From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > OTOH classification at the species level is arbitrary at times, if lions and > tigers can interbreed, are then boxers and dachshunds really the same > species? Horses and donkeys. Dogs and wolves. Housecats and wildcats? > What does this say about the various human races? (Yes I realise how un-PC > that is, but in context of the discussion I think it is valid.) >
Well, the dingo is Canis familiaris dingo, a separate species from Canis familiaris familiaris (common dog), even though they can and do interbreed and produce viable offspring. Dingoes breed only once a year (March-April) while domestic dogs and dingo crossbreeds don't have a fixed breeding season. Genetically, dogs and dingoes are closely enough related to interbreed, a dingo is obviously of the wolf/dog conformation but it is a species according to Linnaean classification. In fact, there is a distinct Alpine sub-type of dingo, too, as well as Asian and Australian versions. The creationists tend to claim nowadays that all of the wolf/dingo/dog variants are of the same general animal type, not species. They can then claim that this accounts for much of what evolutionists refer to as speciation, but is actually just genetic drift throughout the Type in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. That is, God originally created the perfect prototype wolf/dingo/dog and has subsequently let them develop (degenerate) as they will. This also helps reduce the accommodation requirements on Noah's Ark. This all falls under the heading of micro evolution, which at least Answers in Genesis seems to have conceded to the debate but still leaves room to fight over the non-existence of macro-evolution (creation of new species). It gets down to who defines what and why. Of course, one of the ironies I see is that AiG is essentially Queensland (Australia) based. Now, all the rest of us Aussies can go chapter and verse about how strange Queenslanders are (hello Russell) but I find it hard to comprehend how a bible literalist can ever explain how Australia's wildlife got where it did after the doors on the ark were opened, and made the journey en masse without leaving a single fossil anywhere between the mid East and Australia. Continental drift isn't allowed as an argument, BTW. And yet at least one site tries to use the Platypus as a conclusive argument for creation and the Ark! Brett
