Understanding Species vs Kind

[JimmyCarol100]

@ anyone with an answer, I know I read or heard it somewhere about German eugenist tryn to cross breed human females with sperm of other animals (not sure which) My question is since we are animals too, what other animals can the human impregnate or be impregnated by and have a viable offspring? Anyone? Surely there has to be one, since we evolved from another kind/species.

[sofiarune]

A species, within the academic world and particularly within the field of systematics, is NOT clearly defined. The biological species concept is great for introductory biology courses but when you move beyond the superficial, the concept itself breaks down. The definition of species (or any taxanomical rank) is a relatively arbitrary construct that is convenient for discussion but not necessarily solid. I don't have enough character space to address this adequately. Maybe I'll make a video.

[puncheex]

The definition of a species is somewhat different than your definition of a group which can interbreed; it is actually a group of animals which do interbreed. That difference is explicit in the Cama, the offspring of a Dromedary camel (Camelus dromedarius) and the llama (Lama glama), which are not only genus and species removed, but family removed as well. They can interbreed, but don't due to their sizes and geographical separation. Each can thus modify itself to fit its environment separately.

[puncheex]

Just as Shane says, and you agree, species is an Aristotelian attempt to classify or analyze where nature doesn't have distinctions. The phylogenetic view is that a species is a group of beings which do not keep their genome mutually, relatively constant, and so can drift apart, eventually to the point of breeding incompatibility. That allows for the possibility that these two new species might again merge later as the barrier between them is removed, or allow for the state of Homo sap. ...

[puncheex]

In May of the year Svante told us that his researches into H neandertalensis have resulted in the conclusion that they interbred with H sapiens, or at least that part of sapiens that migrated to Asia and Europe to the amount of 1-4% of sapiens' genome. Obviously the difference didn't cause sapiens to branch into two different species, as we still interbreed. Its a huge mess for the neat category seeking biological systematist.

[puncheex]

Corrigendum: in a paragraph above, I say "a group of beings which do not keep their genome mutually, relatively constant". I meant to say that they do, most certainly.

[HailCthulhu]

I've never understoon the whole insistence on "kinds". If it's supposed to be some workaround for the ark strory, they're just admitting new species evolved from fewer faster. It wouldn't matter how high you placed "kinds" in the phylogenetic tree.

[jdigitalseven]

No, actually "kind" was the original word..."species" is fairly infantile because it hasnt been around near as long. Species, like the term "race" are simply power words used to brainwash people to believe in the religion of macroevolution. Macroevolution feeds the human lust of wanting to be gods. A donkey and a zebra arent new "species", but simply both a kind of horse...

[jdigitalseven]

thus why they can mate because they are the same kind. A zebra and a cow tiget cant mate because they are not of the same kind.

[HailCthulhu]

I don't care for vague words creationists refuse to define. You're clearly a troll because only ignorant plebian fuckwits would state evolution to be a religion (oh irony), think there's a meaningful distinction between "macro" and "micro", think others would be gullible enough to take the "lack of evidence" claim, make baseless character assassinations about why the theory was formed and is predictably etymologically wrong. Is there anything else the McExpert would like to expose about himself?

[KingHeathen]

So, what you are saying is that if two animals can't interbreed and have a viable offspring then they are different "kinds"...right?

WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!!! That is the PRECISE definition of "species!"

That's why a canary is one species of bird and an eagle is a different species of bird. They can't interbreed. That means there are many "kinds" of birds.

BTW, A donkey and a horse create a mule WHICH IS STERILE! Meaning they CAN NOT produce viable offspring.

You=Fail.

[KingHeathen]

first off, we didn't evolve from modern day monkeys. We SHARE a common ancestor with the other modern APES (monkeys have tails). Further back, monkeys and apes also share an ancestor.

However, that is not to say that an ancestor wouldn't carry on even after another line of their descendants became unable to interbreed. This happens when a species moves to a new location. The original may survive on in the original habitat. And the new species survives elsewhere. Ex: grizzly vs polar bears

[TLSlayer]

cool,thx king

[puncheex]

@KingHeathen: Further, systematists would say that every species that has ever existed is a transitional species but for two classes: those who went extinct, and those that are extant today and are potentially transitional in the future. As you point out, even some that went extinct are also transitional, that distinction depending on how you allow a species to "come through" a speciation event; some more traditional biologists insist that a speciation always leads to two new species.

[KingHeathen]

@puncheex Further? Is there some first part I'm supposed to find in that absurd amount of comments you left? Seriously, I appreciate you wanting to get into the discussion, but YouTube's comment section sucks too much to do what you did and expect anyone to be able to follow what you are saying. If you have that much to say either reduce it to 1-2 text boxes, post it as a video response or send it as a PM.

[quinn2469]

Great video as always KingHeathen. But remember, God created large dogs so they would fit into our cars :)

[hazyn123]

REALLY ANNOYING MUSIC

[EpifanesEuergetes]

There's a Fat Freddie's Cat cartoon about a dog with the head of a chihuahua and the body of a great dane who says to Fat Freddie's Cat

"My father was a chihuahua and mother was a great dane."

"I know what you're thinking."

"He was standing on a stool."

(Not exact quotes.)

[biggyph00l]

Well, other than the minor biological differences I found (which I wont bother mentioning, because... what's the point? I'm here to debate the apologetics of religions), I agree with you. We all do have a common ancestor, the ape. Hopefully I'll be able to find something to leave a more interesting comment on!

[KingHeathen]

ok...just to clarify one part that you completely and totally DISHONESTLY misrepresented...

I CORRECTED the line about "classify species" and later I shifted the subject to take a different direction and was VERY clear that I was trying a new approach. You, however, couldn't adjust your thinking to understand the point I was GOING (had not yet) to make and I've lost interest in talking to a moron like you.

You are a liar and an idiot. We are done.

[KingHeathen]

"you're discounting the evolutionary aspect of biological classification."

Ok, last comment I'm making to you as you can't seem to understand basic English...

I'm NOT discounting classification...I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CLASSIFICATION!!!! I asked for the DEFINITION...."how do you DEFINE an ape?"

Good luck with your ignorance...I'm done with you.

[KingHeathen]

ok, if you don't understand that the difference between vertebrate and non-vertebrate is whether or not they have VERTEBRAE then I can't help you.

[KingHeathen]

"is based on where they branched of, not traits."

WRONG! Mammals are classified by being warm blooded and having live young (amongst other things). Primates is mostly about opposable thumbs (though not entirely)

Species are the only ones that you can say have anything to do with "splitting off" because we define a new species and two offspring that can't reproduce. But everything else is about characteristics.

[KingHeathen]

*sigh*....no...I'm not talking about classifying a species..."ape" isn't a species..."fish" isn't a species.

Let's go several steps higher so that you can understand my point here...

Define a vertebrate and a non-vertebrate.

You aren't going to talk about "splitting off" Same with mammal and primate.

Now do the same thing for "ape."

BTW, my statement should have been "We don't classify animals by where they split off"...I got in too much of a hurry when typing that one.

[KingHeathen]

ugh...you still aren't getting...here...I'll help you out...

A fish is a vertebrate with gills, fins, and scales that must live underwater.

We don't classify species by where they split off. We classify them by their TRAITS. Can you accept this definition of a fish?

[KingHeathen]

neither of your methods (or the method you suggest I'm attempting) for defining an ape are accurate...but it shows why you still refuse to admit it. Let's try this...

Define for me what a fish is. In other words, what lets you know that it is a fish?

[KingHeathen]

allow me to clarify...

There are 4 families of New World monkeys. Baboons are considered Old World monkeys. The primary difference is that the tails of New World monkeys are prehensile. Baboons don't have that.

Now that we've cleared that up, are you ready to admit that humans are classified as apes?

[KingHeathen]

Scientific classification of a chimpanzee:

Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates, Hominidae

Now humans:

Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates, Hominidae

Hominid family IS the great ape family. Humans, gorillas, chimps, and orangutans have separate genera (plural of genus)

Spider monkeys, by comparison, are in the family atelidae. There are three other families of monkey.

[celestialsalamander]

i think i'm gonn'a have to start a policy of not clicking post until i've reached the end of the video.

good job you put that red corection there. i was just about to post a corection about kindoms being the highest level when i notes it. i would have a to wait to the end of the video any way because i had alredy clicked post and refeshing would have reset the video.

because i waited i have now forgoten what elce i whanted to say so bye.

[celestialsalamander]

did you know that a dog and a gray wolf shear mre DNA then a gray wolf and a red woulf

[SulisKorrigan]

"I love lasagna"

--Garfield

"It is wonderful to be here in the great state of Chicago"

--Dan Quayle

"If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life."

--Brooke Sheilds

Shit, Ghost. you're right. The universe is way better with quotes at the helm

[ghost2be]

The quote is referenced to "exerpts from an original interview in "Applied Christianity" from the Bible Science Newsletter of May 1974, p. 8(god bless)Sorry i did it backwords,lol.

[sroHex]

And as we all know, we should base all of our most profound understandings of the universe on quotes.

Really, what poor fellow gets converted by a quote?

[ghost2be]

It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance." Wernher von Braun.

[ghost2be]

They say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? ... What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? ... It is in sceintific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life, and man in the classroom. I

[WhatisaJugallo]

Scientists might not be able to physically look upon the electron as one might look upon a base ball but they can see the effects an electron has on other matter. It's properties can be observed, laws can be made on it, theories can be build on their existance (Quantum, electromagnetism ect). You can not do these things with a designer and call it science. There is no evidence for it besides your completely subjective association of the universe with order.

[pbrskater26]

Dude quantum mechanics is way over my head. I look at natural sciences.

[WhatisaJugallo]

What could be more natural than the way things interact on an atomic level :P

[pbrskater26]

Yeah true, I just dont know as much about physics. I'm a inspiring zoologist and herpetologist

[ghost2be]

As Werner von Braun has stated:

"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all..The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based..To be forced to believe only one conclusion -- that everything in the universe happened by chance --would violate the very objectivity of science itself.."continued below"

[DeadlyVeggie]

how a species becomes two separate ones is simply called 'speciation'. For instance if a flock of bird was blown off the mainland to a small island and became isolated, they would evolve to suit the demands of that island and slowly grow apart (genetically) to the ones on the mainland. So much so they cant breed anymore. This is slowly happening to us with the different races, but we seem still to be able to breed. Woop.

[puncheex]

@DeadlyVeggie: I'd say (a year late) that the speciation happened as soon as they were relocated to the island. Eventually they would become genetically incompatible (or not), but that is not of the essence. At the point where they became subject to different pressures from their environments (even if the pressures were identical), they are a different species. The "races" of man were different species when they organized themselves into separate groups, but they finally merged back together.

[Onodera1980]

Your videos keep getting better, but I hate having to review remedial science over and over for all the people against evolution.

[Herufaia]

HOW DUR U CALL ME A DUN DURR AIP!!!!111

[9Ghostly9Fish9]

You lost me a bit in there, but only a bit. Although, Now I understand evolution as a whole better.

Though, while I accept dogs & bears couldn't have a common ancestor, what I can't seem to wrap my mind around is how a bear & a dog could Not reproduce. Maybe it's physiologically impossible? Or this could be all beside the point.

Damn & birds seem to be way more complex than I previously thought. hmm

[KingHeathen]

think of it this way, you have a key which fits a lock (two sides of a DNA strand). The key is worn (mutations occur) but it still opens the lock (has viable offspring)...The key wears down even more (more mutations occur) until it gets to the point that it can no longer open the lock (produce offspring).

Also, if you recall, only one sperm cell can penetrate an egg. The egg will not let the sperm through if it's not a close enough match.

[Surathan]

KingHeathen: Pwnd by ShaneDK!

:-P

[PHvlogger]

Who is ShaneDK, and what makes him stupid enough to think he could EVER pawn KingHeathen?

[KingHeathen]

Shane is a fellow atheist who makes very good technically sound videos (on science related issues...not fully agreeing with him on politics, but that's another issue) and the "pwning" was more of us joking around with each other.

[puncheex]

@9Ghostly9Fish9: Any two species always have a common ancestor. The common ancestor between man and a maple tree is a simple multicellular eukaryote. Dogs and bears have a common ancestor with a caniform (dog-shaped, as opposed to cat) carnivore.

Bears and dogs cannot interbreed because their common genome (the carnivore), once separated into Ursinae and Canidae, started mutating independently. Eventually the changes were big enough that any zygote would not be viable for the incompatibility.

[Torwyn11]

Some birds need perhaps to be reclassified.. or perhaps the definition needs to be revisited with some deference to DNA analysis/divergence. For example.. Peafowl. Pavo cristatus (Indian) and Pavo muticus (Javan) are classified as different species. Their offspring, is completely fertile. My flock consists of birds that I mixed back in the early 90's. In the wild, however, their ranges do not overlap! They diverged ages ago. I don't know which resembles the ancestral form most closely, however.

[OccamKant]

This is hilarious - I used EXACTLY THE SAME analogy - except I used colours, and drew it as a V branch instead of just two points.

It's my video called Family Tree, done Aug 2008. When did this other video get made?

[MikeOfKorea]

If it bothered you so much, you could've just reshot the video.

[KingHeathen]

1-who said it "bothered me so much"? I hate making errors, but it happens...we are all humans after all.

2-I added the notations to correct it.

3-The errors are irrelevant to the overall point of the video.

4-I thought about it...and may redo this one at a later date, but it's not worth the trouble right now.

[Brandt761]

All hail da King!

[rozeboosje]

I wasn't subbed to shanedk. What a twit I am. :-(

[MotionFur]

Chihuahua + Great Dane? What one is the female?

[LordPanties]

The Great Dane. If the Chihuahua was female the Great Dane would tear the poor Chihuahua's vagina. (My comment is not intended to be dirty.)

[pienipaha]

GD preferably since the chihu would likely die during pregnancy (too large pups).

I don't know if anyone ever tried to mix those too, I think it cold be done with artificial insemination.

[Saukko31]

Uh, thanks for the mental image, poor chihuahua would be like balloon.

[pienipaha]

Obviously I meant the GD as the mom. Imagine what the pups would look like O_O

[Saukko31]

I have seen pictures of offspring of horse and zebra. Looked like someone had glued patches of black and white stripes on a horse, but I have some difficulties to imagine a hybrid between great dane and chihuahua. Whether or not this is possible...

:D

[newexperiment]

Great video. It didn't just help it was very interesting. Hope you or CDK007 or someone makes a series on the subject. (what is this zoology?)

[p3945u5]

Man is the missing link between apes and human beings.

[plato12000]

I guess that biology classes aren't mandatory in U.S. schools?

Serious question.

[Zero4Mars]

In my school, I had to take it. Then again, I think the requirement is only some years of "Science," so I suppose some die-hard bible-bumpers will manage to get out of it if that's the case :\

[xXJustinWadeXx]

My biology teacher believes in creationism.

You gotta love the south.

[dechha1981]

Never overestimate the intelligence of Creationists.

I once made a video called "The Very Basics of Evolution" where I actually dumbed down allot of it and even avoided talking aboy X and y chromesomes, and one theirst COIMPLETELY misunderstood it. He thought my explanation of Natural Selection actually DISproved Evolution! Mainly because I only gave an example of ONE mutation and the pea didn't mutate from a pea to a flower in one generation.

[destronia123]

One minor correction. All birds are in the same taxonomic class -- Aves.

[pienipaha]

Class Reptilia, Subclass Diapsida, Infraclass Archosauromorpha, Superorder Dinosauria, Order Saurischia, Suborder Theropoda!

:D

[destronia123]

OK, but if you're going to use that artificial "Reptilia" Class, then you have to agree that "Mammalia" belong in the Reptilia too...

[pienipaha]

In evolution and morphology classes that's what they taught us at Uni, and they say that birds are, in fact, reptiles. All classification is artificial as in man made but they have to follow a certain logic.

Mammalia is a class itself, and evolved from Synapsida. Synapsids were mammal like "reptiles" and in many evolutionary family trees are placed outside Reptilia.

Concidering most classification is badly outdated when new fossils emerge continuously, it is a difficult subject.

[pienipaha]

Also Avialae does not have a proper classification name, and is count as unclassified taxon.

Technically all animals are just a big mass of organisms and the classification doesn't really matter. Humans just have this need to categorize everything.

[puncheex]

Actually, they don't. Officially, therapsida (from which mammalia derive) and reptilia are sister clades; they both derive, however, from reptilimorpha. I had a set-to with someone who agreed with the clade distinction, but pointed out that they were only words, and that reptilimorpha could as well be reptilia and reptilia something else, and then mammals would be reptiles. It's all in how they are defined, and biology gives precedence to the first describer, even if later found to be wrong.

[puncheex]

And I disagree that it doesn't matter. It matters a lot when you are trying to determine how evolution works, and how we got to where we were. To ignore that is to go with the creationists, simply substituting nature for god - now there's two words that can be redefined as well. If we don't understand how things work on this minute a scale, how will we hope to conquer something like cancer, or sickle cell anemia, or muscular dystrophy, or malaria, or ... I assume you get the point.

[sofiarune]

@puncheex For the record "reptilia" is a paraphyletic group and is no longer considered a proper clade by systematists. Therefore it cannot be a sister clade. Precedence is not given to the first describer when their taxanomic diagnosis is found to be incorrect. Names for whatever taxa you're looking at are changed all the time (eg - Class Repitilia has been thrown out). I know your comment is 2 months old but I thought I'd give you heads up for future discussion,

[puncheex]

@sofiarune: Hmmmm. I went back and looked up as many phylogenetic trees as I could find. I know reptilia was in tolweb, but they seem to be down. In wiki under Reptiles, there is a tree with reptilia sister to synapsida, desc from amniota. "This cladogram ... follows a simplified version of the relationships found by Laurin and Gauthier (1996), presented as part of the Tree of Life Web Project." Which systematicists are you citing? Can you direct me to a paper or discussion, perhaps?

[sofiarune]

@puncheex You can check it out on the wiki itself. Reptilia referred to everything but Aves which creates the paraphyletic group. The tree on wiki is misleading because the actual term for the clade and the proper group is Class Sauropsida (which includes Aves). I'm not sure why they had the nested taxonomy right but the phylogeny wrong. I think people just don't like to give up the concept of reptiles even though it's inaccurate.

[sofiarune]

@puncheex It's also worth noting the phylogenies and taxonomy are constantly changing as more and more information is becoming available. Domains and Kingdoms are currently under really serious review ( along with everything else). There is a ton of debate surrounding the Linnean system in general. Alternatives have been proposed. I could go on about this forever but the character limit is just too small. Suffice to say, in this field, a paper from 1996 is ancient history.

[puncheex]

@sofiarune: Oh, I certainly agree "reptile" is inaccurate, and I'm no expert in systematics, though I'm working as hard as I can to educate myself in this. I'm aware of the Linneus vs Phylocode vs Hennig Society vs ICZN et al. brawl. So, tell me, where can I find the best information on phylogenies now? Tolweb hasn't made any progress in three years, and your telling me that even wiki isn't being edited by anyone who knows anything. Send me a message if you care to.

[sofiarune]

@puncheex I was actually looking up papers to send you but they all have an embargo on the online versions because they're recent. That's cool that you'e interested though. Most people find systematics really boring. During my digging it looks like Aves is kind of out too but I'm not as confident with that one. I'm majoring in systematics but I'm an entomology person so the vertebrate stuff isn't my specialty. I'll try and send you a message with better info later today though.

[AdrianIsaacs]

I applaud your effort KH, and I'm glad you and shanedk both made videos on the subject, but most of the time, this just goes right over creationists' heads. On a message board I go to, this discussion came up. A creationist was claiming that speciation had never been observed or proven. People then cited many examples of speciation (e.g. species of birds, fish, lizards). Guess what happened. All the creationists dismissed the examples as "microevolution."

[abyssquick]

though we do share common ancestry with fungi.....

[Craydon]

Wait, aren't dogs in and of themselves proof of evolution via selection? Man in this case and wile not different species now they certainly are a great example of change over time and it's perfectly reasonable that given time they'd be so different that they would be different species of dog.

[JoesRambles]

Well, KH my friend, I have left religion. I am no longer a Christian. I no longer have a believe in the god I grew up with.

[8WholeThing]

Congratulations and good luck. Sometimes it takes a while to learn how your life can have a meaning within itself, rather than an imaginary teleological meaning that religion provides.

Enjoy your intellectual freedom and integrity!

[KingHeathen]

Joe....you and I should talk again...

let me know when you are ready.

[JoesRambles]

I am ready. Ready when you are.

[agentgamma23]

We might be able to breed with chimpanzees, because we ARE so closely related.

[8WholeThing]

Some scientists wanted to do that experiment but wanted to remain objective so they approached the creationist janitor and asked if he would have sex with the lady chimpanzee for $200.

The janitor replied, "OK, but you'll have to wait until payday before I can get that much cash."

[Bueller007]

Approx. 5:00 in...

Which birds were in different CLASSES? All modern birds fall into the class Aves. That's what a bird is. Even Archaeopteryx, with teeth and bony tail falls into the class Aves.

[pixiesaredeadly]

True, Bueller. He should have said "order" instead of "class".

Good video, KingHeathen!

[KingHeathen]

ahh...a second mistake...thanks for the correction...I'll add it to the notes. I really should take more time with these to make sure I don't miss stuff like that as I try to do these in single takes!!!

[pienipaha]

Actually the definition of species isn't far as clear, quite the contrary if you also try to apply it to micro-organisms. Even with larger, more complex animals the line is shady (ie. dog and wolf a technically the same species but are classified as subspecies)

Also, there are other than genetic reasons that prevent reproduction, such as behavior. Even geographical obstacles can be count in some cases.

[lunei66]

Rofl, my teacher is a dumbass sometimes, he refuses to acknowledge that he's an animal XD

[pienipaha]

LoL, I know many people who do that too.

One time at my aunts place I was sitting on the couch with our puppy when she told me that animals aren't allowed on the chairs. For the rest of the day I sat on the floor.

[KingHeathen]

LMAO!!!!

I would have loved to have been there for that...I would have been on the floor with you!

[pienipaha]

Yeah we could have sat there together, sipping tea, talking sophisticated.

(And invited my grandma to talk about how "the bible is full of shit anyway".)

[yellowlabrador]

Maybe a silly question, but is a fox an American native species or a European import? We have a fox we feed every day and he's becoming quite tame and cheeky.This is in Ireland.

[ValeofAldur]

Both actually!

There have been foxes in North America for ages, but Europeans brought their own with them eventually. This lead to some competition :)

There are also "native" species of fox to be found in other parts of the world such as in India(Bengal Fox) or South Africa(Cape Fox)

Fox isn't a single species' name, but rather a term we use to describe a couple dozen different species. Think of the difference between an arctic fox(the 2nd cutest animal on the planet) and a weasely Kit Fox

[NeoDolph1n]

If the Arctic Fox is the 2nd cutest animal on the planet.... Which is the first???

[8WholeThing]

Happyslip!

[ValeofAldur]

I'd have to go with a frolicsome kitty for 1st place.

Dolphins are fairly highly ranked too :P

[CivilHuman]

keep fighting the good fight king heathen.

Awesome video. altho I already knew this stuff No loss in getting it further and further in my head :-)

[Ryansarcade9]

This is a great video. I'm planning on featuring it on my blog soon.

[DeletedDelusion]

Excellent video.

[MassZombicide]

"The black and white species" ROFL normal theists are stupid enough to get confused by that analogy in a really bad way.

[RickAstleyForever]

bizkin, you are correct, this is middle school biology, but it does show a funny point about how much we are animals because clearly people were't paying attention, attention span is a serious problem with chimps as well...ha

[pienipaha]

Those who say they are not animals are only showing that they don't know what an animal is. When someone says they're not animals I usually ask them whether they are then members of the rock or perhaps mineral kingdom.

(This causes a dilemma for me, for my first name is a plant, last name a mineral! )

[8WholeThing]

They'll admit to being mammals or vertebrates but won't admit to being animals or primates.

[pienipaha]

I know, which makes it even sadder.

[technologysucks]

lol, yeah. It's hilarious and at the same time sad. It's like saying "I'm a baptist, but I'm not a filthy, stupid christian!"

[LotusGreenX]

Why atheists are the ones defending science the most is kind of sad. There are tons more believers who should be protecting their religous integrity, whatever integrity they had in the first place, against creationists who want to put a wedge between science and belief in their God.

[Fjarhultian]

They should pay more attention to the work of their Big Boss, aye?

[FurieMan]

Ive got a question I have failed to find the answer to. If the defenition of a species is "If two organisms can produce fertile offspring, they are the same species" .

What are mules? They are not the same species as either horses or donkey. But neither can they repdocude at all with other mules.

Does this mean that all Mules are their own species?

[KingHeathen]

actually, yes. See Shanedk's video. He addresses that exact issue as well as a few other "exceptions to the rule"

[qanazir]

They are normally refered to as sterile chimeras.

[socer777]

I think mules are considered a hybrid.

[pienipaha]

You are absolutely correct.

[GirlyVoice]

Producing fertile offspring doesn't really mean anything except that failure to do that within two similar groups is justification for the assumption that they will probably never inter breed in the future and if both survive long enough, they will most likely evolve on different paths finding their own niche to adapt to.

Species is a WORD, nothing else.

[Misterb0z]

The word 'kind' is clearly only a simplistic term used by people with a less complex understanding of nature than we have.

For anyone interested, 'The Ancestor's Tale' gives a fantastic insight into our evolutionary path, and Dawkins goes into the problem of classifying species in the section entitled 'Rendevouz 17'.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Facepalm at 0:48

[BlodhArget]

You repeatedly say "Common Descendant". I think you mean "Common Ancestor",

[KingHeathen]

Ah, fart nugget!

That I did.

[bizkin]

this is grade 8 biology... maybe people should go back to school...

[LotusGreenX]

What's amusing to me is Creationists accept micro-evolution and some believe the earth is billions of years old, yet they think that they can define a limit on evolution within "kind" which you totally debunked that notion.

[miyamotofan]

Yay, another video by the king.

[feralshrew]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the classification of speicies start with the three domains, (Archaea, Prokarya, Eukarya) and not with the kingdoms?

[HazMat728]

actually the three domains are Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya, but yes the classification system does start with Domain not Kingdoms.

[KingHeathen]

Yes, Domain exists above Kingdom...domain breaks down into single-cell vs multi-cell.

I start with kingdom because the video is about animal evolution. I don't cover bacteria or anything else on a single cell level. So from the "animal kingdom" I work my way down.

[SkepticalStudent]

That was definitely a good analogy in the middle. I'll have to use that in the future.

[FullOfFail]

I don't see how people don't see the similarities between humans and chimpanzees. They even use tools for fucks sake. Give them enough time and they might evolve to become the next humans (intellectually-wise).

[ValeofAldur]

Perhaps. There's certainly some variation in intelligence within the chimp populations, and that's at least partially heritable.

I'm not fully convinced that there's a (current) selection pressure that's going to lead to progressively more intelligent chimps though. Intelligence carries some pretty significant costs (eg: in terms of metabolism).

We'll have to wait and see, and perhaps, nudge.

[FullOfFail]

I noticed that they kill and eat monkeys sometimes. I'm thinking being omnivores will give them a extra brain boost. I mean, I'm talking about eventually they'll be like at least primitive man. Of course, by that time human probably would've evolved into another species themselves. That is assuming we don't kill the planet first. I always wonder what it would be like if Neanderthals would've survived.

[pienipaha]

The evolution of intelligence depends if the environment favors it, in case the species has what it takes to take that path. And you're right about the costs, something is always compromised.

Chimp culture (teaching things like survival methods to offspring) and even dialects vary between populations of both chimps and even certain species of monkeys, which I think is very interesting.

[pienipaha]

Tool use is so common that I hardly find it worth mentioning as a link to humans and other primates.

The "next human" thing is kinda misleading for those not familiar with evo.

[FullOfFail]

I guess you have a point there. Tool use is used by many different animals in a variety of ways.

I guess I should clear it up that I'm not implying that Chimpanzees will become Humans. That's simply not how evolution works. Chimpanzees are already down a different branch.

Although with genetic engineering it might be possible to create a hybrid of sorts.

[fritos1445]

amazing points you got there

[ZigZaggityWW]

Great video as always, King!

[CousinoMacul]

The problem with the "standard definition" of species is that it becomes nonsensical when you try to apply it to the 99.999+% of living organisms that reproduce asexually.

[puncheex]

@CousinoMacul: Sure, and it gets even worse with viruses. But where the definition is vague, biologists can still push through, deriving by fiat that which isn't resolved by nature. Species and "tree of life" are intimately connected with sex. Before sex, what we had was the "network of life" - the promiscuity of genetics.

[RadarKat73080]

Yeah, but crap, I gotta become a biologist just to argue with some people!

[andreiduffy]

me too..

[hellshade2]

Greetings king heathen!!

had to say something other than first! :P

[CousinoMacul]

But you still said it. ;-)

[hellshade2]

i know but at least i tried to make it fun this time :D