×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

497 comments

Freedom is slavery (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28082959)

Ignorance is Strength
War is Peace
Google is Not Evil

Dogism (5, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083005)

You know what's funny? Dogs know dogs. They can be big, small, tall, round, thin, with or without tails, brown, red, white, spotted, yellow, shaggy, short haired, long legged, squat, etc, etc, etc. There is a massive amount of variation on display within the dog family.

But despite it all, dogs know dogs. Upon seeing another, they'll wag their tails or bark for a rotweiller the same as they would for a terrier. They'll all roam about in their little packs, somehow instinctively knowing they they naturally should.

And yet, if I have a man with different skin colour, or even simply different clothing, other men will consider his life worth less than even the smallest dog.

Makes you think.

Re:Dogism (3, Funny)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083129)

And yet, if I have a man with different skin colour, or even simply different clothing, other men will consider his life worth less than even the smallest dog.

Bah, I'd fuck a nice asian girl any day. What's your point?

Re:Dogism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083221)

Bah, I'd fuck a nice [piece of pussy of any race] woman any day. What's your point?

Re:Dogism (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083645)

Sexist.

Re:Dogism (5, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083473)

Bah, I'd fuck a nice asian girl any day. What's your point?

Some people here would fuck anything that moves. What's your point?

Re:Dogism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083573)

the guys here are equal-opportunity babe-hounds?

Re:Dogism (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083233)

Reminds of a day spent on a waterfront last year, when I observed that though pigeons and seagulls would frolic in the same stretch of promenade, they didn't seem to acknowledge the existence of the other species. When I said to my friend, "Do you think birds can be racist?", she just looked at me funny.

Re:Dogism (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083477)

Speciecist, perhaps. Like humans are (otherwise cannabilism would be a lot more prevalent).

Re:Dogism (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083501)

Birds are racist. Conure flocks will exclude similar animals whose only real difference is a different-colored head.

Re:Dogism (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083687)

Reminds of a day spent on a waterfront last year, when I observed that though pigeons and seagulls would frolic in the same stretch of promenade, they didn't seem to acknowledge the existence of the other species. When I said to my friend, "Do you think birds can be racist?", she just looked at me funny.

What makes you think racism isn't something biological? It seems to me that it could possibly be a function that allowed species to diverge into different species by having the various "races" interact with each other less.

I'm not claiming a justification for racism, this is just something that struck me when watching a special on the Galapagos Islands and on those tiny things was this type of bird wherein, unique to it, were 6 different species (of basically the same bird) and I asked myself how that was possible to form without them constantly interbreeding?

Re:Dogism (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083235)

You know what's funny? Dogs know dogs. They can be big, small, tall, round, thin, with or without tails, brown, red, white, spotted, yellow, shaggy, short haired, long legged, squat, etc, etc, etc. There is a massive amount of variation on display within the dog family.

But despite it all, dogs know dogs. Upon seeing another, they'll wag their tails or bark for a rotweiller the same as they would for a terrier. They'll all roam about in their little packs, somehow instinctively knowing they they naturally should.

And yet, if I have a man with different skin colour, or even simply different clothing, other men will consider his life worth less than even the smallest dog.

Makes you think.

Is it just too late at night, or does that sound like the start of the Lassie 2012 presidential election campaign? If you won, it'd be very bad news -- four dog years is barely seven months and the next campaign'd be kicking off -- we'd never have any time free of election adverts!

Re:Dogism (3, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083337)

While I see what you're trying to say, you neglect to point out that dogs have a hierarchy just like any other social group. Yeah, it sucks and humans should be above that but it's there with the dogs you use as an example.

Re:Dogism (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083509)

The social hierarchy of dogs is functional and aids in survival in the wild (well, more for wolves). The strongest one leads. With humans, it's all disfunctional social constructs.

Re:Dogism (5, Interesting)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083605)

Social hierarchies in animals are just as dysfunctional as they are in humans. I saw some documentary where one of the younger dominant females kept taking food out of the mouth of one of the subordinates ones. It wasn't that she was particularly hungry because she got priority access to the best food. As far as anyone could tell she was doing because her status let her get away with it.

Re:Dogism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083615)

Sorta... human racism is basically a tool for those in power, to sustain power and for those of similar background to stick together and ensure those closest to themselves have a good future. It isn't much different than that of a dog attacking a weaker dog to prove he is the alpha male. I'm not saying it's right, but if you squint you can see the similarities.

Re:Dogism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083345)

There are documented (and genetically tested) cases of wolf and dog offspring at least here in Europe. A few cases per year.

These half breeds are less likely to survive in the wild for long, but are considered a danger cause they fear humans less than wolves.

Not sure what my point is, but humans aren't the only ones known to hump anything that moves. At least we haven't had any offspring with chimps, yet.

Re:Dogism (1)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083443)

What things look like is not nearly as important for dogs as what they smell like. I assume different breeds of dogs all still smell like dogs.

Re:Dogism (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083505)

But despite it all, dogs know dogs. Upon seeing another, they'll wag their tails or bark for a rotweiller the same as they would for a terrier.

Own dogs much?

They fight, too. Even when far away from their homes or if there's no food or anything around to seemingly fight over. They can still break out in nasty, bloody fights. They'll do it just to establish dominance.

If two dogs get along on first meeting it's likely because they've been so thoroughly domesticated and behaviorally trained. Much like a more socially educated person won't immediately lash out at another human.
=Smidge=

Re:Dogism (1, Insightful)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083511)

other men will consider his life worth less than even the smallest dog.

Well, speaking as a misanthropic dog lover, the lives of other men *are* worth less than the smallest dog. Dogs are so much better at people, it's not even close.

Re:Dogism (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083539)

Watch small children. They'll play with any other kid that's around. They are taught to be racist and stupid.

Re:Dogism (1)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083595)

The secret lies in the common acceptance of mutual ass sniffing. I'm not sure we would (or should) apply the secret recipe to mankind, it could lead to some awkward situations, not to mention only appeal to a small minority of enlightened fetishists.

Starting a war (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083019)

Definite proof that cats are better than dogs.

Re:Starting a war (4, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083529)

Definite proof that cats are better than dogs.

How many cats lead blind people?

Re:Starting a war (5, Funny)

EdZ (755139) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083733)

I suppose you could build some sort of multi-feline interferometer, and interpret the varying frequency of their mewing according to their individual proximity to objects.
Assuming you're reasonably confident not to be bumping into the ceiling or falling down holes, "how many cats can lead blind people" would be 3. 2 would lead to blind spots, 4 or more would provide redundant overlap.

News for nerds (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083041)

Humorous take fails to be humorous.

And not entirely correct (5, Informative)

StCredZero (169093) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083453)

When we observe Ring Species we are clearly catching mother nature red-handed in the act of speciation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species [wikipedia.org]

These things are freaky:

                A--B--C--D--E--F--G--A

Members of a ring species can interbreed with their immediate neighbors, but not with distant neighbors halfway around the ring. (So in my diagrom, A can interbreed with B and G, but not C, D, E, or F. Sometimes the ring develops a break, and becomes a line:

                A--B--C--D--E--F--G

Then to have a speciation event, all you need is another break in the line:

                A--B--C

                E--F--G

There are ring species comprised of small creatures who only live in a small range of elevation around the side of a mountain, so their habitat literally looks like a small ring. Two well timed avalanches could be enough.

Re:And not entirely correct (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083569)

Species are human labels. They aren't particularly relevant in nature (but we do choose them in such a way that they include large groups of organisms capable of breeding with each other, but not with other groups, so they are a very useful when examining biological systems).

Re:And not entirely correct (5, Insightful)

TrumpetPower! (190615) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083679)

It gets even better.

You cannot produce viable offspring with a chimpanzee. Neither could your great-great-great-grandparents produce viable offspring with that chimpanzee’s great-great-great-grandparents. But, go back enough generations, and your nth-great-grandparents gave birth to an individual whose far-distant offspring was that chimpanzee. Pick any other two organisms, and the same holds — it’s just that you have to go a little farther back in time to find the last common ancestor between, say, a squid and a butterfly.

We are all members of a single ring species that encompasses all of life on Earth. It’s just that the ring is separated by time, rather than geography or physiology.

And now you know the nutshell definition of the Theory of Evolution.

Cheers,

b&

Armchair biology 101 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083719)

Members of a ring species can interbreed with their immediate neighbors, but not with distant neighbors halfway around the ring. (So in my diagrom, A can interbreed with B and G, but not C, D, E, or F. Sometimes the ring develops a break, and becomes a line:

In a typical ring species, the ring is ALREADY broken - in fact, A and G will likely live next to each other or even share the same territory WITHOUT interbreeding. Herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls are the standard example of this.

Also, the definition of a species is NOT "can breed" but rather "will (typically) breed". Tigers and lions are perfectly able to interbreed, for example, but they won't usually do so and therefore are (rightfully) considered different species. "Can/cannot breed" is what defines a genus.

Is that why some Dogs fight, (War of the Worlds) (1)

LinuxOverWindows (1549895) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083047)

It Makes sense, there just defending there spices! So Barking is just Alien language, there communicating there plans for world Domination with each other!

Re:Is that why some Dogs fight, (War of the Worlds (4, Funny)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083197)

It Makes sense, there just defending their spices! So Barking is just Alien language, they're communicating their plans for world Domination with each other!

The spice must flow?

I always thought the difference (2, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083051)

between race and species was species can't interbreed and produce viable offspring. So while small dogs and large dogs may be able to be divided, the line gets a lot fuzzier after that. So many years of cross breeding and inbreeding I don't think you can separate them beyond that.

Re:I always thought the difference (2, Interesting)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083173)

thats generally a good definition of species, however it can break down.
consider: 'species' A can breed with 'species' B, so are the same species, B can breed with C, so are the same species, so A and C are the same species via B, although A and C may not actually be able to breed. im fairly sure examples exist, but i cant cite any off the top of my head

Dogs are not a species (1, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083061)

Dogs aren't even a separate species from wolves. Further subdividing them is just silly.

Re:Dogs are not a species (1)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083157)

FTFA: 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.

Dogs aren't even a separate species from wolves. Further subdividing them is just silly.

Yup, completely silly. When I think of a yappy little chihuahua, I think "Osht son, that wolf wants to eet meh!! RUNS!!!!!1111eleven" and definitely don't think about how much I'd like to kick the yappy fucking football >.<"

That was sarcasm btw; just throwing that out there in case someone misses it.

Re:Dogs are not a species (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083441)

Canis lupis is just a remarkably diverse species. Calling chihuahuas and wolves a different species is like calling Gary Coleman and Bao Xishun a different species. That is, completely ridiculous.

Arguing over where the line is between species is pretty dumb anyway. Nature is not divided into nice neat categories like that.

Re:Dogs are not a species (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083689)

Well human races can interbreed. The point of the article is that for purely mechanical reasons big dogs can't interbreed with small dogs. From the definition of species - i.e. able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring they are a different species.

Re:Dogs are not a species (4, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083407)

Back in the 1800s there was this idea that all living things could be grouped into a neat, consistent classification system [wikipedia.org] . As it turns out, reality isn't tidily organized like a giant clock.

There is a popular myth that it would be possible to list all taxonomic ranks. In reality there is an indeterminate number of ranks, as a taxonomist may invent a new rank at will, at any time, if he or she feels this is necessary. In doing so, there are some restrictions, which will vary with the Nomenclature Code which applies.

The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.

So what we're saying is... (3, Insightful)

williamhb (758070) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083089)

1) Creationists claim the science doesn't provide thorough enough proof of evolution
2) Evolutionary biologists should fudge their results to re-define something as being proof
3) ???
4) Profit
Something makes me think this scheme would just give creationists a big stick labelled "evolutionists fudge their results; it's all a load of cobblers" to beat the biologists with.

Re:So what we're saying is... (5, Funny)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083161)

1) Creationists claim the science doesn't provide thorough enough proof of evolution
2) Evolutionary biologists should fudge their results to re-define something as being proof
3) ???
4) Profit
Something makes me think this scheme would just give creationists a big stick labelled "evolutionists fudge their results; it's all a load of cobblers" to beat the biologists with.

If a Slashdot reader has evolved to the point where he has no sense of humour whatsoever and is therefore incapable of mating with female humans, does that make said Slashdot reader a new species?

Something to ponder tonight.

Re:So what we're saying is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083343)

If a Slashdot reader has evolved to the point where he has no sense of humour whatsoever and is therefore incapable of mating with female humans, does that make said Slashdot reader a new species?

Something to ponder tonight.

Sure. When I go to bed, I'll ask your girlfriend what she thinks about it.

Re:So what we're saying is... (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083717)

No. It is more like some people walking in a deep forest. The creationist say: There are not trees, the forest is not proof of the existence of tress. The scientist then hangs a big fucking sign on one of the trees in the forest that says "Tree".

Re:So what we're saying is... (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083761)

If a Slashdot reader has evolved to the point where he has no sense of humour whatsoever and is therefore incapable of mating with female humans, does that make said Slashdot reader a new species?

Something to ponder tonight.

If?

Re:So what we're saying is... (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083367)

No, if we apply the rules for distinguishing different species to dogs, then it turns out that we have different species of dogs. There is no fudging.

Re:So what we're saying is... (2, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083451)

People that don't want to believe in evolution are hopeless anyway. What this does is move the discussion away from the details of biological classification towards facts that are more interesting when discussing evolution.

The fact that we are rather different creatures from mice is notable, but a discussion of evolution doesn't depend on the factors we choose to use to make the distinction, it works just as well to consider organisms and populations that are or are not capable of reproducing without ascribing any further meaning to that fact.

Intelligent Design (5, Insightful)

rshol (746340) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083103)

Just remember if you argue that dog breeds are different species, especially the case of the mastiff and chihuahua, or the teacup yorkie and newfoundland, these different species are verifiably the result of intelligent design. Selection was involved, but not natural selection.

Re:Intelligent Design (0, Flamebait)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083213)

Just remember if you argue that dog breeds are different species, especially the case of the mastiff and chihuahua, or the teacup yorkie and newfoundland, these different species are verifiably the result of intelligent design. Selection was involved, but not natural selection.

Two completely different things: intelligent design of an entire planet, creating life from nothing and selectively breeding animals to enhance traits.

I am not sure if you are trying to argue against evolution, playing devil's advocate or what, but please explain to me how humans can manage to reproduce the results of a natural process with some sort of "intelligence" and some sort of "design"? That is just like religious people... find a way to make all attempts to contradict them wrong before they even have a chance, regardless of any real merit.

Re:Intelligent Design (1)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083279)

That should be

how humans can manage to reproduce the results of a natural process withOUT some sort of "intelligence" and some sort of "design"?

Re:Intelligent Design (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083617)

It's brilliant. It shocks you when you first read it, but then you realize it's correct (if you accept selective breeding as a form of "intelligent design", although it's more correct to call it human selection). Of course it has nothing to do with evolution and natural selection on a global scale.

Re:Intelligent Design (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083579)

Just remember if you argue that dog breeds are different species, especially the case of the mastiff and chihuahua, or the teacup yorkie and newfoundland, these different species are verifiably the result of intelligent design. Selection was involved, but not natural selection.

Human intelligence evolved naturally through natural selection. It is natural for humans to apply their intelligence, as this gives them survival benefits in the wild.

As well, to say that humans "designed" the evolutionary traits of various breeds of dogs is a bit of a stretch. It's more accurate to say that humans selected the most desirable traits and bred for them. You cross-breed until something unexpected happens, and if it's desirable, you figure out how to repeat the unexpected result, until it breeds true. This isn't "design" per se. We can make a dog with a particular size or type of coat, but if I wanted to breed a dog with a shell or two heads or horns, I don't think I could "design in" these features.

Biologists already use his criteria. (5, Informative)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083135)

Biologists already define a separate species as when two individuals cannot mate, be it due to genetics or mechanical or behavioural difficulties. The problem with dog breeds is that a Chihuahua can mate with a terrier, and a terrier can mate with a gun dog, and a gun dog can mate with the largest of dogs. Where would the author draw the line between species? There are a lot of cases like this in nature, and it is basically an arbitrary decision as to whether speciation has occurred. The whole premise of this article is essentially flawed, as it suggests that biologists have not already thought about these difficulties, when in fact this is basic pre-university biology.

Re:Biologists already use his criteria. (0, Flamebait)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083247)

The problem with dog breeds is that a Chihuahua can mate with a terrier, and a terrier can mate with a gun dog, and a gun dog can mate with the largest of dogs.

What's this "mating by proxy" theory of yours ? Is it so that one can claim "I screwed Angelina Jolie, through 17 intermediaries" ?

Should we create a new "degrees of separation" website ?

Re:Biologists already use his criteria. (2, Funny)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083515)

  You're 17 degrees of separation out from her? That's sad. I'm at both 0 and 1. Once with her, once with one of her lesbian lovers. Well, it was in the same night, in the same bed.

    But, ewww. I hate it when someone says "When you sleep with someone, you're sleeping with everyone they've been with.". I've never slept with Billy Bob Thornton, but he did work the camera that night.

    Under some of the suggested logic, would that make me a superior species to you? :) I know it makes me a higher species than many Slashdot readers, where I don't live in my mother's basement, I have opportunities to copulate, and I have procreated.

Re:Biologists already use his criteria. (3, Funny)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083313)

Bah, I've seen the offspring of a 4 kilo terrier and a 35 kilo labrador.

Sure, the little bugger needed to get on the couch to get his groove on, but he still made it ;-)

Puppies were the same size as dad after only a few weeks, didn't make him any less proud though...

Re:Biologists already use his criteria. (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083691)

... and then there was the court case where a guy had to pay damages because he thought it would be funny to breed his chihuahua with the neighbor's great dane. And no, not all chihuahuas fit in a teacup ... feed them and they'll grow to more than 10 pounds - some even to 15 pounds or more.

Our first wolf/dog "cross" (wolf/shepherd) was as friendly as any dog could be - unless you were drunk, in which case, you couldn't enter the house.

So, what differentiates them from dogs? The webbed paws? Newfies and other dogs also have webbed feet. The shyness towards humans? Lots of dogs are afraid of anyone but their owners.

Scientific American should have kept that article for their April Fools edition. Proposing to lie to beat creationists is stooping to their level - it embodies neither the idealism of science or the honesty previous generations of Americans expected as a matter of course.

Re:Biologists already use his criteria. (3, Informative)

debrain (29228) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083381)

Defining species based on whether animals can breed is not a perfect definition. Fin and Blue whales have been known to breed, to form hybrid species, for example.

Re:Biologists already use his criteria. (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083711)

Is even that definition consistent though? I'm sure certain dogs are physically incompatible but I'd be surprised if there were no crossbreeds of such dogs via artificial insemination which makes it a rather arbitrary distinction. There's presumably a distinct common ancestor of tigers and lions that would be compatible with both.

Re:Biologists already use his criteria. (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083771)

    The author of the story obviously can't use Google. I found people talking about their mastiff/chihuaua mix dogs, among plenty of others.

    We just spent the last few minutes joking about various mixes. I'm glad I'm not a dog person. It'd be funny to play amateur genetic engineer. I'm thinking a miniature Dachshund/Mastiff mix would be hilarious if it came out right. Picture a full height mastiff body, except longer, with itty bitty short legs. That'd be hilarious. He could be a guard dog, but take 1/2 hour to run across the yard. hahahaaa! Well, all fun and games unless he actually caught up with you. Chomp!

    I wonder at what point Thor would just smack you with a lightning bolt. Speaking of which, is that thunder I hear?

Re:Biologists already use his criteria. (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083811)

Makes you wonder though: the differences in phenotype for dogs are vast. If we have only skeletons of dinosaurs, how can we be sure which were separate species, and which are just vastly different representatives of the same species - is a protoceratops really a different species from a tricertops? I'm not an expert obviously - does anyone know if biologists have ways to determine that?

No, but... (4, Interesting)

Bruce McBruce (791094) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083143)

I just knew this article would include some comparison of Chihuahuas to some breed of large dog (in this case, Mastiffs). So I'm going to go ahead and make a similar comparison of a 600-pound caucasian female to a 110-pound asian male. The male may have just as much trouble with the process as does the Chihuahua, but we'll still call the result be a human. Similarly, we'll call the spawn of a Chihuahua and a Mastiff a dog. Because it looks like a dog and it barks.

Re:No, but... (1)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083377)

But can you see where the author was going? You know, not all things are black and white and some are even meant to be taken "with a grain of salt". The point was that we have seen evidence of evolution, but we just haven't see it to the point where a new species is created yet. How much longer before a chihuahua can't breed with *any* other dog currently listed as the same species? Won't it happen eventually?

Re:No, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083657)

600 pound women don't normally grow to be that size, it's a result of lifestyle.
Believe it or not, there are fat dogs too.

A better example would be He Pingping fucking Svetlana Pankratova: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Pingping or Bao Xishun humping his wife: http://www.zimbio.com/He+Pingping/articles/15/World+Tallest+Man+Bao+Xishun+Wife+Expecting

Note that Bao Xishun has successfully produced offspring.

Re:No, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083753)

Because it looks like a dog and it barks.

I'm a mine, you insensitive cold.

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083777)

With people you could go the other direction--it could just as easily be a 600 pound dude and a 90 pound girl. The mastiff and the chihuahua, not so much.

I don't even call them breeds (5, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083159)

Whenever someone tells me they have a dog, I ask them what make it is. Try it, the reaction is brilliant.

Re:I don't even call them breeds (4, Funny)

ultramk (470198) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083427)

Whenever someone tells me they have a dog, I ask them what make it is. Try it, the reaction is brilliant.

You must be a scream at parties.

Re:I don't even call them breeds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083457)

oh, I've used "brand" for a while.

Re:I don't even call them breeds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083601)

Ask what race it is; same idea.

Discrimnation based on race (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083271)

is the logical next step, of course. Hoorah for Darwinism!

Are Dog Breeds Actually Different Species? (1)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083445)

Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again, to produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinâ(TM)s theory. And this sort of speciation has never been observed.

This article as written just so this guy can say, we have seen speciation, look at Dog breeds, and seemingly (in his mind have some sort of retort to Creationists). It wont work.

If somehow the recognized breeds existed only as fossils, palaeontologists would consider them not one species but many, certainly more than the thirty-six species of wild dogs that live in nature today.

He brings this up to strengthen his argument for reclassification of dog breeds. Others will then question the fossil records use in classification.

The author's reasoning is flawed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083521)

By the author's reasoning, John Wayne Bobbitt would constitute a new species because he can no longer manage procreation without some sort of external aparatus or scientific help.

At best, saying dogs breeds are separate species is a convenience argument that will do more to undermine evolution that it helps. It is a crap argument that looks desperate.
 

Re:The author's reasoning is flawed. (1)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083735)

Bobbitt is an example of a physical mutation... nothing at all like a genetic mutation. You should have learned this in Biology 1 in HS.

So then.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083523)

What is the difference between a human 'race' and a dog 'breed'?

I'm assuming the two are synonymous?

Terminology of rejection (2, Insightful)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083603)

Why is it rejecting a socially progressive idea is called "recoiling" while rejecting a socially conservative idea is referred to as a "knee jerk reaction"?

Humans (2, Interesting)

Dracos (107777) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083639)

The author mentions that the varying dog breeds would be thought of as separate species if found in the fossil record, and that's probably true. There are paleontologists who argue about whether a certain small T. Rex fossil is a dwarf species or a juvenile. The hairs to be split can be quite thin.

Given that, would the morphological differences between human populations constitute splitting Home Sapiens into separate species? I think not.

The only thing this proposal will do is give the creationist/ID idiots another straw man argument: "scientists change things to justify their point of view!" The truth is, those morons are going to cling to their dogma not matter how much evidence piles up against it. We've seen it before: the Earth is flat; the Sun revolves around the Earth; Earth is 6000 years old; et cetera.

Speciation is such a slow process that we can only see it in the simplest of organisms, such as algae or bacteria. But that's not good enough for them. They apparently want to see two chimps mate and produce a human (which is absurd), and proves that they refuse to understand the subject matter.

Trolls (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28083661)

Perhaps serious scientists should stick with doing science, rather than refuting creationists and others with ideological agendas to push. Cause when you feed the trolls, the word gets around and you draw larger and larger numbers to be fed. Or in other words, one gets the impression that the refuters have an agenda of their own to push. Like the fine article, when one gets around to reading it, leaves behind.

Funny but misleading (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#28083791)

The basic argument in the piece seems to assume that speciation hasn't been observed. But that's simply not true. We've observed speciation many times in action. This has occurred both in the lab and outside it. For example, there are experiments dating back to the 1970s using selective pressure on fruit flies to produce different strains that were not interfertile. (Dobzhansky had a 1971 paper in Nature on this and there has been a lot of similar followup work since then). Plant speciation experiments have been around since much earlier. Plant speciation events have been observed at least since the 1930s. To good lists (which are slightly out of date but have many examples) are at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html [talkorigins.org] and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html [talkorigins.org] . There might be good reasons to view dogs as part of different species. And the general problems with precisely defining what constitute species are a deep and fascinating issue (philosopher John Wilkins has written a lot on this subject) but redefining things to show up the creationists isn't only stupid and not funny, it is also unnecessary.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...