FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-24-2002, 05:00 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada
Posts: 1,652
Post

Apparently wolfs and dogs ARE the same species.

In 1993, the Smithsonian Institute and the American Society of Mammalogists reclassified the dog as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus). So the Timber wolf (Canis lupus nibulus), the Mackenzie or Tundra wolf (Canis lupus mackenzii), and the dog (Canis lupus familiaris) are all subspecies under the genetic umbrella of the gray wolf.

In other words, a dog is a kind of wolf, not the other way around. There are many websites devoted to the care and breeding of wolf-dog hybrids as well.

Anyone know anything about this?
tgamble is offline  
Old 02-24-2002, 05:03 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada
Posts: 1,652
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Morpho:
<strong>On a serious note: tgamble, good luck trying to define "kind". There's a whole new cretin "science" revolving around just this issue called "baraminology" (LOL). The cretinists are still trying to find some way to twist, distort, bend, fold, spindle, and otherwise mutilate linnean taxonomy to fit the biblical created kinds - which of course is why there has been no actual publication of baraminology to date (except for a few classifications). Not only do they have their work cut out for them to explain the three different reproductive plans of sharks (not counting their nearest relatives skates and rays)for example, but they're trying to find some way to put humans in a completely separate baramin from all other life.
</strong>
Wasn't that attempted before but it didn't work so we ended up with system devised by Carolus Linnaeus?
tgamble is offline  
Old 02-24-2002, 10:22 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ecuador
Posts: 738
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by tgamble:
<strong>Wasn't that attempted before but it didn't work so we ended up with system devised by Carolus Linnaeus?</strong>
Sort of. I haven't really researched the pre-linnaean attempts, but that was the life's work of even some later naturalists like Owen and Sedgewick inter alia. We use the Linnaen system because, for all its faults, it works...
Quetzal is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 05:52 AM   #14
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Posts: 17,432
Post

ah, but the Bible makes no differentiation between insects or fishes, at least not here:
Quote:
Genesis 6
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Maybe in the next translation they should just say Noah brought 2 Eukaryotes and 2 Prokaryotes, and be done with it.
nogods4me is offline  
Old 02-26-2002, 09:58 AM   #15
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2
Lightbulb

I always wondered about what all the animals ate on the ark during the time that they were adrift - wouldn't you think that they would all be eating each other? And what about all the poop - that must have been one stinky boat
mikedaul is offline  
Old 02-26-2002, 10:03 AM   #16
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2
Post

Oh yeah - and another point - I know that there is a debate over if the red wolf is its own species any longer due to hybridization with coyotes. lots of info here: <a href="http://www.nczooredwolf.org/learn/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.nczooredwolf.org/learn/index.html</a>
mikedaul is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:59 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.