Only if someone is so desperate that they want to *prove* evolution occurred.
No, wolves to chihuahuas do not fit the bill. They're both dogs and interbreed can freely if physical limitations were not an issue. Varieties of animals do not demonstrate evolution, only variation WITHIN species.
Creationists usually use “kind” to mean a group with a common ancestor. It’s a word from Genesis.
I know what it is and how it's used. It's more like the classification of *family* that taxonomists use.
You seemed to equate genus with kind, but they don’t really equate at all (at least not from what I’ve seen).
It's also interesting that evos focus on what supports them the best. Look at appearance and ignore genetics when it's convenient, or focus on genetics and ignore appearance another time.
Evos claim that the definition of species are organisms that can't interbreed and that is NOT true of any of the members of the dog family. They are all genetically capable of interbreeding even if size is a factor in preventing that. Genetically they are not separate species then.
If evos are going to be able to demonstrate the kind of change that they say happened to result in variety of life we see today, they need to demonstrate more than variation within species. They need to show the kind of change that results in animals that can't interbreed, the kind of change the results in distinct species like the difference between cats and dogs, not just deformed fruit flies or bacteria with different appetites than their ancestors.
“Only if someone is so desperate that they want to *prove* evolution occurred.
No, wolves to chihuahuas do not fit the bill. They’re both dogs and interbreed can freely if physical limitations were not an issue. Varieties of animals do not demonstrate evolution, only variation WITHIN species.”
The only reason wolves and chihuahuas are lumped into the same species is because there are so many extant intermediates. It would be too difficult and too arbitrary to try to draw any taxonomic lines. If all we had were wolves and chihuahuas, however, there’s no question they’d be put into different species, and probably different genera.
So I suspect that it’s a question that is impossible to answer - if I give an answer that includes two groups that can interbreed than it’ll be rejected on grounds that it’s “change within species” (even though chihuahuas and wolves actually can’t - but that was rejected on grounds that they would if they could heh). If I give an example of two species that can’t interbreed, then I’ll have to use examples of groups that have been separated for longer periods of time - and that will be rejected on grounds that, well, we didn’t witness it, which is when we use fossils, and I somehow doubt that fossil evidence will go over well. :-)
“Genetically they are not separate species then.”
It’s rather difficult to say what’s a separate species genetically, and it’s rarely used as a basis.
There was a book out a while back called “The Third Chimpanzee”, which argued that, genetically, we should be classified as a chimpanzee subspecies, like dogs are to wolves. (The second chimp being the bonobo).
It’s also REALLY difficult to tell if two groups can interbreed based on genetics. It’s very rare, but sometimes horses and zebras can interbreed (to form “zorses”) - this is despite some horses have 66 chromosomes to the zebras 32. (Are they in the same kind?)
But back to the original request: “a clearly different and unique species that is not identifiable as the original parent organism”.
The reason we can tell that evolution occurs is because it occurs in a way in which parent and child species ARE identifiable. If this wasn’t the case there would be no taxonomic tree or evolutionary tree and we probably would never have noticed evolution.