Are there current examples of species diverging to help people understand evolution?

[Telperion]

@HoneyBadgerDC

I don’t know if this is fact or not but many years ago I read somewhere that a raccoon dog has a variable chromosome count and could theoretically breed outside of it’s species and create a new species. The writer suggested this could explain how animals like bears, canines, cats and weasel family may have gotten started. I honestly don’t buy it but maybe someone here has more info on that. Chronos??

Bears have been around for twice as long as raccoon dogs, so that would require them to also be time travellers.

[wevets]

@filmore

While I think these are all interesting examples of evolution in action and I’ve learned a lot, I’m not sure they are explicit enough to convince any skeptic. They are all probably too minor and subtle.

Doesn’t the existence of Creationists imply that all the evidence that exists, regardless of type and quality of the evidence, is insufficient to convince any Creationist?

[pmwgreen]

@wevets

Doesn’t the existence of Creationists imply that all the evidence that exists, regardless of type and quality of the evidence, is insufficient to convince any Creationist?

Or to put it another way, if evolution is provably true, why are there still creationists?

[Ignotus]

@pmwgreen

Or to put it another way, if evolution is provably true, why are there still creationists?

They evolved fact resistance.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

@Telperion

Bears have been around for twice as long as raccoon dogs, so that would require them to also be time travellers.

I wasn’t very clear, I think the writer I referred to was implying that many types of animals could conceivably have variable chromosome counts. he also mentioned some kind of cattle in Africa.

[rat_avatar]

The entire concept of “Species” is arbitrary and for convenience and if your goal is to persuade a creationist with examples it is best to not present the concept as some hard empirical truth, because it is not.

From these remarks it will be seen that I look at the term species, as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience’ sake. – Origin of Species: second British edition (1860)

When you forget that “species” is merely a tool of convenience, to produce arbitrary groups to fit your specific needs it becomes trivial for creationists to dismiss you as those arguments are already well established and have been for a very long time.

Taxonomic tools of convenience like the various concepts of “species” are incredibly useful tools but there are at least 25 different ways you can define the term.

If you just replace the term “species” with “variety” as Darwin himself defined it you can avoid the species problem from distracting from the discussion. “Irreducible complexity” is the way that ID proponents resolve this, but if you read the creationist link above you will see how sticking to the interbreeding definition of species is dismissed.

Here is another cite showing how the old concepts and the genetic models aren’t compatible.

Now let us compare and contrast the idea of a species
taxon with the idea of a species as an evolutionary
group. To begin with, these two meanings of ‘species’
refer to things that are fundamentally and ontologically
dissimilar -The mind of the species problem, Jody Hey, 2007 (PDF)

While it still won’t convince people to change their world view; sequence of fossils, common structures, and distribution of traits can all be discussed with others without even invoking the confusing and often over emphasized interbreeding criteria.

Ignoring or trying to personally solve the species problem won’t help much and will probably lead to your claims being wholly dismissed.