Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
The horse and donkey are still seen as viable species from the species definition that species are reproductively isolated. The reason is the importance is not on whether or not two species can create a hybrid, but whether or not they can create a hybrid which itself is capable of sexual reproduction. A mule isn't, so horses and donkeys are generally seen as viable species according to the sex-definition. 
About chromosomes and using those, a lot of species are species simply because they were described back in the days when they had no way of checking this. Today we can check it, but if we rearranged species by this criteria, humans would be the same species as tobacco. Silkworm and elephants would also be the same! |
That is why I mentioned both similarity of the aminal and the number of chromosomes. I didn't say just the number of chromosomes alone. It's blatantly obivious that you examples (humans & tobacco; silkworms and elephants) aren't even remotely close. I meant similarity of the aminal and the number of chromosomes for donkeys and horses. Yes from a standpoint from of a pedestrian observer they might seem like the same species, but through scientific means we know they have different amount chromosomes. A horse has 64 chromosomes and the donkey has 62 chromosomes. Mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes. Mules and hinnies together don't not have their own species classification but it's combined [Equus caballus + Equus asinus] right?
I don't know if it is the best idea to divided a living creature into seven ranks:
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. The number Seven is generally prefered because of the history of it being known as a mystical or magical number. Having such a system seems like science is relying on Metaphysics rather then a rational scientific schema. If Evolution is to be true such a neat system of diving life into 7 ranks seems to be a bit of an archaic notion. Shouldn't some species have 5 ranks and other species 500 ranks depending on how many stages it took of evolving into different animals to suddenly morph into it's present form?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
They don't really throw a cogwheel in the machinery of science because cabbits and cameloparduses only ever existed in people's imagination. Cats and rabbits and camels and leopards are not capable of hybridizing together. They're intriguing fantasy animals, but that's it I'm afraid. Where did you learn about them?
|
While looking up information which was something you told us not to do in the opening post, I came across a fact I found out interestinly enough that a Camelopardus (which is a modern constellation) is named after the ancient latin word for Giraffe, a Camelopard. Infact a Giraffe's binomial name is [Giraffa
camelopardalis.] You said it only exists in people's imagination. I will not celebrate the fact that you are completely wrong that a Camelopard isn't real, I'll compromise you're only 50% wrong.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.
|
"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards