Slashdot Mirror
Should We Just Call Dog Breeds a Different Species?
Jamie found an amusing bit this morning on Scientific American where the author proposes that dog breeds are different species. Now some of you might recoil when you hear this suggestion, but if you read the article to see why he makes this suggestion I suspect you'll crack a smile and appreciate the elegance of the solution.
You know what's funny? Dogs know dogs. They can be big, small, tall, round, thin, with or without tails, brown, red, white, spotted, yellow, shaggy, short haired, long legged, squat, etc, etc, etc. There is a massive amount of variation on display within the dog family.
But despite it all, dogs know dogs. Upon seeing another, they'll wag their tails or bark for a rotweiller the same as they would for a terrier. They'll all roam about in their little packs, somehow instinctively knowing they they naturally should.
And yet, if I have a man with different skin colour, or even simply different clothing, other men will consider his life worth less than even the smallest dog.
Makes you think.
May the Maths Be with you!
Just remember if you argue that dog breeds are different species, especially the case of the mastiff and chihuahua, or the teacup yorkie and newfoundland, these different species are verifiably the result of intelligent design. Selection was involved, but not natural selection.
Biologists already define a separate species as when two individuals cannot mate, be it due to genetics or mechanical or behavioural difficulties. The problem with dog breeds is that a Chihuahua can mate with a terrier, and a terrier can mate with a gun dog, and a gun dog can mate with the largest of dogs. Where would the author draw the line between species? There are a lot of cases like this in nature, and it is basically an arbitrary decision as to whether speciation has occurred. The whole premise of this article is essentially flawed, as it suggests that biologists have not already thought about these difficulties, when in fact this is basic pre-university biology.
Whenever someone tells me they have a dog, I ask them what make it is. Try it, the reaction is brilliant.
Summation 2
1) Creationists claim the science doesn't provide thorough enough proof of evolution
2) Evolutionary biologists should fudge their results to re-define something as being proof
3) ???
4) Profit
Something makes me think this scheme would just give creationists a big stick labelled "evolutionists fudge their results; it's all a load of cobblers" to beat the biologists with.
If a Slashdot reader has evolved to the point where he has no sense of humour whatsoever and is therefore incapable of mating with female humans, does that make said Slashdot reader a new species?
Something to ponder tonight.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
When we observe Ring Species we are clearly catching mother nature red-handed in the act of speciation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
These things are freaky:
A--B--C--D--E--F--G--A
Members of a ring species can interbreed with their immediate neighbors, but not with distant neighbors halfway around the ring. (So in my diagrom, A can interbreed with B and G, but not C, D, E, or F. Sometimes the ring develops a break, and becomes a line:
A--B--C--D--E--F--G
Then to have a speciation event, all you need is another break in the line:
A--B--C
E--F--G
There are ring species comprised of small creatures who only live in a small range of elevation around the side of a mountain, so their habitat literally looks like a small ring. Two well timed avalanches could be enough.
I suppose you could build some sort of multi-feline interferometer, and interpret the varying frequency of their mewing according to their individual proximity to objects.
Assuming you're reasonably confident not to be bumping into the ceiling or falling down holes, "how many cats can lead blind people" would be 3. 2 would lead to blind spots, 4 or more would provide redundant overlap.