[ivraatiems]

It's a faulty comparison, though. Domestic cats are by definition not the same as any native cat. They are domesticated animals, more equivalent to dogs, cows, and chickens.

So the discussion to have here is 'do we accept having domesticated animals in environments they didn't originate from'.

[JamesMcMinn]

It is in no way a faulty comparison. We did not domesticate cats in the same way that we did dogs, cows or chickens [1]. Wild cats found human populations useful because they attracted rodents. Humans found cats useful because dealt with rodents. A mutually beneficial relationship lasting thousands of years during which time, cats essentially domesticated themselves.

[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/domestica...

[nerb]

> domesticated themselves

... so they are domesticated and not native... ???

[JamesMcMinn]

Whatever do you mean? Something being domesticated has no bearing on wether or not is it native to an area.

[ivraatiems]

Domesticated animals are different species than native flora and fauna. The domestic cat is taxonomically and genetically not the same as a any wild cat. The same goes for dogs, cattle, etc.

By definition, domestic animals and plants have no native home except with humans. This is why we call domestic cats who escape and live in the wild "feral," not "wild," because a feral animal is specifically a domestic animal not living with humans, not a non-domestic native animal. It does not matter whether they 'domesticated themselves' or not, they are a domestic species and therefore not equatable with a wild one.

As a result, your point simply makes no sense. Domestic cats have no 'native lands' because they are not and cannot be 'native' anywhere except in human settlements.

[JamesMcMinn]

Replying here due to depth limits.

> Can you point out the part of the article that disagrees with the assertion "cats are domestic animals"?

This is neither relevant nor the issue being discussed. It is a straw man, and you all too well know this. No one has at any point claimed that there are not domestic cats.

The entire point made was that cats are a native species in many parts of Europe, and that research shows not only that cats domesticated themselves, but that domestic and wild cats are genetically almost identical. The fact that domestic cats exist does not prevent native wild cats from also existing.

[JamesMcMinn]

Did you actually read the article I linked to? I ask because actual evolutionary geneticists don't agree with you, and I'm likely to side with them on the genetics of the matter.

[nerb]

i'm sorry, which evolutionary geneticists? the 1 sentence in a nat geo article about the genomes being similar, or...

https://www.science.org/content/article/genes-turned-wildcat...

http://www.jabg.org/view/JABG_202303_02.pdf

from the looks of it, you found an inkling of confirmation and rolled with it. you think you got a science backing for your ideas, but nah, wrong. remind yourself when you read all the articles claiming "near identical DNA!" that human DNA is ~1.6% different from gorilla DNA. geneticists are seeing larger differences between domestic and wild cat species.

[ivraatiems]

Can you point out the part of the article that disagrees with the assertion "cats are domestic animals"?