4 ms·

If species were based on bone structure, how many species of dogs would there be?

bpicolo 11y ago
I still think it's super weird that they don't count as different species. There's the suggestion that breeding + fertile offspring is the main concern, but couldn't early humans and neanderthals reproduce, for example? But we definitely consider them separate species. Dividing lines are hard here I guess.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- eropple 11y ago
  > couldn't early humans and neanderthals reproduce, for example? Common misconception, but no, they couldn't.
  - mongol 11y ago
    I have the impression that current research by Svante Pääbo shows they likely did.
    - eropple 11y ago
      Huh, so it is. I took a few courses on prehistoric humanity and the evolution of mankind in college, but I guess I'm out of date. (Thanks for not being the sibling poster in your response, BTW. "You are wrong." Hurf.)
  - freshyill 11y ago
    You are wrong. http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/how-neanderthal-dna-changed-humans-140129.htm http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/how-neanderthal-dn...
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      Every couple of rounds of PHD dissertations that notion changes. The biggest support is a skeleton of a child which is believed to be a hybrid of Neanderthals and Homo Sapience but the morphological bone evidence isn't that conclusive. http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-skeleton-provides-evidence-of-interbreeding-with-humans-130327.htm http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-skelet... What i really don't like about that article is about how they phrased it the mDNA wasn't "Neanderthal", it just had markers which are rare in modern humans, some of those marker also appear mapped mDNA of "Neanderthals". mDNA aside general genetic markers is a much weaker theory mostly because we cannot estimate well enough how much of the DNA in question actually came through inter-breeding and how much of it might actually survived from a previous common ancestor, or how many of them are just random mutations that survived through natural selection or cultural selective breeding. Because there have been claims before about that like that the gene for readheads came from Neanderthals but then was discovered that that specific mutation is just naturally occurring for humans and the redhead gene of modern humans isn't the same for Neanderthals or other primates. The 1-4% neanderthal DNA is also a bit well iffy, comparing genomes is very tricky and those comparisons often strip away all the large differences e.g. like humans and chimpanzees only share 99% of the genes when you strip about 2/3rd of the genome. So while there might have been interbreeding there's very little of actual evidence to point to the extent and the cause of it, could've been social interbreeding, could've been pillage and rape, could've been small isolated cases, could've been widespread, but PC gen-Y notions aside the science isn't really clear on on side or the other and it's hard to know if it ever will be able to be.

I still think it's super weird that they don't count as different species. There's the suggestion that breeding + fertile offspring is the main concern, but couldn't early humans and neanderthals reproduce, for example? But we definitely consider them separate species. Dividing lines are hard here I guess.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
eropple 11y ago
> couldn't early humans and neanderthals reproduce, for example? Common misconception, but no, they couldn't.
- mongol 11y ago
  I have the impression that current research by Svante Pääbo shows they likely did.
  - eropple 11y ago
    Huh, so it is. I took a few courses on prehistoric humanity and the evolution of mankind in college, but I guess I'm out of date. (Thanks for not being the sibling poster in your response, BTW. "You are wrong." Hurf.)
- freshyill 11y ago
  You are wrong. http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/how-neanderthal-dna-changed-humans-140129.htm http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/how-neanderthal-dn...
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Every couple of rounds of PHD dissertations that notion changes. The biggest support is a skeleton of a child which is believed to be a hybrid of Neanderthals and Homo Sapience but the morphological bone evidence isn't that conclusive. http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-skeleton-provides-evidence-of-interbreeding-with-humans-130327.htm http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-skelet... What i really don't like about that article is about how they phrased it the mDNA wasn't "Neanderthal", it just had markers which are rare in modern humans, some of those marker also appear mapped mDNA of "Neanderthals". mDNA aside general genetic markers is a much weaker theory mostly because we cannot estimate well enough how much of the DNA in question actually came through inter-breeding and how much of it might actually survived from a previous common ancestor, or how many of them are just random mutations that survived through natural selection or cultural selective breeding. Because there have been claims before about that like that the gene for readheads came from Neanderthals but then was discovered that that specific mutation is just naturally occurring for humans and the redhead gene of modern humans isn't the same for Neanderthals or other primates. The 1-4% neanderthal DNA is also a bit well iffy, comparing genomes is very tricky and those comparisons often strip away all the large differences e.g. like humans and chimpanzees only share 99% of the genes when you strip about 2/3rd of the genome. So while there might have been interbreeding there's very little of actual evidence to point to the extent and the cause of it, could've been social interbreeding, could've been pillage and rape, could've been small isolated cases, could've been widespread, but PC gen-Y notions aside the science isn't really clear on on side or the other and it's hard to know if it ever will be able to be.