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

--- 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.