Moving the Goalpost (...when Darwinism is in danger of losing!)

"Most Creationists consider dogs and wolves and being the same kind, yet is there any definition of “species” out there(and there are plenty to pick from) by which wolves and Chihuahuas would NOT be separate species? They are extremely morphologically different (much more so than, say, chimps and humans are) and cannot interbreed (I doubt, even with fancy lab work; I’d love to see pics of such a creature if anyone has them.)"

Wolves, dogs (including chihuahuas), coyotes and jackals all have 78 chromosomes in 39 pairs and interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Any lab work required for a wolf-chihuahua bybrid would be no 'fancier' than artificial insemination. As for appearance, a blend of both parents, as always.

While science may claim that morphological/behavioral differences do a species make, it is the ability to produce fertile offspring that really tells the story. That's what the article is talking about.

“Wolves, dogs (including chihuahuas), coyotes and jackals all have 78 chromosomes in 39 pairs and interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Any lab work required for a wolf-chihuahua bybrid would be no ‘fancier’ than artificial insemination. “

—Got any evidence for the existence of wolf-chihuahuas? I’d love to see one.

"—Got any evidence for the existence of wolf-chihuahuas? I’d love to see one."

This one is so simple that even you could do it.

First, get your female wolf. Then get your male chihuahua. Then ... well you should be able to figure the rest out all by yourself.

I suspect you just like to argue for the sake of arguing, as I’m rather certain that you don’t believe most of the stuff you post. But that’s not something I’m interested in doing.
You also like to have fun with the “list of fallacies” website you found last week but haven’t quite learned yet what they mean or how to use them.
You can find someone else to play with. Good day.

"I suspect you just like to argue for the sake of arguing, as I’m rather certain that you don’t believe most of the stuff you post. But that’s not something I’m interested in doing."

I suspect that you are the one who doesn't believe most of the stuff you post. When you get caught in misrepresentation, all you do is make 'a' response because 'any response will do'. You aren't really interested in understanding where your logic descends into fallacy because you are determined to retain the paradigm you already believe. That much is obvious.

"You also like to have fun with the “list of fallacies” website you found last week but haven’t quite learned yet what they mean or how to use them."

You love your logical fallacies so much that you think that simply refusing to admit your own faulty lines of thought is an acceptable argument. You just wave your hands, make any response (not necessarily a valid one) and you think you have justified your mental paradigm. Pretending that you aren't engaging in logical fallacy when you are is simply self-deception. You apparently prefer that to facing the truth.

"You can find someone else to play with. Good day."

Clearly you are the one who is playing the game and when that is made obvious you think all you need to is make 'a' response (because any response will do) and run away. You're kidding yourself. I know that and you know that. Good day.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.