Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 19/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Galapagos finches
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4177 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 19 of 104 (84590)
02-08-2004 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tamara
02-08-2004 9:27 PM


If we bred dogs with pug snouts in many generations, would they be a new species of dog? Oh wait, we already have, and last time I checked, they were still the same old dogs.
Darwin pointed out that the doves in his days were all classified as one species, becauses everyone knew that they were bred from Rock Pigeons. If they hadn't been bred by humans, he said, taxonomists would put them in at least 3 genera and 8 species.
Yes, they're still the "same old dogs," but I'm pretty confident that in the wild, not bred by men, most breeds of dogs--if they were isolated and breeding only among themselves--would be regarded as separate species. Maybe one of the scientists here could correct me if that's not true, but the whole point being made about finches suggests to me it is true.
The point being made to you, Tamara, is that species are not so easily defined, anyway. Would chihuahua's and St. Bernard's really be considered the same species in the wild? (Of course, we all know that chihuahua's would never survive in the wild and barely survive domesticated , but you understand my point.)
Darwin said the doves in his day differed even in the amount of vertebrae they had? How much difference do we really need before we grant that speciation has occurred?
Is it reasonable to trust the speciation claim? Given the evidence of a grossly exagerated species list, I say the trustworthiness of the claim is seriously undermined.
I don't see where you've established this in any way, since even your sources don't say this. Only you say this. "Grossly" exaggerated? I don't think you've established grossly, since the number of species remains a subjective interpretation, which taxonomists are trying to objectify as much as possible, knowing that full objectivity is not possible. This means the next person could legitimately come along, examine the matter further, and assign more species based not just on their further research, but even on their possibly different definition of species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tamara, posted 02-08-2004 9:27 PM Tamara has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4177 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 32 of 104 (84732)
02-09-2004 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tamara
02-09-2004 10:02 AM


Problem with your argument is... if chihuahuas and St. Bernards would not be considered one species "in the wild" then why should Icelanders and Bantus be considered one species? You see that sort of thinking opens up a can of worms. Better leave them all together if they interbreed...
That's not opening a can of worms. The can of worms is opened. That's part of what we've been trying to tell you. It's hard to define species, and when you say, "Well, look how different dogs are, and they're all one species," (which is what you said) you're already pulling from the can of worms. The only reason I see that dogs are all one species is because we bred them. In the wild, I can't see any way they'd not be separate species. Maybe someone can name for me a species that varies in size and appearance as much as dogs do, yet are all considered one species (rather than one genus).
As an example, the European wildcat is regarded to be the ancestor of our domestic cats, yet it is classified as Felis silvestris, while our kitties at home are Felis catus. There is far less difference between those two species than there is between, say, Doberman Pinschers and Cocker Spaniels.
It's a can of worms. Thus, there is absolutely no problem that one person classified the Galapagos finches as 14 species and another reduced it to no less than six (which you need to admit is what was said).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tamara, posted 02-09-2004 10:02 AM Tamara has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4177 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 33 of 104 (84733)
02-09-2004 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tamara
02-09-2004 11:37 AM


So what happens when very different sizes of critters do breed (say by insemination)?
This is bizarre. What does this have to do with speciation? Obviously, artificial insemination doesn't happen in the wild.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tamara, posted 02-09-2004 11:37 AM Tamara has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4177 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 51 of 104 (84975)
02-10-2004 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tamara
02-09-2004 3:43 PM


All I said was that Canis lupus (whom we have not bred
Right, that is what you said, and what you said is wrong. We bred dogs from wolves, and we breed dogs with wolves. Your point was that dogs, wolves, and coyotes are now considered the same species (which I'm not ever sure is true), and they weren't bred together, but yes they were. Dogs were bred from wolves by humans.
truthlover writes:
Maybe someone can name for me a species that varies in size and appearance as much as dogs do, yet are all considered one species (rather than one genus).
Tamara writes:
Easy. Humans.
Humans don't vary as much as dogs. The biggest size difference you can find in humans is with pygmies, and even that's only about 25% in height and perhaps a little more in weight. Large dogs can be 4000% larger than miniatures.
Better to have two solid species than 14 iffy ones.
No, it's not. It's better to attempt accurately to count species. You cited sources who said that it might be better to show six species of finches on the Galapagos. If that's based on new information, then that's better. It is not based on some desire to reduce the number of species. Only you have that desire, for some reason you refuse to reveal. The goal is to be accurate, not to limit the number of species.
You can maybe go start your own taxonomic system based on as few species being listed as possible, as taxonomists are prone to arguing a lot about it, anyway, which just goes to show that what you're being told is true. Species are not easily delineated, because in real life there is no line. Of course, someone else will come along and say we should list as many species as possible, because life tends to diverge, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tamara, posted 02-09-2004 3:43 PM Tamara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Tamara, posted 02-10-2004 11:56 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 53 by Tamara, posted 02-10-2004 12:00 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2004 2:06 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 67 by nator, posted 02-14-2004 8:27 AM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4177 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 54 of 104 (85056)
02-10-2004 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Tamara
02-10-2004 12:00 PM


I was reacting to what someone else had said, and all I meant was that we have not bred wolves as a species.
Right, but there was a point you were making when you "reacted," and that point was inaccurate.
I am all for it.
Unfortunately, I don't think I'll live to see it in this case.
No, you don't think that, but you haven't convinced anyone else to share your doubt. Somehow you don't seem to have gotten this. Scientists already are attempting to accurately count species, and you have vehemently attacked their efforts, and your attacks have fallen short. You can shrug your shoulders and suggest you'll never live to see species being counted as accurately as possible, given the evolving world you live in, but based on what you've said, you're just wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Tamara, posted 02-10-2004 12:00 PM Tamara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tamara, posted 02-10-2004 5:55 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4177 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 63 of 104 (85415)
02-11-2004 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Tamara
02-11-2004 10:56 AM


Re: waiting
In a world "ruled" by that definition, none of us would have to waste our time arguing the finches, and could go back to having a life!
I'll just leave all your other assertions alone, because my answer to them is the same as this one. There are posts in this thread explaining to you why this statement isn't true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Tamara, posted 02-11-2004 10:56 AM Tamara has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4177 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 71 of 104 (89070)
02-27-2004 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by nator
02-14-2004 8:27 AM


truthlover writes:
Maybe someone can name for me a species that varies in size and appearance as much as dogs do, yet are all considered one species (rather than one genus).
Schrafinator writes:
Horses
Okay, but I guess my point was that I think that if dogs were found in nature rather than in our homes, we would classify them in several species, not one. Horses would fall into exactly the same category. We have also created miniature donkeys, but I suspect there as well that if a population of miniature donkeys were found somewhere in nature and the more typical donkeys elsewhere, they'd definitely be called different species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by nator, posted 02-14-2004 8:27 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024