RE: Pre-Historic Nookie!
August 23, 2018 at 1:49 pm
(This post was last modified: August 23, 2018 at 2:08 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Species can be difficult to pin down (not as difficult as some might imply) - but this isn't a particularly good example of that.
Because the mule example has been brought up...I'll elaborate by reference. A certain percentage of our dna is neanderthal in origin. If this relationship were similar to mules..then we would expect that modern horses had a similar percentage of donkey dna. They don't. Their shared genetics comes at the level of genus.
The reason that they don't is obvious, and it's related to why horses and donkeys aren't the same species (or subspecies of the same species). Their offspring are overwhelmingly sterile. They are not breeds of horses or donkeys but an entirely different animal. Chromosomal incompatibility forces this.
We couldn't have a noticeable amount of neanderthal dna, today, if the outcome of our mating with them was similar to the outcome of a horse and a donkey mating. Not only do we have neanderthal dna in modern human populations, we have denisovan dna in modern human populations. Combine this with a denisovan/neanderthal breed....and this strongly suggests that the relationship between the three is one of concurrent subspecies..rather than distinct species with both freak interbreeding instances..and even more freak -fertile- offspring and subsequent interbreeding between all three of those freak fertile interbreeding instances...all amounting to an unrepresentative showing of dna in modern populations.
Could it happen? Maybe....the odds are beyond long, and there's a much simpler and much more probable explanation which fits available data in every way that the long odd hypothesis doesn't...and all of this is explained by the genus, species, subsp, breed model, rather than being muddied up by it, just as modern variations within subspecies are.
The confusion, such as it is, goes back to a quick generalization we all learned in school as a shortcut for a complex picture. That if two animals -can't- breed with each other, they aren't the same species. This is true. However, it doesn't actually follow from that that there are no two species which can, but our mind makes this connection and creatards latch onto it. Combine this with the fact that popularizing articles often say "two different species" rather than "two different subspecies" and the knot is well and truly tied.
Because the mule example has been brought up...I'll elaborate by reference. A certain percentage of our dna is neanderthal in origin. If this relationship were similar to mules..then we would expect that modern horses had a similar percentage of donkey dna. They don't. Their shared genetics comes at the level of genus.
The reason that they don't is obvious, and it's related to why horses and donkeys aren't the same species (or subspecies of the same species). Their offspring are overwhelmingly sterile. They are not breeds of horses or donkeys but an entirely different animal. Chromosomal incompatibility forces this.
We couldn't have a noticeable amount of neanderthal dna, today, if the outcome of our mating with them was similar to the outcome of a horse and a donkey mating. Not only do we have neanderthal dna in modern human populations, we have denisovan dna in modern human populations. Combine this with a denisovan/neanderthal breed....and this strongly suggests that the relationship between the three is one of concurrent subspecies..rather than distinct species with both freak interbreeding instances..and even more freak -fertile- offspring and subsequent interbreeding between all three of those freak fertile interbreeding instances...all amounting to an unrepresentative showing of dna in modern populations.
Could it happen? Maybe....the odds are beyond long, and there's a much simpler and much more probable explanation which fits available data in every way that the long odd hypothesis doesn't...and all of this is explained by the genus, species, subsp, breed model, rather than being muddied up by it, just as modern variations within subspecies are.
The confusion, such as it is, goes back to a quick generalization we all learned in school as a shortcut for a complex picture. That if two animals -can't- breed with each other, they aren't the same species. This is true. However, it doesn't actually follow from that that there are no two species which can, but our mind makes this connection and creatards latch onto it. Combine this with the fact that popularizing articles often say "two different species" rather than "two different subspecies" and the knot is well and truly tied.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
