MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Crying Wolf (Life Sciences)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 52, 53, 54  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, latest tests show they are intermediate between academics and Applied Epistemologists. It's all driven by curiosity apparently, not fear of predation.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

From Wiki:

The wild Bactrian camel (Camelus ferus) is a critically endangered species of camel living in parts of northern China and southern Mongolia. It is closely related to the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus). Both are large, double-humped even-toed ungulates native to the steppes of central Asia.[2] Until recently, wild Bactrian camels were thought to have descended from domesticated Bactrian camels that became feral after being released into the wild. However, genetic studies have established it as a separate species which diverged from [what was to become]the [totally domesticated] Bactrian camel about 1.1 million years ago.

So, just over a million years ago, the two humped Central Asian camel split into two groups that went their separate ways. That remained unchanged until about four thousand five hundred years ago, when man decided to round up and completely domesticate one population, while leaving the other free to roam the desert.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mind boggling. I'm prepared to bet that, far from a million year bifurcation of species, the present populations can breed with one another. Any info on this?
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Mind boggling. I'm prepared to bet that, far from a million year bifurcation of species, the present populations can breed with one another. Any info on this?

Wiki says... yes.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiki states both species are "native to the steppes of central Asia". Why? The orthodox position is that camels originate from Yukon

Despite their strong association with the Middle East and Africa, camels actually originated in North America some 45 million years ago. ... They also ambled down to South America, where they evolved into llamas and alpacas

They weren't in a hurry. Anyway, according to History.com the original Arctic species was bigger and suited to a cold climate, e.g. flat hooves ideal for walking on snow and/or sand, hump for fat storage

...giant camels roamed the Arctic, looking a whole lot like their desert-based descendants do today. ....According to a study published today in Nature Communications, researchers have evidence that camels lived all the way up in Canada’s northernmost territory, now home to polar bears, grey wolves and caribou. Far from feeling out of place, camels were ideally suited for the region’s harsh winters—and incredibly, the same features that helped them withstand the cold would later help their successors brave the desert.

https://www.history.com/news/giant-ancient-camel-roamed-the-arctic
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
Wiki states both species are "native to the steppes of central Asia". Why? The orthodox position is that camels originate from Yukon

To be fair, the two 'facts' are not mutually exclusive.

Camels arriving in central Asia, millions of years ago (having migrated from the Yukon) would surely have earned the right to be regarded as 'native' by now, wouldn't they?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

True, but orthodoxy does try to have it both ways. If necessary it's millions of years but if it's necessary (eg the horse) it's thousand of years. Only the Megalithic Empire tells the true story.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Bactrian camels and dromedaries are distinct species that diverged millions of years ago, but can still successfully produce hybrids (though only the females are fertile). Such matings between domestic animals of the two species, has lead to as much as 15% admixture. No such hybridisation has occurred between dromedaries and wild bactrians.

This genetic admixture (in domestics) could account for the apparent early split between wild and domestic bactrians.

This is one of the reasons we see wildly different estimates (every time a new study is undertaken) for all sorts of genetic divergence events. Also (somewhat arbitrary) assumptions are made regarding reproduction and mutation rates.

There's nothing wrong with the data... just the interpretation.

I've read quite a few papers on the subject, that blind you with detail (regarding the methodology of the research) then jump to conclusions that are merely opinion, not fact.

There's nothing wrong with the data... just the interpretation.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is one of the reasons we see wildly different estimates

The most obvious reason is that the estimator doesn't know what he is estimating. If you are assuming it is all happening via Darwinian evolution, you will estimate all those genetic (or morphic) alterations required for, say, a llama to produce a dromedary, will take millions of years. If the changes are being done by the hand of man (whether deliberately via domestication or unwittingly by buggering up the ecosphere) then those same changes may only require thousands of years.

The point is they'll look exactly the same. The other point is nobody will bother to open a new branch of the Life Sciences to study the difference because it's of purely academic interest (and not academic life scientists at that). As far as they are concerned, we know which are the domesticated animals, we know when they were domesticated and, since we don't intend to domesticate any others, there's an end to the matter.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Fuegian dog was a rather interesting animal. It turned out to be the domesticated form of the Andean fox, and not a true dog at all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuegian_dog

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618213004291?via%3Dihub
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This kind of thing has been going for ever, it absolutely drives you nuts because, strange as it may seem, we rely on theses dudes getting it right so we can show how wrong they are. But after you wander round long enough trying to work out what they mean by sheep/goats, horses/ponies, dogs/wolves, buffalo/buffalo/buffalo (and don't get me started on the antelope family, including the buffalo) you kinda give up. Just as you say, they'll only change it further down the line just when you thought you'd got it straight.

The one thing you never get is the slightest acknowledgement that speciation is posing problems. You wanna know why? Well, their paradigm is based on a book called On The Origin of Species and one show of weakness on that front is sure to let in the Creationists. Of whom we are often accused of being fully paid-up members.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

identity between the Fuegian dog and the culpeo fox (97.57%)

What?... only 97.57% ?... Dogs and grey wolves are 99.9% identical.

So what made up the remaining 2.43% of the Fuegian dog?

If it was the domestic form of the culpeo fox, they should be essentially, genetically identical.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But this only goes to show how majorly twisted are the knickers. Aren't we supposed to share 99.5% of our genes with chimpanzees? BTW, I think there is a marsupial fox/dog hanging around somewhere in the fossil record. But that of course receives the classic evolutionary get out of jail card, parallel evolution.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad wrote:
The Fuegian dog was a rather interesting animal. It turned out to be the domesticated form of the Andean fox, and not a true dog at all.

And to complicate matters further... South American foxes are not true foxes at all. They form a separate group of canids that are more closely related to wolves than foxes... another example of parallel evolution.

(Sorry got that wrong... its actually 'convergent evolution'.)
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There's nothing like incorporating the theory into the name of the observed phenomenon. I prefer my own more neutral term. Oh horror!
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 52, 53, 54  Next

Jump to:  
Page 53 of 54

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group