First, let me say that I do not subscribe to any religious explanation for life on earth in a literal sense, e.g., seven 24 hour days. However, I am dissatisfied with the currently popular explanation of Darwinian evolution, i.e., that all life has been generated from a continuous random mutation procedure that miraculously produces new species from old species "over millions of years." It seems to me that this explanation is a scientific cop out to avoid the question of exactly how this is possible. I would also point out that Darwin had no understanding of the genetic basis for differentiating species, i.e., differently appearing individuals that still retained the ability to reproduce viable offspring (grizzly bears and polar bears, for example). Instead, each local adaptation was viewed as a different species. Under this reasoning, different human racial groups could be viewed as different species. So my question is this: How do two species A mate to produce species B (who can no longer mate with species A), and where does species B then find another species B to mate with? Let me put forth an example of how currently defined evolution does not work: Humans have been engaged in an intensive experiment to create a new species of dog for over 3,000 years, resulting in the greatest size variation (100x) of any species that has ever existed on Earth. However, at the end of the day they are all still the same species and can (theoretically) still mate with each other and produce viable offspring. Why hasn't "evolution" created a new species of dog? I feel like an 18th Century astronomer who, after discovering that the Sun was at the center of our solar system, couldn't get the Moon to behave itself and orbit the Sun like everything else. Additional discovery was needed before the practical and the theoretical could be merged. Similarly, Darwinian evolution provided a marvelous basis for explaining local adaptions within species, but can't account for differences between species. Can any of you explain this without resorting to the "millions of years" argument?