[tied] Re: The cat domestication happened more than 100,000 years

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "C. Darwin Goranson"
<cdog_squirrel@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@>

wrote:

> > >
> > > On 2007-07-02 00:16, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the cats really have 100,000 years of domestication...
> > >
> > > No, no, they have not. Daniel has already explained what the
> > original
> > > article in Science actually says. Some of the lineages within

the

> > > species _Felis sylvestris_ diverged more than 100,000 years

ago,

> > but
> > > that happened without human help, long before the domestication
> of
> > one
> > > of the wildcat subspecies (_F. s. lybica_). Thae authors make

it

> > clear
> > > that cats were probably domesticated in the agricultural
> > (Neolithic)
> > > setting of the Fertile Crescent. See the abstract:
> > >
> > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1139518
> > >
> > > Piotr
> > >
> >
> >
> > The authors said: "probably domesticated in the agricultural
> > (Neolithic) setting)"...This assertion is so vague as
> the 'probably'-
> > word is.
> >
> > But the logic here is more simple:
> > 1. Domestication means a new species.
> > 2. No new species later (I mean an important group), no
> > domestication later
> >
> > This logic is clear here...doesn't matter what the authors said

in

> > order not to arrive against "the cat-domestication-dogma"
> > (=> 'agricultural->mouse->cat')
> >
> > Marius
>
> To paraphrase someone from the movie "Billy Madison": Marius...

what

> you just said was one of the most insanely idiotic things I have

ever

> heard.
> 1) There are domesticated minks. They are still minks. They're not

a

> different species.
> 2) I have NO IDEA what you mean.
>
> Moreover: http://www.livescience.com/animals/070628_cat_family.html
> The subspecies (Felis silvestris lybica) which BECAME the
> domesticated cat, still has wild, never-domesticated individuals.
>

Could you count first and make a simple statistic before to talk
so 'ugly'


I think that you need to have One Primary class and 'a minimal' logic
to can count and to see that almost all the domestic animals
represent a distinct species in relation with their wild counterparts
and don't have 'wild individuals', (in special cases coud be
individuals that go back to the wild

Let's count for you, because it seems that you have encountered some
difficulties:

The domestic animals below represent distinct species:

1. hen : Is a distinct species ? Yes
2. pig : Is a distinct species ? Yes
3. goat : Is a distinct species ? Yes
4. sheep : Is a distinct species ? Yes
5. duck : Is a distinct species ? Yes
6. dog : Is a distinct species ? Yes
7. cow : Is a distinct species ? Yes
8. cat : Is a distinct species? Yes
(despite you assertion with 'never-domesticated-cats' that proves
that you didn't understand the point)

(=> maybe for the horses is possible, but even there they are
distinct species)
(note that the wild ducks or wild pig etc...represents another
species, take a book and check).



So before to put yourself in a 'clever-position' and to write
trivialities better to see what you are trying to do yourself:

'your are trying to tell here that the presence of wild never
domesticated individuals inside the domestic species' is the rule...

If you are able to 'still' see some 'wild' sheeps and 'wild' cows is
your problem.


Marius

P>S> : By the way where you learn to say such trivialities? Seeing
some movies?