Barbarian observes:
So they are now subspecies. But tell me, do you think you could get a viable cross between a wolf and a chihuahua?
Then they aren't a single species. They have to be able to reproduce on their own in the wild. So there, by your definition, are two species.
(SeaSigh imagines that science thought wolves and dogs were different species)
Barbarian observes:
When I was an undergraduate in the 60s, textbooks said that they were subspecies. Remember when I told you that not knowing what you were talking about, could trip you up?
Still the same. That hasn't changed, because the genetic evidence says the same thing.
Well, let's take a look...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...00&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104618320333
Still considered a subspecies, one of a number of wolf subspecies. Surprised?
Barbarian observes:
We don't know who faked Piltdown Man, but we know he couldn't have been very smart about evolution, since the prediction was that an upright stance would have preceded a large brain. Piltdown had it the other way. So, it was with considerable relief among scientists, that an "evolutionist" showed it to be a fake. It was a much greater embarrassment when it was still not known to be a face, than after it was debunked by scientists.
It's one of the major differences between science and creationism. Science changes when the evidence indicates. For creationists, the evidence has to be changed to fit their doctrines.
Of course. As I said, it's one onf the major differences between science and creationism.
As you just learned, it was "evolutionists" who debunked the fraud. You have it backwards again.
Because Piltdown Man was contrary to evolutionary theory, it was a distinct embarrassment until someone found a way to demonstrate it was a fake. Then the problem went away.
I'm guessing you were told the "pig tooth" fable creationists often use. But they got it wrong. It was a javelina, not a pig, and the tooth was strangely worn down to resemble a primate tooth. But it was found by a dinosaur expert, who got it wrong. As soon as a primate specialist looked at it, the error was discovered.
Not what the told you? That's another big difference between scientists and creationists.
The reason you keep embarrassing yourself here is precisely because you're too gullible. Stop trusting people who tell you things and check the evidence for yourself.
=M= said:
Thanks for helping me Clarify my Point, I didn't know they never Cared to Check who Claimed the Find.
That just shows how Incompetent Evols are at Recognizing Truth.
Barbie, what is amazing to me, is that Evolutionists, want to believe in Evolution So Bad, that for forty years, they thought it was Proved by a Pigs tooth.
There is no Evidence for Evolution, if there was, you Evols would be Screaming it in the Streets.
=M=
Wolves and Dogs are the Same Exact Species. Update your Science, Barbie.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Are...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
They are not a Sub Species, In Fact the Word Subspecies Has never Been Defined by Science.
Do you have A Personal Definition of the Word Subspecies?
You said before, that you thought that they were two Separate Species.
They have been Split for a Very Long time, I think If I were you, being an Evol, I would wonder why these animals have not shown any Signs of Speciating.
Odd Don't you Think?
I mean, If that is True, that a Dog and wolf Don't Hybridize and that Their Offspring is Fully Fertile, than the Theoretical Process of Evolution is Obviously False.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Are...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
If the Above Link's Information is indeed truth, Then I guess the Process of Speciation, which is the most Vital Process in the Theory of Evolution, Doesn't Happen Ever.
Oh, it feels so Nice to not be a Silly Atheist Catholic.
========================================
Also,
Barbie said:
I'm guessing you were told the "pig tooth" fable creationists often use. But they got it wrong. It was a javelina, not a pig, and the tooth was strangely worn down to resemble a primate tooth.
Yep, that's right Folks; The Piltdown Man was Just a Pig's Tooth, But that Didn't Keep Evolutionists from Claiming it as Foolproof Evidence for the Theoretical Process of Evolution; For 40 Years!
Which Proves that Evolutionists Will Believe, Just about anything, and you shouldn't believe their Findings at all, Or at least for Forty Years or More; But like I said, they Will believe anything, Except that God Made man in His own Image, and that Adam didn't have to Learn how to Walk on Little Monkey Hand Feet, he was a Fully Developed Man, in the Day he was Created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelina
Looks Like a Pig to me, see how it contains Like Features with Every other Pig, including Boars; That is How you can tell, that it is A Piggy.
Javelina Can Fully Interbreed with Boars, and Boars can Interbreed with Pigs; Therefore, they are all the Same Species, no matter how your Classification system wants to Say it, A Javelina is a Pig, Given that they have like Features, and are all Capable of Interbreeding.
There are some Sites that Say Javelina And Pigs are a Separate Species, but as you can See, if a Boar is capable of Interbreeding with a Pig, and a Boar is also Capable of Interbreeding with a Javelina, then they are all the Same Species, Given the Definition of Species.
A pig and a Javelina, Are close Enough Genetically to Interbreed, but their Physical Features may Keep them From Doing So. However, a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua's Physical Features also Keep them From Breeding Naturally, but who doesn't consider them Both Dogs?
If they were Artificially Inseminated, then we could get a Mix of Chihuahua and St. Bernard, which may be an Odd Creature, but it would also Still be a Dog. The same can be considered, when considering the Javelina and Pig.
If it Has a Snout, a Curly Tail, and Tastes like Bacon; I'm gonna go ahead and Call it a Piggy.
==========================================
Barbie said:
tell me, do you think you could get a viable cross between a wolf and a chihuahua?
Then they aren't a single species. They have to be able to reproduce on their own in the wild. So there, by your definition, are two species.
According to My Definition, they are the Same Species, and According to Science they are the Same Species.
The fact that nature or features keep an animal From interbreeding does not make it a New Species.
If the animals Genes are Close Enough to be able to Reproduce, Even through the Means of artificial insemination and produce offspring, and have like features, then they should be considered the Same Species.
Given the Definition of Species; Animals With like Features, which are Capable of Interbreeding.
Apes and Man, are not the Same Kind of Animal; Even though Evols Try to say that Man is an Ape, and should be classified as an Ape; Evol Science has tried to Artificially Inseminate the two, But Since we are not apes, no Fertilization of the Egg took Place. These Evol Scientists Tried Both Ways, also. Ewwwwwwww. Either Way, Neither way lead to Fertilization.
==========================================
Barbie Girl said:
As you just learned, it was "evolutionists" who debunked the fraud. You have it backwards again.
I never said that Creationists were the Ones that Debunked it, you thought I did, Somehow Though.
Maybe, it is the Same Exact thought Process that leads you to believe in Such an Easy to Disprove Theory, like Evolution.
You believe things Happened, that never really Happened. See, it is the same Erroneous Thought Process; Like I Said before, Barbie and Other Evolutionists, have a Problem Thinking Critically.
lain: