Let me answer this way. I see the two dog "species" above as I would an Allosaurus and a T-Rex. They are both Therapods but they are unique species, they have different eco requirements, and other DNA designer information for body plan that is not the same.
I would have to disagree with your analogy. The morphological differences between allosaurs and tyrannosaurs are qualitative (unlike allosaurs, tyrannosaurs possess, among other things, a "pinched" third metatarsal=arctometatarsus, a bidactyl manus=two fingered hand rather than three fingered, etc.), whereas the morphological differences between wolves and coyotes are quantitative related to difference in size.
Here is Uma inornata and Uma scoparia, both Fringe-toed Sand Lizards—while they look to a novice to be the same animal, they are not. Not only that, in spite of being separated from each other by hundreds of miles, one assumes looking at them that they would breed with one another, or if your an evolutionists that they could breed because they come from a common ancestor??? Well not so. I personally have tried to hybridize these in the past, males and females pay no attention to one another. So morphologically close looking does not necessarily bode that they will cross.
Here you use the fact that they don't interbreed as a basis for distinguishing them as different species.
So getting back to the two “Dog” kind for a YEC view, Two different species from a scientific (evolutionary) view...the fact that they “can” breed is that a good basis on defining their taxonomic relationships given the fact that they do not hybridize even though they live in the same distribution areas, but they probably can...
But I make no assumptions on looks or even family as pointed out there are many examples of animal “kinds” that cannot breed or do not breed.
But here you question interbreeding as a basis for taxonomy. That kind of fuzzy equivocation is exactly why I insisted that you define what you mean by species.
In a recent study, Way, et. al.
studied the genetics of the eastern "coyote." They found that the eastern coyote is a cross breed between the eastern wolf Canis lycaon
and the western coyote Canis latrans
. To complicate matters further, many taxonomists consider the eastern wolf
to be a subspecies (Canis lupus lycaon
) of the Gray wolf (Canis lupus
), but in this study they treat it as a separate species. The most significant statement they make, however, in my estimation, is (pp 196-197):The three closely related species of North American Canis (western Coyote, Eastern Wolf, and Gray Wolf) do not conform to the biological species concept (Mayr 1942) because they are not reproductively isolated and gene flow occurs between them (Kyle et al. 2006). Although there is no evidence for direct hybridization between Gray Wolves and western Coyotes, the Eastern Wolf mediates gene flow between these two species. This relationship is especially apparent in southeastern Ontario where the term “Canis soup” was coined to reflect the mix of eastern Coyotes, Eastern Wolves, Gray Wolves and their hybrids (see Grewal et al. 2004, Sears et al. 2003, Wilson et al. 2009).
In other words, there is no real biological genetic basis for distinguishing Canis lupus
and Canis latrans
as separate species, based on evolutionists own criteria, yet they still classify them as distinct species. In reality, they are just end members of a common gene pool. My point is this. If you are going to insist on "fixity of species", you are going to have to come up with a better basis for defining those "fixed" species than the latest evolutionary taxonomy. Otherwise, you are just building your house on ever shifting sand.
The phylogenic tree inferred by evolutionists is full of false relationships even in lizards that are not implied by nature’s observations....
I agree wholeheartedly. Many phylogenetic relationships inferred by evolutionists are just the best of the worst scenarios because evolution requires that something
must be ancestral to everything. The challenge, at times, is determining where the real discontinuites are.
Catchpoole and Wieland
Lastly while YECS infer rapid speciation off the Ark, where is the examples? It has never happened in our history, if it really is a viable inclusion into this discussion, why is not happening in our written recorded history, where are the intermediate species, Adaptive variation is a “theory” but it is not fact.
give several examples of recent adaptive speciation ranging from guppies to anoles to mosquitoes to mice. In the case of the anoles, the length of the hindlimb was greatly decreased within a few generations when they were transplanted to an island with much shorter vegetation, and without trees like the island they came from. Would that count as a change in body plan in your view?