[Tj3]

Interesting. Could you provide references to some of those biologists who claim that wolves and dogs are the same species? (Not genus, but species.) That would be helpful. Thanks.

I already provided a reference. If you want more, do a search on internet. You might find it an interesting study.

BTW, I said that they were all dogs. Please do not misrepresent what I said.

[Akoue]

I already provided a reference. If you want more, do a search on internet. You might find it an interesting study.

BTW, I said that they were all dogs. Please do not misrepresent what I said.

Internet, huh? No peer-reviewed articles or books? Just whatever some guy decided to throw up on a website. That's disappointing.

[Tj3]

This is interesting too, since I spoke with a biologist (who is also a dog expert and professor at a veterinary college) and have been told that what you say is not true. So some references would be really helpful.

Since you have mis-stated what I said on here, perhaps you also mis-quoted me or mis-stated the question when you asked. It is not useful for you to say that you spoke to someone when all we hear is your interpretation of the answer to an unknown question.

In any case, I provided one reference - I encourage others to do their own research also, and I think that it would be useful for you to do a search and see how many references there are to wolves being dogs.

[Akoue]

BTW, I said that they were all dogs. Please do not misrepresent what I said.

I'd have to understand it in order to misrepresent it. You said that they (wolves and dogs) are all dogs. The conversation is about species level (macro-)evolution--asking has been very clear about this. I understood you to be making the claim that wolves and dogs are dogs, where that means that they are the same species. If I've misunderstood please clarify your position.

[Tj3]

Duplicate

[Tj3]

You said that they (wolves and dogs) are all dogs.

Exactly.

Are we agreed on this point? Or do you disagree with the biologists?

If we cannot agree on this point which is so universally accepted and proven within science, then I don't know how we can go further. I am a man of science as well as being a Christian, and if we cannot agree to accept such a basic point, then I would suggest that we are at a dead end.

[Tj3]

Internet, huh? No peer-reviewed articles or books? Just whatever some guy decided to throw up on a website. That's disappointing.

It is disappointing that you did not read the full article. Had you done so, you would have seen plenty of references at the bottom.

But once again, you tell us that you are a professor, so I would think that you would be well acquainted with doing research, and I would expect that such pointers would get you going if you are really interested in finding out the facts on a topic. I know that is how it is with me.

Internet and libraries are great places for research.

[arcura]

Yes I would like to see such references that foxes and wolves are the same species as dogs, not genus, but species.
I googled it and found opinions but no facts on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[arcura]

Tj3,
We are talking about species here now.
As has been asked before, what is YOUR definition of a species.
Thanks,
Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
We are talking about species here now.
As has been asked before, what is YOUR definition of a species.
Thanks,
Fred

So we are agreed that a wolf is a dog. In fact, if you Google, you will find that the DNA match between domestic dog and a wolf is, for all practical purposes, identical. The reference in scripture is to "kind" which does not necessarily align with the artificial designations introduced by men for reason in addition to simply being able to reproduced and produced viable offspring, which is and has been the generally accepted definition.The fact that wolf and domestic dog have always been the same is not affected by men drawing up these artificial division. They did not suddenly lose the ability to reproduced, nor did their DNA change. They remained dogs, as they are today.

So, when wolves were domesticated, and bred to have the more aggressive aspects of their nature diminished, and subsequently other aspects of animal nature enhanced, such as obedience or control of other animal stocks, etc. the animals remained dogs. They did not evolve into something which was not a dog.

[asking]

Tj3, I slept through most of this discussion. I go to bed early. :)

But I think I see where the confusion is coming from. You wrote that dogs, wolves, and coyotes are "canids," members of the dog family. That is true. But a family is a higher level of classification than species. It goes: species, genus, tribe, family (and up). The Canidae are grouped into three tribes.

Wikipedia is sufficiently reliable on material like this that I feel comfortable citing it here. A taxonomist might quibble about some of this, but I'm sure in essence it's correct.

Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, to sum up, no biologist would say that a wolf and a coyote and a dog are all the same species. They are called "dogs" informally in the same way that lions are called "cats." Nobody actually thinks an African lion is the same species as a house cat.

So, wolves, coyotes, and dogs are separate species. And, and as I mentioned last night, individual breeds of dogs are so different that they would certainly be considered separate species if we hadn't made them ourselves on purpose.

AND some of them are now reproductively isolated (e.g. beagles, setters)--a biological watershed for speciation. Once two populations cannot interbreed, they are set to evolve separately and become distinct species. These breeds have already been evolving separately for some time. Even if the selection they experience is strongly influenced by humans, that doesn't alter that the two breeds are now genetically separated. Were these breeds anything but domesticated animals, biologists would say they had speciated. It's only custom that keeps us from saying that, not biology.

[Tj3]

So, to sum up, no biologist would say that a wolf and a coyote and a dog are all the same species.

What I said is that they are all varieties of dogs. It avoid mis-understandings to ensure that what you are arguing against is what was actually said.

Do we now agree?

[ordinaryguy]

AND some of them are now reproductively isolated (e.g. beagles, setters)--a biological watershed for speciation.

I did not know this. Fascinating!

Thank you so much for overcoming the frustration you must feel in order to contribute to discussions such as this one. You perform a real service here.

[arcura]

Yj3,
Don't try that twisting words. I did NOT say that nor infer it.
I did NOT agree that a wolf is a dog.
They ARE different species.
The DNA are not identical. They are different is several respects.
The same with the Foxes and Jackals.
They are not dogs.
According to your DNA estimate then Apes and humans are the same species for they have much of the same DNA.
Now once more, to clear this up...
As has been asked before, what is YOUR definition of a species?
Please answer the question and quit dodging it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[ordinaryguy]

What I said is that they are all varieties of dogs. It avoid mis-understandings to ensure that what you are arguing against is what was actually said.

Do we now agree?

The reason it's hard to agree with you is that you are inconsistent in the terminology you use. Here, you call the various Canids "varieties". You have also used the terms "species", "family", and "kinds".

The reference in scripture is to "kind" which does not necessarily align with the artificial designations introduced by men for reason in addition to simply being able to reproduced and produced viable offspring, which is and has been the generally accepted definition.

So if the genetic ability to produce viable offspring is the litmus test, then beagles and setters must be different "kinds", right?

[Tj3]

Yj3,
Don't try that twisting words. I did NOT say that nor infer it.
I did NOT agree that a wolf is a dog.

So you disagree with the biologists on this point.

According to your DNA estimate then Apes and humans are the same species for they have much of the same DNA.

Please provide evidence of breeding between apes and humans which produced viable offspring or where biologists have said that apes are just another variety of human.

As has been asked before, what is YOUR definition of a species?
Please answer the question and quit dodging it.

Quite badgering with false accusations and read my previous messages. I answered.

[Tj3]

So if the genetic ability to produce viable offspring is the litmus test, then beagles and setters must be different "kinds", right?

Don't base your beliefs on urban legends. Here is a veterinary ophthalmologist and geneticist who crossbred setters and beagles.

"We used beagles to crossbreed with the setters. Beagles have great personalities, are very fertile, and easily adapt to life in a colony. The gene turns up several generations later." As Acland approached the dog from the side, there was no reaction. Only when he was directly in front of the dog did it raise its head and move its snout to sniff. "The dog with retinal atrophy follows the same course as people with retinitis pigmentosa," Acland explained, referring to the most common cause of inherited human blindness, which currently affects perhaps a hundred thousand Americans. "First, there is loss of night vision, then loss of peripheral perception - that's called tunnel vision."
(Source: jeromegroopman dot com | Dog Genes )

[michealb]

Please provide evidence of breeding between apes and humans which produced viable offspring or where biologists have said that apes are just another variety of human.

As far as I know there has only been one person to even try because of the ethics involved but I don't know where anyone has said it is impossible. Have you tried and been unsuccessful? Here is the article on the one man who has actually tried.

The forgotten scandal of the Soviet ape-man - life - 20 August 2008 - New Scientist

[Tj3]

As far as I know there has only been one person to even try because of the ethics involved but I don't know where anyone has said it is impossible. Have you tried and been unsuccessful? Here is the article on the one man who has actually tried.

The forgotten scandal of the Soviet ape-man - life - 20 August 2008 - New Scientist

The results as stated in the article were, and I quote "...hen no ape-man materialised the fuss died down and his research was forgotten."

[michealb]

So because one guy tried a few times and failed you think something is impossible. I have known human couples to try for months to get pregnant with no success and you want to claim impossibility with a few tries.
Tell me which gene of the 2% that is different that specifically prevents humans and chimps from producing offspring? If you can't you can't even begin to say it's impossible.

Coyotes and wolfs interbreed and have 4% difference in dna... So I don't see where you have any scientific basis for your argument of course having no scientific basis has never stopped you before so I don't see why it surprise me.