| happydolphin said: Do you have any articles regarding the issue of inbreeding, or the incompatibility between species? You brought up the mule but that is just one special case. Do you have a source of a person explaining the scenario for evolution which considers this constraint in the speciation process? What about the generation of genes through inbreeding? It's hard to accept a theory when there are so many open questions, they are gaping. I do have evidence for Creation or Intelligent design. For example, the population of the american continent is believed to have happened only a few thousand years ago (15k I heard on the nature show). It makes sense in my frame of mind that the migration is so recent because, in my view, humans are a recent species. With evolution, an ocean should not be that big a divider, given that species have pretty much covered the earth since a long time. Please don't demolish this argument I am just speaking my mind. Otherwise I will just stop posting. Also, it seems that over time species lose genetic information due to degradation of genes over time, we see it with inbreeding, in general over generations mutation errors grow with occurence and it just seems that given enough time genetic defects end up taking precedence over genetic improvements by random mutations. |
Animal cross-breeds: (Mule excluded)
http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/
After reviewing your original introduction of inbreeding, I have to admit, it isn't at all relevant to evolution. So I won't address it further.
I don't understand your point about oceans. Columbus found it, then it was colonized. What does that have to do with evolution?
Species do not lose genetic information over time. Sheer nonsense. Inbreeding doesn't degrade the DNA either, you don't inbreed until you become a new species. You'll experience rare conditions/mutations, nothing more.
This still isn't providing any evidence for Intelligent Design or Creation. You're still addressing evolution so far as I can tell.
