Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: gore3000
Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.

Note that the same article says specifically that the populations where the ring rejoins meet every definition of being a separate species. More creationist quote science! You just took the one sentence you wanted.

Ostrich head-in-the-sand democrat--lawyer on the words
Think wonderful thoughts--reality will go away
Own definitions making up--Help f.Christian I'm no good at this!

1,190 posted on 03/21/2002 6:05:32 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
Note that the same article says specifically that the populations where the ring rejoins meet every definition of being a separate species.

The different subspecies are close enough that most scientists do not think they should be classed as different species. Because one person thinks they should be different species is not enough to make it a new species, the scientific community at large must be convinced of it, that has not happened yet. Regardless, it is not an example of macro evolution. They do not show sufficient new complexity, new features and new (not altered genes) to qualify as proof of macro-evolution.

1,226 posted on 03/21/2002 8:56:08 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1190 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson