The Elephant Variation

Encouraged by the most recent (02. January 2006) Dr. Beling's and Dr. Davison's postings to my Intelligent Design studies, I wish to answer with what I have found related to The Elephant Variation:

"An Asian elephant cow, "Sheba" in Chester Zoo, England, November 7, 1978 gave birth to a calf with an African elephant bull "Jumbolino" as the father. The male calf named Motty died two weeks after its birth. It was an early birth and Motty had stomach problems."

"[Being this the first report on interbreeding between] The Asian elephant Elephas maximus and the African elephant, Loxodonta africana... a crossbreed between two genus was regarded as impossible."

http://www.greenapple.com/~jorp/amzanim/hybridnew.htm

The same example has been addressed by the Woodland Park Zoological Society from Seattle:

Can African and Asian elephants interbreed?
Yes. A hybrid birth did occur in England at the Chester Zoo in 1979. The calf, which was named "Motty," only lived 10 days. This is the only recorded hybrid birth between Loxodonta africana and Elephas maximus, the African and Asian elephant.

But, let's see elephant examples separated by a less distance than the continents:

Let's see first an example related to other varieties of elephants currently mislabeled as different "species" by the "wisdom of the world", on varieties of elephants recently discovered:

Geneticists define new elephant species, by Susan Milius, reporting on the article by Nicholad Georgiadis and Alfred L. Roca [Roca, A.L., N. Georgiadis, et al. 2001. Genetic evidence for two species of elephant in Africa. Science 293(Aug. 24):1473.]

However, even with the best evolutionary wishes by the previously linked editors of the magazines of Science (Indexed) and National Geographic (Not Indexed), the full text of Susan Milius itself declares that

"Savanna and forest elephants interbreed"

So, according to what we now know, those diverse elephants described by Roca et al should be only considered as 'sub-species', even if currently, the status of "species" for fertile inter-breeders able to produce fertile offspring is misguided and follows after the spirit of error that controlled Darwin and his current followers. Which means that by using minor molecular (genetic) insignificancies and intricacies, Darwinists deliberately forget the big picture of the evident biological breeding already available out there for everybody with a sound mind to see!

The next articles prove that Darwin and the current "speciational evolutionists" are deliberately and intentionally wrong, aiming to deceive the unawares:

The two forms interbreed where forest and ecosystems meet [Duncan Butchart, CC Africa & the WildWatch]

"Dwarf African elephants inhabit the forest lowlands and interbreed with the larger form around the forest edge" [The IFAW, International Fund for Animal Welfare]

"These three elephants can interbreed [David Woodruff talking about the forest and the savannah and the West African Elephants]"

"Unexpectedly, along the Congo-Uganda border the two species do interbreed [Dr Colin Groves, Australian National University, talking about the smaller Forest Elephants and the Bush Elephants]"

Etc... etc...

With such evidences, you need to reach your own conclusions and to answer by yourself to the next questions:

1. Is the current biology dominated by Darwinian evolutionism willing to depict faithfully the relationships between living organisms or not?

2. If not, why not?

3. What are atheists seeking to "gain" by investing millions & millions on distorting the simplest (to understand) biological facts of fertile interbreeding and fertile offspring versus their super-inflated & non-granted and Darwinian or evolutionary "speciation"?

Being Speciation the false origin of new and genetically incompatible "species" from a "common ancestor"; a "common incompatible ancestor" that itself was presumably incapable to interbreed producing fertile offspring with both of its descendants, because and supposedly, also the "always extinct" common ancestor itself was genetically different to the point of being incapable to mate, if still existing, with any of its new and aberrant offspring products, aberrant offsprings at least when compared with their ever utopical "common & incompatible ancestor..." !!!

And these are the sort of inconsistencies that evolutionists are bringing to living organisms in order to keep afloat Darwin's trends of thoughts, not to say their innumerable falsehoods and absurdities stored for the silent and already extinct organisms!

If there is no genetic incompatiblity between two related organisms, then there is no speciation at all, no matter how Schluter, the Grants and company are trying to excuse their, such a poor, logic by declaring that "several studies have demonstrated that speciation can occur in the absence of genetic incompatibilities"

If there is no genetic incompatibility, there is no "origin of new species", there is no "speciation", there is, yes, the "origin of new compatible varieties", there is yes, "variation" within compatible organisms, every group of organisms reproducing according to their own kind as Genesis 1 declared!

4. Is such biological anarchy speculated by both, Darwin's "Origin of Species" and by the current evolutionary and speculative research on "speciation" a "bad" original design or rather, and most certainly, a "very bad" and dying evolutionary theory, totally flawed in its "logic" and "reasoning" even if today still is completely aided by its blind followers seated in "high places"?