(i.e., anyone who questions their politically correct dogma) as a means of defending their own position? Is arguing that the earth is more than 6,000 years old the best they can do? I don't care if we descended from apes or not, but the currently popular "explanation" that inter-species transformation simply "occurs" over "millions of years" is profoundly dissatisfying, particularly in the complete absence of supporting archeological evidence. Even the biological definition of "species" has been changed to fit this narrative: It used to be that different species would be unable to mate and have offspring capable of further reproduction (e.g., horses and donkeys producing sterile mules). Now this has changed to muddy the distinction between localized adaptations (like polar bears) and separate,genetically incompatible species. Thus have been created "hybrid species" and other euphemistic terms for dealing with these unanswered questions. The longest running biological experiment in human history has been the specialization of dog breeds over the past 5,000 years, resulting in the greatest size variation (100+ times) of any animal that has every existed on Earth. But at the end of the day, they are all still dogs biologically capable of producing viable offspring. Why haven't they developed into different species?