Thanks again SoSick, your post is very telling.
I have no idea where the pics came from, they are quite numerous on the net, take a look yourself. I don't think they came from the same website. It really doesn't matter since it's common knowledge.
You should know where you found it, and you should provide that information, it is not just polite, it is how you tell the truth. Some pictures are copyrighted as are the text material on some sites, and credit should be given. Common knowledge doesn't take the picture.
Any animal that can successfully breed with another shares the common DNA of it's genus family, it is in essence, the same species. No brainer for most people.
Except that (1) genus and family are different taxon levels, and (2) some cases involve relations higher than genus ... to family or higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CamelKingdom:Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Artiodactyla
Family: Camelidae
Genus: Camelus
Species:
C. bactrianus
C. dromedarius
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Artiodactyla
Family: Camelidae
Genus: Lama
Species:
L. glama
L. guanicoe
So the Cama shows that these genera are "[color:"red"]in essence, the same species[/color]" yes? Would you agree that Camilidae could be considered the parent population (ancestor species) that divided into two daughter populations, Camelus and Lama, and that both of these became parent populations (ancestor species) for their daughter populations that represent the four species we see today?
What do you think the limits are for artificial insemination?
Your presumptions are numerous, especially considering the hundreds of millions of years timeline you would like to label them with. The bones of people washed to sea from Katrina or the Indonesian tsunamis cannot even all be found a mere few months after the occurrence.
Yet there are still some left to provide evidence of the life that did live there. The fact that there are fossils of previous life means we have evidence of that previous life. We don't need to look at the evidence that is NOT there when we can look at the evidence that IS there.
Likewise, since you probably cannot even trace the bones of your own ancestors back 8, 10 or 20 generations, it's highly unlikely you or anyone else will successfully trace the bones of dogs, sheep. snakes or snails or anything else for that matter back to a, THE, parent ancestor 5000, 10,000 generations and more.
Yet you did not need this criteria to say that [color:"red"]"Any animal that can successfully breed with another shares the common DNA of it's genus family, it is in essence, the same species. No brainer for most people."[/color] This is called the logical fallacy of special pleading, requiring different standards of evidence based on what you want to believe.
We can also use DNA to compare hereditary lineages, as has been done with Thomas Jefferson's children, among others. What do you think the limits of DNA analysis are?
Enjoy
[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
