The Origin Of Dogs – Biogenetic engineering

reply to post by steveknows


So where did the dog come from that breed with the wolf if you only have wolves?

Dog is a sub-species of the wolf which is why it "branched" off, but even with selective breeding, you are still limited to what the species you are breeding. Its the same with crossing breeding other animals and plants, you can change some characteristics but your still limited to whatever dominate or recessive genes are in both parenting breeds.

So my logic is not flawed, I've done this with plants and though a plant is not the same as an animal, they still share similar characteristics in terms of breeding and cross breeding. And in order to cross breed you need another breed.

So what I was saying was, if you only have one breed (species) and keep breeding them with selective breeding your still left with that one breed.

What your saying is that you can start with one breed (species) and somehow create an entirely new sub species? Very doubtful.

As previously stated in an earlier post, lets use humans as the example. Over the thousands of years that humans have been breeding and selective breeding, has a new sub-species been born from humans?

If what ya'll are saying about how people domesticated wolves and made a new species through selective breeding then we should have clear examples of the same thing happening in humans.

"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."—*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.


"But in the last thirty years or so speciation has emerged as the major unsolved problem. The British geneticist William Bateson was the first to focus attention on the question. In 1922 he wrote: 'In dim outline evolution is evident enough. But that particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious.' Sixty years later we are if anything worse off, research having only revealed complexity within complexity." —*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.

My reasoning is this, only now-a-days are we able to create a sub-species through use of technology and DNA coding. The problem with the introduction of dogs species is that they were breed by selective breeding with wolves. As stated in the article the branch off from wolf to dog was around 40-150,000 years ago, and that is when the dog species first appeared. It does not take into account all the years spent before hand in the breeding process to get up to the point of where the dog is introduced into the world. Which means that the breeding process would/could have been started over 150,000 years ago.

How did our early ancestors do this? Especially when we've been taught that they were stone age people who lived in caves. Only in the past few hundred years have we been able to get a better understanding of the breeding process and of the knowledge of DNA and dominate/recessive traits. If our ancestors were able to do this then they must have been a lot more advance then we believed to be, that is my main point in this argument.

How were stone age people able to do this and create a new sub-species, when in nature through national selection (if you believe in this part of evolution) it takes millions of years?

How long did they do this selective breeding before they were able to produce the dog?

How did they know what they were doing if they no form of writing? Oral tradition is possible but if anyone has done to tried doing selective breeding or cross breeding, there are a lot of things to keep track of, meaning lots of notes over an extensive period of time. It could have taken thousands of years of breeding.

So how were primitive people able to do this? Or were they primitive? It just raises a lot more questions then answers.

I never said it was impossible, what I am wondering is how did they do this when we're just now able to do this?

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
reply to post by steveknows

 

So where did the dog come from that breed with the wolf if you only have wolves?

Dog is a sub-species of the wolf which is why it "branched" off, but even with selective breeding, you are still limited to what the species you are breeding. Its the same with crossing breeding other animals and plants, you can change some characteristics but your still limited to whatever dominate or recessive genes are in both parenting breeds.

So my logic is not flawed, I've done this with plants and though a plant is not the same as an animal, they still share similar characteristics in terms of breeding and cross breeding. And in order to cross breed you need another breed.

So what I was saying was, if you only have one breed (species) and keep breeding them with selective breeding your still left with that one breed.

What your saying is that you can start with one breed (species) and somehow create an entirely new sub species? Very doubtful.

edit on 22-10-2011 by Lostmymarbles because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry. This is the most polite way I can put it. That opening line you've used shows that you have failed to grasp even the most basic concept of what domestication means and the process involved.

Dog and wolf are the same species. I've explained this before. Wolf through the process of domestication became dog ok. But they're still of the same species because even after the process of domestication the wolf and the dog can breed and produce viable offspring. This is as simple as I can make it.

You do not have the basic concept of what domestication is I'm sorry so this can't be debated with you you just don't get it.

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
As previously stated in an earlier post, lets use humans as the example. Over the thousands of years that humans have been breeding and selective breeding, has a new sub-species been born from humans?

If what ya'll are saying about how people domesticated wolves and made a new species through selective breeding then we should have clear examples of the same thing happening in humans.

"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."—*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

edit on 22-10-2011 by Lostmymarbles because: added quote

"But in the last thirty years or so speciation has emerged as the major unsolved problem. The British geneticist William Bateson was the first to focus attention on the question. In 1922 he wrote: 'In dim outline evolution is evident enough. But that particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious.' Sixty years later we are if anything worse off, research having only revealed complexity within complexity." —*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.

My reasoning is this, only now-a-days are we able to create a sub-species through use of technology and DNA coding. The problem with the introduction of dogs species is that they were breed by selective breeding with wolves. As stated in the article the branch off from wolf to dog was around 40-150,000 years ago, and that is when the dog species first appeared. It does not take into account all the years spent before hand in the breeding process to get up to the point of where the dog is introduced into the world. Which means that the breeding process would/could have been started over 150,000 years ago.

How did our early ancestors do this? Especially when we've been taught that they were stone age people who lived in caves. Only in the past few hundred years have we been able to get a better understanding of the breeding process and of the knowledge of DNA and dominate/recessive traits. If our ancestors were able to do this then they must have been a lot more advance then we believed to be, that is my main point in this argument.

How were stone age people able to do this and create a new sub-species, when in nature through national selection (if you believe in this part of evolution) it takes millions of years?

How long did they do this selective breeding before they were able to produce the dog?

How did they know what they were doing if they no form of writing? Oral tradition is possible but if anyone has done to tried doing selective breeding or cross breeding, there are a lot of things to keep track of, meaning lots of notes over an extensive period of time. It could have taken thousands of years of breeding.

So how were primitive people able to do this? Or were they primitive? It just raises a lot more questions then answers.

I never said it was impossible, what I am wondering is how did they do this when we're just now able to do this?

edit on 22-10-2011 by Lostmymarbles because: (no reason given)

And here we are again. You fail to understand the difference between domestication and evolution. It's painfuly obvious that you class them as one and the same regardless of the fact that the difference has already been explained on other posts.

I'm thinking that you don't understand it so in your eyes it must be wrong. You can't be debated with sorry because you need to at least have a fundamental understanding of the difference between domestication and evolution. Of the fact that you can have two animals of the same species who have different physical traits. And you don't understand either.

Anyway it's not important as the domestication of the dog from wolf has been proven scientificallly And anything you have to say is really just a curious read for anyone who doesn't know better.

reply to post by Lostmymarbles


Okay if someone wants to say aliens are real and were here, then they brought something with them that was bred with a wolf. The missing cross breed.

I once read that the feral mutt dog is 52 lbs and has a certain short fur to it.

I have loooked into the eyes of a wolf at the NC animal center and seen a wild, primative, calculating individual. Dogs seem to have a soul, and an attachment or bond with humans. The eyes of a wolf are almost yellow and they are different than dog eyes.

Breeding a dog to get certain traits would be a very time consuming process. I bred my aging Cairn terrier because she is very special and I felt she had qualities worth keeping alive in the breed. The three people who adopted the puppies probably had them fixed. The one I kept has the best qualites in the breed, she is very loyal and smart ( I can't keep any dog collar on her, she escapes them) and she is loving. The mother is more protective and agressive being the alpha female. The father dog was one that was orginally from Colorado and imported to the state by someone else who breeds Cairns. My dog is related to most of the SC Cairns, there aren't too many here. I wanted a dark black Cairn so I picked out a father who was black, with a touch of red. What I got was four females: three were brindle and look exactly like the mother, and one that was beige or wheaten with a black mask face. Maternal Grandfather genes came through. The puppies father dog was sweet and outgoing... three puppies inherited this trait. The weaten terrier ended up being very aggressive and slightly nervous. The mother dog spent her time disaplining this alpha puppy who bullied. The runt puppy was the sweetest and prettiest. It was also the only puppy who came out head first.

I would tend to think that the most aggressive wolves around early humans met swift deaths by the hands of humans, leaving only the most docile wolves to be left. That alone genetically modified the population of wolves that stayed around human camps. Eventually there were only wolves that were well adapted to survive not being killed by early man, that's when the road to becoming dogs started. Man basically killed off the traits they didn't like in wolves and ended up with animals that were well suited to live with mankind.

Originally posted by Aestheteka
(wait until you look into food crops such as wheat and oats originating from wild grasses).

Pffft. What and oats are easy as hell. Wheat is descended from wild emmer wheats growing in southern Anatolia.The only difference is that the kernels are slightly larger and the stalks are more robust in the domesticated version. Oats were basically a weed that came with these crops.

Now. You want crazy?

Corn.

What the hell is corn?! Nobody freaking knows! Seriously! There's a theory of it coming from wild teosinte... but the amount of careful selective breeding that would have to be undertaken to get even "primitive" corn from teosinte is just insane. There's also the fact that corn simply cannot exist without humans - seriously, it is completely unable to spread in the wild, due to the husks. Genetically, corn is all over the damn place, as if it were never anything but corn.

Which, I suppose, is somewhat possible... if the early mesoamericans eradicated the species except for thir own crops, and then just happened to get a mutant variety covered in an impenetrable husk. but still. Corn is crazy.

(Only in biology can you get a phrase like "corn is crazy" and not sound like a total loon. Man. I love biology)

reply to post by steveknows


Actually there is no meaningful difference between evolution and domestication. Domestication is simply evolution by human agency, rather than by natural selection. hell, even that's an arbitrary distinction - humans are perfectly natural, and we selected dogs to be what they are. The dogs have adapted to human whim, which is, for all intents and purposes, their environment. Hell, there's even practical speciation between dogs (a Great Dane and a chihuahua cannot breed together, even if they really want to). Hell, there's even extinction (English bulldogs can no longer reproduce naturally; all of them, every last one is delivered by caesarian section.)

All change is evolution. You are evolution.

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
As previously stated in an earlier post, lets use humans as the example. Over the thousands of years that humans have been breeding and selective breeding, has a new sub-species been born from humans?

What do you think the various human ethnicities are? Of course, increased travel has swirled the gene pool around a lot, but yeah. Humans isolated in different regions of the earth acquired different physical characteristics, habits, and some even developed some pretty impressive adaptative traits (three different methods of dealing with malarial parasites in three different locations, at least three alpine populations with increased lung volune, the stature of arctic peoples, the lengthened leg bones and higher oxygen-carrying capacity of certain east african populations, stc...)

Originally posted by pavil
I would tend to think that the most aggressive wolves around early humans met swift deaths by the hands of humans, leaving only the most docile wolves to be left. That alone genetically modified the population of wolves that stayed around human camps. Eventually there were only wolves that were well adapted to survive not being killed by early man, that's when the road to becoming dogs started. Man basically killed off the traits they didn't like in wolves and ended up with animals that were well suited to live with mankind.

Thank you This is what I was trying to explain. The wolves with traits that we'd eccept would have been tolerated by us and they would have bred. And eventually those traits would have become predominant and the cute eyes or the funny manurisms, friendliest manurism would have been most accepted and eventually these traits become so strong through breeding, just togther without our direct help or intent, that eventually we got the dog.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by steveknows

 

Actually there is no meaningful difference between evolution and domestication. Domestication is simply evolution by human agency, rather than by natural selection. hell, even that's an arbitrary distinction - humans are perfectly natural, and we selected dogs to be what they are. The dogs have adapted to human whim, which is, for all intents and purposes, their environment. Hell, there's even practical speciation between dogs (a Great Dane and a chihuahua cannot breed together, even if they really want to). Hell, there's even extinction (English bulldogs can no longer reproduce naturally; all of them, every last one is delivered by caesarian section.)

All change is evolution. You are evolution.

That's becuase the shape and size is the result of deliberate human Interfearence as where when the dog came from the wolf it was through association with humans and not a deliberate affort on our part. It's the shape that stops it from happening but if you fertilsed a chihuahua egg with a great dane sperm the offspring would be able to reproduce so it's viable so they're both off the same species. Humans changed the shape of every dog you mention on purpose as where the transition from wolf to dog was not a deliberate attemp on our part. A species is not defined by whether or not it can "do it" it's deifned by if it can produce viable offspring. A Donky and a horse can "do it" but the mule which is born is sterile so it's not viable so the donky and horse aren't of the same species. A wolf and a dog in their natural state meaning not deliberately made to look like a freak by humans would not have physical barriers and would produce viable offspring. The original chihuahua which is much bigger than the little rat sized dog that most people see as the chihuahua is actually much bigger and would have no physical barrier when it came to getting it on with a great dane if it was female.

Also domestication is not evolution in the true sense of the word because though almost all animals have evolved, not all animals can be domesticated, A bear, lion and such can't be domesticated and in fact the only cat to be domesticated is the African Wildcat. all the Animals that can be domesticated have been. If domestication was simply evolution by human agency it would mean that all animals can be domesticated and that's wrong as not all animals can be.




en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


They are still humans not a sub-species. Different color and size doesn't make something a sub-species. But say someone is born with wings, or gills, then we have a sub-species. Conjoined twins do not fit into that category. So does anyone have examples of a sub-species of human?

reply to post by steveknows


You can change the shape and size of an animal by domestication but you cannot change their DNA, which is what we're seeing in Dogs.

Dogs have similar DNA to wolves but not exactly the same which is why they are a sub-species.

So how do you change DNA by domestication?

The only way I can think of is if there was 1000's of years of selective breeding, and I'm taking many 1000's of years. But according to modern science and history this would be impossible because humans would not have been around long enough to allow this process to occur.

Which would mean humans are a lot older then we're being taught, or that humans had some sort of technological advancement back 100,000 years ago that allowed them to alter the DNA of the wolf to produce the dog.

reply to post by Lostmymarbles


I think humans accelerated the "natural Selection" process by killing off wolves near them that displayed the wrong traits. It was human engineered evolution that sped up the process quite a bit. Only Cute, smaller sized, less aggressive wolves that could handle human interactions were the only gene pool left around human camps. They eventually turned into the Dogs we know an love. Of course the original domesticated wolf/ first dog was still a pretty mean animal by today's standards.

Worlds first dog lived 31,700 years ago

Originally posted by steveknows
That's becuase the shape and size is the result of deliberate human Interfearence as where when the dog came from the wolf it was through association with humans and not a deliberate affort on our part.

Actually it's entirely possible that human hands were in it from the beginning. We honestly don't know, and I doubt we'll ever find out hte exact way it happened. But it wouldn't surprise me if someone, somewhere, just collected a litter of wolf cubs, and started this whole thing, with hte humans favoring successive generations of more docile animals.

It's the shape that stops it from happening but if you fertilsed a chihuahua egg with a great dane sperm the offspring would be able to reproduce so it's viable so they're both off the same species.

Actually no. See, "species" is a kind of tricky classification. The standing definition is "population of organisms that can and do breed with one another given the opportunity." Yeah, you could make a Danehuahua in vitro, but it will never happen by leaving the dogs to their own devices. Same with, say, giraffes. There are like five species of giraffes. They are all interfertile. Their populations overlap... but thye don't breed with one another, for whatever reasons - thus five species. We can see this here in the northwest, with mule deer, whitetail deer, and blacktail deer. They CAN make fertile offspring, but since the oestrus cycles vary between the species, it doesn't happen.

Humans changed the shape of every dog you mention on purpose as where the transition from wolf to dog was not a deliberate attemp on our part.

Again, we'll never know. I find the scenario of deliberate interference to be rather likely, personally.

A species is not defined by whether or not it can "do it" it's deifned by if it can produce viable offspring. A Donky and a horse can "do it" but the mule which is born is sterile so it's not viable so the donky and horse aren't of the same species.

Actually, ability to reproduce is key. if a population cannot at all reproduce togetehr then they're different species for all practical purposes. if left alone, chuhuahuas and great danes would never, ever mix genes, and would presumably follow whatever paths are open to them from natural selection.

A wolf and a dog in their natural state meaning not deliberately made to look like a freak by humans would not have physical barriers and would produce viable offspring.

Actually, not quite. Wolves, red wolves, dogs, coyotes, and jackals are all interfertile and produce viable offspring. If you pen a male wolf up with a dog bitch (or vice versa) you'll end up with wolfdog puppies. but hte key there is that you have to forcee them together so that desperation takes effect. left to their own, these animals do not usually crossbreed - the species' behaviors are off, as are their physical appearances, scents, the whole thing. Think of the most awkward, unattractive person you've ever met. You're not going ot want to bed them most days. However, if there's absolutely no one else available... any port in a storm.

The original chihuahua which is much bigger than the little rat sized dog that most people see as the chihuahua is actually much bigger and would have no physical barrier when it came to getting it on with a great dane if it was female.

And the original great dane was smaller. moot point, though.

Also domestication is not evolution in the true sense of the word because though almost all animals have evolved, not all animals can be domesticated, A bear, lion and such can't be domesticated and in fact the only cat to be domesticated is the African Wildcat. all the Animals that can be domesticated have been. If domestication was simply evolution by human agency it would mean that all animals can be domesticated and that's wrong as not all animals can be.

Your conclusion is wrong. Domestication is in fact evolution by human agency. That not every animal can be domesticated is not something that counters this at all. it simply means that the traits we count as "domesticated" either cannot be found in those creatures, or are super-hard to breed for. However, we can apply the system that led to domestication - selective breeding - to any critter in the world. We could easily create a wooly lion, bears with the face of a pug dog, any number of things. They might not be domesticated, but we can still change - evolve - them.

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

They are still humans not a sub-species. Different color and size doesn't make something a sub-species.

Never said it was about different color and size. Those vary hugely, and are not indicative of anything. This is the definition of a subspecies: organisms that belong to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they often do not interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation or other factors.

All of the various races of humans developed distinctions from one another in geographic isolation. When given the opportunity they're more than happy to breed together, but their historic geographic isolation has made them distinct nevertheless.

But say someone is born with wings, or gills, then we have a sub-species.

...What? no, what you have there is an entry in a D&D monster manual. Sky elves, sea elves, that sort of thing. if a human came out with functional gills... well... i'll be honest I have NO idea how that would work, About hte closest you come in tetrapods is the ability of some aquatic turtles to take oxygen from water they pull into their cloacas.

Wings... Would also be puzzling. I guess patagia wouldn't be a hugely unusual development, in the grand scale of things.

Conjoined twins do not fit into that category. So does anyone have examples of a sub-species of human?

Just covered it There are some speculations regarding supposedly extinct subspecies... But as "species" itself is largely dependent on examples in the immediate present, it's hard to determine from ancient remains.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You've twisted what I said. The question is that is a dog a domesticated wolf and it has nothing to do with a jackel. All animals you've mentioned aren't found with wolves though it has been known for dogs to run with wolves. Also the wolf/ dog pup thing you mentioned would be a pup that had both predomestication and postdomesticated traits it would be no different to a pup of a poodle and a Labrador looking like a labradoodle, sorry but your point there was lame.

What I've said in previous posts isn't my concept this is what the books written by the experts say and you've only proven what I say as wrong to you and not to the reality of it.

You've started talking about a lion with sheeps traits and such and it's just rediculous to compare some sciencfiction animal with the natural process of domestication.

A person can make anything fit anything if you ignore the facts and forego commonse sense.

I'm sorry but you're argueing against proven science on so many levels and not just whether or not dogs are domesticated wolves.

Now from what I can make out of what you've said in regards to evolution you've basically said that the 6 foot tall bronzed Aussie on the Gold coast of Australia is a branch off but not of the same species as the Pigmy in Africa.

Sorry but I think you're missing some key things.

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
reply to post by steveknows

 

You can change the shape and size of an animal by domestication but you cannot change their DNA, which is what we're seeing in Dogs.

Dogs have similar DNA to wolves but not exactly the same which is why they are a sub-species.

So how do you change DNA by domestication?

The only way I can think of is if there was 1000's of years of selective breeding, and I'm taking many 1000's of years. But according to modern science and history this would be impossible because humans would not have been around long enough to allow this process to occur.

Which would mean humans are a lot older then we're being taught, or that humans had some sort of technological advancement back 100,000 years ago that allowed them to alter the DNA of the wolf to produce the dog.

edit on 23-10-2011 by Lostmymarbles because: (no reason given)

DNA does change by the code it adds to to itself . If DNA didn't chanage you wouldn't be walking upright. But as you count down or break down DNA in the reverse of how it's built you can see where changes have occured.

A white person from Europe doesn't look like a kalahari bushman but they're of the same species.

Animals which started of the same species but were seperated through a devide of some sort like a newly formed ocean over time will seperate so much that they can no longer produce viable offspring and the relativaly new species which was seprated might become a sub species. A wolf and a dog can still breed and the changes in DNA is very very very recent and they can still produce viable offspring naturally and the only traits they don't share is 1. their association with humans 2.their coats.. Actually the Seppala Siberian sledge dog looks so much like a wolf that it's often used as a wolf in movies.


The science of it all has been proven so you can say that you can't see or you don't think or in your opinion all you want but it's been proven so even if you don't understand the process it doesn't mean that science is wrong.

first Op star and flag... A good question and interesting thought

1) I agree the domestication vs genetic engineering is possible...

2) the time table for human civilization is way off..

this does give time for humans or another agency to engage in breeding/ engineering

3)I am sick to death of the argument of psuedo science versus science..

science is the scientific method the rest is button sorting...

all the discussion is over interpretations... with arguments over credentials...

Look into henry fords history for my response...

4)the experiment was attempting to train pups to behave like the dogs we have

not breeding....

5)moving to this we also run into a side note of genetic memory....

we still officially do not have enough info just theories......

The reason I word this this way is this...

No one has studied the effects of behavior modification over generations-
this would be the fabled genetic memory sequence--


Now my own little opinion-

The first part is that we have been lied to by those in charge... Human history is long and richer then we imagine... They are afraid that people would not take it to well to find out that others preceding us had more knowledge and ability then we do now... it makes them look week...

For how this took place...

All assumptions are to be challenged

1) a natural species was chosen as a base line?
2) a focused effort proceeded to change to acceptable the species in question

Problems
Limited amount of time for the breeding to occur
*with both timelines current guesses are that it takes millions of years for species to separate using natural methods(including artificial selection) ....

OR's
1)the idea is wrong that it takes millions of years for species to separate into different species

Proof-
all the arguments over species evolution taking millions of years ---

Well the Christians may have actually stumbled upon something in their responses... errors in radiation testing

Combining both arguments lead me to a new clue...

if there can be a near planet-wide extinction level event - ELE

this means there can also be a near planet wide mass mutagenic event- MME

Multiple species experience morphagenic properties at the genetic level... Induction can be anything present...

for this case radiation and toxins combine with viruses to change a species....
ELE induces a MME

Viruses and viroids experiences faster mutation and change rates the other species on earth... followed by bacteria....



For our little problem of dogs from wolves....

They are not the only species that experienced this change....


Also, the breeding part...

What is suggested is culling...
Wolves that are over aggressive- killed near human habitations.... the alpha males would have been offed by our ancestors... The human predator would not have tolerated it...

this leaves the betas... the food supply suggestion would have occurred with humans... oddly enough the animals we have would have been better off not better suited.... Any traits humans did not like would have been culled at birth or when they showed up

dogs would spread quickly as competitors tried to used the same advantages...

now make this according to some timelines used for human development for civilizations and you only need minor disease to change the gnomes....


IMHO

reply to post by ripcontrol


Couldn't have said it better myself. You said what I was hinting at.

I never said such things was impossible, but that there are way to many unknown variables involved and that the "time-line" associated with this is in direct contrast to what modern science and history tell us. Either the time-line is off or we have been lied to and misinformed/educated.

You all have valid points and its hard to say who is right or wrong. There have been countless studies on this and similar topics and what it has shown us is that we are all wrong and right at the same time. For every study that has proved something, there is one that disproves it. We really wont know what happened because we were not there and the history books are full of gaps and holes that we would be going in circles with this debate forever.

I just wanted to see what ya'll thought and how well ya'll could formulate your answers and hold your ground. And I must say I am impressed. I learned a few things that I might not have taken into consideration under other circumstances. We have all been taught differently and because of this there will always be a bit of bias opinion in our answers due to different educational backgrounds. But that is sometimes necessary for us to advance as long as we can keep an open-mind to other possibilities. Which seems to be the case for most of ya'll and my hats off to everyone that have kept this discussion very interesting and been polite with one another during counter-arguments (which is very rare these days).

For the response on humans. I was talking about color and size as I interpreted it and how I define "species", cause as you said yourself, the definition of "species" is vague and can be interpreted differently. I do not consider someone of different color or size as a different species, I think all humans are the same species.

What I was wondering is if anyone knows of situations in which a human offspring was born with something that would be considered the mark of a sub-species. Which is why I gave the examples of wings or gills. I do know there have been skeletal remains that had horns on them and that giant skeletal remains have been found. And there was supposedly a goat born with a human face and fish with human faces, but has any human been born with animal parts? If anyone has any examples of this can you please post it.

This has been a really interesting topic.