"Then why dogs have a latin name canis lupus familiarus, the latter term meaning a subspecies of canis lupus?"
Well, they are also called canis familiaris.
Welcome to the world of taxonomy. You have lumpers, who like to put as many into a particular classification as possible, and splitters, who like to split them out.
It looks like the lumpers have won out again.
Ok, then. They should be subspecies.
"Sure. But its not a creation of a new species. You can obscure that point by talking about definitions of what a species is."
It is not obscuring anything. It, in fact, is the core of the argument. Sure, if you start inventing your own terminology, like your definition of a species, then you can argue that no new species have been created. The creationist tried that decades ago. Instead of species, they introduced the concept of a "kind". And new kinds could not be created, only God could do that. And kinds were, rather recursively, defined as being unchangeable.
So by creating your own definitions and grinding it with your own logic rules, you can "prove" almost anything. |
