4 ms·

What you quoted supports his rebuttal, not your claim. You are completely backwards, the trend is away from that. The myth that interbreeding makes them the s

What you quoted supports his rebuttal, not your claim. You are completely backwards, the trend is away from that. The myth that interbreeding makes them the same species was never accurate, but it is completely unused in modern times. For example, the very article that started this discussion saying that giraffes are 4 species not one. We classify them as such based on DNA evidence. The fact that all 4 species can produce fertile offspring when cross breeding is not relevant at all.

Retric 10y ago
The long term definition was more or less 'A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.' This brings up the arguably semantic idea that physical separation is enough even if they are still genetically compatible. So, in theory you can have genetically compatible separate species as soon as they are no longer capable of interbreeding. However, as Humans and Brown bares are both biologically capable of interbreeding and live in such a manner that the do interbreed they don't fit that definition. Temporary barriers are not necessarily enough as they may exchange DNA in the future. PS: Ring species are considered a single species because a mutation can start at one end and given time make it's way around the ring. Thus they are a single pool that can and will exchange DNA.
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  >The long term definition was more or less 'A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.' No, that was one long discredited idea of species. It has not been used in decades. Why are you so insistent on pushing this false claim that brown bears and polar bears are the same species? Look it up, they are not. One is Ursus arctos and the other is Ursus maritimus. There is no ambiguity or dispute.

Retric 10y ago

The long term definition was more or less 'A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.' This brings up the arguably semantic idea that physical separation is enough even if they are still genetically compatible. So, in theory you can have genetically compatible separate species as soon as they are no longer capable of interbreeding. However, as Humans and Brown bares are both biologically capable of interbreeding and live in such a manner that the do interbreed they don't fit that definition. Temporary barriers are not necessarily enough as they may exchange DNA in the future. PS: Ring species are considered a single species because a mutation can start at one end and given time make it's way around the ring. Thus they are a single pool that can and will exchange DNA.

MustardTiger 10y ago
>The long term definition was more or less 'A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.' No, that was one long discredited idea of species. It has not been used in decades. Why are you so insistent on pushing this false claim that brown bears and polar bears are the same species? Look it up, they are not. One is Ursus arctos and the other is Ursus maritimus. There is no ambiguity or dispute.