Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (383469)	5/9/2008 5:09:12 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586841

"Then why dogs have a latin name canis lupus familiarus, the latter term meaning a subspecies of canis lupus?" Well, they are also called canis familiaris. TAXONOMY Order: Carnivora Family: Canidae Genus: Canis Species: Canis lupus Subspecies: Canis lupus familiaris In 1993, after the DNA testing of Canis lupus (the wolf) and Canis familiarus (the dog), scientists renamed Canis familiarus as a subspecies of the wolf: Canis lupus familiarus. This was because findings concluded that the wolf and the dog were so genetically similar that they must be named as the same species (for more information visit The Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family by Robert Wayne). clubcanine.net ------------------------------------------------ Welcome to the world of taxonomy. You have lumpers, who like to put as many into a particular classification as possible, and splitters, who like to split them out. It looks like the lumpers have won out again. Ok, then. They should be subspecies. Welcome to the world of biology, a field of vague and shifting terms. ------------------------------------------------ "Sure. But its not a creation of a new species. You can obscure that point by talking about definitions of what a species is." It is not obscuring anything. It, in fact, is the core of the argument. Sure, if you start inventing your own terminology, like your definition of a species, then you can argue that no new species have been created. The creationist tried that decades ago. Instead of species, they introduced the concept of a "kind". And new kinds could not be created, only God could do that. And kinds were, rather recursively, defined as being unchangeable. So by creating your own definitions and grinding it with your own logic rules, you can "prove" almost anything. By shifting the meaning of terms to whatevers convenient for the current argument, you can prove almost anything.