Originally posted by twhitehead
But the DNA does not contain the names of the species in its code. The species names are man-made and used for classification. In fact the blue print of a being we would classify as human is extremely similar to another being that we would classify as chimpanzee with the differences being merely a matter of degree.
I must also point out that it is perf ...[text shortened]... mate and produce offspring that is neither dog nor wolf - and this situation is far from unique.
as it has been noted, there is clearly variety among a certain species, thus ol Darwin saw variety among his now famous finches, there are big dogs and wee dogs, there are no half cat/half dogs, there are no half mouse half horses! you will also note that attempts to breed even closely related species such as horses and donkeys, produce an animal, impotent, unable to pass its genetic code onto the next generation. Mutations are no basis for the evolutionary hypothesis.
Consider the conclusion after zillions of experiments
“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila (fruit flies), with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.”
- Theodosis Dobzhansky, hereditary and the nature of man, page 126
and on the remarkable ability of ther genetic code to preserve its integrity, the well respected late geneticist Richard Goldschmidt is quoted in the book Darwin Retired, “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”
- Darwin retired, Norman Macbeth, p33