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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (1776)	12/11/2016 9:32:26 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 362360

If we bred together - which we did - and the result was viable offspring - which it was - doesn't that meet the definition of being the same species? No. The definition is that they don't normally breed with viable offspring. And we didn't until our African ancestors got to roaming about. Physical barriers count. For example, there are two different, but related species of a particular ground squirrel. One on one side of the Grand Canyon and the other on the other side. With the Neanderthals, it was sort of touch and go. Apparently we were at the raw edge of no longer being inter-fertile. None of the genes that survive have anything to do with reproduction, for example. This is pretty common when you take two populations which have been separated for long periods of time and cross-breed them.