You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[+]jxfaith0 points0 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]jxfaith0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
How is
"If two populations can NOT interbreed, they are NOT the same species."
Contradicted by
distinct species cannot reproduce between their populations
I am aware of wolves, coyotes, etc, crossbreeding. I would consider that broadly the biological exception to the rule. My statement, while perhaps not as logically formal as the textbook definition you provided, works sufficiently in almost every case. When last this topic came up (as it seems to be a rather popular pet argument for some people on this site), I wasn't able to dig up any other examples of extant species interbreeding. At least none as well-documented as coyotes/wolves/dogs. And even so, such hybridization is an exception rather than a norm. A modest percentage of individuals per generation, to my understanding. Certainly on a different level than interracial marriage among humans.
The problem with talking about the animal kindgom and humans is the fact that humans have developed into highly migratory animals. So, on that criteria I found this in 5 minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_hybrid there are probably more examples out there. But, good luck trying your argument on geneticists.
I allow that you've established that distinct species can sometimes reproduce and within that domain also produce fertile offspring. On what basis would you assert the term "species" is a more accurate description of different populations within the human species? By allowing the above, it seems to me that the definition of species gets a lot blurrier.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] jxfaith ago (edited ago)
How is
Contradicted by
I am aware of wolves, coyotes, etc, crossbreeding. I would consider that broadly the biological exception to the rule. My statement, while perhaps not as logically formal as the textbook definition you provided, works sufficiently in almost every case. When last this topic came up (as it seems to be a rather popular pet argument for some people on this site), I wasn't able to dig up any other examples of extant species interbreeding. At least none as well-documented as coyotes/wolves/dogs. And even so, such hybridization is an exception rather than a norm. A modest percentage of individuals per generation, to my understanding. Certainly on a different level than interracial marriage among humans.
[–] ditch-digger ago
The problem with talking about the animal kindgom and humans is the fact that humans have developed into highly migratory animals. So, on that criteria I found this in 5 minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_hybrid there are probably more examples out there. But, good luck trying your argument on geneticists.
[–] jxfaith ago
I allow that you've established that distinct species can sometimes reproduce and within that domain also produce fertile offspring. On what basis would you assert the term "species" is a more accurate description of different populations within the human species? By allowing the above, it seems to me that the definition of species gets a lot blurrier.