Huh interesting, I didn't realise dogs were a sub-species of wolf. Oh well there are many many other species out there that can interbreed but don't.

Like polar bears and grizzly bears as an example.


Basically the definition between species is ridiculously blurred because it doesn't actually suit the nature of evolution - that there is never a clear dividing line between one species and another.

but doesn't that mean that you'll never be able to breed "pure" tigons or ligers, because the only way they can breed is with tigers or lions. therefore, they'll never breed for more than a couple of generations before their traits are pushed to the depths of recession.

also, this thread makes me want a pumapard ^___^

The point isn't about Ligers and Tiglons so much as it is about the genetic compatibility of lions and tigrs which, according to that criteria, would make them members of the same species.

aah, right.

but i thought they had to produce "viable" offspring that could reproduce? and isn't it only the females who can?

Yeah, that's what I thought a species was.

And, just for the hell of it, more possible crosses between lions, tigers, panthers and leopards.

I just

I just don't know

I'm not some kinda species.... genetics... guy

WHY THE HELL NOT?!?!

only joking, i love genetics XD

And despite this extreme selective pressure by the environtment (in this case mediated by humans) over the course of thousands of years dogs are still dogs.

So dogs are a great example of the creationist claim that micro evolution occurs but not macro evolution.

But the fact is they wont be just dogs forever Slimebeast, look into the future. They evolve at an accelerated rate, but this is only over a 13,000 year period, even accelerated evolution would be hard pressed to create several separate species of mammal from one in that time period. It has created many subspecies though.

What I'm saying is that micro and macro are simply an illusion. Dogs have taken 13,000 years to get this far, but they have changed a lot. In 13,000 years do you see dogs being the same as they are today? No of course not, they will evolve further. How about 13,000 years after that, and another 13,000 years after that and so on? They will just continue to grow more and more diverse.

In an extremely simplified manner micro evolution is just small stages that add up to a macro evolution.

Do you believe that a hundred cycles of these 13,000 year periods of increasing genetic difference, what you will have left is essentially still a dog? 

My example does not prove that micro evolution is the only way things evolve at all imho.

...

Evolutionists have already proved micro evolution to just about everyone because the evidence is overwhelming. Evidence for macro evolution, despite being a lot harder to find and test for than micro, is building up quite nicely.

...

I think I've said it once before, but I'll say it again (and I really hope I don't offend you). You are different to a lot of debaters Slimebeast, I can tell you have read about evolution, I know you read links given to you, you digest the information and you are a very intelligent person so you understand it. I always get this feeling that you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory in the back of your mind, I can just tell when I talk about it to you. You're *different* to a lot of people who argue creationism.

...

That said, I don't know why creationists refuse to accept evolution so forcefully, macro included. If a creator created Earth billions of years ago, then why can't the original animals macro evolve? If the animals macro evolve into something else over millions, or even billions, of years then does that mean that they weren't created in the first place? no, of course not, it doesn't suggest that.

Actually evidence for macroevolution is equally undeniable unless you decide to completely ignore the fossil record.