Re: Dog speciation
- From: B Richardson <brich@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:30:16 GMT
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:35:15 GMT, NashtOn <nana@xxxxx> wrote:
Will in New Haven wrote:
evilgeniusabroad wrote:
Hey folks,
I trying to read up on dog speciation, specifically about breeds of dog
that are reproductively incompatable through having weak or sterile
pups rather than difficulty mating.
does anyone know specific examples?
cheers
ega
If you mean domestic dogs, there are no examples. Size differences make
mating and pup-bearing diffiWhacult between extreme-sized breeds but all
the breeds can produce healthy pups with any breeds near them in size.
While there is no practical way that Great Danes can breed with
Miniature Poodles, both breeds can breed with Standard Poodles. There
are lots of other examples but those are two that I have seen with my
own eyes. The Great Poodles are delightful little monsters in
particular.
Dogs are also mutually fertile with wolves, their immediate ancestors,
coyotes, dingos (which are descended from dogs anyway) and various
species of jackals. If we defined species the way I learned it i
school, these would be all one species. However, like the stone table
we wrote on, that definition of species is gone. Most of these species
are isolated enough from one another that interbreeding does not occur.
I guess wolf/coyote and dog/coyote are common enough to be exceptions.
Of course, there appears to be a separate Eastern Wolf species in
eastern Canada and there is the Red Wolf to consider.
Will in New Haven
--
"Have faith in the Yankees my son and remember the great Dimaggio."
Ernest Hemingway, THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA
What would a paleontologist think in 2x10^6 years from now if he/she
found skeletal remains of a miniature poodle and those of a Great Dane?
Wonder if anybody would demand to see a transitional if the
paleontologist suggested they were related by descent?
How many fossilized species have been classified in various ways because
of physical similarities when in fact, they could be members of the same
species? DNA seems so vital to proving evolution, who's to say that the
various monkeys found are nothing but that and that we're merely fitting
them into some abstract progressive cladistic model of increased
complexity in the absence of any DNA?
I ask for information only.
--
Nicolas
"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin
.
- References:
- Dog speciation
- From: evilgeniusabroad
- Re: Dog speciation
- From: Will in New Haven
- Re: Dog speciation
- From: NashtOn
- Dog speciation
- Prev by Date: Re: Dog speciation
- Next by Date: Re: KT boundry event
- Previous by thread: Re: Dog speciation
- Next by thread: Re: Dog speciation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|