Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have missed a couple of Vikings running around Greenland.

---

Quote:

---

I don't see any Neanderthals running around

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think I understand what you're saying. It's like when all the Russians moved out of the Chernobyl site after the accident, that makes Russians extinct. It's not impossible for a culture/society to move without becoming extinct. Just like it's possible that Neanderthal interbred with modern man instead of going extinct. I realise that the evidence is pointing the other way, but the possibility still exists.

---

Quote:

---

"Neanderthals made no lasting contribution to the modern human [maternal] DNA gene pool," a team of German, American, Croatian and Finnish researchers wrote in Friday's edition of the journal Cell.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Umm, have you ever been to the southeastern quarter of the US, Citizen ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
There's evidence that some Dinosaur species evolved into birds, but Dinosaurs are also extinct.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Birds aren't extinct, but dinosaurs are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
So if we decide to change the name Dog, to Cat. Dogs become extinct?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
So if we decide to change the name Dog, to Cat. Dogs become extinct?

---

Err, no. I think you'll find the differences between a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a Sparrow run a little deeper than their name. But if Dogs evolved into some other species, and the original members of the Dog species died out (which is a sub-species of wolves, so erm, whatever) then yeah, Dogs would be extinct.

Just because an offshoot species that has evolved from another still exists, doesn't mean the original still does. Birds may have evolved from Dinosaurs, but they AREN'T dinosaurs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
So even though all human ancestor are Apes, humans aren't Apes? Even though all bird ancestors are dinosaurs, their not dinosaurs?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
So even though all human ancestor are Apes, humans aren't Apes? Even though all bird ancestors are dinosaurs, their not dinosaurs?

---

We all evolved from single celled micro-organisms if you go back far enough. Are you a Paramecium?

---

Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have missed a couple of Vikings running around Greenland.

---

Quote:

---

They do tend to stand out, don't they ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Yes biologically I am, since I contain 99.999% of the genetic material of a Paramecium.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
When T-Rex went extinct, Dinosaurs did'nt become extinct. If Sparrows become the last surviving birds on Earth,Dinosaurs won't be extinct. When the last bird on Earth dies, Dinosaurs become extinct.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by swish:
So, one could certainly make up their own definitions for words like "species", but if one was interested in using them in discourse with others, it's just going to work better if one learns the generally accepted definition of the word.

Species: (Biology) the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

If you don't agree, take it up with dictionary.com. Otherwise, note that a T Rex and a sparrow could never have little lizard-bird-babies of their very own, nor could a human and a parameceum make little humaceum blobs. They are, by definition, not the same species.

---

Quote:

---

Beyond that the definition for a species is the ability to breed and produce viable fertile offspring.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Small technical quibble here, and a question, but why is it that we don't consider alligators, crocodiles, and gavials to be dinosaurs? Or turtles and tortoises, for that matter? We're told they haven't evolved for 65-75 million years, which should put them squarely in the age of the dinosaurs... And I could see a salt-water croc being able to produce offspring with a croc from 75 million years ago.

Just wondering.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Pretty much what I said earlier

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by swish:
Yeah, sorry. It just didn't seem to take, so I thought a repeat might help.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by swish:
So, one could certainly make up their own definitions for words like "species", but if one was interested in using them in discourse with others, it's just going to work better if one learns the generally accepted definition of the word.

Species: (Biology) the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

If you don't agree, take it up with dictionary.com. Otherwise, note that a T Rex and a sparrow could never have little lizard-bird-babies of their very own, nor could a human and a parameceum make little humaceum blobs. They are, by definition, not the same species.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
The classifications are defined somewhat by who is making the list of species. Many don't include Birds as Dinosaurs after Arceopteryx because there are so many birds extinct and still alive that the few(700-800) dinosaur genus known would be just a minute portion of the list. One of the problems we are haveing here is that Dinosaurs are not known by their species, but their genus, Tyrannosaur is the genus, Rex is the species. If all dinosaurs were the same species then they could interbreed. Because almost nothing is known about their genetics, it's almost impossible to determine what species a particular dinosaur belonged to, other than by common appearance. If you want to cut off your list of Dinosaurs so feathered genus after Arceopteryx are not included, then yes all genus of Dinosaurs are extinct. The only problem I see with this is that Dinosaurs did not become extinct when Archeopterex emerged, so it's just an arbitrary point in the evolution of Dinosaurs. By doing so you are assuming all other genus of Dinosaurs did become extinct. If we conclusively knew that all modern bird were descended from genus Archyopteryx then I would have no problem saying all Dinosaurs are extinct and calling a Sparrow Archyopteryx Sparrow. The problem I see with that is, a few year form now we might discover that Archyopteryx was just another dead end Dinosaur genus and that modern birds are actually descended from a Dinosaur genus that emerged a million years after Arceopteryx.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Yes biologically I am, since I contain 99.999% of the genetic material of a Paramecium.

---

You need to check your numbers REALLY badly. Humans and micro-organisms are entirely different species, birds and Dinosaurs aren't the same species. Just because they may have evolved from Dinosaurs, doesn't mean they're the same species. If your proposal had any weight there could be no extinction of species. There is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I didn't say humans and Paramecium have 99.99% identical genetics. Obviously a Paramecium has only a fraction of the genetic material of a human. All species on earth contain the genetic code of organisms that precede them in the evolutionary tree. Just because I contain the genetic code of a Paramecium doesn't make me a Paramecium.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Small technical quibble here, and a question, but why is it that we don't consider alligators, crocodiles, and gavials to be dinosaurs? Or turtles and tortoises, for that matter? We're told they haven't evolved for 65-75 million years, which should put them squarely in the age of the dinosaurs... And I could see a salt-water croc being able to produce offspring with a croc from 75 million years ago.

Just wondering.

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
That is an interesting thought. We just don't know whether or not the earliest feathered dinosaur could breed with a modern bird. Seems highly unlikely, buy not impossible. If they could, Birds are definitely Dinosaurs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Horses and Donkeys are obviously not the same Species, but can produce infertile offspring.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
"related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

Now you are the one arguing with Swish's dictionary definition of species. Have you added the requirement that the offspring be fertile? My dictionary only requires "a group of animals or plants which bear a close resemblance to each other in the more essential features of their organisation, and produce similar progeny".

---

Quote:

---

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, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology.
...
Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
The fact is that species definitions become blurred with very closely related species, such as horses, donkeys and so on, Birds are not closely related to Dinosaurs. They're quite far removed morphologically and genetically, so while closely related species may "blur" to some extent, Birds are well out of "blurring range" with Dinosaurs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by swish:

What was this discussion about anyway? Psychopathic birds doing it with dinosaurs?

*confused*

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Re Greenlanders going extinct

"I think I understand what you're saying. It's like when all the Russians moved out of the Chernobyl site after the accident, that makes Russians extinct. ."

Yes, Greenlanders did actually all go extinct. The trading records of the day indicated no trading ships went to Greenland in a span of 100 years (one left Iceland for Greenland early in that timeframe but never returned. Voyaging was a dangerous occupation.) Furthermore, the Greenlanders had cleared all the available trees for pasture for their beloved cows, so they couldn't build ships. Without visiting ships and unable to make their own they were unable to go elsewhere. Finally, the archeological evidence is of a once large and thriving community with major elements long fallen into disrepair and disuse, indications of economic and population contraction. And the few skeletons and waste left behind indicated a half-dozen people living with their few remaining precious cattle, eating them, and eating each other. While ships occasionally sheltered near Greenland during the interim, knowledge of the colony itself was lost to time. The next time anyone visited the colony was hundreds of years later and, and obviously, no one was home.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Thanks for policing the threads anyway. What was you contribution, a few vague insults and a dictionary definition?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
In my original post that is all I was trying to imply about Neanderthal. The "general consensus" among scientists is that Homo Sapien and Neanderthal are separate species. This is not a scientific fact.

---

Quote:

---

They are classified that way because the current consensus is that most of the evidence in the fossil record suggests that this may be the case.

---

Quote:

---

Many scientists believe that modern humans might be the result of Neanderthal, Home Sapien hybridization. If this is the case then the name given to our species is just a result of the fact that the consensus is that our skeletons more closely resemble Homo Sapien.

---

Quote:

---

It's possible that future evidence will determine that the Neanderthal contribution to human genetics is much greater than currently thought.

---

Quote:

---

If that is the case it would be just as reasonable to call modern man Neanderthal as Homo Sapien. By any of the definitions of species you accept, Neanderthal and Homo Sapien would be considered the same due to the "blurring" between closely related species.

---

Quote:

---

They almost certainly interbred in the wild and their offspring were almost certainly fertile.

---

Quote:

---

The difference in their skeletal structure is significant, but so is the deference in skeletal structure among different populations of Homo Sapiens.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Shouldn't have allowed Citizen to bait me into a off subject argument.

---