Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Giraffes And Frogs Provide More Evidence Of New Species Hidden In Plain Sight
Science Daily ^ | 1-2-2008 | BioMed Central.

Posted on 01/02/2008 7:36:33 PM PST by blam

Giraffes And Frogs Provide More Evidence Of New Species Hidden In Plain Sight

Genetic subdivision in the giraffe based on microsatellites alleles. (Credit: David M Brown et al., Courtesy BMC Biology)

ScienceDaily (Jan. 2, 2008) — Two new articles provide further evidence that we have hugely underestimated the number of species with which we share our planet. Today sophisticated genetic techniques mean that superficially identical animals previously classed as members of a single species, including the frogs and giraffes in these studies, could in fact come from several distinct 'cryptic' species.

In the Upper Amazon, Kathryn Elmer and Stephen Lougheed working at Queen's University, Kingston, Canada teamed up with José Dávila from Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos, Cuidad Real, Spain to investigate the terrestrial leaflitter frog (Eleutherodactylus ockendeni) at 13 locations across Ecuador.

Looking at the frogs' mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, the researchers found three distinct species, which look very much alike. These species have distinct geographic distributions, but these don't correspond to modern landscape barriers. Coupled with phylogenetic analyses, this suggests they diverged before the Ecuadorean Andes arose, in the Miocene period over 5.3 million years ago.

"Our research coupled with other studies suggests that species richness in the upper Amazon is drastically underestimated by current inventories based on morphospecies," say the authors.

And in Africa, an interdisciplinary team from the University of California, Los Angeles, Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo, and the Mpala Research Centre in Kenya has found that there may be more to the giraffe than meets the eye, too.

Their analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA shows at least six genealogically distinct lineages of giraffe in Africa, with little evidence of interbreeding between them. Further divisions within these groups mean that in total the researchers have spotted 11 genetically distinct populations.

"Such extreme genetic subdivision within a large vertebrate with high dispersal capabilities is unprecedented and exceeds that of any other large African mammal," says graduate student David Brown, first author of the study. The researchers estimate that the giraffe populations they surveyed have been genetically distinct for between 0.13 and 1.62 million years. The findings have serious implications for giraffe conservation because some among these subgroups have as few as 100 members, making them highly endangered -- if not yet officially recognised -- species.

Journal articles:

Cryptic diversity and deep divergence in an upper Amazonian frog, Eleutherodactylus ockendeni. Kathryn R Elmer, Jose A Davila and Stephen C Lougheed. BMC Evolutionary Biology (in press)

Extensive Population Genetic Structure in the Giraffe. David M Brown, Rick A Brenneman, Klaus-Peter Koepfli, John P Pollinger, Borja Mila, Nicholas J Georgiadis, Edward E Louis Jr, Gregory F Grether, David K Jacobs and Robert K Wayne. BMC Biology (in press) http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcevolbiol/

Adapted from materials provided by BioMed Central.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: frogs; giraffes; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; hidden; paleontology; species
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last

1 posted on 01/02/2008 7:36:38 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
Their analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA shows at least six genealogically distinct lineages of giraffe in Africa, with little evidence of interbreeding between them.

Interesting, but what is the significance?

I do not see how this constitutes new species.

To me it sounds like a new excuse by the envirowhacos to declare a whole new crop of endangered species and declare whole new swaths of land off limits to development.

This data just shows limited interbreeding of the same species that are separated by distance instead of geographical barriers.

2 posted on 01/02/2008 7:47:31 PM PST by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
could in fact

this suggests they diverged before

suggests

A few definitive statements and the rest of the article is a true statement in the eyes of the naturalist worshiper
3 posted on 01/02/2008 7:59:57 PM PST by Creationist ( Evolution is a faith based science with no proof. Scientist are the prophets, teachers the preacher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
I'm sure I will be parading my ignorance, but ...

The Theory of Evolution says that new species arise from existing species through genetic drift and selection, right?

Every once in awhile, a new frog species will be discovered in Borneo, or giraffes will be found to be multiple species. The consensus seems to always be: New Species! And they were right under our nose all the time! We just never looked there! Or, We just never saw them that way!

Why doesn't anyone make the claim: "A new species seems to have been formed very recently, and we will now add it to the taxonomy"?

There seems to be a consensus that we aren't going to see a new species form in front of our eyes. All the species we find will have been in place for years, and years, and years. But -- of course -- once upon a time they all arose from older species. It just isn't happening now.

Seems odd.

4 posted on 01/02/2008 8:18:51 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (The broken wall, the burning roof and tower. And Agamemnon dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

OK, I wish someone would explain this to me. They say limited interbreeding, which to me would suggest it’s not a distinct species, since as far as I know (and I taught biology) one of the defining characteristics of a species is that they cannot interbreed (and produce fertile offspring) with members of another species.

susie


5 posted on 01/02/2008 8:25:25 PM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
Interesting, but what is the significance? I do not see how this constitutes new species.

Genealogically distinct & don't interbreed. Basically the definition of being separate species. Perhaps calling them "new" species is a misnomer because there's nothing "new" about them, we just didn't know to place them in separate categories before.

This of course calls into question the importance of counting the number of species in the first place, IMHO.

To me it sounds like a new excuse by the envirowhacos to declare a whole new crop of endangered species and declare whole new swaths of land off limits to development.

Perhaps. Actually, I think there's an irony here because the ease with which they find "new" species actually puts the lie to a constant envirowacko refrain: that we are "losing" however-many species per year.

Right? They are always saying that, making sweeping definitive claims on how the "number of species" in the world is supposedly decreasing. Which, supposedly, is automatically bad. Well, to know such a thing, they'd have to have a reasonably accurate count of how many species there are at any given time, right?

Well, obviously they don't. From time to time they find "new" species that they didn't know were separate species. They don't know "how many species" there are, at any given time. Not at all. There could be twice as many species as people think, for all we know.

Just something to remember next time you hear the "we're losing species!!" lament.

This data just shows limited interbreeding of the same species that are separated by distance instead of geographical barriers.

Maybe. Or maybe the interbreeding is so limited that indeed it makes sense to call them different species, because the distance is simply the cause of speciation or near-speciation.

I guess where I'm coming from is, so what? People seem to have a mental image of "species" that is something akin to how they think of "individuals" or "critters". Critters are cute and we want more of them => species are cute and we want more of them? The automatic, subconscious instinctive reaction is always - "more species = good, fewer species = bad". With this mindset it becomes very very important to count the number of "species" at all times, to determine whether these two critter-sets are different "species" or not.

But does anyone stop and explain why it's important in the first place? Whether these groups are indeed separate species or not, they are what they are: separated critter populations that don't interbreed much, and you can't tell them apart.

Big deal if they're "different species". Or not. What difference does it make to anything?

6 posted on 01/02/2008 8:27:31 PM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

bingo!


7 posted on 01/02/2008 8:30:34 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Hey Iowans: the only opinions that matter are the ones in the room voting January 3rd.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

Different species can interbreed and it happens all the time. I keeep snakes. I have a Yellow Anaconda. This is a different species than the Green Anaconda. Yet the two can interbreed.

The same is true of Kingsnakes, Cornsnakes, Milksnakes. They are close, yet different.


8 posted on 01/02/2008 8:37:06 PM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby; brytlea

In the wild.

Lions and tigers also interbreed under artificial coditions but they are different species because they do not interbreed in the wild.

Also, keep in mind that on the way to speciation is diminished fertility. It’s not an on/off switch.


9 posted on 01/02/2008 8:44:59 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

Don’t know anything about snakes... Are the offspring fertile? Like horses and donkeys the offspring is a hybrid (mule) and cannot procreate. My father an old-time farmer (back in the 30’s and 40’s, God rest his soul) told me one time that ocassionally a mule was not infertile. I’m not sure he was correct.


10 posted on 01/02/2008 8:47:55 PM PST by Damifino (The true measure of a man is found in what he would do if he knew no one would ever find out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blam

Well hopefully one of the species will grow a neck long enough not to have to squat to quench their thirst. Which would make their predators a bit unhappy I suppose.


11 posted on 01/02/2008 8:54:15 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Damifino

Offspring are just as fertile. Lots of babies from them.


12 posted on 01/02/2008 8:56:02 PM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
I think the definition of “species” is not whether they can interbreed, or even if the offspring is viable, but whether the offspring can sustain it’s half and half traits over many generations. There are lots of instances of species interbreeding and producing fertile hybrids, but the hybrids only exhibit the “half and half” appearance for one generation. After that first generation they start to gradually assume the appearance of one or the other. It’s almost like a dominant-recessive thing going on. One litter from the mating of two hybrids will have individuals that appear to be all one species, or all the other species, and very few of the individuals will exhibit the hybrid appearance. The next generations of these “hybrids” that don’t look like hybrids anymore have even greater degree of separation. And then suddenly the individuals begin to exhibit a preference for littermates of “like” attributes.

There isn’t a spectrum of genetic attributes. THere is a definite clumping of grouping of two distinct types.

13 posted on 01/02/2008 9:00:25 PM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: blam

Liberals?


14 posted on 01/02/2008 9:05:29 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Damifino
He was correct.

There are recorded and proven instances of mules producing offspring. There are also different kinds of mules. The fertility depends on whether or not the hybrid is a male or a female and which species the father was...was it a male horse and female donkey, or was it a female horse and a male donkey. You wouldn’t think it would matter, but for some reason it does.

Don’t quote me on this, but I’m pretty sure the standard “mule” is a male offspring of male horse mated to a female donkey. Any other combination is usually not called a mule, but some other type of hybrid and is traditionally considered garbage...not useful as a working animal.

15 posted on 01/02/2008 9:07:11 PM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blam
Their analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA shows at least six genealogically distinct lineages of giraffe in Africa, with little evidence of interbreeding between them. Further divisions within these groups mean that in total the researchers have spotted 11 genetically distinct populations.

I wonder what would happen if you used the same analysis on modern humans. Boy could that open up a can of political correctness worms. :)

16 posted on 01/02/2008 9:09:41 PM PST by cpdiii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

“one of the defining characteristics of a species is that they cannot interbreed”

I think you may have taught me. How many species of dogs are there, btw?


17 posted on 01/02/2008 9:16:09 PM PST by CJ Wolf (The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens pay nearly half of everything they earn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
Way back when, when I was learning this stuff the definition of a species was:

Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

In fact, that is the current definition according to dictionary.com. I understand that there are some cases in which the rule is broken (so to speak) such as bison and cattle which can be crossbred and produce fertile offspring. It would appear to me that the definition for the word species has changed.

susie

18 posted on 01/02/2008 9:19:30 PM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blam
The findings have serious implications for giraffe conservation because some among these subgroups have as few as 100 members, making them highly endangered -- if not yet officially recognised -- species.

That means more laws and more money. I'm reminded of the Florida panther, once thought to be a separate species is now known to breed with other panthers.

19 posted on 01/02/2008 9:24:09 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
I’m pretty sure the standard “mule” is a male offspring of male horse mated to a female donkey.

I suspect you are correct. When I was a kid and worked on a neighbor's farm, they bread a pair for a mule. That was the formula. Might have been a coincidence though.

20 posted on 01/02/2008 9:28:40 PM PST by Damifino (The true measure of a man is found in what he would do if he knew no one would ever find out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

Mule is a female horse and male donkey. A hinny is a male horse and female donkey and apparently they are smaller and less easy to get (female donkeys apparently don’t get pregnant by male horses as easily for some reason according to what I read).

A guy who kept his critters where we kept our horses when I was a kid had a jack donkey and kept several shetland pony mares. They had shetland mule babies (very cute).
susie


21 posted on 01/02/2008 9:31:48 PM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf

By the old definition, only one, but by this new definition....many! That’s kind of what got me thinking about it. In fact, I had read somewhere fairly recently that dogs and wolves are really variations of the same species. I expect tho, that it all depends on which expert you talk to. As for me, I am now thoroughly confused.
susie


22 posted on 01/02/2008 9:34:04 PM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
They say limited interbreeding, which to me would suggest it’s not a distinct species, since as far as I know (and I taught biology) one of the defining characteristics of a species is that they cannot interbreed (and produce fertile offspring) with members of another species.

The problem is, inbreeding can go up through genus and into families.

Dogs and wolves are considered separate species, but can freely inbreed.

Even lions and tigers can inbreed and they're considered much further apart than species.

It seems as though the designations are pretty flexible.

23 posted on 01/02/2008 9:52:06 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
Genealogically distinct & don't interbreed. Basically the definition of being separate species.

No it is the definition of being to far away to come in to contact in order to interbreed. To be a separate species the two groups would have to be incapable of producing offspring which these groups clearly are able to do.

Maybe. Or maybe the interbreeding is so limited that indeed it makes sense to call them different species, because the distance is simply the cause of speciation or near-speciation.

Actually scientific evidence exists that argues the exact opposite. Salmon have bred in individual streams for millions of years and yet if you place salmon eggs in to a stream different from its native stream those hatchlings when adults will return to the new stream and mate with the salmon native to that stream. Envirowhacos call them distinct species but they are not.

If millions of years of isolated breeding does not cause evolution to occur what does. Most likely catastrophic events of biblical proportions.

24 posted on 01/02/2008 10:11:03 PM PST by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blam
" some among these subgroups have as few as 100 members, making them highly endangered -- if not yet officially recognised -- species. "

Why do I have a this certain feeling that this is gonna cost me money and freedom?

25 posted on 01/02/2008 11:09:17 PM PST by matthew fuller (Fred D. Thompson / John R. Bolton, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
No it is the definition of being to far away to come in to contact in order to interbreed. To be a separate species the two groups would have to be incapable of producing offspring which these groups clearly are able to do.

You might be right. Like I said, I'm not even sure why it matters per se whether they are "different species", somewhere in a gray in-between zone, or the same species. As this thread has shown, even the term "species" is a somewhat fuzzy human-invented category. It is of little relevance to anything as far as I can see, outside of creating a tree diagram.

I simply wanted to make the point that a lot of people (whether envirowackos or not) have fallen sway to a kind of "species fetish" way of thinking, according to which larger # of species is always better. I think that's silly, for reasons already stated.

26 posted on 01/03/2008 4:08:53 AM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

Sorry, I teach this stuff. The definition of species requires a population that can produce fertile offspring in the wild.


27 posted on 01/03/2008 4:24:35 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: brytlea; CJ Wolf

You’re missing the “in the wild” part. Dogs are domestic animals.


28 posted on 01/03/2008 4:27:48 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: blam
These species have distinct geographic distributions, but these don't correspond to modern landscape barriers.

could be that while related they may not be  different species they could be

*clears throat *

Cousins


 

 

 

 

Meet a frog, who's lived most everywhere,
From Zanzibar to Barclay Square.
But another's only seen the sight.
A frog can see from Brooklyn Heights --
What a crazy pair!

But they're cousins,
Identical cousins all the way.
One pair of matching bookends,
Different as night and day.

Where one adores a minuet,
The Ballet Russes, and crepe suzette,
The other loves to rock and roll,
A hot dog makes her lose control --
What a wild duet!

Still, they're cousins,
Identical cousins and you'll find,
They laugh alike, they walk alike,
At times they even talk alike --

You can lose your mind,
When cousins are two of a kind. 

29 posted on 01/03/2008 4:33:51 AM PST by grjr21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

btt


30 posted on 01/03/2008 5:00:44 AM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Lions and tigers are problematic, (got very interested in the topic when I was teaching biology and we were talking about chromosome numbers but I digress as usual!). However, dogs and wolves apparently ARE the same species:

After having slept together for 14,000 years, wolves and dogs are now joined together in scientific matrimony. Quietly, without fanfare in September 1993, wolves and dogs were recognized as the same species. Per the American Society of Mammalogists' Mammal Species of the World, adhering to the Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Canis lupus is the official species of both dogs and wolves. If you have a 'dog', your dog's classification is Canis lupus familiaris, where familiaris is the subspecies of wolf. If you have a 'wolf', your wolf's classification is Canis lupus X, where X is the subspecies of wolf. If you have a 'wolfdog', your wolfdog's classification is Canis lupus familiaris, according to United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, R.L. Rissler, February 21, 1986.

http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/annd2.htm

I'm not finding a definition of species that doesn't include some form of: taxonomic group whose members can interbreed

I realize that things change rapidly now that they can actually look at DNA but I also think *scientists* are not above using *science* to further their agendas. I have to say that if a group of giraffes can interbreed with another group, they are so alike that no one realized they were not the same, and there are only 100 of them in existence, they would be a subspecies. But, that probably doesn't get funded... ;)

31 posted on 01/03/2008 7:06:10 AM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

You mean it would be about money? Tell me it ain’t so...


32 posted on 01/03/2008 7:23:15 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I knew you’d be shocked!!! ;)
I did some research of my own (ok, I looked on the internet!) several years ago because I got interested in chromosome numbers and interbreeding. I found some really interesting info (did you know that bananas are tetroid—4 sets of chromosomes— and cannot produce viable seeds? They only reproduce from cuttings). But wolves, dogs, coyotes and jackals have the same number of chromosomes, which seems to me indicate the same species. I’m thinking they need to change some of the definitions and maybe invent some new terms (hey someone could probably get a grant for that!)

Oh, and I ran across an article that states that lions and tigers also have the same number of chromosomes, which of course is why they can (but don’t always) produce fertile offspring. You can read it (it’s interesting stuff).

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Genetics-1795/hybrids-sterile.htm#b

susie


33 posted on 01/03/2008 7:33:41 AM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

I knew bananas were grown from cuttings and last I heard there was some concern about the banana crop and food shortages but that’s all I recall.

Someone on a crevo thread sometime back commented that skeletally, tigers and lions were identical so if you were going by fossil remains, you couldn’t tell the difference. The only reason we know they’re different species is that they are alive today and we can see the surface differences. Which really made me wonder if they are. Seems that slight differences in fur length, patterns of markings, and color shouldn’t be enough to designate species. Look at wolves and dogs again, and even the variety within the domesticated dog varieties.


34 posted on 01/03/2008 7:52:06 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I really agree. I think the problem is that when everything was being set up we had no clue about chromosomes. That seems to me the be a much better system. Same number of chromosomes, same species.

susie


35 posted on 01/03/2008 7:59:18 AM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

“Same number of chromosomes, same species.”

Won’t work because chromosomes are not the same as each other. It’s like saying “the same number of coins equals the same amount of money”

Also, two wildly different organisms (say a plant and an animal) can have the same number of chromosomes.

And, just to make things confusing, it is even possible to have differing numbers of chromosomes in one species.


36 posted on 01/03/2008 10:50:53 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

I have to admit I didn’t know that. Can you give me some examples?
susie


37 posted on 01/03/2008 11:13:01 AM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Interesting, I did my own research, and you’re exactly right. Of course I used Wikipedia, they had a list of various chromosome counts for different critters and plants, and a number of things have the same number of chromosomes. So, there goes THAT idea out the window! I learn more interesting info on FR!
susie


38 posted on 01/03/2008 11:23:09 AM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
"Interesting, but what is the significance?"

None whatsoever, unless you're an environmentalist looking to stop a worthwhile project by falsely claiming that a "species" is endangered. These are not separate species, but simply locally adapted "families." You would find far more genetic difference bewtween you and the guy across the street than there is between these animals. (of course you may well be endangered if you don't think politically correct.)

39 posted on 01/03/2008 3:22:24 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
"OK, I wish someone would explain this to me."

Simple. You taught biology, but this is biopolitics ;o)

40 posted on 01/03/2008 3:25:05 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Bird Flu is an example of a new species forming right in front of our microscopes. When the species appears that is transmitted from human to human and kills everybody, that is an evolved species. Those who do not believe in evolution will not be affected of course.


41 posted on 01/03/2008 3:25:50 PM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

All you need for a species is to look different somehow and breed true.


42 posted on 01/03/2008 3:27:30 PM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

The struggle between species “lumpers” and “splitters” goes on (and on, and on. . .).


43 posted on 01/03/2008 3:28:58 PM PST by Hardastarboard (DemocraticUnderground.com is an internet hate site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

LOL
susie


44 posted on 01/04/2008 7:52:40 AM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

So then, each breed of dog is a separate species?
susie


45 posted on 01/04/2008 8:08:10 AM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

Each dog is a different species of the one dog.


46 posted on 01/04/2008 11:02:14 AM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; mamelukesabre
Each dog is a different species of the one dog.

I suppose you really believe that? Or, are you joking?

susie

47 posted on 01/04/2008 11:31:04 AM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

It’s not a matter of belief but of balancing on the fine line between skepticism and enthusiasm.


48 posted on 01/04/2008 11:38:03 AM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Hmmmm.... did you think that up yourself?
susie


49 posted on 01/04/2008 11:48:07 AM PST by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

No, actually I found it in an old, dusty and forgotten book.


50 posted on 01/04/2008 11:51:18 AM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson