intelligent design, right and wrong

I have to wonder how someone could make this sort of argument.What it implies is that humans can have no value in themselves and that the only moral purpose is serving some nebulous "purpose".It follows then that the argument assuems that the actual act of killing a human is not in itself any different from the act of eating ice cream. Indeed, the act of killing a human being may easily be better provided it serves this supposed "purpose". I would be very afraid of people who beleived that.I am glad that most people do not really believe that some cosmic purpose is the basis of morality.

According to my field guide (1992) the Lesser Black-backed Gull (Larus fuscus) is described as a seperate species from the Herring Gull (Larus argentaus)While in principle the classification could have been revised, I would expect that I would have heard about it unless it was very recent. The fact that both groups are found together without interbreeding would tend to reinforce that classification. (And yes, I have indeed seen both species in the same location, just last week).

The simple answer is that taxonomy is not cut-and-dried and there is eternal warfare between the "lumpers" and the "splitters".So while dogs could be considered a non-geographical "ring species" by the "rules" (which in reality are treated more like guidelines if you ask me) it isn't very likely that anyone will propose that the dog species is split, let alone getting it past the committees that decide such things.To point to just one example working the other way, the European White-headed Duck (Oxyura leucocophala - mainly found in Spain) and the North Americal Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis - introduced into Britain), are considered different species. That hasn't stopped the British Ruddies hopping over to Spain and having their wicked way with the Senoritas, to the point where it is considered a significant threat to the already-endangered White-headed duck species.