Let us reason together.

Quetzal wrote:
The truth is that "dog" and "wolf" shouldn't be considered different species, since fertile backcrosses occur in nature. Wolves and dogs share 99%+ the same genomes. Here's a good site discussing wolf-dog hybridization Wolf-Dog Hybrids, which includes some of the genetics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~It's been a decade since I did my biology degree so I may have this wrong, but I wanted to clarify the above. And it probably should be a new topic but it's a wee thing: doesn't the definition of "species" include not only "able to produce fertile offspring" but also some consideration of behavioural patterns to allow individuals to recognise each other?There are many species that are easily cross-mated in theory, but would not mate with each other in the wild because they have evolved incompatible mating rituals. I wonder if a poodle let loose in a wolf lair would actually mate with the wolves? (Well, maybe it would think that was fun - especially if it had led a sheltered life.)Yeah, I will figure out this quote thing in my own time.

Thanks, Quetzal. It's all coming back to me now... And considering how much I've forgotten, the longer the better.Speaking of which, I would imagine the great dane and chihuahua would have incompatibly sized pink bits even if all else is peachy (in its doggy way) within the relationship.As a complete and utter aside, it amazes me how quickly new breeds of dogs were developed over the past however-many hundreds or thousands of years. Goes to show how pliable the genome can be when pressures are extreme (if manmade, in this case).------------------
o--greyline--o

I went there but I couldn't find any. Is that false advertising?------------------
o--greyline--o

Well you explained *something* I guess, but it sure as heck wasn't evolution.

I don't like the term "lower organism" - it implies that values are placed on different organisms, whereas Nature makes no such judgements. I know that lower and higher are terms used in evolution all the time, but I wish that wasn't the case - it confuses the issue, especially when trying to explain things to a creationist.Just thought I'd set that straight.My answer to drummachine is: the evidence shows that man has evolved from an organism that wasn't man, and furthermore that man and other organisms have a common ancestor. Some organisms have a more recent common ancestor than others - for example, man and apes have a more recent common ancestor than man and bumble bees.------------------
o--greyline--o

I don't know if this is really the topic of the thread, but vestigial organs in general - especially those that appear as throwbacks in only some individuals of a species - are a huge argument against creationism. Much of nature can be "explained away" with creationism and a dose of doublethink, once you accept a supernatural origin of life, but why do some whales have vestigial hind limbs? Why do baleen whale fetus grow normal tooth buds which are then reabsorbed before birth?------------------
o--greyline--o