From: "Robert Comer" 

> I don't believe it would apply to hinnies (the odd number of
> chromosomes), but let's assume that a fertile male is possible (say
> 1:1,000,000,000,000) and that the offspring is fertile.

Since it has never happened it's hard to speculate.

> Actually, the above is how evolution works. That 1 in a trillion chance
> AND the coming together of environmental factors (I'm including the
> mating as an environmental factor) create a fertile offspring.

Yep.

> Evolution says nothing about the viability of that offspring or whether
> the species will last.

I'm not sure I agree, any evolutionary trend must be viable for it to stay
going, so uncoupling that from evolution says nothing.

>Many evolutionists believe that "The Origin of
> Species" is actually misnamed, because both "origin"
and "species" are
> not necessary for evolution to be good theory.

I don't think I'm one that would say that. 

--
Bob Comer


"Bill Lucy"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1dec0b0f2c4f3fb9989748{at}news.barkto.com...
> In article , bobcomer_removeme{at}mindspring.com
> says...
>> > &?
>>
>> Hinnies. (fertile female mules, there's no males so it's not a species.)
>
> I don't believe it would apply to hinnies (the odd number of
> chromosomes), but let's assume that a fertile male is possible (say
> 1:1,000,000,000,000) and that the offspring is fertile.
>
> We still have to get these two together -- otherwise the "species" is
> still a dead end.
>
> Actually, the above is how evolution works. That 1 in a trillion chance
> AND the coming together of environmental factors (I'm including the
> mating as an environmental factor) create a fertile offspring.
>
> Evolution says nothing about the viability of that offspring or whether
> the species will last. Many evolutionists believe that "The Origin of
> Species" is actually misnamed, because both "origin"
and "species" are
> not necessary for evolution to be good theory.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5