Re: Darwin's Theory

[Jerry & Susan Milam <milamj@agtelco.com>]

Duncan Fletcher wrote:
> 
> My understanding of the coydog is that it is a natural breeding (the dogs involved or generally feral). The others are man forced. But since this started with a debate on evolution, the closely related but distinct specie is indicative of one of those missing links.
> 
> You are certainly correct that animals not closely related are incapable of successful reproduction - but closely related is an evolutionary concept.

 Duncan Fletcher
> dfletche@gte.net



Darwin's theory of about how this world came to be and then developed
is  founded on his concept that a living cell was formed by random
chance and then through many, many millions of years there were many,
many genetic mistakes that "evolved" by random chance the many, many
missing links that bridged the gaps from each of the millions of species
to a more highly evolved species and viola'....we have man.

What is being described here and previosly is "variation within a
species" and not a species becoming more complex, sophisticated, or
evolved from it's base developing into a different species. If there
were missing links between species we would see them in transition.
These are only variations within species and still leave huge chasms of
"evolution" between each of the millions of species not only of
animals,microbes, fish,insects, birds, and reptiles, but plants as well.
Variation is NOT evolution.


>
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jerry & Susan Milam <milamj@agtelco.com>
> 
> >
> > These species are similar in "kind" i.e. equine, bovine, canine, and
> > feline. These would of course be compatible for reproduction due to
> > their likeness. It's been some time since I took zoology, but this is totally logical. I doubt this happens in nature without man screwing
> > around with the circumstance.  What you don't see happen in nature is reproduction between "out of kind" species such as a cat and a dog, or a cayote and a lynx.
> >
> > Jerry & Susan Milam