Slashdot Mirror
Giraffes May Be Six Separate Species
The BBC reports on research, published in BMC Biology, pointing to the possibility that there may be at least six species of giraffe in Africa. Quoting: "'Using molecular techniques we found that giraffes can be classified into six groups that are reproductively isolated and not interbreeding,' David Brown, the lead author of the study and a geneticist at... UCLA told BBC News. 'The results were a surprise because although the giraffes look different, if you put them in zoos, they breed freely.'"
Even though we all look different (eg: skin colour, height, "width", etc), if you put us in zoos, we will breed freely also
Assuming they produce viable offspring, isn't that one of the primary definitions for a single species?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
"The female Maasai giraffe may be looking at the male reticulated giraffe and thinking, 'I don't look like you; I don't want to mate with you'," Mr Brown explained.
So, in short...the giraffes are racists unless they live in a "multicultural" environment (ie: a zoo)?
Now, where have I heard that before?
the people of texas are a completely different species to the ones in New York and California.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
Good Morning Baby..... ... ...
Hey wait a minute, you're not the same giraffe from last night !
I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
That would make tigers and lions the same species, since there have been fertile offspring. I'd say there's a lot wiggle room in the definition.
By this logic, supermodels and Slashdotters are members of different species.
Have gnu, will travel.
Well, you can believe whatever you want to believe, I'm not about to try and stop you in this type of debate. I think if we ever ended up with empirical evidence supporting evolution in the sense of macro evolution, they would at least have to acknowledge it. I don't see how they could make a claim further along the chain then that point, it either exists or it doesn't exist.
On another note, the definition for species has changed over the years. This is probably why it is so hard of a topic to get straight and keep everyone on board. It used to be that we just looked at animals that were different enough in characteristics and called them a different species. This is why Blacks were at one time considered only part human and mostly of a different species. But we got wise and realized that couldn't be true and added the idea of sexual reproduction. It was then, with sexual reproduction being a pivoting point, the macro verses micro evolution became a popular issue. Now the reproduction requirement is watered down so much that if it can reproduce but decides not to naturally, they are a different species. This of course creates more problems, problems like now Racists, White or black or whatever nationality, would be considered a different species because they choose not to breed with others not like them.
I give this because you seem to think this is some settled issue that creationist are attempting to turn upside down. While that may be true, science in and of itself has turned it around more in the last 2 centuries then any religious organization. But this is part of the scientific process that makes it so great. While there isn't any empirical evidence proving a common ancestor and speciation, There is a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting it. And while most of the Newer attempt to point to speciation further twists the definitions of species to make the point. The definition of species shouldn't exist just to discredit creationist, that is the farthest from scientific we can get with science.
It also seems that you haven't explored the "other way" yet want to cast it in a dim light. Thats fine but it is also non scientific. You should at least understand the argument's you are rejecting. Simple rejecting them for the sake of doing so or to favor your pet project and procedures leads to an almost religious interpretation of science. One of the founding principles of science is that it can be wrong and we can correct our knowledge when we find these things out. An association with god doesn't automatically make something untrue, It doesn't make it true either. But think about that, If god willed you to fill a glass with watter and drink it, the only thing not testable (unscientific) is God willing you to do something. Getting a glass and filling it with water and then drinking it at some point in time could be a reality. The same would be true is evolution did end up with a macro verses micro reality. If it is found that one doesn't actually happen, then the only thin unscientific could be the God created part, the rest can be testable to some degree. You also have different theories of evolution inside the science community like the Bubble theory of evolution that I heard back in the mid 70's that to some degree supports the macro verses micro separations.
In the end, we just have to look at why we are discrediting something. If it is because of sound facts, then it is one thing. If it is because of disdain for a group of people or whet they might claim in and of itself, then it is sort of doing the same things you don't like about them.