If you have made it through the first two posts, then you've passed
Evolution 1-0-Bob.  Ready for the quiz?  Just because the separation date
between skunks and other mustelids is thought to be older than previously
believed, does it mean they are less related?  I would be careful with that
one, because, as I've said, evolutionary rates are relative to the species,
and they are not necessarily constant, speeding up or slowing down depending
on circumstances.  Also, the scientists studied the skunk's mitochondral
DNA, not the DNA that makes a skunk a skunk.  There are really good reasons
for this which I won't go into here, but the problem is, an assumption has
to be made that the mutation rate of the DNA is constant over time.  Now of
course it isn't, because mutation rates are random, which implies time
diffences, but over the long run the rates are supposed to normalize.  This
is called an assumption, because scientists use "If, then" arguments.  "IF
the mutation rate is random, and IF it normalizes over time, THEN skunks are
almost as old as the rest of the mustelids.  Now IF this is true, and given
the other differences, THEN skunks need their own family group." So, these
arguments are based on assumptions that may or may not have been proven.
 
The bottom line is a species could be distantly related to another animal in
time, yet be closer in physiology or anatomy to it than some other animal
that split off more recently.  Why?  Because mutations in DNA are random,
and they might have affected different areas at different rates with
different results.  Besides, discovering your mother was ten years older
than you thought doesn't mean you are any less related to your cousins.  Or
put in another way, any anatomist (or pert-near most vets) will tell you ALL
carnivores are so similar that learning the anatomy and physiology of one is
almost like learning them all.  Oh sure, differences *do* exist, but they
are exceptions to the basic formula.  Once you learn the anatomy and
physiology of the group, then you can learn the exceptions for the
individual species.  In fact, it is quite common to learn the anatomy and
physiology of humans by studying that of cats, mink, or dogs.  If
carnivores, indeed, if all placental mammals are that close, what does the
difference between skunks and mustelids really mean?  We are talking minor
differences; they are molehills, not mountains, and are theoretical, not
actual.
 
Jim and others are correct in their statements that the problem with
ferrets, skunks and rabies is public officals with cranial vaults filled
with granola.  But the solution is education, and even a hundred papers
isn't going to change a mind stuck in Baywatch mode.  Why?  Because I
already have a hundred papers that describe differences between mustelids in
general, ferret and polecats, ferrets and cats, ferrets and primates, etc,
etc, etc.  I even have a book that says except for insectivorous and vampire
bats, small mammals are not usually involved in the spread of rabies in
North America.  (Michael Stoddart "Ecology of Small Mammals" 1979 John Wiley
and Sons, New York, page 219)  Those already-in-existence papers haven't
made a spit of a difference yet, have they?  Papers mean diddly-squat to
idiots, and there are dozens of court cases that have already proven that,
some in the last few months.
 
Consider the issue of domestication.  Excluding outdated the oft-cited
turn-of-the-century animal folk tales, or the occasionally cited biocrat
with snot for brains and who thinks refereed journals are meant for the
eggheads stealing the good jobs, virtually all scientific sources recognize
the ferret as being domesticated.  So why not in California?  Either the
idiots can't read, can't think, or all of the above.  Obviously, the point
is you can have all the good papers in the world, but unless someone is
willing to read or believe them, they mean nothing.  It would be easier to
get a TV preacher to give back a dollar.
 
I don't know; maybe the paper can help.  I'm not saying people shouldn't use
it, I'm just trying to say, at the present time, skunks are still part of
the Mustelidae.  I am also saying you should be cautious, because the
problem isn't the relationships between skunks and ferrets, but that some
people don't trust ferrets (the skunks!).  Those same people could shift
their objections from "skunks" to "weasels," which the paper does claim are
*very* closely related.  It is kind of like racial prejudice.  Prove one
objection is in error, and another one is invented, or the proof is
disbelieved.  Wait, everything is conspiracies now, right?  You just can't
win when idiots are in charge.  And who is really to blame?  We voted the
domesticated donkeys out of the asylum and into public office.
 
Hummmm, I was thinking....ya think that politicians will be included in the
Mephitidae?  Naw, we sould just come up with a new family, to include
Biocrats, fish and gestapo agents, and rabid health officals.  We can call
it the Nobrainidae.
 
Bob C and 21 MO Toebiters
[Posted in FML issue 2050]