(1) This piece shows one of the ways in which some questions remain unsettled:

In the 18th century European naturalists dubbed the wolves of Canada and the eastern U.S. Canis lycaon, because they seemed distinct from Canis lupus, the gray wolf of Europe and Asia. By the early 1900s North American naturalists had decided that they were actually gray wolves as well. But in the past few years Canadian researchers who have analyzed wolf DNA have come full circle. They argue that gray wolves only live in western North America. The wolves of Algonquin Provincial Park belong to a separate species, which they want to call C. lycaon once more.

Other wolf experts do not think there is enough evidence to split C. lupus into two species. And both sides agree that the identity of the Algonquin wolves has become far more murky thanks to interbreeding. Coyotes (another species in the genus Canis) have expanded east and have begun to interbreed with C. lycaon. Now a sizable fraction of these eastern coyotes carry wolf DNA, and vice versa. Meanwhile C. lycaon has been interbreeding with gray wolves at the western border of its range. So the Algonquin animals are not just mixing C. lycaon DNA with C. lupus DNA--they are also passing on the coyote DNA as well.

(2) Re: yesterday’s column, it might be worth stressing that there’s a difference between teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory and injecting religion into the science classroom. Religious debates belong in religion classes. Scientific debates belong in the science classroom. Among the latter, for instance, are questions about the strengths and weaknesses of Gould’s notions about spandrels. That’s entirely different from saying that “some people believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and scientists don’t really know if that’s so.” Scientists do, and it isn’t.

Rick,

Sorry I offended you so.

I never meant to imply you should not have an opinion, and definitely not that you should withhold posting.

I happen to think postings based on science should have a solid grounding in science. Just my opinion.

Am I not allowed to my own opinion and my own post as well as you ?  Am I required to just take anything you say at face value ?

If so, let me know so I can be meekly submissive to the utter bullshit I read here.

I disagree that all posters here are highly educated on every subject they post on. No offense intended. I just disagree with that statement.

You don’t seem to think you need anyone to challenge all your cherished views. You might be wrong on that.

This is an opinion board,right?
I don’t recall any educational requirements when I read the rules to post here.

I am sure all of the posters on this board are highly educated on every subject they comment on.

Including the nameless cowards who hide behind their silly monikers and expect others to take them seriously.

It’s “free thinking” to insist the world really is flat, sea monsters lurk at the edges and will eat us if we don’t fall off first, and the Sun revolves around the Earth, because there is no proof to the contrary except what the scientists “tell” us.

In fact that theory was very popular a few centuries back and was backed by popular demand and the Church.

The problem with free thinking is that it needs to have proof of its own. Your fertile imagination just doesn’t get it.

You need proof.

When you have a reputable degree in science yourself you can truthfully say you know what you talk about.

The problem many centuries back is the same as today. No one feels any need to know what they talk about in order to have an opinion.

I never give any attention when scientist start with the answer first and search for for the right questions to insight fear and worry in order to further their political agenda to garner votes and funding.[Global Warming theorists etc.]
All free thinking people are pushed aside and slandered as freaks.

Real science starts with observation and questions then search for facts and truths to bolster their findings..If the pieces don’t fit, stop trimming the edges to make it work. 

To hell with top down, bought and paid for scientist!

Americusios evolved from Euromician miscreants. A time of violence and surpression of basic human needs. During the years of evolution new characteristics such as freedom of movement, privacy, free speech, voting rights and freedom of religion became more dominant traits of the Americusious.

Now, after hundreds of years, there is evidence that a regression pattern has become prominant in Americusious. The species no longer characterizes “freedoms”. Gone are the evolutionary cravings and in place are supression of religion, speech codes, developer rights over private rights, limited privacy and no voting rights due to gerrymandering. Americusious are devolving into their previous Euromician species - a branch now known as Obamacratious Raciastics.

Also, the examples were not hybrids.  They were examples of one species developing from another.

Here you will find that dogs and cats are descended from miacids which were around tens of millions of years ago.  It does not take a lot of research to find the basic answers to your questions.  With more effort, you can find a lot more details on your questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

Freddie: Hybrids don’t make one species out of another.  Hybrids are blends.  If you want to argue that man developed by cross-breeding lemurs go ahead. Let’s see the fossil records.  Oh, there are huge holes.

But where has a one celled animal become a two celled animal?  Where has one species (dog) become another (cat)?  It hasn’t happened.

What evolution can’t explain is why most human beings, regardless of race, geography or culture, believe in some sort of final judgement and have an instinctive belief in some form of life after death going back as far as we can accurately research.

Why?

I think I may be a speciation event!

Post Your Comments: