Genetically Engineer Tangs to be small?

[livinlifeinBKK]

At least some of the offspring seem to have been fertile. Skeletal remains have been found showing features that appear to combine features of both modern humans and Neanderthals. DNA testing suggests hybridization between the two “species” did happen. Species is a blurry definition in this sense since at least some of the offspring were fertile. There are many instances of inter species breeding and generating offspring and if closely related enough leading to fertile offspring.

There's a difference between sub-species and separate species. The ability to produce fertile offspring is a key characteristic in defining species as separate. Sub-species can produce fertile offspring.

 

[crazyfishmom]

There's a difference between sub-species and separate species. The ability to produce fertile offspring is a key characteristic in defining species as separate. Sub-species can produce fertile offspring.

They’re not classified as subspecies. They belong to the same genus but are still defined as separate species. Our family tree is complicated and there are significant issues the scientific community has with these definitions with many scientists clamoring that they’re not different species and many continuing to claim that they are. Fertile hybrids are documented in a variety of different crossings that are considered to be inter species including ligers and wolphins. They’re not common but occur in the wild and are definitely not subspecies. From the classical definition yes I agree with this point. Life finds a way. There’s so many lines that continue to be crossed that it’s funny to think that we continue to place perceived limitations on nature.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

They’re not classified as subspecies. They belong to the same genus but are still defined as separate species. Our family tree is complicated and there are significant issues the scientific community has with these definitions with many scientists clamoring that they’re not different species and many continuing to claim that they are. Fertile hybrids are documented in a variety of different crossings that are considered to be inter species including ligers and wolphins. They’re not common but occur in the wild and are definitely not subspecies. From the classical definition yes I agree with this point. Life finds a way. There’s so many lines that continue to be crossed that it’s funny to think that we continue to place perceived limitations on nature.

To be fair, I think it's still debated whether or not they were distinct species or subspecies. As for ligers and wolphins, the males are sterile. If Im not mistaken, the ability to interbreed and produce a hybrid depends on the number of chromosomes of each species.

 

[crazyfishmom]

To be fair, I think it's still debated whether or not they were distinct species or subspecies. As for ligers and wolphins, the males are sterile. If Im not mistaken, the ability to interbreed and produce a hybrid depends on the number of chromosomes of each species.

Definitely highly debated as I noted in my response. Yes, but female offspring are sometimes fertile. And yes, agreed that the number of chromosomes is one of the primary factors affecting whether the offspring may turn out to be fertile. The Neanderthal Y chromosome has not been detected in the human population so it is possible that the genetic material remaining in the human population may come from matrilineal lines although this is entirely speculation on my part.

 

[OrionN]

There's a difference between sub-species and separate species. The ability to produce fertile offspring is a key characteristic in defining species as separate. Sub-species can produce fertile offspring.

This is obviously not true. The line is not at all clear cut. We know there are a numbers of fertile hybrid species. Fully fertile to partly fertile. SnowOnyx? A number of cross species clowns?

 

[Spare time]

There's a difference between sub-species and separate species. The ability to produce fertile offspring is a key characteristic in defining species as separate. Sub-species can produce fertile offspring.

Different species can interbreed and have offspring. That is why the biological species definition is faulty. There are wild baboon examples of this.

Biology doesn't fit in nice boxes, and thus the term species can be problematic.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

This is obviously not true. The line is not at all clear cut. We know there are a numbers of fertile hybrid species. Fully fertile to partly fertile. SnowOnyx? A number of cross species clowns?

That is a characteristic in defining species...thats very easily found if you do a google search. And those are hybrids, not new species and can occur easier because they have the same number of chromosomes. How would you define what a species is? If you only use genetics then its even more difficult to say that there are distinct species at all, assuming you believe there is a common ancestor.
Do you believe there are any distinct species? How do you separate them?

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Different species can interbreed and have offspring. That is why the biological species definition is faulty. There are wild baboon examples of this.

Biology doesn't fit in nice boxes, and thus the term species can be problematic.

If you believe distinct species exist, you need to be able to define what defines a species as a species. There may be exceptions, usually due to human intervention, but that's a pretty accurate definition.

 

[Spare time]

If you believe distinct species exist, you need to be able to define what defines a species as a species. There may be exceptions, usually due to human intervention, but that's a pretty accurate definition.

Its accurate in many cases but not all. Species is again, an artificial label we put on organisms with a boundary that we made up. Nature does not like boxes and categories, but lots of humans do.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Its accurate in many cases but not all. Species is again, an artificial label we put on organisms with a boundary that we made up.

Do you believe there are different species? What do you personally use to separate one species from another?

 

[Spare time]

Do you believe there are different species? What do you personally use to separate one species from another?

I just accept that species is a human label for being able to describe something with relative certainty. I am an evolutionary biologist and use the term species but accept that nothing in nature is binary and that exceptions exist. I tend to care more about populations over species for making statements.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I just accept that species is a human label for being able to describe something with relative certainty. I am an evolutionary biologist and use the term species but accept that nothing in nature is binary and that exceptions exist. I tend to care more about populations over species for making statements.

so what is your definition of a population? Does it not include the word species? Im curious.

 

[OrionN]

That is a characteristic in defining species...thats very easily found if you do a google search. And those are hybrids, not new species and can occur easier because they have the same number of chromosomes. How would you define what a species is? If you only use genetics then its even more difficult to say that there are distinct species at all, assuming you believe there is a common ancestor.
Do you believe there are any distinct species? How do you separate them?

I mistyped. Hybrids are hybrids, not species.
Species is a human destination. The line between closely related species are not clear. It not true that having 100% fertile offspring means that they are subspecies rather than separate species. I don’t think that (fertile offspring) is a criterial all in defining a “species”
Just because two species have the same number of chromosomes does not mean that they can interbreed and have fertile offspring. It is more complicated than that.

I am not one of the scientist that make these determination but I do believe that scientists correspond/meet and come up with a general consensus on these mater. It is definitely not cut and dry for sure.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I mistyped. Hybrids are hybrids, not species.
Species is a human destination. The line between closely related species are not clear. It not true that having 100% fertile offspring means that they are subspecies rather than separate species. I don’t think that (fertile offspring) is a criterial all in defining a “species”
Just because two species have the same number of chromosomes does not mean that they can interbreed and have fertile offspring. It is more complicated than that.

I am not one of the scientist that make these determination but I do believe that scientists correspond/meet and come up with a general consensus on these mater. It is definitely not cut and dry for sure.

You're correct in that it isn't cut and dry. I dont think "species" is as general a term as some seem to belive though. Im just using the dictionary definition to define a species which is why im curious what others use to define the word.

 

[OrionN]

Just to clarify myself:
A species must be able to produce fertile offsprings. Without this they cannot be a species. However the reverse is not true. Just because a group of animals able to produce fertile offsprings does not mean they are of the same species.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Just to clarify myself:
A species must be able to produce fertile offsprings. Without this they cannot be a species. However the reverse is not true. Just because a group of animals able to produce fertile offsprings does not mean they are of the same species.

I agree. The ability to produce fertile offspring does not mean that two organisms are the same species. Some species are able to be bred and produce fertile offspring despite this being uncommon in nature.
It seems that you essentially agree with the dictionary definition I used to define a "species".

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I actually had little interest in this thread until people began making statements such as saying distinct species are just labels (which would seem to imply that without humans naming them, they wouldn't be distinct species). We may have named the species in order to make reference to it, just as everything else has a name, but distinct species would exist without a name...
There are exceptions to practically everything in science so in order to communicate we need a clear definition such as the one I provided. Noting every known exception to a clearly defined definition and then having to add to that list of exceptions every time a new discovery is made would make it far more difficult to pass along information and be counterproductive.

 

[Spare time]

so what is your definition of a population? Does it not include the word species? Im curious.

I still use species for it's practical terms but I would say something like chimpanzees of Ngogo do x or the x community of chimpanzees rather than chimpanzees do x.

My point is more that, when describing an organism, species is fine but one has to accept that as a label, its slightly too specific for various reasons and thus one must also accept that the label is an artifical box that we drew to describe something with variation that exists outside the box.

 

[Uncle99]

Ok, like “shrink flation”.
1/4 the size, and 4X the price.

 

[crazyfishmom]

I actually had little interest in this thread until people began making statements such as saying distinct species are just labels (which would seem to imply that without humans naming them, they wouldn't be distinct species). We may have named the species in order to make reference to it, just as everything else has a name, but distinct species would exist without a name...
There are exceptions to practically everything in science so in order to communicate we need a clear definition such as the one I provided. Noting every known exception to a clearly defined definition and then having to add to that list of exceptions every time a new discovery is made would make it far more difficult to pass along information and be counterproductive.

To be fair… I think we went down this rabbit hole because in one of your posts you made a comment toward different species not being able to produce fertile offspring and then brought up the term subspecies and I pointed out why this wasn’t necessarily a true statement.

There are few things I know in this world: 1) anything that has a strict black and white definition can and will be challenged and 2) I don’t make any blanket statements.

I made a couple of fun comments at the beginning of the thread toward being able to make dwarf versions of tangs; I am sure I can find the right genes and go after if I try hard enough if any of the tang genomes have been sequenced, I’m sure I can potentially generate some variant strains of DNA etc etc etc. I wouldn’t… not ethical in my book… but it was fun to talk about. Someone on the thread is interested in hominids and speciation and Neanderthal DNA and Y chromosomal lineages so we spoke about that. I’m not sitting on this side of the laptop trying to define what the scientific community agrees or disagrees upon… largely because I’ve been doing this long enough to know that what is canon today will be debunked tomorrow and I am completely non committal to any one given idea because I accept that I am wrong about most things .