Coywolf: New species or a change within a kind?

Coywolves have been threatening the peace and security of my neighbourhood for many years… Is coywolf an example of macroevolution in action right in front of our eyes? Is coywolf a new species? Or, is it an example of change (microevolution) within a kind?

“…It is perhaps more than a tad ironic to find that many of those who reject the very concept of evolution and demand an actual example of evolution happening before their very eyes, need look no further than their own back yards…”

This is up to Mung and people like him, who are seeking the true answers, to decide…

For those who would like to watch the full documentary please search:
Meet The Coywolf as it is copyright protected and can’t be embedded into the OP.

24 Replies to “Coywolf: New species or a change within a kind?”

  1. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    This is up to Mung and people like him, who are seeking the true answers, to decide…

    I would leave it up to the biologists — particularly the ones who have been studying these animals — to decide.

  2. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    for both creationists and evolutionists its about segregated populations maintaining a bodyplan by maintaining the population.
    Hybrids never do this i think. the hybrid is always absorbed in the actual populations .
    is there such things as species?
    All that nature accepts is segregated populations with bodyplans.
    How this came to be is the question.
    yet it does mean that humans are rightly seemn as different from each other based on different bodyplans maintained by populations. that means humans are different species. despite universal ability to reproduce.
    Nature doesn’t care if you can reproduce with another species. All it cares about is bodyplans in populations.

  3. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Neil Rickert: I would leave it up to the biologists — particularly the ones who have been studying these animals — to decide.

    Did you watch the video?
    I think it says there that coywolf is a relatively new phenomenon beginning in 1990… If that is true than biologists may need to revisit and revise their belief system, no?
    I think this phenomenon can vindicate those who believe that changes like that could have happened within kinds after Noah’s Flood…
    Obviously biologist you so trust can argue their case with what constitutes species and all… but confusion among them, whether real or deliberate, is nothing new, no?

    ETA: You don’t think Mung can and should make this kind of decision?

  4. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Byers,

    Bob,
    I think you missed a part of your comment when you pasted it, no?

  5. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Did you watch the video?

    No. When I first saw the post, I delayed watching the video until later. And when I came back, it was gone. I guess that saved me the trouble of watching it.

    I had already heard of the coywolf, but I’m not sure if I ever saw a TV program on it.

    If that is true than biologists may need to revisit and revise their belief system, no?

    I assume that a new species via hybridization was already known to be possible.

    Obviously biologist you so trust can argue their case with what constitutes species and all… but confusion among them, whether real or deliberate, is nothing new, no?

    It’s not actually important to me. However, new species are typically identified by biologists. And yes, they have been known to occasionally make mistakes.

  6. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Neil Rickert: It’s not actually important to me. However, new species are typically identified by biologists. And yes, they have been known to occasionally make mistakes

    I’m glad you have clarified this… again…

    I especially enjoy when “unbiased biologists” make occasional and not so occasional mistakes… That’s why I always enjoy paying attention to the “biased biologist” and lately I have found that relying on my own intuition is the most reliable tool… I hope you understand…

    ETA: Goodbye!!!

  7. Tom English Tom English
    Ignored
    says:

    Neil Rickert: I assume that a new species via hybridization was already known to be possible.

    Yes, it was. Darwin speculated that hybridization played no great role in evolution, but evidence has been mounting for decades that he was wrong on that particular matter. The first of the evidence I ever saw had to do with evolution of irises. The research was by Michael Arnold, whose career was subsequently wrecked by the Darwinistas — NOT! As I recall, the National Science Foundation responded to his dissertation research by hitting him a Presidential Young Investigator Award.

    Of course, “Darwin was wrong in one of his speculations” seems like an awful admission to religious people who project their own religiosity onto people who accept some parts of Darwinian theory. They really do believe, bless their little hearts, that Darwin’s Origin is our Bible, and that Richard Dawkins is our high priest.

  8. Joe Felsenstein Joe Felsenstein
    Ignored
    says:

    What’s a “kind”? Speaking scientifically, that is.

  9. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    Joe Felsenstein:
    What’s a “kind”? Speaking scientifically, that is.

    You and your evil materialism.

  10. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    Joe Felsenstein:
    What’s a “kind”?Speaking scientifically, that is.

    Same thing as a species I would suppose.

  11. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo: Same thing as a species I would suppose.

    That would be a lot of pairs on the Ark.

  12. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: That would be a lot of pairs on the Ark.

    We will never know until we figure out what species means.

  13. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo: We will never know until we figure out what species means.

    How about ‘reproductively isolated population’? Of course – ‘cos you’re phoodoo – we have to add the caveat that the isolating mechanism must be biological, and further that we do have a bunch of unsatisfactory halfway house situations where fertile interbreeding is rare, but not nonexistent … for some baffling reason.

    So, on to kinds.

  14. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    You all are lucky.

    Canine “species” is one of my favorite topics but I’m just too busy to participate.

    FYI
    If you think the coy-wolf is a difficult call you should take a look at it’s close relative the red wolf

    peace

    peace

  15. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Joe Felsenstein:
    What’s a “kind”?Speaking scientifically, that is.

    A “kind” scientifically speaking is just as well defined as species… all scientists have to do is agree on one…
    You can indulge us with the species definition…

    Coywolf easily fits the profile of a species within a kind, which includes wolves, coyotes, foxes, jackals, dogs (domestic) dingoes, and many more…

    And then there were marsupial wolves… they are a problem all right but for the believes of the so called convergent evolution and not those who see them as a separate kind… lol

  16. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo: We will never know until we figure out what species means.

    Defining species leads to catch 22 and an evolutionary nonsense… that’s why they avoid it because it’s paradoxical… lol
    Too many exceptions…

  17. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    Allan would like you to ignore the exceptions, just proceed with the ones that aren’t exceptions.

    How do we know which ones are the exceptions and not the exceptions? Well, let’s just ignore that.

  18. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: A “kind” scientifically speaking is just as well defined as species… all scientists have to do is agree on one…
    You can indulge us with the species definition…

    Coywolf easily fits the profile of a species within a kind, which includes wolves, coyotes, foxes, jackals, dogs (domestic) dingoes, and many more…

    And then there were marsupial wolves… they are a problem all right but for the believes of the so called convergent evolution and not those who see them as a separate kind… lol

    Yes marsupial wolves are a problem for classification systems which are a problem in scientific investigation into biological relationships. Not just with doggy types.

    A KIND is Gods term. Since the fall natures corruption of biology makes KINDS elusive.
    however we can put into kinds very like looking creatures.
    We know there is a snake kind, primate kind(not us though ), bird KINDS(the ark dove/raven).
    I don’t agree with yEC in making the doggy kIND so small. i see marsupial, other extinct types, wolves within the ‘dog’ kind and also put in it the bear , probably the seal, the hyanea, and loads of fossil variations. indeed probably some so called dinosaurs are just dog kinds. The ones they say are part mammal/reptile etc etc. A few look doggy.

    Yes the marsupial dog is a wolf. No convergent evolution doesn’t prove otherwise. its unreasonable. its just dumb classification of biology on the wrong traits.

  19. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo: We will never know until we figure out what species means.

    To bad there is not a list in the Bible. I guess even God was unable to come up with a definition.

  20. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo:
    J-Mac,

    Allan would like you to ignore the exceptions, just proceed with the ones that aren’t exceptions.

    How do we know which ones are the exceptions and not the exceptions? Well, let’s just ignore that.

    No, I wouldn’t like you to ignore the exceptions. Indeed, I mentioned them. Why are there exceptions? Because of evolution. A gradual process is bound to generate halfway house situations on the way.

    So by all means look at the exceptions.

  21. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    So, I have defined a species – a population reproductively isolated from all other such populations. If two populations cannot interbreed, they are definitely separate species.

    So now, what is the equivalent definitive distinction between kinds?

  22. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Byers: bird KINDS(the ark dove/raven).

    and Tyrannosaurus rex. Let’s not forget Tyrannosaurus.

  23. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    Too many exceptions…

    Too many for what? Can you quantify this? For example, how many different populations can bonobos hybridise with, as a proportion of those with which they cannot?

    Evolutionist: “A gradual process of divergence would be expected to lead to some situations where interbreeding is rare rather than nonexistent”.

    Creationist: “Here are some some situations where interbreeding is rare rather than nonexistent, therefore evolution is false”.

    Ya what?

  24. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: And then there were marsupial wolves… they are a problem all right but for the believes of the so called convergent evolution and not those who see them as a separate kind… lol

    … or for those who see them as the same kind

    Robert Byers: Yes the marsupial dog is a wolf. No convergent evolution doesn’t prove otherwise. its unreasonable. its just dumb classification of biology on the wrong traits.

    Kinds are so obvious aren’ t they?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.