intelligent design, right and wrong

To tell the truth, I really don't know. Dogs aren't quite a ring species because the reproductive separation isn't geographical, it's an artifical selection imposed by breeders.It's a tricky question because the biological species concept is a hard one to fully test.

Why refer to ape-men at all? Or better yet, what makes you say that we're not ape-men? Or, what says we're not highly specialized apes?The word "ape-men" demonstrates a common anti-evolution straw-man; the idea that there has to be a transitional form between any two animals.What if we're simply so close to apes that there's no animal that could be inbetween? Just as there's no time that could really be between dusk and night?Let me ask you - what might we refer to as a "cat-dog"?I guess what I'm trying to say, ultimately, is that the names we give animals have nothing to do with their nature. They're just arbitrary labels.

True enough. Reality chugs on, woefully uncaring about our models of it.The thing is, the words one uses to refer to things often colors their perceptions. So sometimes it's really important to be agreeing on the usage in order to have a constructive discussion.

Sorry about that; let me try again.The reason there's no "ape-men" is because there's nothing that could be between humans and apes. Apes end where humans begin, but we're all still primates.Another way to look at it could be, imagine future humans some 10,000 years in the future - to them, we're the ape-men, because we're between primates and what they consider "human".

Do you suppose you might, at least for a minute, entertain the possibility that you're picking on someone with a very real cognitive disorder? Isn't that "dirty cricket", as they say across the Pond?Maybe a little (or a lot) less Brad-baiting would be in order.