"Best" evidence for evolution.

Why? It's not the only thing used to distinguish species (organisms that reproduce asexually obviously cannot use it as a criterion) but don't you think it shows a very significant difference?

We see many organisms that are far apart. You could never breed with an oak tree, for example. And we see many organisms that are close together, such as dogs, wolves and coyotes.

From the Britannica

quote:

---

taxonomy - The objectives of biological classification | Britannica
...The butterflies of a region, for example, might first be separated into those with a lot of white on the wings and those with very little; then each group could be subdivided on the basis of other characters. One disadvantage of such classifications, which are useful for well-known groups, is that a mistake may produce a ridiculous answer, since the groups under each division need have nothing in common but the chosen character (e.g., white on the butterfly wings). In addition, if the group being keyed is large or given to great variation, the key may be extremely complex and may rely on characters difficult to evaluate. Moreover, if the form in question is a new one or one that is not in the key (being, perhaps, unrecorded from the region to which the key applies), it may be identified incorrectly. Many unrelated butterflies have a lot of white on the wingsa few swallowtails, the well-known cabbage whites, some of the South American dismorphiines, and a few satyrids. Should identification of an undescribed form of fritillary butterfly containing much white on the wings be desired, the use of a key could result in an incorrect identification of the butterfly. In order to avoid such mistakes, it is necessary to consider many characters of the organismnot merely one aspect of the wings but their anatomy and the features of the various stages in the life cycle. ...

---

Have you looked at how biologists do taxonomy before you had this realization?

But you have no evidence at all that, "evolution uses up genetic variation and eventually runs out and where it runs out is the boundary of the Kind".At first creationists say living organisms can't change, they say that different dog breeds are still dogs, so no evolution has happened. That's like saying it's impossible to walk from New York to California because you've only walked around the corner. Talk to Lewis and Clark about long journeys.Then creationists say no new species have evolved. But they have, as I mentioned EvC Forum: "Best" evidence for evolution..Then creationists say that the change involved in evolution of those new species isn't "big enough", in some sense, to make them happy. That's like saying since Rome wasn't built in day it wasn't built at all.What do you think happened? That over billions of years billions and billions of little miracles happened, bringing into existence new forms of living creatures just in time for them to lay down their bones or shells or pawprints at the right place in the fossil record? Or do you ignore the fossil record entirely and say all the creatures were created at once and what we see now is the result of trilobites and Cooksonia and dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx and sabertooth tigers etc. etc. etc. all dying out over time?

Of course, if you'd seen people breed new canine species your argument would lose its validity, wouldn't it?That's just what happened, not with dogs, but with agriculture! Humans produced enormously different species of wheat (even changing the number of chromosomes!) over the course of thousands of years. The new species were not "depleted". If they were, how would we get the bread we put in our toasters every morning?

quote:

---

Varieties of wheat that have forty-two chromosomes are the most recently evolved and most used types of wheat. All of these varieties have been cultivated by humans (as opposed to growing wild). They are hybrids of twenty-eight-chromosome wheats and wild fourteen-chromosome wheats or grasses. Early bread wheat was the result of the crossing of goat grass (Aegilops tauschii ) with Triticum turgidum. Modern bread wheat varieties have forty-two chromosomes and evolved from crosses between emmer and goat grass, which is the source of the unique glutenin genes that give bread dough the ability to form gluten. Goat grass grows abundantly in the region stretching from Greece to Afghanistan. Descriptions of the fourteen species of wheat that yield the thousands of wheat varieties grown today are provided here. Just a moment...

---

So you accept the fact that there has been radical change, even to the change in the number of chromosomes? Even to the extent that a population can diverge so much that it may form multiple groups that cannot interbreed and so are different species? I'd hardly call that "depletion"!Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't just say that all of this was "unnatural" selection, intelligent interference in the genome by breeders! Is that because you know the natural world can impose selective pressures on populations of living creatures much more stringent (and for far longer) than human breeders?Over time, of course, there has been enormous change. The first fossil evidence of mammals is from the Triassic Period, when the reptiles still ruled. The early mammals were small (often described by paleontologists as "shrew-like" or "mouse-like" animals) and certainly far different from the horses, whales, elephants and other mammals we see today. So we have evolutionary change over many generations. The most important evidence for evolution is the simplest: go from point A, an ancestor, to point B, a creature living today of much different form than that ancestor.Unless, of course, you are willing to believe that there have always been horses, whales, elephants and all the other mammals, since the beginning of life on earth. Is that it? Were there kangaroos and aardvarks and lemurs on earth billions of years ago?