Evolution for Dummies and Christians

The most commonly used, and most useful, species definition is (basically) reproductively isolated groups. It doesn't matter what is going on at the genetic level, if mate recognition, behavioral differences, or physical differences prevent gene flow between two groups.Many cricket species are genetically compatible but they don't recognize each other's mating calls; some drosophilia species are genetically compatible but their genitalia can't interact due to morphology. An astounding example is the cichlid flock of Lake Malawi, a thousand or so species that are essentially all genetically compatible with each other, yet rarely interbreed in the wild. It is essential to include the non-genetic element in a species definition because otherwise we would discard all of the these isolated gene pools. A two-foot-long barracuda-like cichlid and a two-inch-long clownfish-like cichlid would be considered the same species because a hybrid could be produced in a petri dish, even though if they ever met the latter would immediately become the former's lunch.All of that said to say this: Great danes and chihuahuas are probably still the same species, but in the way that the two extreme ends of a ring species are. Though they likely would never produce offspring on their own, gene flow is readily accomplished between intermediate-sized breeds (maybe only one might even be necessary).Thus the genes of the great dane and the chihuahua can intermingle fairly easily without any rattling of test tubes...[AbE: If the world decided to undertake the abhorrent experiment of killing off all non-chihuahua/non-great-dane canis in the world, we'd probably have ourselves two separate species...]This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 12-07-2005 06:36 PM

Both are true. Over thousands of generations, canis were selectively bred, very gradually becoming less and less wolf-like and more and more chihuahua-like with each generation.After all of those generations, trying to naturally mate the chihuahua "product" with the wild wolves it was derived from is essentially impossible.From your comments throughout the board you seem to be working under the misconception that evolution from one species to another occurs in a single generation, so that you envision a scenario such as a chimp giving birth to a human. This is the exact opposite of what the Theory of Evolution predicts. In fact, if a chimp gave birth to a human, the Theory of Evolution would be falsified, that is, proved wrong. Instead, evolution is extremely gradual in nearly all instances.Welcome to the forum - I hope you stay awhile and keep an open mind.

It doesn't lie at the genus boundary, either. (At least not for cichlids).

Actually, as I just stated above, the Theory of Evolution agrees totally with this point, and if it were otherwise, the Theory of Evolution would be proven wrong.Carico, are you interested in learning what the Theory of Evolution really is?

Great. Lets start with this point.What do you think the "original premise of evolution" is?

brennakimi-A word of advice, if I may?Your new boldface quotes definitely are not working for you - it looks as though you are vehemently stating something (since everyone else on the board uses boldface for emphasis) and then arguing with yourself.Since it is only a two-letter difference between bold coding and quote coding, the time you are saving isn't worth the confusion you're causing the people trying to read your posts.

just for you, hot stuff.meow.