brain sizes: Einstein's and women's: pop quiz

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at
Tue Aug 20 20:29:31 EST 2002

"John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
>> From the AKC website:
>> >A breed is a "relatively homogeneous group of animals within a
>> > species, developed and maintained by man." All dogs, impure as well
>> > as pure-bred, and several wild cousins such as wolves and foxes, are
>> > one family. Each breed was created by man, using selective breeding
>> > to get desired qualities.
>> Get it "developed and maintained by man".  Dog breeds have little to
>> do with nature.
>You MISSED the entire point, once again.
>HUMAN INTERVENTION caused there to be more breeds of dogs that there would
>have been otherwise, RIGHT?

Since breeds are a human nomenclature that has no biologic basis, this
is true by definition.

>But where there was no human intervention, what
>happened to these other species of canines, over "bahzillions of" [read: a
>few thousand] years?

What other canine species?  You mean canis latrans (coyote) and canis
lupus (gray wolf) and canis rufus (red wolf), canis simensis
(Ethiopian wolf), and around a dozen other canine species in Eurasia.
There are some who believe that canis rufus is not a distinct species
but a subspecies.

>Nothing. Not a dam. thing.  The number of species in
>the wild today is *exactly* like the number of species in the wild a
>thousand years ago (or to use the "evolutionists" vernacular "bahzillions of
>years ago").

Evolution does not typically take only a thousand years, but in fact
there have been 3 species of canines that have gone extinct within the
last 100 years, and this does not count the two dozen varieties of
canis lupus subspecies (some extinct) which are apparently IN THE
PROCESS OF SPECIATING but have not in fact reached the point where
they cannot crossbreed.

>> >If there had been no
>> >statistical limits on each breed, then they would have been able to
>> >interbreed with each other for thousands of years,
>> Except that most of the breeds have been created within the last 1000
>> years.
>EXACTLY the point.  Before that, for thousands of [read: bahzillions of]
>years, until Adam was created by God--NOTHING.

False.  Most evolution took place before the first modern human being
of course.

>All of the species of
>canines which had been originally created were still in their exact original
>form, except for a few species which are believed to have become extinct.

Scientists say you are wrong.

>How can you be such a moron?  If 23 million of them are identified as "mixed
>breeds", then WHAT are they a mix of?  BREEDS. There are a fixed number of

No there aren't.  They are purely arbitrary designations of the AKC,
and they can name a new breed any time they want.

>The POINT is exactly that!  Dog breeding is not random.


>And now we have to
>explain to you what "factorial" means?  If dog breeding WAS random, and if
>there are 170 different breeds, then the potentional number of combinations
>between all these breeds is 7.3 x 10^306.

Potentially, but not actually.  In any case it is irrelevant, since
breeds have nothing to do with speciation.

>>   That's a 73 followed by 305 zeros.  That's how many
>> >inter-breeds there would have been.

No.  That is how many possible combinations that could exist.  There
is no particular reason why all of those combinations WOULD exist,
since most dog breeding is controlled.  If it wasn't, there would
probably be only 1 kind of dog: wolfhound (i.e. domesticated wolf)

>> Nope.
>"Nope"?  Your very own reference above confirms this statement.  Didn't you
>even read it?


>> you wrote:
>> gives 53 million dogs in the US alone, and says that 45% of them or 23
>> million are mixed breeds.
>The majority, 55% of them, are not mixed breeds, right?
>If there are 30 million who aren't mixed breeds, and 23 million who are, do
>you really think there are more mixed-breeds than breeds?

There are 23 million mixed breeds.  There are 30 million dogs
classified into 150 breeds, not 30 million breeds.  23 million is more
than 150.

>> >Why would God "guide" such a process in the first place,
>> For whatever reasons He chose.  Are you trying to tell God that He
>> cannot do whatever in Heaven that He wants, for whatever reason He
>> chooses?
>No.  I'm telling you that your inability to simply observe what God DID is
>what makes you a "liberal".

I observe far better than you do.  I've caught you in more errors on
this particular endless thread than on any other.

>> >Because niggers and Whites can inter-breed
>> meaning that they are the same species.
>Except that there are 32,000 different species of orchids which can all

They cannot interbreed naturally.  Human beings have to actually do
the sexual reproduction process, which is a good deal more than we
have to do with dogs.

>whose differences from each other are minute compared to the
>differences between niggers and Whites.

I guess you haven't seen the variety of orchids, which far exceed the
differences between a chihuahua and a St. Bernard.

>By this standard, niggers and Whites are different species, right?

NO, since they interbreed naturally without artificial processes, and
their hybrids breed to make still more hybrids.

>Except that wolves and foxes can inter-breed and you DO claim that they are
>different species.

Actually I never did.  But it turns out that the red fox is vulpes
vulpes, and the gray fox is urocyon cinereonargenteus, and there are
another 2 dozen or so fox species.  On the other hand they cannot in
fact interbreed, or if such breeding can be forced, the hybrid would
be as sterile as a mules.
is a reference discussing the biochemical differences among the dog
family species.  It explains WHY foxes cannot interbreed with wolves -
they have different numbers of chromosomes.  It says that male wolves
mate with female coyotes, with the result being a wolf.  Female wolves
mating with male coyotes, which are rare, are sterile like mules.
Wolves and coyotes differ by about 4% in their mtDNA sequence. Foxes
differ by some 17-20% in mtDNA sequences, which is about similar to
the difference between humans and chimpanzees.  In the regular genome,
foxes and wolves differ by about 2% which is about the same as the
difference between humans and chimpanzees as well.
(for the data on human/chimpanzee differences)
discusses the evolutionary implications of dog domestication, which in
fact has NOT created a new species.
appears to be another good resource on species in the dog family.

>By this standard, niggers and Whites are different species, right?

Nope.  There isn't even any definite genetic difference between them.
All are homo sapiens sapiens.

>Can you find a single standard for "species" which would prohibit niggers
>and Whites from being classified as different species?

I find no standard for species that would even suggest that they could
be classed as different species.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list