at all thinking of physical
> >attributes -- those are the easiest to breed for/against. I was
> >thinking in terms of health and temperament.
Health and temperament is genetics and proper nutrition and
care/training. The basic temperament of a dog starts with breeding.
If you have two dogs with excellent temperament and you keep a pup with
the best temperament from them and breed that pup back to his dam, then
you know you should have 75% of those pups with excellent temperament
(assuming you knew nothing about the grandparents).
If you have another dog (not related in four generations) with a wicked
temperament and bred it to a pup from that second breeding (son to dam)
that was a known homozygote for excellent temperament, chances are 100%
that you are going to have excellent temperament in of all your pups
(if handled properly and socialized normally). BUT now evey pup from
this litter carries the potential to produce that wicked temperament
even if they are bred to a non related dog with a good temperament
(unless you know that unrelated dog is a homozygote for excellent
temperament). Even if you do then you won't know from this fourth
litter which pups are going to carry that wicked temperment down to the
fifth generation. You'd be far better off to then line breed a pup
from the fourth generation back to a pup from the second son and dam
breeding and then you know you would have excellent temperaments.
>
> Then you of all people in the world should understand that when you
> put two dogs together who are very closely related, the chances of
> them having health problems rises greatly.
Only if the health problem is carried by both parents as a recessive.
> If you want to breed two
> dogs who have good temperments that is great, I would want to do that
> too. But if you are breeding two dogs that are cousins with good
> temperments you are inviting trouble.
No see above, you are ensuring good temperaments, provided you know
enough background on the line to determine if they carry a temperament
problem are a recessive trait.
> >
> >>Also, so called *good* selection will not intensify the trait, it
> >>will only reproduce the same trait, not a better version of that
> >>trait.
> >
TRUE TRUE TRUE
Too many people in GSD think that by breeding a square bitch to and
extremely angulated dog you'll get moderately angulated pups..WRONG,
You get a mess! Breeding dogs is not like mixing paint. If you have
one can of white and one can of black (two extremes) and you toss them
together in breeding dogs you DON'T GET GREY! you get a collage of
black and white spots.
GSD example. A square bitch may have no slope to her croop and no turn
of stifle. The extreme male has tons slope and extreme turn of stifle.
Now puppy #1 gets no slope to his croop, but extreme turn of stifle.
Puppy #2 gets extreme slope to croup, but no turn of stifle. Puppy #2
ends up stepping on his front feet when he moves. Puppy #1 ends up
stress his crutiate ligaments and appears to move with a sicle hock
because he can't get enough spring to his rear to not drag his feet.
Two extremes don't even each other out when breeding dogs.
> >That is true. But remember, now you have an animal that is
homozygous
> >for this trait. The bad gene was eliminated.
How did you get this far? You think breeding on phenotype alone will
get you this far? I got news for you...unless you do atleast one test
breeding by inbreeding something you'll never know when you have a
homozygous trait.
> You now have a line
> >clean of X, and you can breed it back to another line knowing that
the
> >offspring won't show up the genes you just eliminated. (You can, of
> >course, get a heterozygous animal back, depending on the status of
the
> >outcross, but this is the name of the game.)
You will generally always get a heterozygous blend from an outcross.
That's WHY you outcross. To pick up additional genetic material. If
you have a perfect line of dogs, you want to ALWAYS line breed if you
can. This elliminates the possibility of pick up undesirable
recessives again.
> Well, that depends on how many puppies the dog has. If the parents
> are each heterozygotes, every puppy they reproduce has a one in four
> chance of being a dominant homozygote, a one in four chance of being a
> recessive homozygote and a 1 in 2 chance of being a heterozygote.
A homozygote can be either a recessive trait or a dominate trait. A
heterozygote means it carries both the recessive and dominate form, but
only the dominate form is expressed.
> How do you know that the trait you are looking at is based on a
> homozygous pair of alleles?
Experience and research. Try reading "How to Breed Dogs" By Leon
Whitney DVM.
> What about all the other traits that the
> two closely related dogs are going to reproduce in their offspring.
> You are talking about one genotype. What about all the other allele
> pairs that you don't know about?
If you know the genotype you are saying you know all the allele pairs
influencing the breeding. If your talking phenotype, you only know the
alleles expressed in that individual. If your talking homozygote, your
talking about the pure form of an allele pair as either homozygosis
dominate or homozygosis recessive. If your talking heterozygous your
talking about carring both the dominate and recessive alleles at one or
more loci.
> >
> >(It always fascinates me that when folks yammer on about the Evils Of
> >Inbreeding, the core assumption is that inbreeding is the only thing
> >that is ever done. As an example:)
>
> You are very good at distracting from the point. But this is not what
> we were arguing. My argument is that inbreeding causes problems.
> Your argument is that it does not.
Yep, that's the point. One more Vote for the proper use of inbreeding
here.
> >
> >>Biodiversity is where it's at for survival.
> >
> >So tell me, did you simply avert your eyes when I described the
> >general breeding paradigm of most breeders throughout the centuries
in
> >the very post you're responding to? Inbreed to fix traits, outcross
> >to bring new material in. Hello?
>
> I never saw this and I'm not interested in this. All I am interested
> in is letting you know that inbreeding is dangerous.
It's dangerous in the hands of people that don't know what they are
talking about. In fact, anyone who doesn't understand what inbreeding
does, really shouldn't be breeding dogs at all.
> >
> >> I don't know about measuring intelligence in dogs but if it is
> >>anything like trying to measure intelligence in humans, it is
> >>basically impossible and there is still no conclusive proof that
> >>intelligence is inherited through genetics.
> >
Intelligence is a combination of genetics, experience, and training.
All play equal parts. You are more likely to be able to get an OtCH on
a puppy from OtCH parents than from backyard bred dog. IF you look at
the pedigree of one of the top lines of OtCH Goldens you'll see a bunch
of line breeding and in breeding to keep these traits strong.
> >Absolutely.
> >
> >>I think if I were a breeder of cocker spaniels, I would try to
import
> >>some new 'blood' into the breed. I suppose this would ruin the dog
> >>shows, but it might save the poor dog.
> >
> >The problem with the cocker spaniels is that they became very popular
> >with the general public. Non-conscientious breeders, out only for
the
> >$$ they could make selling the puppies, would get a "breeding pair"
> >and breed them for all the puppies they could get and selling them
> >off. In this case, there is *no* selection going on, there is no
> >screening the parents for health or temperament problems. It's
> >actually the case that the show cockers are in better health and more
> >stable than the pool of pet-bred cockers that most folks come into
> >contact with. The basic problem show cockers have is that their
> >hunting instincts have been all but lost. There are some breeders
> >trying to bring those back in.
> >
I'll have to agree with this. Most pet cockers I've dealt with had
horrid temperaments. I delt with some show cockers that had better
temperaments, but I'd still like to see improvements. Much of the
problem came from un-informed breedings that's sole purpose was the all-
mightly dollar. What was left after the popularity fell was the show
dogs. These dogs were picked for their show traits and not their
working traits, so yes, now we have a lot of cockers out there that
have about lost their hunting insticts. Same goes with collies and
herding instincts and to an extent some other breeds as well, shelties,
OES, etc...
> >In general, problems (relative intelligence, health, etc. of animals)
> >are not so simplistically solved as you suggest ("If they would stop
> >breeding for the useless show stuff, they'd get better dogs.").
>
> I didn't say that. Don't put quotes around a sentence when
> responding to one of my posts and represent it as my sentence. I
> didn't say that.
>
> No.
So what if you did? I've taken a farm bred collie with herding
instinct gallore and bred her to a showline based male and have
developed a line a beautiful, healthy collies that herd with almost
border collie like eye (and I'm still developing it futher).
> >If you breed mediocrity with no criteria, *that* is where you get the
> >mediocrity. And that happens in any venue one is breeding for,
whether
> >conformation, field, pets, you name it.
>
> That is fine, you are talking about breeding animals to find ones who
> will produce traits that are helpful to whatever it is you are doing.
> The problem is that this is not what I am arguing against. Again, you
> are trying to distrac from the original argument which is that you
> said that inbreeding does not cause problems. I am arguing that
> inbreeding is dangerous. If you breed two dogs for some criteria,
> that is fine, but if you are breeding two closely related dogs for
> some criteria, that is inbreeding and there are bound to be problems
> from it.
No, your bound to get where you want to be quicker and with more
certainty using in-breeding and line breeding than just breeding based
on phenotypical traits.
>
> >
> >Before any of you jump to some predictable conclusions: I do not
breed
> >dogs and I do not show dogs in conformation. My primary activity is
> >training dogs for search and rescue (and competition obedience, hunt
> >tests). Thus my primary criteria are ability, temperament, and
health.
>
> Again, I am not arguing against breeding for criteria, I am arguing
> against inbreeding. I wouldn't care if you were breeding dogs to show
> them in dog shows or if you were breeding dogs to send them into
> space. My point is that inbreeding is dangerous. It is wonderful
> that you train dogs to search and rescue. If you are looking for dogs
> with certain traits to breed for this purpose that is a wonderful
> thing too, but if you are trying to find closely related dogs to
> breed to reproduce these traits, you are eventually going to have
> trouble. While you may reproduce one trait that is helpful to your
> cause, you are also going to find traits popping up in offspring that
> neither of the parents had and some of them are not going to be good
> traits.
How do you know that? Me thinks you are guessing and going off some
old wives tale.
>
> I can give you a few references on genetics if you like.
>
> Karen Harper
> >
> >--Cindy
> >--
> > ***** tit...@io.com *** DOG FAQS AT http://www.k9web.com/dog-
faqs/ *****
> > WAGGERY U-CD Terrell's Chocolate Deduction CGC CDX--Hershe
LABRADORS
> > ------- Delby's Wood Nymph at Waggery JH WC CGC--Angel
---------
> > KT's Before the Mast--Dana
> > *** Southern California Lab Rescue: http://www.sclrr.org/ ***
> >
>
>
Sure what references do you have?
I'll give you a small list of mine:
"How to Breed Dogs" Leon Whitney DVM
"The Collie: A Veterinary Reference for the Professional Breeder"
Dr Sharon Lynn VanderLip DVM
"Born to Win: Breed to Succeed" Patricia Craige-Trotter
"The Dynamics of Canine Gait" Leon Hollenbeck
"Winning with Purebred Dogs: Success by Design" Dr. Alvin Grossman &
Beverly Grosssman
When you get tired of these..I'll dig up some more from my library.
Cheers,
--
Marla Belzowski
& the LegendHold Collie Clan
Charles R Martin
Chris Lawson wrote:
>
> Charles R Martin <crma...@iglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >I'm not certain. there's a whole new taxonomy out there (called "claddist")
>
> "Cladistics", from "clades".
Uh, yeah? Is that a supposed spelling correction?
Dick C.
>
>
>Chris Lawson wrote:
>>
>> Charles R Martin <crma...@iglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not certain. there's a whole new taxonomy out there (called "claddist")
>>
>> "Cladistics", from "clades".
>
>Uh, yeah? Is that a supposed spelling correction?
Uh, no, a terminology correction. A spelling correction would be
Cladist, which is one who practices cladistics. :-).
Stephen F. Schaffner
Cindy Tittle Moore <tit...@io.com> wrote:
>arte...@home.com (Karen Harper) writes:
>
>>Inbreeding causes many problems.
>
>It does not *cause* them. It *exposes* them. Inbreeding only increases
>the possibility of matching up two recessives (not seen in either parent)
>so that they are expressed in the offspring. *That is all*. If the
>parents do not have the bad recessives, then the inbreeding will not show
>them up.
There seems to be a curious semantic mismatch here. Karen didn't say
that inbreeding causes mutations, she said it causes "problems", and
yet everyone responded as if she'd said "mutations". Her usage looks
perfectly reasonable to me: I don't usually think of unexpressed
recessive traits as problems, but being homozygous for a lethal
recessive mutant (i.e. dead) I would definitely consider a problem.
Inbreeding does not increase the former, but it does (in general)
increase the latter.
-------
Steve Schaffner ssc...@slac.stanford.edu
SLAC and I have a deal: they don't || Immediate assurance is an excellent sign
pay me, and I don't speak for them. || of probable lack of insight into the
|| topic. Josiah Royce
S. Temple
not species "close to us"), but the answer is even simpler than that.
Reproductive capacity.
S. Temple
Jabriol wrote in message <7ppjvi$6op$1...@talia.mad.ttd.net>...
Elizabeth Naime
> Since you're here already. I've heard the claim that dog breeders have to work
> to keep the breeds from speciating. Is this true? Is there a danger of one breed
> becoming unable to interbreed with the others?
I have never heard this from any dog people. Actually the problem is in
keeping the breeds distinct...
You may be thinking of dogs, wolves, and coyotes, whose status as species
or subspecies has been evaluated and re-evaluated and debated. (I
personally think they are in the process of speciation, not yet different
species... and they've been around for much longer than domestic dogs).
The only other "species, subspecies or breed?" vagueness I can think of
would be the status of the Dingo (I think it's considered a dog these
days?) and the New Guinea Singing Dog (don't know much about them except
having heard a comment from a Singer owner that they are a very
"primitive" breed and "some taxonomists think they may not be truly
dogs"). Both old types and neither developed by selection by humans.
Fixing breed type does not change the number of chromosomes, and we
haven't changed behavior enough to affect most dogs' breeding patterns.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Naime
> There seems to be a curious semantic mismatch here. Karen didn't say
> that inbreeding causes mutations, she said it causes "problems", and
> yet everyone responded as if she'd said "mutations". Her usage looks
> perfectly reasonable to me: I don't usually think of unexpressed
> recessive traits as problems, but being homozygous for a lethal
And that's a basic difference. Anyone who breeds dogs or who is
interested in seeing more sound, healthy, typey, etc. dogs should consider
an unexpressed recessive a problem. It matters to a breeder whether or
not one of these recessive traits that is considered a defect is going to
crop up in one of her litters. Identifying carriers -- dogs who do not
express the trait but can pass it on to their offspring -- is of paramount
importance to breeders wishing to avoid producing serious problems (and
often working to remove certain problems from the breed entirely). To a
responsible and thoughtful "hobby" breeder (one breeding to "improve the
breed", that is) "carriers" of unexpressed traits are of paramount
concern.
Elizabeth
maff91
Naime) wrote:
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Biology/Zoology/Animals__Insects__and_Pets/Mammals/Dogs/>
The Wolfdog's Resource
http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/index.html
EVOLUTION OF THE DOG
http://www.chungcg.com/janumoon/ex1111.htm
Stalking the Ancient Dog
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/6_28_97/bob1.htm
Dingo
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=501576706
>
>Elizabeth
--
L.P.#0000000001
blac...@dog-play.com
: Cindy Tittle Moore <tit...@io.com> wrote:
:>
:>It does not *cause* them. It *exposes* them. Inbreeding only increases
:>the possibility of matching up two recessives (not seen in either parent)
:>so that they are expressed in the offspring. *That is all*. If the
:>parents do not have the bad recessives, then the inbreeding will not show
:>them up.
In rec.pets.dogs.breeds Stephen F. Schaffner <ssc...@vesta01.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
: There seems to be a curious semantic mismatch here. Karen didn't say
: that inbreeding causes mutations, she said it causes "problems", and
: yet everyone responded as if she'd said "mutations". Her usage looks
: perfectly reasonable to me: I don't usually think of unexpressed
: recessive traits as problems, but being homozygous for a lethal
: recessive mutant (i.e. dead) I would definitely consider a problem.
: Inbreeding does not increase the former, but it does (in general)
: increase the latter.
I suppose it is a semantic mismatch. To a good breeder an unexpressed
lethal recessive is at least as much of a "problem" as an expressed one.
Only someone who doesn't think about the future health of dogs would
consider hiding a lethal recessive as not a problem. All hiding it does
is allow it to become more widely distributed and a bigger problem in the
future. So to the breeder inbreeding doesn't "cause" the problem, the but
allowing a lethal recessive to be broadly distributed into the population
might be one. The existence of a lethal recessive is certainly a problem
and it becomes a really bad problem when it becomes widely distributed
enough that the probability of its activation increaseas. This is
observed easily in any number of traits that appear in popular breeds.
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com
Read the puppy reports http://www.dog-play.com/report.html
- - -
" . . . approximately 90 percent of the behavior owners consider negative
occurs when their pets are isolated or alone." "The Body Language and
Dave Timpe
MA Lloyd <mall...@io.com> wrote in message
news:7pm4te$22e$1...@fnord.io.com...
| >But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the
| >simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has ever
| >been."
|
| Actually it loses credibility right here, if not earlier. The author
| has fallen into one of those traps that proves one doesn't understand
| a classification scheme by assuming the pidgeonholes into which it
| sorts the universe have sort of objective existence.
That's just the introductory bit. He hasn't fallen into a trap, he's using
it as historical background. It's really a pretty good summing up of the
current state of knowledge of hominid evolution.
|
| Suppose I alter the focus a little - there is only one species of Patas
| monkey on the planet, so it must be unusual; or there are 10 species
| of Pongids, one of them Homo sapiens, but since there are 9 others
| it can't be anything special.... Indeed separating out the genus
| Homo makes the the genuses of the family Pongidae paraphylatic, which
| anywhere else in the classification scheme is a strong argument for
| reworking the divisions. Since Homo has priority (Linne, 1758), we should
| reclassify the chimpanzee species as members of Homo and remove Pan.
This has been suggested (although Pongidae is currently only the Orangs --
Chimps Gorillas and Humans are now increasingly being classified as family
Hominidae, with the Australopithecines and Humans bumped down from family
status as Hominines). I can't remember where I saw the "reclassify Pan as
Homo" idea before, but I have seen it. However, I don't think we're really
close enough to be indistinguishable at 50 paces (if I recall the standard
correctly).
--
Dave Timpe
davetimpe at cybrzn dot com
Dave Timpe
news:37BF31D9...@knutsen.dk...
| We're not more different from Chimpanzees or Bonobo chimps than
| Cbimpanzees are from Bonobos. There is no reason to give humans
| special status.
Maybe you were thinking of gorillas? Chimps and bonobos have a common
ancestor less than 2 million years back. The chimp/bonobo-human last common
ancestor was something like 5 million years ago.
Stephen F. Schaffner
Elizabeth Naime <els...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
>Stephen F. Schaffner (ssc...@vesta01.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
>> There seems to be a curious semantic mismatch here. Karen didn't say
>> that inbreeding causes mutations, she said it causes "problems", and
>> yet everyone responded as if she'd said "mutations". Her usage looks
>> perfectly reasonable to me: I don't usually think of unexpressed
>> recessive traits as problems, but being homozygous for a lethal
>
>interested in seeing more sound, healthy, typey, etc. dogs should consider
>an unexpressed recessive a problem.
No doubt that explains the difference in viewpoint, at least where I
am concerned -- I don't breed dogs, and am only marginally interested
in the health of dogs(*) (this is being cross-posted to non-canine
groups, by the way). I'm interested both personally and
professionally in human genetics, where unpleasant recessives are a
given and removing them is not possible.
(*) And I'm not at all interested in the typiness of dogs.
mel turner
wrote:
[snip]
> Indeed separating out the genus
>| Homo makes the the genuses of the family Pongidae paraphylatic, which
>| anywhere else in the classification scheme is a strong argument for
>| reworking the divisions.
And so the current trend is not to regognize "Pongidae"; the great apes
[and sometimes even the gibbons] are included in a monophyletic
family Hominidae.
http://x44.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452571967
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=380878176
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=459481291
>| Since Homo has priority (Linne, 1758), we should
>| reclassify the chimpanzee species as members of Homo and remove Pan.
Monophyly doesn't require that change; the separate genera Homo and Pan
are both monophyletic, so would a united genus Homo.
>This has been suggested (although Pongidae is currently only the Orangs
--
>Chimps Gorillas and Humans are now increasingly being classified as
family
>Hominidae, with the Australopithecines and Humans bumped down from
family
>status as Hominines).
I hadn't seen that particular classification used [keeping Pongo alone
in a separate Pongidae], although it's as reasonable an option as a
one-genus subfamily or tribe for Pongo within Hominidae. Citation?
> I can't remember where I saw the "reclassify Pan as
>Homo" idea before, but I have seen it.
A reference is given to one such classification in:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=416052346 [The authors not only
recognize _Homo troglodytes_ and _Homo paniscus_, but include all apes
including gibbons in Hominidae].
> However, I don't think we're really
>close enough to be indistinguishable at 50 paces (if I recall the
standard
>correctly).
Whose standard is that? I take it he doesn't often work with diatoms or
copepods...
cheers
David Wilson
In article <37c0c4d2...@newshost.wehi.edu.au> boy...@delete.wehi.edu.au
(Jeff) wrote:
>
> Monotremes are a sub family of Mammals and there are only 2 animals
> that belong to this sub family, Platypus (1 species known) and
> Echidnas (1 species known). ...
>
Have I failed to notice some unspeakable disaster that has recently befallen
the New Guinea echidnas? Last I heard there were two surviving genera of
echidnas, each containing a single species. While the short-beaked echidna
(Tachyglossus aculeatus) is the only one that occurs here in oz, New
Guinea supposedly boasts a second species as well, Zaglossus something-or-
other---the long-beaked echidna.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wilson
Eric Tolle
> Other explanations might include (I don't know the chronology, and I'm
> lazing on a Sunday afternoon - the Christian sabbath hmm..., and can't be
> bothered hunting it up... sorry) one or more species being less capable of
> adapting to the beginning/end of an ice age (or some other disastrous
> natural phenomena).
According to one article I skimmed through, Homo Sapiens also went
through a population bottleneck sometime in its past. So it could be
that the Homid lines as a whole failed to adapt to changing
environmental conditions, and nearly went extinct, with only one
species surviving.
Only having one species surviving doesn't really make a good case for
our evolutionary superiority-it could be we're an evolutionary dead
end. Of course I consider the jury to still be out- check back in
about ten million years to see if we're still around.
--
Eric Tolle sch...@silcom.com
Information does not want to be free. Information wants to be
folded, spindled, mutilated, and used to make funky children's
party hats.
Martin Crisp
>Martin Crisp wrote:
>
>> Other explanations might include (I don't know the chronology, and
I'm
>> lazing on a Sunday afternoon - the Christian sabbath hmm..., and
can't be
>> bothered hunting it up... sorry) one or more species being less
capable of
>> adapting to the beginning/end of an ice age (or some other disastrous
>> natural phenomena).
>
>According to one article I skimmed through, Homo Sapiens also went
>through a population bottleneck sometime in its past. So it could be
>that the Homid lines as a whole failed to adapt to changing
>environmental conditions, and nearly went extinct, with only one
>species surviving.
>
>Only having one species surviving doesn't really make a good case for
>our evolutionary superiority-it could be we're an evolutionary dead
Yeeeesss, but the notion of 'species' is a label for a group that fits
certain characteristics. Another way of looking at a species is as a
fractal expression...(a rule applied to an initial condition, then the
rule applied to that result...) we aren't one species we are ~6billion
potential species. Any individual is at a semi-random point between the
last 'great change' and the next, both with respect to the anscestor and
descendant species but also to the others in the current round of
iterations.
(Yes, nice blue sky)
The bottleneck point is well taken, but the unpredicatability of
mutation combined with higher rates of in-breeding in a shallow gene
pool for a species under pressure (mainly 'better' individuals
surviving - NO, I am not supporting eugenics) probably - OK, maybe only
possibly - promotes more rapid speciation than a diffuse gene pool of a
species under not-too-much pressure where inbreeding doesn't take place.
(I'm sure the idea that speciation happens more rapidly when a species
is under pressure was part of Biology at High School level...)
>end. Of course I consider the jury to still be out- check back in
and well you should, although the sun is incredibly likely to come up
tomorrow we can't actually say it will with iron-clad certainty (is God
Y2K compliant? Are the YECs onto something with a young earth, maybe
God's clock has only a 10,000 year range...)
I think you're making a large leap of logic about a single species
indicating a possible evolutionary dead end. It will depend on the
circumstances of the next bottleneck-causing incident... I think that
Man is probably more likely to survive the next mass extinction of
species than almost any other 'complex' animal for most scenarios,
largely because of our range on the planet - assuming we're still
planet-locked of course - whether the next extinction event is so severe
as to wipe out anything larger than a micro-organism is the tough
bit....
>about ten million years to see if we're still around.
Hmm, can't recall what the average gap between ice ages is...
From what I can see it may be sooner than that. (Q: Was there an
outbreak of an airborne strain of Ebola at a monkey house in Reston
outside Wash DC -fortunately also lost the ability to wreak havoc in
Man? Or was I gullible to think "The Hot Zone" may have been
non-fiction?)
Have Fun
Martin
--
<Spam....@tesseract.com.au> is a valid address
If you prefer mnemonic addresses you can use:
<Martin 'at' tesseract.com.au> or <Martin.Crisp 'at' Tourism.tas.gov.au>
My opinions should not be taken as indicative of Tourism Tasmania's
opinions
Martin Crisp
>
>
>On 21-Aug-1999, "Tony Suessine" <asuessi...@gatecom.com> wrote:
>
>> For the sake of argument assume that a few species of Man
>> existed in the distant past. Any species that close to us
>> would (probably) compete for the same resources as us.
>> We would wipe the others out. Considering that Man is one
>> of the few higher forms of life that inhabits the whole globe,
>> the other species would have no place to hide.
>> (I have heard this argument re: Neanderthal but don't know if
>> they were close enough to call a "human species")
>>
>> Tony
>
>so how come man can not eradicate the roach?
'can' is a very powerful word, you should use it with care.
I assume you mean cockroach (rather than remains of a joint - just smoke
the damn things!.
To be able to *correctly* state that 'man can not eradicate the
[cock]roach', you need to PROVE that we are unable to wipe out the
cockroach.
AFAIK this is not the case for cockroaches.
I find stepping on the one or 2 that somehow make it to my neck of the
woods (they aren't exactly common here...) to be a reasonable
demonstration that I can kill cockroaches...after killing 1, I theorised
I could kill an arbitrary one, and the one beside 'him'...while not
exactly a proof by induction, I believe this is a reasonable indication
that I can kill arbitrary cockroaches and hence any cockroach.
I think you may have a hard time proving the proposition required by
your statement.
>it seems to compte with man for resorces.
AFAIK every plant and animal on the planet competes with almost* every
other for resources (like space, oxygen and water to choose the 3 most
obvious)
*would be hard to argue that a bacteria in your gut competes with an
egret for space, YMMV.
Dave Timpe
mel turner <mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:7ptmq6$45a$1...@news.duke.edu...
| In article <7psjhc$sb9$4...@news.inc.net>, dave...@NOSPAMcybrzn.com
| >This has been suggested (although Pongidae is currently only the Orangs
| --
| >Chimps Gorillas and Humans are now increasingly being classified as
| family
| >Hominidae, with the Australopithecines and Humans bumped down from
| family
| >status as Hominines).
|
| I hadn't seen that particular classification used [keeping Pongo alone
| in a separate Pongidae], although it's as reasonable an option as a
| one-genus subfamily or tribe for Pongo within Hominidae. Citation?
Couldn't give you one, but it's the common one on sci.anthro.paleo (though
not universal).
|
| > I can't remember where I saw the "reclassify Pan as
| >Homo" idea before, but I have seen it.
|
| A reference is given to one such classification in:
| http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=416052346 [The authors not only
| recognize _Homo troglodytes_ and _Homo paniscus_, but include all apes
| including gibbons in Hominidae].
I'd say that's stretching things, but it's hard to be objective in
classifying oneself and close relatives, which has been one of the problems
in Paleoanthro.
|
| > However, I don't think we're really
| >close enough to be indistinguishable at 50 paces (if I recall the
| standard
| >correctly).
|
| Whose standard is that? I take it he doesn't often work with diatoms or
| copepods...
Ian Tattersall mentions it as his rule of thumb for mammalian skulls in The
Fossil Trail, p. 192, but it obviously wouldn't work for diatoms or
copepods. Are there any you can even *see* at 50 paces?
Martin Crisp
>
> mel turner <mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
> news:7ptmq6$45a$1...@news.duke.edu...
> | In article <7psjhc$sb9$4...@news.inc.net>, dave...@NOSPAMcybrzn.com
>
> | >This has been suggested (although Pongidae is currently only the Orangs
> | --
> | >Chimps Gorillas and Humans are now increasingly being classified as
> | family
> | >Hominidae, with the Australopithecines and Humans bumped down from
> | family
> | >status as Hominines).
> |
> | I hadn't seen that particular classification used [keeping Pongo alone
> | in a separate Pongidae], although it's as reasonable an option as a
> | one-genus subfamily or tribe for Pongo within Hominidae. Citation?
>
> Couldn't give you one, but it's the common one on sci.anthro.paleo (though
> not universal).
[snip]
Neither can I, but I recall a TV show (yeah, yeah, credibility is a
problem :-)), either Quantum (various discussions in science,
documentaries...) or Compass (discusses issues of religion, including
the Church's influence on Galileo and similar), commenting that the
reasoning behind not including man with other apes was, in part at
least, to not offend the church.
Perhaps a search for letters between Darwin and contemporaries?
Have Fun
Martin
--
<Spam....@tesseract.com.au> is a valid address
<I_am_a_primate 'at' tesseract.com.au> is also valid.
Credo quia absurdum est
Dave Timpe
Martin Crisp <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:37C75EBF...@tesseract.com.au...
| Neither can I, but I recall a TV show (yeah, yeah, credibility is a
| problem :-)), either Quantum (various discussions in science,
| documentaries...) or Compass (discusses issues of religion, including
| the Church's influence on Galileo and similar), commenting that the
| reasoning behind not including man with other apes was, in part at
| least, to not offend the church.
It wouldn't be surprising, but it could just have been a shared assumption.
There has been a gradual progression away from those views which see
humanity as "special" over the last few hundred years, since Copernicus and
subsequent astronomers showed we weren't the center of the universe.
| Perhaps a search for letters between Darwin and contemporaries?
The original classifications precede Darwin, but until the 60's or even 70's
paleoanthropoligists were assuming that hominids (then defined as humans and
australopithecines, and not everybody even accepted autstralopithecines) and
"the great apes" (then defined as orangs, gorillas and chimps) were
separated by something like 20 million years. It might still be the
assumption if the molecular data hadn't come out. Now we pretty much know
that humans, chimps and gorillas are more closely related to each other than
to the orang-utans, and humans and chimps are closer yet (hence Jared
Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee), so dividing things up into "apes" and
"hominids" doesn't work. We're now talking about "which kind of ape" is a
hominid.
Hmm. We has met the manpanzee, and it is us?