[xm177e2]

But the boundaries between species are distinct and firm – one species does not simply trail off into another by degrees.

B.S.

There is nothing magical about a "species"... All that it means for two animals to be in the same "species" is that they can mate and produce fertile offspring.

But it's not always so simple. There are cases in which even within the same "species," there are subgroups of animals such that all subgroups can produce fertile offspring within their own subgroup and with at least one other subgroup, but not all subgroups can produce fertile offspring with all members of the "species."

In other words, bird A can mate successfully with bird B, bird B can mate successfully with bird C, but bird A cannot mate successfully with bird C. Get it?

This is just another clear example of how Creationists oversimplify things. It's bad science. And then the little wussies whine and whine that the real scientists won't take them seriously.

[RightWingAtheist]

Well, I guess we're all disillusioned about the AEI right now, but this is a good time remind all of you that the next issue of National Review is supposed to feature an evisceration of ID and creationism in general by John Derbyshire. "The Derb" has been posting some of his arguments in NRO's The Corner as a preview, and we can expect the usual wit and cogent arguments from one of NR's finest contributors.