• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I don't understand this intelligent design blog

http://fdocc.blogspot.com/2005/12/dog-variation.html

He seems to be saying that because all "species" in genus canis can interbreed, that there is no such thing as evolution. Anyone care to explain?

My comment again is that evolutionism is selling at a very high price plus a lot of time that which is only the simple and natural variability within animals. It is like presenting you with the bones of a fossilized Chihuahua-like dog at the side of a living mastiff and then concluding that the mastiff "evolved" from the fossilized Chihuahua one...

Any varieties of dogs are able to interbreed producing fertile offspring, as well as with wolves, red wolves, jackals, coyotes, dingoes, etc., so all of them are only varieties of the same kind of organism in disregard of how 'speciation' is attempting 'to sell them by mususe' to deceive the unawares...

Time after time I have seen that 'varieties' are been deliberately confounded with 'species' to sell the tale of evolutionism, and the same can be said of thousands and thousands of other organisms.

At least now the seekers of truth are opening their eyes while freely reading this lines!
 
All he's saying is that they aren't separate species...

after all the defn of a species is one that cannot breed with any other variety of animal, right?


He's kinda almost totally wrong, because behavioural aspects are included, thus these animals would never naturally interbreed...

hence they are a different species...
 
I think he's saying that the very concept of 'species' is an ad hoc device used to support the theory of evolution, but I could be wrong.
 
Back
Top