Biologists clearly continue to include the two types of dogs within the same species out of modesty. But with creationists fighting evolution education throughout the country, the time calls for bold action. Let’s reassign the trembling, bug-eyed Chihuahua to its own species. Voilà, humans have observed speciation. We could call the new dog C. nervosis. Or C. cantseetheparadis. Or C. canyoupresstwelveformepleasis. Amazingly, right now Chihuahuas are still considered C. lupus familiaris, a subspecies of wolf. And calling a Chihuahua a wolf is like calling someone at the Discovery Institute a scientist.
Note: This story was originally published with the title, "An Immodest Proposal".
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
71 Comments
Add CommentThe vast majority of biologists, except the molecular DNA types, do not consider the domestic dog, Canis familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus. This name change and lumping of the two was proposed by Wilson and Reeder in the checkist Mammals of the World, and has subsequently been picked up by those who don't seriously consider the implications of arbitrarily "wipeing out" a species on paper. Recently, the subspecies designation is becoming more frequent in the literature, especially in genetics. However, this taxonomic/nomenclatural change was not justified beyond the fact that dogs and wolves are closest relatives, quoting usupported statements that this close relationship means the dog descended directly from the gray wolf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe two species do not, except in rare cases in highly human-disturbed environments, cross under natural circumstances and have remained separate evolutionary lines for at least 40,000 - 125,000 years, depending on which mtDNA dating system one uses (and there are serious questions about the validity of each method). A subspecies was defined by Ernst Mayr as a morphologically distinctive population separated from the main species by the physical barriers the article mentions, with the understanding that if the barrier was lifted the two populations would once agin merge into one because there are no behavioral or genetic reproductive barriers. In fact, this is what happens in areas with long-term free-ranging dogs: the various types converge and adapt to the scavenger niche by reverting to the general dingo-like dog morphology. Carolina dogs are one example.
All species in the genus Canis can produce fertile hybrids, but in Nature, dogs and wolves have behavioral barriers to hybridization, just as wolves, coyotes, and jackals do. The "species concept " is variously defined for differing purposes. No one defnition serves all types of species for all purposes of identification. However, occassional natural hybridization between perfectly good species does not under any definition make them the "same" species. My hypothesis is that the dog and wolf descended from a recent common ancestor, and that the dog is a natural generalist predator/scavenger species (similar to a coyote or jackal in size and habits), that was domesticated after it chose to adopt the newly available niche of scavenger-around-humans, a niche wolves are not suited for because of their large size and adaptation as hypercarnivores.
Janice Koler-Matznic
Good thing I wasn't drinking anything by the end of this article. I couldn't stop laughing. Oh...and it was enlightening also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy favourite way to parody creationist arguments is to ask why creationists believe in growth. You never SEE growth, do you? Has anyone actually observed a child in the process of getting bigger? Of course not! And yet so-called scientists ask us to put all our faith in this non-detectable process which nobody has ever seen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe truth about so-called 'growth' is that God takes away your children every night and substitutes slightly larger, smarter ones. Isn't that a much simpler and more satisfactory explanation than this hypothetical 'growth' process?
The problem is, I worry that some creationists might actually come to believe it...
Um, I've got a minor problem with the conclusions and assumptions the author of this article makes... He says, at the very end, that scientists classify all dogs together still because of "modesty"; while this amusing and conceptually silly, it completely ignores the fact that all dogs are classified together because they all are indeed dogs. No "modesty" (or other feigned virtue or moral consideration) issue is even applicable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe argument that this sort of change should be made because the science of evolution is under attack by creationists makes the argument for evolution appear weak and indefensible. Let's not act like ostriches and hide from a challenge and defend the science with logic and reason - and let the best theory (the one either proven, or with the best supporting evidence at the time; and this will be a round-and-round kind of issue that will crop up over and over until a final definitive proof is found) win.
To follow on and sum up, simply making a change because it's convenient or because it would suddenly create potential problems for those of opposing views (if only by artificially crafted barriers) is effectively fraudulent. It does not "prove" speciation anymore than painting a white stripe down a black cat makes it a skunk - no matter what you choose to call this new white-striped cat.
The problem for the theory of evolution is that we've got NO solid proof of it to point to in order to silence critics and naysayers. We've got "missing link" fossils, but those are insufficient because they fail to prove anything (other than a creature with that skeletal system lived, and died, long long ago). They don't prove that the creature had any offspring, or if these assumed offspring survived to have offspring of their own, and a fossil certainly fails in proving that these assumed offspring were some other type of animal than the parent whose remains we have today.
We have never seen a naturally occurring instance where any living animal has given birth to an offspring that is different than the parent animal. No chimp or ape has suddenly given birth to anything other than a chimp or ape; no dog has given birth to anything other than a dog... It just hasn't happened (naturally, I understand scientists have "created" incidents to prove it could happen, in theory, but these all use (to the best of my knowledge) properly procreated creatures which are then inserted (as fertilized eggs) into a different type go creature to be carried to term). THAT would be the ONLY way to prove speciation scientifically.
CinnamonPixie: firstly, it was a joke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly, you write:
"The problem for the theory of evolution is that we've got NO solid proof of it to point to in order to silence critics and naysayers."
The fossils are, in fact, perfectly adequate to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, but we also have the biogeography and, more importantly, the molecular genetics.
Thirdly, you write:
"We have never seen a naturally occurring instance where any living animal has given birth to an offspring that is different than the parent animal. [...] THAT would be the ONLY way to prove speciation scientifically."
That's not how speciation works. It actually works like this: two populations become separated somehow, and after a long period of separation, interbreeding between the two populations becomes impossible due to accumulated genetic differences between the two populations (brought about by natural selection or genetic drift).
You seem to think that speciation requires an event such as a dog giving birth to a cat.
The problem here is that the concept of a species is an artificial one, hence why it is so hard to define. This is exemplified by the existence of "ring species", which occur where a species migrates around two sides of a physical obstacle, only for the two migrations to meet each other on the other side. In the case of the Larus gulls, all the different subspecies of gull around the arctic circle are capable of interbreeding with their immediate neighbours, except for the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black Backed Gull, i.e. the two ends of the migration that met each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me that the same thing is true of dogs. Yes, a Chihuahua may not be able to mate with a mastiff, but it could mate with a Dachshund, which could mate with a Labrador etc. etc. until we get to the Mastif. Does this mean that the Chihuahua and the Mastif cen be considered different species? In my opinion the difficulty arises because we are asking the wrong sort of question. This is an example of where the artificial idea of a species breaks down and is no longer useful.
Also, @CinnamonPixie: Firstly, nobody has ever said that speciation in animals would involve a parent giving birth to a child that is so different it would constitute a different species. Speciation happens because of small changes that build up over time in seperated populations. Given that these changes only need to be very small, it would be more accurate to say that we have never seen a naturally occurring instance where any living animal has given birth to an offspring that is NOT different to the parent animal. The only instance where parents give birth to identical children is artificial cloning.
Secondly, we actually do have some well documented cases of speciation going on right now that we can observe first hand, including the apple maggot fly and sticklebacks diverging in the great lakes. In plants, we even have an example of a parent giving rise of an offspring of a new species, in the case of Spartina grasses.
Does the term "creationist" mean "christian that doesn't believe in evolution" now? The majority of us do. Perhaps a better term could be applied to idiots like Behe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSplit the dog species into many different species, and you'll have to do the same with humans... For the same reason they do it with two slugs living on different sides of a river.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou'll have to do it for all the "races", which are the same as "breeds" in dogs.
Then you'll have to add several more for the GLTD people -- You can NEVER leave them out of anything. "Out in the world, however, it doesnt happenshe hates his smell, his song, his mating dance."
Don't forget the Crypts and the Bloods, because "there is some kind of reproductive barrier between them."
Starting to sound stupid yet? I can continue 'ad absurdum' if you would like.
How about the Cubs / White Sox barrier? "I'd rather have a sister in a whore house than a brother-in-law who is a Cubs fan" is the standard saying.
At least you met your deadline, and gave credit to the man who did your thinking for you.
A couple of arguments to make...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Under such pretenses should the differences in the human populations of race and ethnicities also be redefined so that asian, african, caucasian are then separate species?
There are a number of differences, and just like the dog family. They can be merged down to a common "mutt" so to say.
2. You fail to understand the argument the creationists hold too. Most are not arguing that there is adaptian within species. They often accept that as part of God's inherent design and the effects of the Fall. The argument they make is each animal after it's kind. Most view dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc all of one kind. The argument is that canine kind is not going to generate a feline be it housecat, tiger, or cougar.
We take the nutjobs seriously because they like to make a lot of noise that makes them seem like a majority and then they put themselves in positions to determine how we can educate our children. Without that behind them, they'd have been forgotten long ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>Call them what you will, these people should be taken no more seriously than my two kids that think Santa is real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAah, but almost all people stop believing in Santa while many don't stop believing in Jesus. Why? Something I never understood.
"It's this simple: If you don't think evolution is true, you're a moron. Crackpot. Doofus. Wierdo. Call them what you will, these people should be taken no more seriously than my two kids that think Santa is real."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about the gospel of natural selection as the sole mechanism of evolution? Are atheists or agnostics who believe in evolution but question this dogma morons, crackpots, and weirdos? If so, are you able to discuss that without resorting to name calling?
Nobody who knows what the evolution means to biologists (changes in gene frequency over time) thinks natural selection is the sole mechanism. Genetic drift, people!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistheSaj proposes, "You fail to understand the argument the creationists hold too. Most are not arguing that there is adaptian within species. ... The argument is that canine kind is not going to generate a feline be it housecat, tiger, or cougar."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA dog will not become a cat? That would be a change within an order. That is to say a change of species, genus, and family. Far beyond the accepting of adaptation within a species.
Two animals of the same genus but different species would be an Asian elephant and an African elephant.
To say that no species becomes another is to say that these two species are not from a common ancestor.
My comment was in reference to an individual choosing to ignore the vast mountains of data supporting evolution. As far as the mechanisms of evolution, what's your problem? A little name calling get you all in a dither? Certainly no religious person has ever used pejorative terms about others, especially outside their "flock."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it's time for religious folks to be treated like adults, even though their beliefs are childish and immature. I think they need to get over trying to force their beliefs down the throats of others. The Baptists were at my door a weekend or two ago. Have you ever had a Darwinian show up on your front porch?
If your delicate eyes are stung by three of the lamest slang words for 'stupid', and that's all you can fixate on, you better disconnect from the Internet before you're scarred for life by what else you might find.
Unfortunately for the author - I imagine a chihuahua could mate with a mastiff, growing up we had an english mastiff that my parents refused to spay, and when she would go into heat she would frequently escape down town in the small town I lived in. Once we caught her laying on the ground with her tail in the air as a daschund mounted her - thankfully we were able to to disentangle them before she got pregnant - those would have been unfortunate puppies!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If your delicate eyes are stung by three of the lamest slang words for 'stupid', and that's all you can fixate on, you better disconnect from the Internet before you're scarred for life by what else you might find."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is you completely weaken you argument by name-calling and it adds nothing to discourse and only inflames and reinforces the position of the fanatics. Dawkins does this all the time and he just gives atheists a bad name with reasonable people, whether they believe in god or not.
But hey, feel free to continue bashing all those who don't agree with as morons and an idiots. That puts in roughly the same category as those religious fanatics who reduce all those who don't believe in god as "Godless liberals". You're just as intolerant as those you paint as intolerant. Have fun!
I am a creationist and I thought the article was humorous. It pokes fun at the difficulties with all the competing definitions for "species".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, CinnamonPixie. First I got to laugh at the article and its humorous ending, then I got to laugh at your classic, ignorant creationist comments. Do yourself a favor and get some education.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHEY ! Wait a minute! People don't think I'm real?? You got presents from me didn't you?? That's more proof than god ever gave you, eh? So believe in me and forget that other nonsense. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you to a point. I don't like calling people names, or making others feel bad. If I have, I hereby apologize. And one thing I don't do well some times is have patience with others. Again, sumimasen deshita.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut we can all point at examples writ large of what happens when religion reigns unchecked.
So lately I'm more cranky than usual because I'm just so tired of it all. Religion has brought the world to the point it is at now. I would like for us all to try something new, because it's not working so hot right now.
Googling around, it seems that Answers in Genesis published an article on this same topic back in 2003:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/poodles.asp
Interestingly enough, the author of that article takes the position that wolves, dingos and poodles are variations on the base kind of critter.
So if Answers in Genesis (one of the more extreme Creationist groups) is proclaiming the descent of wolves and poodles from a common ancestor, then who does Scientific American think they are arguing against?
Seems like a straw man of an article to me. Yes, Creationism can fall down on a number of points, but you're putting words into their mouths. Do you writers even check your sources, or listen to those who you write against? You mock the idea of someone at the Discovery Institute actually being a scientist -- is it time to start mocking the idea of someone at Scientific American actually being a journalist?
Dover proved beyond a shadow of doubt to any intelligent being, that ID has nothing to do with science. There are NO scientists at the Discovery Institute. Not Behe. Not nobody nohow. When you start with a BELIEF and then interpret any observations made so they fall in line with that belief, you are not doing science. When they stacked volume after volume of evidence in front of Behe and he said it was still not enough, he made a complete asswipe of himself and of every creationist in the land. Believe in Santa. At least you have a shot at presents from me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis articled is great. Picking bones about the scientific definition of species is a bit silly (by the commentators). If you have been involved in zoology/biology/<genitics for any length of time you would notice that scientific names and what constitutes a species changes as more research is done and scientific understanding uh, evolves. With that in mind just remember creationists are basically people who can't or wont spend 5 minutes to learn some science and should be dismissed regardless of any words that come out of their mouth. Their whole goal is to basically trick stupid people before their attention span runs out and they stop listing to scientists try to explain the facts of evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: theSaj...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"2. You fail to understand the argument the creationists hold too. "
Oh we totally understand the argument. It's just wrong. And as there is no proof of god, an inherent design, or the Fall, arguing about it is like picking over the fine points of a unicorn's anatomy. Making it up as you go along is not science.
By the way. If a dog ever did birth a house cat, tiger, or cougar, that would argue profoundly for something besides evolution.
And TDRogers...it was sounding stupid from the gitgo. Homosexuality is common among animals, and has nothing to do with a difference in species, and Shakespeare took care of your Blood and Crypts argument several hundred years ago with Romeo and Juliet.
The example I like is the bottlenose dolphin and the false killer whale -- known to be close relatives, sure, but anatomically very different. Anyone looking at palentological evidence in the absence of genetics would assume they were different species. The FKW is much larger, has a different skull shape and a different number of teeth...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut when they are in the same tank in captivity, something, umm, magical happens.
The resulting offspring looks like a stubby gigantic bottlenose dolphin and it's pretty much a 50% cross between the two in every trait. Oh, and it's also *fertile* and capable of having offspring of its own (http://gohawaii.about.com/od/oahuactivities/a/wholphin.htm).
Which goes to the point, what is speciation? It's one of those terms that needs to be defined carefully, and the creationist argument rarely does so. If we're going to define species strictly by ability & willingness to reproduce, that's going to give us a very limited and difficult-to-test definition. And it leaves out asexual reproduction entirely.
<cite>"Creationists argue that speciation has never been seen." </cite>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat was low. Really low. Here's a quote:
"But CMI [Creation Ministries International] does not deny speciationin fact, it is an important part of creationist biology"
If you're going to argue against the creationists, read their articles and understand them first. http://creation.com/response-to-pbs/nova-evolution-series-episode-1-darwins-dangerous-idea#kinds
HanClinto said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Interestingly enough, the author of that article takes the position that wolves, dingos and poodles are variations on the base kind of critter. "
You need to read the creationist agenda more carefully. The reason creationists are willing to admit that some animals are descended from "original forms" is so they can argue that the Ark was capable of holding two of every animal. No, I'm not kidding. They claim that every modern animal is descended from these base forms that were carried on the Ark. That's the only kind of descent from common ancestors that they are willing to acknowledge.
Just so folks don't think I'm making this up, here's the direct reference to "Answers in Genesis":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/two-of-every-kind
The author argues, as have many Biblical scholars, that a small number of divinely created animals were loaded aboard the Ark -- the base "kinds" -- and after debarkation they differentiated rapidly into the hundreds of thousands of recognizable species we see today. In other words, the Biblical account of "two of every kind" did not refer to species, but to a sort of God-engineered superspecies.
The common claim that "we have no modern examples of speciation" is based on the belief that God created these original kinds from divine stock, and their subsequent differentiation into species was likewise guided by His hand into the perfect balance of species that we see today.
Consequently, to observe macroscopic species differentiation would be a denial of faith in His process.
Etc. But I hardly need to pick apart the argument to show how unscientific it is. Just go back to "Answers in Genesis":
"Scoffing isn’t going to stop, no matter how eloquently we explain the Ark account, because ultimately, the Bible must be accepted by faith, not by sight. Those without faith just can’t understand."
Well, there you go. There isn't even a pretense at a naturalistic argument.
RR
Perhaps the female offspring could be called Mi-wow-wows and the male Hoo-aaaa-stiffies!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's interesting that many casperites now accept micro evolution. Unfortunately (for them) as soon as they do that, they have opened the door for speciation, which is nothing more or less than the accumulation of small (micro) changes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've often thought that it would be fun to research all the odd mutations that have been documented in dogs, and then Photoshop them onto a Chihuahua. The result would represent the expression of genetic variation THAT ALREADY EXISTS within a nominally single species, simply brought together in one individual. The point would be to see how close we could get it to resemble a lizard or a rat. I have every confidence in breeders and human whimsy to go beyond that in the near future and create the first ratchua.
Google "ring species", you doofus!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoogle "ring species", you doofus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI seem to recall a biologist friend of mine who mentioned some dry lakes, where the fishy-wormy inhabitants had originally, observedly, been of the same species. But, after separation due to drought, for just few years (maybe it was decades), they had diverged enough to no longer being able to interbreed. His point was: yes, we have in fact observed speciation. Directly, not just theoretically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(unfortunately, I have no documentation I can point to ...maybe another biologist here does have such information)
One of the best books I've found that documents evolutionary adaptation (presumably leading to speciation) is The Beak of the Finch by Johnathon Weiner (it's a must-read). I used to enjoy discussing evolution with the Jehovah Witnesses. It turns out they accept that the earth is 4.5-ish billion years old, and that there can be some change within species (which we would define as evolution). Their point is that these changes don't create a different "kind" of animal. The J.H.'s aren't real clear on how they define what a "kind" is, but they have an interesting point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin didn’t know about genetic mutation and he admitted to having no explanation re: the mechanism for how higher orders of animals came to exist. His theory was about how different species within a genus (such as finches of the Galapagos or the 300,000 species of beetle within the Order Coleoptera) could have developed within an isolated environment.
If the J.H.'s (and other religious types) would sincerely and honestly study the principles of evolution (which include adaptation & natural selection in addition to mutation) they might discover that they don't really have much of a beef with it (just as they have come to accept that the earth really could be 4.5-ish byo). They might even come to understand that science doesn't address the issue of whether God created all the different lifeforms on earth (past & present). It doesn't really matter to science whether God exists or not. If God exists, that's fine. Science is just interested in understanding how he/she/it did it. Science itself is not a threat to religion. It's only a threat to (some) religious people's belief systems.
Also, it should be better understood that Darwinian evolution is incomplete. Again, Darwin did not know anything about genetic mutation, nor did he conceive of the concept of punctuated equilibrium. I suspect we still don't have a complete theory of evolution. My current definition is: Evolution is the manifestation of infinite variety of biological and physical elements in dynamic equilibrium.
Commodianus
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Does the term "creationist" mean "christian that doesn't believe in evolution" now?"
No, and to the best of my knowledge it never has, nor is it ever likely to. There are sufficient Islamic creationists (who, comically, share spelling mistakes and logical errors with fundamentalist christian creationists who would normally want yo see them and their co-religionists crucified and/ or incinerated) to render the question moot. There are, I am told, creationist Jews. To leaven the mix, there are non-monotheist Hindu creationists (different creation story ; same creationist claptrap, including the same spelling mistakes and logical errors)
Creationism is all to do with fundamentalism blinding one to the influence of evidence, and nothing to do with the religion that your grandparents chose to make your parents inflict on their children.
That is why I would encourage creationists to also discard the evidence of science and to stick their fingers into mains electrical sockets, then play 'chicken' with a 40-tonne truck ; both of these also require ignoring the relevant evidence.
What biological process would prevent the two separated species from producing viable offspring?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember just about spewing my coffee once while listening to a radio station's classifieds program. The item? 'Free to a good home: 3 Rottweiler Chihuahua mix pups.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjamnastic: "If you're going to argue against the creationists, read their articles and understand them first."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdvice which, though sound in principle, invites hazard. A while back I boldly went to the creationists' flagship website Answers in Genesis for just this purpose. It was a sobering experience. After just a few articles I began to feel like my brain was taking on the consistency of badly-set jello. The most pressing question which came to mind was: 'how in the world is it possible for apparently walking-around-sane folks actually to seriously swallow such utter, unmitigated garbage? The next question was more of a reflection along the lines of: 'but what does any of this have to do with true spirituality?'
Because in all the time that I have debated them on the Internet, the thing that strikes me about the creationist mindset is not so much the folly of rejecting a body of human knowledge which already has been gained, but the sheer lack of any apparent deep spiritual values. Creationists, I have determined, are not actually truly religious in any sense that normally relates to the term. Creationism is not so much a fringe minority offshoot of Christianity (or some other religion, because right here on SciAm I have encountered both Buddhist and Islamic creationists), as it is more an aberration of the mind. In this it allies itself with true extremist fundamentalism, whether that fundamentalism takes on a religious form or some other gestalt.
RickRussellTX - Thanks for the link. I am going to peruse some more of their "articles" (or rather sales ads written for those with a 2nd grade understanding of science). I read the article by TC Woods. While every scientist certainly has a built in bias towards his/her work, the really gifted always ask the most objective questions of his or her own work. I loved this,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Over the past decade, I have worked to develop new methods of studying created kinds using statistics. This research is still very new and preliminary, but a pattern is beginning to emerge."
I have NEVER read a paper where a "scientist" claimed that a pattern was "starting" to emerge. That in and of itself is ridiculous and is only written to try and convince the ignorant of some ethereal relevance to something.
In real research, you also will not see a scientist referencing his or her own work as a proof, but only as reference for data or supporting work. In the article Woods says, "There is evidence that the camel, horse, cat, dog, penguin, and iguana families are each a created kind." The notation at the end of the sentence references his own book. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps his book contains evidence that has passed a thorough review by technical experts. But a self reference of this form is not only malapropos, but in my opinion demonstrates how myopically driven TC Woods is to validate his own work.
The other thing I love is "the study of created kinds" as if created kinds were some accepted scientific classification. This kind of drivel vomited upon the ignorant by people like TC Woods is crap. It is just as a previous poster inferred, they spend invaluable efforts and resources hand-picking data that support their beliefs.
"Those without faith just cant understand." Thanks again for the post.
After a while conservatives and liberals will be different species because we will refuse to mate with each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter a while conservatives and liberals will become different species because we will refuse to mate with each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeware Cosmic Intervention!!!, conservatives and liberals will refuse to mate with each other but with artificial insemination, their offspring would be Rotwawa's or Chiwylers. Creationists are aptly named as they create their own "realities". They don't need evidence, and since their GAWD made the rules, "HE" doesn't need to play by those rules. They FEAR science because science ignores them. The creationists are powerless to stop science. The young scientist Dorothy, with her dog Todo (which means 'all' or 'everything' in Spanish) has continued to crash into the creationist's world, squishing their witches or melting them with logic (why would a witch keep buckets of water around if they were deadly to her?). Todo will NOT shut up and shows us that their wizard is all smoke and mirrors, his only escape is to use hot air. Why did their GAWD make dinosaurs? He can't make mistakes, so was he just playing around? Good thing he turned them into fossils (just to test us scientists? or the faith of faithful?) as what would poor Noah have done with them. We will never find the ark, the termites would have eaten it if Noah didn't use it for fire wood... and he only took the animals two by two, what did all the plants do? float? With problems like these to explain, or worse, have to accept on faith as the answers are not in their how many times revised, edited, and translated word(s) of GAWD... I don't mind their "arguments" especially when posted here. Meanwhile, back in Kansas, Dorothy has recovered from a nasty concussion, and is reading about marmosets with jellyfish genes that they are passing on to their babies that now glow in the dark(black light). This MUST be day eight, their GAWD having rested on the seventh day... What would I give to be able to click my heals to return to my "no place like home".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisoops, I need to click my heels THREE times. My spelling is gawd-awful. Luk wat hookt on foniks did 4 me. Oh yeah, dog evolution, if Noah took only two dogs, did he take a Chihuahua as it wouldn't take up as much space? Oh, yeah, OLD world "species"... OK, so which dogs did he take with him?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishum...I thought chihuahuas and several other small shaky dogs were actually rats.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfact checks needed on all this.
EVOLUTION IS A FRAUD!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo not let the left liberal media lead you all down this path to satan! There is absolutely no hard proof that these abominations ever existed. It is all part of the liberal conspiracy to lead our country from the path of righteousness to the sinful path of athedarwinism. My pastor, Rick Warren, has scientific proof that the earth was created exactly 10,424 years ago by THE CREATOR. Anyone who believes in this speciation mumbo jumbo is a satanist going to hell. We did not come from those stinking apes. You should all be ashamed of what you are doing to our children! The only science book I need is THE BIBLE. All the answers you need are in that book. Who do you think you are, spreading your filth among the intranets? I sincerely hope this is just a test from HIM to test the faith of the true believers. I am praying for all of your souls.
-R...creationist/heterosexual/wichita, kansas school board president/bookburner
CinnamonPixie: it completely ignores the fact that all dogs are classified together because they all are indeed dogs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCinnamon, this is one of the funniest lines I've seen on the interwebs all year. If you had meant to be funny, I'd say you're a genius. As it is...
At the risk of spelling it out too much: ask yourself why dogs are "indeed dogs?" Isn't it because we've classified them together?
I notice less and lesser blog comments here of the creationist flavor. I think they're isolating their population under a tock somewhere, devolving into proto-sumerian mythological figures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas far as the article goes-> has artificial means ever produced a viable new species? I'd like to see what a million bucks, a couple white coats, and about 10 billion moths or flies: could come up with.
While ID folks may hide from the Bible, I don't think it's necessary. Dogs are members of a kind. The common descent of dogs from dogs doesn't contradict genetics, your examples, or the Bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those who would care to search for it, the Bible has a tremendous amount to say about genetics, centuries before the science of genetics even existed.
Lets face reality, guys, scientists and science magazines now have a commitment to the unsustainable beliefs" of naturalism and raw materialism (a kind of materialism mind madness), to the point of philosophical absurdity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile naturalism is deemed to be the sole explanation ever allowed to explain the natural world, all the scientist in the world cannot even remotely establish that the material world is all that exists, or all that can ever exist. Nor can the whole scientific establishment combined prove that God does not exist, and cannot exist, and had no role to play in creation. Attempting to define all of reality purely in naturalistic terms is to live in denial. The scientific community must eventually face the reality that naturalism has definite limits, beyond which there will always be ongoing mysteries.
Science ultimately rests on phenomena that have no naturalistic answer, and probably never will have. Scientists dont have the foggiest naturalistic notion were the mathematical regularity in the universe came from, nor the cosmological constants, nor even the laws of nature. And while energy and matter are the ingredients on which science functions, no scientist even remotely knows what energy or matter ultimately are.
Then we have scientisms loopy logic. We have natural law and material processes alone deemed to define what is science. However, the gatekeeper itself, natural law, has no naturalistic answer, and may never have. This is rather like appointing an unidentified alien to guard planet earth from all other unidentified aliens, particularly God.
All of science is belief based, and tentative. Science starts with beliefs (a hypothesis); operates on the unsustainable belief of philosophical naturalism and materialism. And ultimately finishes on theoretical beliefs regarding the ultimate origin and nature life, matter and the universe. God is specifically excluded as an explanation, yet speculative notions like String and M-Theory etc now dominate science. Even though they have no verifiable empirical basis and border on science fiction rather than science. Indeed, as stated by David gross, one of the founders of string theory, we dont know what we are talking about. (BBC Focus, 2008)
We have the bazaar situation where the entire scientific community is arguing against the concept of Intelligent Design, the reality that the universe clearly manifests intelligence, and can be intelligently understood. The only reason we can apply logic, reason, predictability, regularity and intelligence to science is because we live in a universe that clearly manifests such qualities. This reality is the foundation stone on which all of science operates. And to deny this reality is to saw off the limb that science is sitting on, as actually occurred at Dover.
Wake up guys! Such is the vast complexity of life that a bunch of chimps would have more chance of planning and building CERN, than luck, chance and blind mindless natural selection would have in producing even the simplest living cell. An intelligent effect always demands an intelligent cause. If you have trouble with that concept, try removing all the intelligent workers from all the factories in the US and see what happens, or try removing your wife from the kitchen, and wait for dinner to randomly evolve.
Lets face it, where would luck, chance and natural selection get the broad perspective to evolve different life forms at different rates, in different ways, at different times, or not at all (stasis), to ultimately produce a finely balanced environment and co-dependent Eco-systems. Such an accomplishment would necessitate all the attributes and perspective of deity.
The bottom line is that a dependent dying universe running down towards heat death and maximum entropy will has nothing to wind itself up with and thus necessitates a non-dependent first cause that is non-dependent and self existing. The only logical alternative is an infinite regression of dependent causes, none of which ever has the capability to bring itself into existence, and thus we have no basis for existence. And we wouldnt be having this conversation.
In short, God is both a philosophical and scientific necessity, and needs to be an option considered in science education as an alternative to the current religion of philosophical naturalism and atheism.
Wow. This has been elucidating. I find the anti-science comments to be evidence of an alternate reality. Regarding the article, thanks to the author for the humorous discussion on speciation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYer right ehrich... Without mandatory public schools, the unionized brainwashed socialist psychopaths who work there, Progressive philosophy would have died in the early 20th century... <sigh> Hopefully, at some point in the future we can "move-on". But, we have to live in the times we actually do, not the times we hope to get to >;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have lots of examples where a living animal gives birth to a creature that is different to itself. I am taller than both of my parents - that is different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think that evolution means that a chimp like animal once gave birth to a perfectly formed human baby, then I am not surprised you have issues with evolution. Although at times evolution can occur quite fast on a geological timescale, in a single generation the changes are all quite small.
Please please try to understand the theory you are criticising.
One of the things that make a species is the inability to produce viable offspring. Different dog shapes could very well make interbreeding impossible, like a dachshund and a great dane. So I can imagine a successful argument that they are different species - even if their sperm and egg could produce a viable offspring, that wouldn't happen if the dogs had to do it themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this:D actually, yesmurs, they're a hybrid of rats and poodles. Hybrids who can breed!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis itself , of course, is extremely creepy and presents a number of problems with the idea of speciation.......
Do you think creationists and evolutionists should also be considered separate species ( using the criteria given in this article) ? After all, the barriers to them breeding would be substantial, quite possibly insurmountable.
although, then again, if they did interbreed, maybe the rest of us wouldn't have to listen to all this dogma from both sides.
Evolutionists:science and logic aren't necessarily the most psychologically valid and useful ways to understand the world. If somebody believes a green nine foot rabbit called Alphonse who lives in their garage determines their fate and happiness, and believing in said rabbit gave them peace of mind and was otherwise beneficial, why should you try to deprive them of this belief? It has nothing to do with you!
Also, half the time evolutionist material it isn't any more scientifically sound than the creationist dogma . You should know better! Stop it right now or I'll be forced to take away your lab equipment!
Creationists: If you're going to try and convert people to your religion, you'd be better off using spiritual and religious experience rather than science. People without religious faith and a grounding in your tradition won't find the assumptions underlying your arguments remotely plausible. On the other hand, science is almost useless at dealing with religious and spiritual matters.
Most people's willingness to accept evolution is faith based, since few people have the time or inclination to examine the arguments and evidence for themselves. Evolutionists are almost as prone to say frequently say illogical and dogmatic things as creationists, and sometimes even the most passionate evolutionists haven't considered their views from an impartial standpoint. Despite this, evolution is a lot more logical than creationism if you don't have grounding and belief in a Judeo-christian religion.
Stop trying to alter other folk's world views, people! You'll never succeed and it's boring for poor people like me who are forced to listen to all this stupid debate again and again.
Yes, I realise that this post is illogical , judgmental and an attempt to alter people's viewpoint. AND it's poorly written! However, I once had to listen to both a 2 hour presentation on creationism AND a 1 hour doco by Richard Dawkins on why religions are evil. You people owe me!
"Under such pretenses should the differences in the human populations of race and ethnicities also be redefined so that asian, african, caucasian are then separate species?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it is purely political reason - Political important to consider all people one specie to prevent racism, but it also important to consider small variations of animals different species to be able to "discover" many species and to actively use laws designed to prevent extinctions. Also humans, like dogs, mostly diverged fairly recently, so genetic differences between races are relatively small, through they differ enough in appearance - so they, like dogs would be definitely in many species if that would be politically advantageous.
On a slightly different note, and keeping with the light-hearted spirit of the article... The mention of Mastiffs and Chihuahuas reminded me of something I saw, about 30 years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had just left home, driving to work one morning. Turning around a corner i saw 2 dogs. She was a large fat Labrador; he was a little Silky Terrier. Admittedly the discrepancy in sizes was not as large as between a Mastiffs and Chihuahuas, but she had to lie down on her belly, and he stood up on his hind legs.
It just proves the old maxim that love conquers all!
Wow, nicely done. I actually have a dog that is a cross between a chihuahua and a Plott hound. A Plott hound female averages about 50-55 lbs...I still can't fathom how it happened! Before you ask, I had it confirmed via DNA testing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisC.Shakendogis ... best I got.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLoved the tongue in cheek, thank you. Re: the Chihuahua and the Mastif; I observed a rather large breed female in heat being very accommodating to an ardent mini-mutt suitor by lying on her side after he had made numerous leaping and climbing attempts. Barrier removed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest flaw in the "science" of evolution is the repeatability factor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe evolution of man from ape cannot be repeated.
The evolution of man from zygote, yes.
Evolution is a theory with vast circumstantial evidence. It's the best explanation to date but the process of it is, and always will be, a mystery.
Chihuahuas are dogs at least in one sense. They'll try it with anything eh? eh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf, today, there are some (in the zoological field) that do not agree with the proposal to classify some dogs under their own species; there will come a day when, for genetic reasons, there will be no further objections.
All dogs today, when said barriers are cast aside, can inter breed, but as certain sub species (or breeds) continue to be selected for unique and novel traits, the genetic dissimilarities will accumulate.
And what we will be left with is a hodgepodge of genetically isolated species who share a common ancestor courtesy of one naked species of ape.
And I'm looking forward to that day, because unlike some prophecies, this one is most likely to come to pass.
Can i be honest?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen i read near the beginning of the article, "Creationists argue that speciation has never been seen", i realised this guy has already diverged from reality with a premise like that, so i stopped reading.
Creationists, in general, don't believe that; speciation is a neutral, observable phenomenon and is interpreted as the variation that occurs within the Biblical "kinds" as metioned (and designed) in the early chapters of Genesis; its reality does not "prove" Evolution anymore than it "proves" Biblical Special Creation.
Yet, i would confidently claim that variation potential - AND observation!! - shows that variation is BOUNDED and LIMITED; a notion that is, currently, more consistent with Creation notions than Evolutionary notions. It's a very strong facet of the Biblical Special Creation model, FYI.
Regards,
Stewart Reeve
"Creationists argue that speciation has never been seen. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to ask myself, why does Steve Mirsky have to lie? Then again perhaps he's just ignorant of the creationist post flood models.
"Creationists argue that speciation has never been seen. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to ask myself, why does Steve Mirsky have to lie? Then again perhaps he's just ignorant of the creationist post flood models.
I realise that the question of when one animal extremely resemble another such as the two gene lines discussed in THE ARTICLE “The Cultivation of Tilapia” by C,.F. HICKLING PUBLISHED IN SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN IN MAY OF 1963 constitutes a new animal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt that time dr. hickling was telling the story of how he and his research team had discovered A PHENOMENA created by the mating of what were then called tilapia mossambique (mossambica strain) and tilapia mossambique (zanzibar strain) were crossed with each other in the pursuit of a mule tilapia.
The idea was that they were closely enough related yet far enough apart so that there would be viable offspring when crossed , but would be mismatched enough on a genetic basis to make the offspring infertile so that when breeding or crossing this hybrid from the two gene lines with other hybrids produced by the same cross, only infertile eggs would be produced. This sterility of the crosse gene lines would then be unable to reproduce thus eliminating the major curse of growing tilapia of uncontrolled reproduction.
In his article “The Cultivation of Tilapia” Dr. Heckling explains it well writing ”Since most of the tilapia species feed by browsing on tiny algae and plankton, the adults have no competitive advantage over the young, and their growth slows down as thousands of additional mouths come to share the food supply. Thus although the maximum standing crop may be very high it will consist largely of little "trash" fish. A well foddered two acre Tilapia pond in the Congo for exam- example, yielded an excellent harvest of almost 8,000 pounds of fish.
Of this total, however no less than 4,500 pounds were fish too small for marketing or fingerlings useful only for restocking. No more than 2,000 pounds of this big crop could be described as "large" fish, and-even-these were only 16 to 24 centimetres in length and weighed from a quarter-pound to a half-pound each. In many parts of the world, particularly in the Orient, small fish are fried-and-eaten-whole, scales, fins and all, or cut up into chunks for stewing or made into fish paste. These dishes, nutritious as they undoubtedly are, cannot be pressed on other peoples.
For the optimum yield of fish flesh as it is more often eaten, the Tilapia must be raised to large size. As in the case of many other animals, the head and body of a Tilapia grow at different rates; a larger fish has more edible body meat than a smaller fish. At one pound a Tilapia yields about 24 per cent of its weight as boneless fillet, whereas a very large fish weighing, say, five pounds gives as much as 50 per cent of its total weight as edible meat.
As single Tilapia weighing two pounds produces more meat (twice as much) than eight Tilapias weighing a quarter-pound each.
The one technique that allows reliable control of the population is that of stocking the raising pond with fingerlings of a single sex. Some species of the genus Tilapia although not as yet the vegetable- feeders melanopleura or zilli, can be easily sorted into males and females. Either the colours are sufficiently differentiated to serve as reliable sex indicators or the structure of the anal papilla is used-the opening of the oviduct being distinguishable in the female and not present in the male.
With experience it is possible to sex even small immature fish with speed and confidence. Since males grow much faster than females, only the male fingerlings are stocked in the raising ponds and the females are discarded. A second check is made when the fish have grown somewhat larger and distinctive sex-coloration's are more discernible. Since this technique fails if there is a single female present in the raising pond, care must be taken to ensure that there are no females left over from a previous stocking.
The sexing of small Tilapias although feasible is tedious. In addition to being not entirely reliable. However since only the males are stocked there is a waste of female fish, accordingly my colleagues and I at the Tropical fish culture research Institute at Malaca in the Federation of Malaya set out in 1958 to breed "mules" of sterile fish by crossing two closely related but distinct sub species of T. mossambica.
One was a pure-bred local variety of t. mossambica, descended from the original Tilapias first found in Java in 1939; the other was indigenous to brackish swamps on the island of Zanzibar off the coast of Africa. Too our surprise the hybrid fry of the Zanzibar males and the Java females all turned out to be males!
The designation of these two gee lines remained the same for about 10 years or so They were both t. mossambica until a taxonomist decided that the fact that a cross between a male mossambica from zanzibar and a female from Zanzibar produced all male hybrids was reason enough to separate them into two species ib spite of the fact that there is no physical difference between the two gene lines and if one of either species were mixed in with some of the other gene line there is no way to recover the included tilapia and which- ever gene line was contaminated would screw up the production of all male hybrids.
So, was the taxonomist correct or are the two tilapia gene lines still sub species of t. mossambica? I believe the answer is yes, the two tilapia gene lines still sub species
of t. mossambica
I realise that the question of when one animal extremely resemble another such as the two gene lines discussed in THE ARTICLE “The Cultivation of Tilapia” by C,.F. HICKLING PUBLISHED IN SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN IN MAY OF 1963 constitutes a new animal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt that time dr. hickling was telling the story of how he and his research team had discovered A PHENOMENA created by the mating of what were then called tilapia mossambique (mossambica strain) and tilapia mossambique (zanzibar strain) were crossed with each other in the pursuit of a mule tilapia.
The idea was that they were closely enough related yet far enough apart so that there would be viable offspring when crossed , but would be mismatched enough on a genetic basis to make the offspring infertile so that when breeding or crossing this hybrid from the two gene lines with other hybrids produced by the same cross, only infertile eggs would be produced. This sterility of the crosse gene lines would then be unable to reproduce thus eliminating the major curse of growing tilapia of uncontrolled reproduction.
In his article “The Cultivation of Tilapia” Dr. Heckling explains it well writing ”Since most of the tilapia species feed by browsing on tiny algae and plankton, the adults have no competitive advantage over the young, and their growth slows down as thousands of additional mouths come to share the food supply. Thus although the maximum standing crop may be very high it will consist largely of little "trash" fish. A well foddered two acre Tilapia pond in the Congo for exam- example, yielded an excellent harvest of almost 8,000 pounds of fish.
Of this total, however no less than 4,500 pounds were fish too small for marketing or fingerlings useful only for restocking. No more than 2,000 pounds of this big crop could be described as "large" fish, and-even-these were only 16 to 24 centimetres in length and weighed from a quarter-pound to a half-pound each. In many parts of the world, particularly in the Orient, small fish are fried-and-eaten-whole, scales, fins and all, or cut up into chunks for stewing or made into fish paste. These dishes, nutritious as they undoubtedly are, cannot be pressed on other peoples.
For the optimum yield of fish flesh as it is more often eaten, the Tilapia must be raised to large size. As in the case of many other animals, the head and body of a Tilapia grow at different rates; a larger fish has more edible body meat than a smaller fish. At one pound a Tilapia yields about 24 per cent of its weight as boneless fillet, whereas a very large fish weighing, say, five pounds gives as much as 50 per cent of its total weight as edible meat.
As single Tilapia weighing two pounds produces more meat (twice as much) than eight Tilapias weighing a quarter-pound each.
The one technique that allows reliable control of the population is that of stocking the raising pond with fingerlings of a single sex. Some species of the genus Tilapia although not as yet the vegetable- feeders melanopleura or zilli, can be easily sorted into males and females. Either the colours are sufficiently differentiated to serve as reliable sex indicators or the structure of the anal papilla is used-the opening of the oviduct being distinguishable in the female and not present in the male.
With experience it is possible to sex even small immature fish with speed and confidence. Since males grow much faster than females, only the male fingerlings are stocked in the raising ponds and the females are discarded. A second check is made when the fish have grown somewhat larger and distinctive sex-coloration's are more discernible. Since this technique fails if there is a single female present in the raising pond, care must be taken to ensure that there are no females left over from a previous stocking.
The sexing of small Tilapias although feasible is tedious. In addition to being not entirely reliable. However since only the males are stocked there is a waste of female fish, accordingly my colleagues and I at the Tropical fish culture research Institute at Malaca in the Federation of Malaya set out in 1958 to breed "mules" of sterile fish by crossing two closely related but distinct sub species of T. mossambica.
One was a pure-bred local variety of t. mossambica, descended from the original Tilapias first found in Java in 1939; the other was indigenous to brackish swamps on the island of Zanzibar off the coast of Africa. Too our surprise the hybrid fry of the Zanzibar males and the Java females all turned out to be males!
The designation of these two gee lines remained the same for about 10 years or so They were both t. mossambica until a taxonomist decided that the fact that a cross between a male mossambica from zanzibar and a female from Zanzibar produced all male hybrids was reason enough to separate them into two species ib spite of the fact that there is no physical difference between the two gene lines and if one of either species were mixed in with some of the other gene line there is no way to recover the included tilapia and which- ever gene line was contaminated would screw up the production of all male hybrids.
So, was the taxonomist correct or are the two tilapia gene lines still sub species of t. mossambica? I believe the answer is yes, the two tilapia gene lines still sub species
of t. mossambica
TILAPIA1
Your comments are interesting, and my thought is that examining the DNA of various dog breeds could make meaningful the question of whether we really have separate species, and whether speciation as already defined is still to be considered valid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour article raises a good point. One expert on canine nutrition agrees with you. He insist that there are as many genetically inherited differences in the nutritional requirements of the different breeds as there are differences in appearance, temperament, etc. He documents his claims with research other than his own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelow is a list of quotes from the National Research Council's Nutrient Requirements of Dogs, Revised 1985 which show that different breeds of dogs have different nutritional requirements. Another interesting fact is that in all the tests throughout the entire government publication there is not one test cited where two different breeds of dog were used and found to have the same requirements for any one nutrient. The 1985 NRC council was headed by BEN E. SHEFFY, Cornell University, KENNETH C. HAYS Brandeis University, JOSEPH J. KNAPKA National Institute of Health, JOHN A. MILNER University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, JAMES G. MORRIS University of California Davis, DALE R. ROMSOS Michigan State University.
Page 3: "These data illustrate the marked effect on energy requirements imposed by the environment and the additional influence of differences in breed and behavior."
Page 9: "Estimates of the protein requirement of the dog can also vary depending on the methods and criteria used in their derivation."
Page 11: "Blaza et al. (1982) studied the sulfur amino acid requirements of growing Labrador and Beagle dogs in three experiments... These studies indicated that the dog's breed may influence methionine requirements, since Labradors but not Beagles responded to increasing the methionine content from 0.36 to 0.71 percent by increased weight gains and food intakes."
Page 16: In the section on Calcium... "Dogs of some types and breeds may perform satisfactorily on lower intakes of these minerals."... "It is recognized that there are many breeds of dogs, that they are maintained under a wide range of environments, and are being... "
Page 19: "Tinedt et al. (1979) reported a copper toxicosis in Bedlington Terriers fed commercial dog diets containing 5 to 10 mg. copper per kilogram of diet. Ludwig et al. (1980) studied this disease in considerable detail and concluded that it is unique to this breed of dog and is caused by a genetic abnormality." ... "The copper requirements for the majority of dog breeds appears to be quite low."
Page 20: "Sanecki et al. (1982) fed English Pointer pups a corn-soy based zinc-deficient diet and reported observing within 5 weeks lesions of ... These lesions were reversible by adding 200 mg. zinc carbonate per kilogram to the diet, with complete remission of the external lesions in 6 weeks".... "Fisher (1977) fed more than 800 Beagles 32 mg./kg zinc of diet (calcium concentration not noted) and did not report any clinical signs of zinc deficiency."
Page 24: "Kozelka et al. (1933) found that Collie puppies were protected from rickets by a 1 to 1.3 IU vitamin D (irradiated ergosterol) per kilogram of body weight per day. Arnold and Elvehjem (1939) found calcification to be normal in a growing Airedale puppy receiving a 1.39 percent calcium and a 1.05 percent phosphorus (Ca/P = 1.32:1) diet and 132 IU or less of vitamin D per kilogram of body weight per day showed that growth and bone mineralization were normal." ... "Fleischmann Laboratories (1944) reported that 28 IU vitamin D per kilogram of body weight daily was sufficient for Fox Terriers when using a dietary calcium:phosphorus ratio of 2.1:1. However, even with 270 IU per kilogram of body weight per day, Collies and Great Danes showed X-ray evidence of rickets."
I got the above from the DOCUMENTING THE CLAIMS page at http://wdcusick.com The author of this web site performed his own 18 year Pharmacological study that backs up what these learned heads of schools of Veterinary Medicine and world's leading scientist sitting on the board of the NRC's council established. At that web site he also provides information about which food sources are OK for a breed and which food sources should be avoided for 152 different breeds. I personally have been following his advice with my own dog for the last 12 years and he is still healthy, no big vet bills, because of it.
Hi, I'm one of those nut jobs that has a hard time teaching evolution :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy kids love my class ... but back in 9th grade, when I thought evolution was probably a tool that God used to create our world and the stuff in it, my 10th grade Biology teacher put me in my place and made me realize that having an entity create the living organisms on earth is completely incompatible with having them develop through random, unguided and unpredictable mutations happening over eons.
Now my problem is, despite being told by Florida that I don't even have to mention evolution with my fifth graders, I still try to teach it to them. Heck, there are plenty of other things that are required learning that don't make sense (The Thanksgiving Myth -- Jefferson didn't want slavery, etc) so why not start exposing them to the basic ideas behind evolution?
As a good teacher, I've never had a problem being able to teach something I don't necessarily agree with (Spelling, English grammar, gerunds aren't verbs or nouns, etc.) But I keep having a problem with evolution, and it could be because no one has been able to explain a couple of things, so that I am able to give the 5th grade level explanation and discovery.
You see, in 5th grade, I can do things that help my kids figure this stuff out on their own, mostly. Periodic Table, how mass, force and acceleration are related ... but evolution is tough. Its counter intuitive. It actually goes against the physical change vs. chemical change inquiry that I have with the students.
Basically here's the problem: the students learn that adaptations equip a species to have a better chance to survive than its neighbors. So the question always comes up and I don't know how to answer it: How did the eagle know that having its eyes in the front, while flying really high make it better at hunting its food? (obviously its not always the same animal, but the gist is the same) ... So? how did this work out? Animals like eagles are highly specialized ... how did all those parts develop, together, by accident, while their prey also developed in their own way to also be better at surviving?
Thank you for your responses.
-- about this article in particular .... did dog breeds develop all on their own? I could have sworn that I read somewhere that current accepted understanding of how the dog developed into the different specialized breeds was by human breeding programs + happy accidents ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif that is true, then why does the proof that they are separate species require their "natural" joining? Dogs weren't naturally selected to be dogs in the first place, no?