It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Perfectly. It shows that you have your own definition of species based on whether two animals can create a viable offspring.
In other words, you have your own definition of "species."
Fine by me. I wonder what Larus gulls think about it.
Harte
Originally posted by Fimbulvetr
Perfectly. It shows that you have your own definition of species based on whether two animals can create a viable offspring.
In other words, you have your own definition of "species."
Fine by me. I wonder what Larus gulls think about it.
Harte
Actually, Harte, what I believe was said was that species are genetically "allowed", if you will, to breed.. and not only reproduce, but create offspring which can reproduce. The only thing missing from the previous reply was the example of the mule. Horse + Donkey = (infertile) Mule.
Cheers!
Source
Male mules are sterile, but fertile female mules (mollies) sometimes occur and can be mated to either a horse or donkey stallion.
A bundle of recent genetic studies have suggested that modern humans had sex with Neanderthals thousands of years ago when the two populations roamed the planet alongside each other. However, the bones left behind by the two species don't bear any obvious traces of interbreeding and a new study of monkeys in Mexico shows why we shouldn't expect them to. Researchers examined blood samples, hair samples and measurements collected from mantled howler monkeys and black howler monkeys that were live-captured and released in Mexico and Guatemala between 1998 and 2008. The two monkey species splintered off from a common ancestor about 3 million years ago and today they live in mostly separate habitats, except for a "hybrid zone" in the state of Tabasco in southeastern Mexico, where they coexist and interbreed.
We three groups were all enough alike that some of our ancestors could interbreed and produce fertile offspring. But the differences in the genomes of Denisovans, Neanderthals, and modern humans are also revealing the genetic traits that set us apart from them—the traits that made us human.
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem
Originally posted by Fimbulvetr
Hmm.. I must be misreading something between the two of you then.
Although he did refer to Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Modern Humans as the same generic species.. there was room enough to leave open the door that they were different sub-species. I don't know if I agree that the Denisovans were close enough to be the same or not, but I'm not an expert in that field.
What I have looked for, however, is the fact that Homo Sapien Sapien and Homo Sapien Neanderthalis could potentially be the same species, albeit different subspecies as theorized. Also.. Denisovans definitely had the potential to interbreed not only with neanderthal, but also with modern humans... therefore, a stronger argument that they may indeed be a subspecies could be made. Again, I'm not a geneticist to tell anyone what to 'classify' something as. All I did was look around for research and found that the three branches of humanity could and did interbreed. In generic terms, that would mean they're the same species if they're creating - for the most part - viable offspring.