Slashdot Mirror
Should We Just Call Dog Breeds a Different Species?
Jamie found an amusing bit this morning on Scientific American where the author proposes that dog breeds are different species. Now some of you might recoil when you hear this suggestion, but if you read the article to see why he makes this suggestion I suspect you'll crack a smile and appreciate the elegance of the solution.
You know what's funny? Dogs know dogs. They can be big, small, tall, round, thin, with or without tails, brown, red, white, spotted, yellow, shaggy, short haired, long legged, squat, etc, etc, etc. There is a massive amount of variation on display within the dog family.
But despite it all, dogs know dogs. Upon seeing another, they'll wag their tails or bark for a rotweiller the same as they would for a terrier. They'll all roam about in their little packs, somehow instinctively knowing they they naturally should.
And yet, if I have a man with different skin colour, or even simply different clothing, other men will consider his life worth less than even the smallest dog.
Makes you think.
May the Maths Be with you!
Definite proof that cats are better than dogs.
Humorous take fails to be humorous.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It Makes sense, there just defending there spices! So Barking is just Alien language, there communicating there plans for world Domination with each other!
between race and species was species can't interbreed and produce viable offspring. So while small dogs and large dogs may be able to be divided, the line gets a lot fuzzier after that. So many years of cross breeding and inbreeding I don't think you can separate them beyond that.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Dogs aren't even a separate species from wolves. Further subdividing them is just silly.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1) Creationists claim the science doesn't provide thorough enough proof of evolution
2) Evolutionary biologists should fudge their results to re-define something as being proof
3) ???
4) Profit
Something makes me think this scheme would just give creationists a big stick labelled "evolutionists fudge their results; it's all a load of cobblers" to beat the biologists with.
Just remember if you argue that dog breeds are different species, especially the case of the mastiff and chihuahua, or the teacup yorkie and newfoundland, these different species are verifiably the result of intelligent design. Selection was involved, but not natural selection.
Biologists already define a separate species as when two individuals cannot mate, be it due to genetics or mechanical or behavioural difficulties. The problem with dog breeds is that a Chihuahua can mate with a terrier, and a terrier can mate with a gun dog, and a gun dog can mate with the largest of dogs. Where would the author draw the line between species? There are a lot of cases like this in nature, and it is basically an arbitrary decision as to whether speciation has occurred. The whole premise of this article is essentially flawed, as it suggests that biologists have not already thought about these difficulties, when in fact this is basic pre-university biology.
I just knew this article would include some comparison of Chihuahuas to some breed of large dog (in this case, Mastiffs). So I'm going to go ahead and make a similar comparison of a 600-pound caucasian female to a 110-pound asian male. The male may have just as much trouble with the process as does the Chihuahua, but we'll still call the result be a human. Similarly, we'll call the spawn of a Chihuahua and a Mastiff a dog. Because it looks like a dog and it barks.
Whenever someone tells me they have a dog, I ask them what make it is. Try it, the reaction is brilliant.
Summation 2
It Makes sense, there just defending their spices! So Barking is just Alien language, they're communicating their plans for world Domination with each other!
The spice must flow?
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
make them FORMER /. readers. They are, after all, getting laid.
is the logical next step, of course. Hoorah for Darwinism!
http://andyourdogtoo.com/
Their plans for a world Dalmatian? This sounds pretty serious...
sounds rather spotty ...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This article as written just so this guy can say, we have seen speciation, look at Dog breeds, and seemingly (in his mind have some sort of retort to Creationists). It wont work.
He brings this up to strengthen his argument for reclassification of dog breeds. Others will then question the fossil records use in classification.
When we observe Ring Species we are clearly catching mother nature red-handed in the act of speciation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
These things are freaky:
A--B--C--D--E--F--G--A
Members of a ring species can interbreed with their immediate neighbors, but not with distant neighbors halfway around the ring. (So in my diagrom, A can interbreed with B and G, but not C, D, E, or F. Sometimes the ring develops a break, and becomes a line:
A--B--C--D--E--F--G
Then to have a speciation event, all you need is another break in the line:
A--B--C
E--F--G
There are ring species comprised of small creatures who only live in a small range of elevation around the side of a mountain, so their habitat literally looks like a small ring. Two well timed avalanches could be enough.
Maybe if you've never encountered the topic before? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
By the author's reasoning, John Wayne Bobbitt would constitute a new species because he can no longer manage procreation without some sort of external aparatus or scientific help.
At best, saying dogs breeds are separate species is a convenience argument that will do more to undermine evolution that it helps. It is a crap argument that looks desperate.
What is the difference between a human 'race' and a dog 'breed'?
I'm assuming the two are synonymous?
Digg it for popular support! http://digg.com/general_sciences/Proof_of_evolution_Just_define_dog_breeds_as_species
Why is it rejecting a socially progressive idea is called "recoiling" while rejecting a socially conservative idea is referred to as a "knee jerk reaction"?
The author mentions that the varying dog breeds would be thought of as separate species if found in the fossil record, and that's probably true. There are paleontologists who argue about whether a certain small T. Rex fossil is a dwarf species or a juvenile. The hairs to be split can be quite thin.
Given that, would the morphological differences between human populations constitute splitting Home Sapiens into separate species? I think not.
The only thing this proposal will do is give the creationist/ID idiots another straw man argument: "scientists change things to justify their point of view!" The truth is, those morons are going to cling to their dogma not matter how much evidence piles up against it. We've seen it before: the Earth is flat; the Sun revolves around the Earth; Earth is 6000 years old; et cetera.
Speciation is such a slow process that we can only see it in the simplest of organisms, such as algae or bacteria. But that's not good enough for them. They apparently want to see two chimps mate and produce a human (which is absurd), and proves that they refuse to understand the subject matter.
Perhaps serious scientists should stick with doing science, rather than refuting creationists and others with ideological agendas to push. Cause when you feed the trolls, the word gets around and you draw larger and larger numbers to be fed. Or in other words, one gets the impression that the refuters have an agenda of their own to push. Like the fine article, when one gets around to reading it, leaves behind.
Members of a ring species can interbreed with their immediate neighbors, but not with distant neighbors halfway around the ring. (So in my diagrom, A can interbreed with B and G, but not C, D, E, or F. Sometimes the ring develops a break, and becomes a line:
In a typical ring species, the ring is ALREADY broken - in fact, A and G will likely live next to each other or even share the same territory WITHOUT interbreeding. Herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls are the standard example of this.
Also, the definition of a species is NOT "can breed" but rather "will (typically) breed". Tigers and lions are perfectly able to interbreed, for example, but they won't usually do so and therefore are (rightfully) considered different species. "Can/cannot breed" is what defines a genus.
With people you could go the other direction--it could just as easily be a 600 pound dude and a 90 pound girl. The mastiff and the chihuahua, not so much.
The basic argument in the piece seems to assume that speciation hasn't been observed. But that's simply not true. We've observed speciation many times in action. This has occurred both in the lab and outside it. For example, there are experiments dating back to the 1970s using selective pressure on fruit flies to produce different strains that were not interfertile. (Dobzhansky had a 1971 paper in Nature on this and there has been a lot of similar followup work since then). Plant speciation experiments have been around since much earlier. Plant speciation events have been observed at least since the 1930s. To good lists (which are slightly out of date but have many examples) are at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html. There might be good reasons to view dogs as part of different species. And the general problems with precisely defining what constitute species are a deep and fascinating issue (philosopher John Wilkins has written a lot on this subject) but redefining things to show up the creationists isn't only stupid and not funny, it is also unnecessary.
So then, what is the difference between a human 'race' and a dog 'breed'? The two are synonymous?
How much longer before a chihuahua can't breed with *any* other dog currently listed as the same species? Won't it happen eventually?
Domestic turkeys can't breed without human intervention - but they CAN breed with the help of humans, same as chihuahuas can (and have) been bred with large dogs when given a "helping hand" or "a leg up".
There's no such thing as a "pure-bred dog" - every single so-called "pure breed" is a mutt. The kennel clubs perpetuate the myth of "pure blood lines" because there's $$$ and ego in doing so. It's not like you can't get a phony "pure-bred" registration for a dog - as an experiment, people even registered CATS as "pure-bred dogs." Time magazine published an expose on this a couple of decades ago - your "breeding papers" would be better used to toilet-train the puppy than as any sort of guarantee of anything. And no, nothing has changed in the intervening years ... it's still a crock of horse manure that promotes cruelty to animals, puppy mills, reinforcement of bad genes, etc.
While I agree with the author's motivation, classifying dogs into different species would require the definition of species to be changed.
This lack of consistency would, contrary to the author's goals, strengthen the creationist stance that science is arbitrary and not to be trusted.
Your answer is not far from your fingers on the keyboard. Read a few posts up about ring species. Now notice how humans naturally created civilizations in seperate and distant parts of the world, where the ring would naturally break off to create truely different species. Also notice that the bible claims God intentionally seperated human groups to "selective breed," like the Tower of Bable story. You see the connection? "Intelligent Design" by "God" is plausible based on just those facts alone, no?
the right to enslave 8-year-olds in a third-world country is currently considered to be freedom.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Heh, so much for replying straight out of bed (anon parent post). My comment stills stands, but rereading your post with some comprehension:
Forget what I said previously, your problem is that you are a gay homosexual. And no, your predicament leaves you with no reproduction possibilities. Forget anything "intelligent".
I knew a couple similar to that. I never did figure out how they did it. Like, how did she avoid being crushed. Every thought from there just made me nauseous.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I think that's a great analogy.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
For a dog? Yes.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Quote from the article;
"Amazingly, right now Chihuahuas are still considered C. lupus familiaris, a subspecies of wolf. And calling a Chihuahua a wolf is like calling someone at the Discovery Institute a scientist."
I can't speak to the Discovery Institute point directly; but without a doubt, small dogs can be as aggressive as a wolf. We own a 10 pound poodle and my daughter and SIL have a 7 pounder. DO NOT get on the wrong side of either. They may not take as big a bite, but it still hurts.
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
Homo Waspus
Homo Niggerus
Homo Chinataunus...
and so on...
And no one will consider that pygmy and maasai are different species... Because both are just pitch black as tar... Why we would make them different, isn't it? Because for the hordes that is much more important than a wicked psychoanalitic question of climbing, at the edge of zoofilia in the middle of scientific pornography. That way evolutionists will get millions of adepts... With a little defect of stiffness at right hand and ex-promptu drop[ing "Mein Fuhrer"...
Scientific American would do a greater job to Science by keeping those homo dumbus scientificii a little bit ashore.
There are positions aside from missionary, hth.
"If the pieces don't fit, we make 'em fit!"
- Charles M Schultz
That's one way to confound your critics!
The whole concept of race is stupid. What we consider to be separate races seems obvious until you think of it more deeply.
Take someone from Scandinavia and someone from Southeast Asia. They seem very different don't they? As you travel from Scandinavia to Southeast Asia you find that the appearance of the people you meet gradually changes form one "race" to the other. At what point in your journey can you say that one the people here are from one "race" but the people living one km further on are from the other "races". It's all a matter of geographical variation of traits.
Ya. I've worked through the Kama Sutra, plus the unpublished addendums. I've only sent a few partners to the hospital, usually with a smile on her face. :) Still, most of those positions would be dangerous at best.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
If the article's author wants to suggest that Mastiff and Chihuahua aren't likely, he might want to have a talk with someone who's witnessed something not at all unlike that...
Definitely NSFW: Kevin Smith discussing Shekkie
Of course this guy is just poking fun at creationists, but mislabelling dogs as species would really help. For that matter it wouldn't help if they really were separate species.
1) Dog breeds may be a recent thing but nobody say them evolve either - it happended over a time longer than a human lifetime. If you're of a mind to deny these things then "I didn't see it with my own eyes" argument applies just as well here. Maybe God created Chihuahas and Great Danes. I slighty smarter creationist might complain that the selection pressure on most breeds was artificial.
2) Much more to the point, there are genuine species all around us at every conceivable stage of speciation. Heading towards branching, during branching, immediately after branching, long after branching, etc.
The best answer to a creationist who says "if it's true, why don't we see it?" is to ask "what is it you'd expect to see that isn't in fact all around you right now?!!". Anyone expecting to see Tigers bifuracte into furbys and unicorns in their own lifetime isn't worth trying to argue with, but anyone who realizes the timescale of evolution should realize that's not the case. The length of a human lifetime is so ridiculously short compared to the evolutionary timescales that we're essentially looking at snapshot of a movie.
Think of it this way: earth is 4.5 x 10^9 years old. If you had a feature length 2 hr movie of the whole of earth's history shot at 60 frames per second, then the movie would have 432,000 frames, and each frame would still encompass over 10,000 years of history! (4.5 billion / 432,000). And yet these creationists are expecting to see a whole movie playing in their 100 year lifetime...
So, realizing that our brief lifetime has doomed us to only be observing a snapshot of anything happening on an evolutionary timescale, the real question isn't why arn't we seeing it happen (trivial answer: your lifetime is too short, but rather if this is the movie of evolution we're caught in a still frame of, then what would you expect to see in this still frame? The answer of course is that you'd expect to see species caught at every stage of branching/speciation, which is exactly what we do see.
1) Species accumulating genetic change, living in subpolulations, apparently heading for branching: too many to list, but including things like forest/plains elephants, dogs(!), humans (assuming the races don't in the future start interbreeding indiscriminately). Even things like lions/tigers can still interbreed so (whatever arbitrary labels you want to slap on them) are really pre-branch rather than post-branch, even if we understand the amount of interbreeding in the wild to be close to zero (although it does occur).
2) Species that are essentially at the point of branching right now. A classic example might be horses/donkeys, which can still kind of interbreed, but not quite (their offspring, a mule, is sterile). Given that branching is more of a process than event (it's something that happens to populations, not individuals) there are many more less spectacular examples - I'd probably include some of those (technically) pre-brancing examples in this class.
3) Species that are post-branch (can no longer interbreed, but are still genetically very close) : any species withing the same biological genus, familiy, etc. One's that branched more long ago are more genetically different corresponding to biological order, class, etc. For a specific example, how about oursellves and chimps still with 98% shared DNA and only a few million years after having branched from a common ancestor.
So the still frame we're living in sure fits the bill - we see everying around us that we'd expect to see if species are created by branching from each other. OTOH if the creationists are right, and species are created by God then the number of species that exist along every conceivable degree of genetic difference (as opposed to isolated individual creations) is rather embarassing!
Of course these discussions are endl
Seeing Gary Coleman and Bao Xishun attempt to interbreed would be a pay-per-view event.
Ok, maybe just a pay-site on the Internet.
Excellent comment. To dogs, smell is very important.
The article is an example of the pseudo-science to which Slashdot editors often link. Those who play video games when they could be learning about the world cause themselves to live in ignorance.
The article says, "... the only shot a male Chihuahua has with a female Mastiff involves..."
The male Chihuahua would like to mate with the female Mastiff, but the female won't let him. Only that. The female will show that she recognizes that the Chihuahua is a dog. She just doesn't want to mate with him. They easily recognize that they are the same species. It's only the author who wrote the article to which Slashdot linked, and the Slashdot editor, who don't realize that.
TFA is laughably naÃve. They should be a different species? Oh, if only species were so cut and dry. People talk about species as if we're talking about the same thing, but the `distance` between polar bears and brown bears - considered different species - isn't as great as that between Reindeer and Caribou - considered the same species.
The dirty little secret of biology - and I'm going to get kicked out of the biologist club for this - is that we've got no ****ing clue what a species is. Oh, sure, we go around naming them all the time, but we don't actually know what we're doing yet. One list counts up to 23 different way to recognize species (known as species concepts). Some of these are mutually exclusive! The author seems to like the Reproductive isolation species concept. But under that concept, the mallard on the east coast is a different species from the mallard on the west coast. But when does the mallard cease to be east and west? What about all those ducks in between? While there's no doubt that the east coast and west coast are functionally isolated, the point at which that ceases to be is very hazy.
What about montane species? I'm thinking of Dall sheep, in particular. Geneflow (interbreeding) between sheep of non-ajoining mountain ranges is incredibly low, effectively zero. But I don't know anyone who'd make the argument that they're separate species.
So then maybe the author wants to argue that they're separate morphotypes, and should be species on that account. What about isopods, where they have a greater diversity of form within species. Let's face it, every dog looks vaguely dog-ish. The same can't be said for some isopods, or species of insects!
The truth is what is, and isn't, a species is currently nebulous, fuzzy, and wishy-washy. It may be that species, as an idea, don't exist. That wouldn't surprise me.
The definitions and frameworks we draw in science should not be based on utility in political struggles outside the scope of science. It is fine to struggle against those who are ignorant of and activist against science, but we should consider that a separate activity from the practice of science.
We don't want the process of science to be even slightly defined as an opposition to some movement - allowing ourselves that would be to weaken what science-as-an-institution is trying to do.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
There are coyotes in my neighborhood; I've seen them a few times, but mostly I know they've been around thanks to their droppings.
My dog rarely sniffs other dogs' crap, but coyote poop merits special attention. Often, but not always, she carefully squats over the crap pile and doses it with pee.
On one of the paths we walk along there's a low-to-the-ground sawed off tree stump. It appears to be a coyote poop drop-off; there are several piles there, in various states of decay. It is on top of a berm; I wonder if the location was picked for maximum odor dispersement.
One word: Taxonomy.
I have always thought of the whole dog species the other way. As it is an incredibly diverse species. But it could get even more diverse. A dog can breed with a wolf, it can happen naturally, and they do produce fertile offspring.
So what's to say that a wolf, or a coyote, etc. isn't part of the breed either?
Found a relevant piece of text here http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=222:
"But if even some separate species can cross-breed, what keeps some dog pairs, like beagles and Irish setters, from producing pups? Acland says no one knows for sure; they discovered these mismatches by accident while studying genetic diseases, not while formally studying dog breeding itself. But he says it may have something to do with a kind of DNA called "junk DNA.""
This would seem to indicate different species. Perhaps some humans have this sort of incompatibility?
I know this article is pretty tongue-in-cheek, but keep it that way please 8-). These creationists are not logical, if you make this argument, they will simply counter that "Oh, these dog breeds were *created* by humans!" and probably just look at you meaningfully as though that supports creationism.
If two creatures can produce offspring that can then also produce viable offspring, then both are considered to be of the same species. It is that simple.
Now, if an animal breeding program were conducted for several hundred generations trying to push for traits that do not mesh with the original breed, then you WILL probably see the evolution of a new species, or subspecies.
There are clearly some cases where different dog breeds just won't work due to size differences. A great dane is NOT going to reproduce with a "toy" dog because the mating process would kill the smaller dog. You might be able to use artificial means to make the breeding possible, but still, in any reproduction that could and would happen naturally, that just wouldn't be an issue.
It takes thousands of years of segregated existence before even new breeds of the same species will even become recognizable as something different. The current dog crossbreeds are still seen as a cross between this breed of dog and another breed of dog. It will take a long long time of selective breeding before people will just accept one of the "new dog breeds" as just being its own, without looking at how the breed was forced into existence.
Can't you?
If the objective was to describe speciation, why not just use the Herring/Lesser-black-backed gull? This nicely demonstrates both speciation by geography and how our concept of species is somewhat artificial. In Europe, the Herring gull and Lesser-black-backed gull appear to be distinct species, and don't interbreed. However, these species are just end-points in a continuous geographic distribution around the northern hemisphere, without an obvious species break. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_Black-backed_Gull
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I think the article was VERY poorly written.
"You would be *very* surprised about what a male Chihuaha would be able to do." Exactly.
If there is no other male, a female dog of any species will mate with a male of any species.
Should be, of course: "If there is no other male, a female dog of any variety will mate with a male of any variety."
There is simply no question. Dogs recognize they are the same species, and breed accordingly, unlike the animals mentioned in some of the comments in this thread.
... call them "races"? The beagle race, the greyhound race, etc.
It's what we do for humans, considering different looks/colors/sizes can ALSO interbreed, and we apparently think those differences are worth distinguishing (sometimes ridiculously so).
It might wake people up to the absurdity that is the concept of race, perhaps.
-Styopa
Creationists argue that speciation has never been seen. Like most things that creationists argue this is pure nonsense. There are many species of wheat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat Many of these arose during human history. They do not and can not interbread. To quote: "Hexaploid wheats evolved in farmers' fields. Either domesticated emmer or durum wheat hybridized with yet another wild diploid grass (Aegilops tauschii) to make the hexaploid wheats, spelt wheat and bread wheat. Once a creationist argued with me that we could not have evolved from monkeys because monkeys have three chambered hearts. Monkeys, like all mammals have four chambered hearts and evolutionists do not argue that we evolved from monkeys.
more cowbell
> I always thought the difference between race and species was species can't interbreed and produce viable offspring. So while small dogs and large dogs may be able to be divided, the line gets a lot fuzzier after that.
Never mind size. Consider biochemistry. Miscarriages and fetal diseases can result from basic physiological incompatibility between the mother and the fetus -- even when copulation and conception are successful.
Some human populations are especially vulnerable to such problems.
The western Basque, for example, have a very high incidence of O-negative blood-type. When a Basque woman decides to bear a Spaniard's children, she isn't just being open-minded -- she may be endangering the well-being of their second-born children and literally risking her own life, too.
(You can read about erythroblastosis fetalis if you are interested in the details.)
"OMG! Does this mean the Basque and other affine peoples of ancient stock are teetering on the brink of speciation or... extinction?"
I want to say "no" -- but I realize this depends a lot on how we deal with the aforementioned reproductive challenges. I would bet on interbreeding (with a little help from the medical sciences) as the Basques' best hope.; unfortunately, there people who think of humans the way they think of dogs (as if distinct races and speciation were legitimate goals), so... who knows?
I'll leave you with this parting thought:
Anybody advocating racial separation is ultimately advocating eventual speciation. I try not to let this offend me; after all, the fossil record shows that, for our distant evolutionary relatives, speciation meant extinction. :>
By a colleague who is addressing popular arguments regarding racial differences:
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:04:32 -0000
More important genetic information:
Seastead this.
I got 101 problems but a bitch ain't one.
Species - taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.
End of post.
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
"For a specific example, how about oursellves and chimps still with 98% shared DNA and only a few million years after having branched from a common ancestor."
Except there isn't one shred of evidence to prove that but don't let that stop you.
Except there isn't one shred of evidence to prove that
You mean aside from the actual DNA sequences and the fossil record, eh?!
Gotta wonder what else you expect to see? Maybe a 5 million yr old guy saying "dude! I just saw the most amazing thing! ..."
Quote from article:
So hereâ(TM)s the idea youâ(TM)ve been patiently waiting for: letâ(TM)s simply say that dog breeds are different species. Take two that Coyne highlights for their differencesâ"the 180-pound English Mastiff and the two-pound Chihuahua. Theyâ(TM)re both considered members of Canis lupus familiaris, and in principle artificial insemination could produce some sort of mix or possibly an exploding Chihuahua. But face it, the only shot a male Chihuahua has with a female Mastiff involves rock climbing or spelunking equipment.
There are a lot of humans that have to reproduce with one another using Artificial Insemination and some have to use special equipment, does this mean that certain people should be a different species that Homo Sapiens Sapiens?
Should we have Homo Sapiens RedNeckicus, or Homo Sapiens LittlePersonus, or Homo Sapiens Giganticus?
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
My dachshund used to make valiant efforts to mate with neighborhood huskies. Obviously he didn't consider it dating outside his species.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The Vikings didn't interbreed with the natives when they came here, not that I've heard of anyway. Nice try, though.
Yes they did. Nice try at being smart, BIG FAIL though.
You can't take the sky from me...
Is not dished naturally into every being.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The human's, the dog's or the cat's one?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is why we have DNA.
Your assertion: "there is no (solid) evidence of that [finding a common ancestor between different species] ever happening" is monumentally ignorant and frankly laughable.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
We are witnessing speciation all the time. Heard about the piggy flu recently?
All the background of the development of this virus is solid evolutionary theory and speciation in the very front of our eyes.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.