Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Age of the earth?

Everything the biological sciences (and allied sciences) observe points to evolution of species, not just the division into subspecies. For example, subspecies can breed together to produce fertile offspring, such as dogs and wolves. That tells us they are closely related, meaning their point of divergence (when they were the same species/subspecies) was fairly recently in geological time. Then there are species that can reproduce, but cannot generate fertile offspring (except in extremely rare cases) like lions and tigers. This tells us they are closely related, but not as closely as dogs and wolves, i.e., the point of their divergence (when they were the same species/subspecies) was further back in time. Then you have species that, although related, cannot reproduce without intervention from scientists, like llamas and camels, and then only infertile offspring. This tells us that while they are closely related, they are not as closely related as lions and tigers, i.e., their point of divergence (when they were the same species/subspecies) was further back in time. Then we have the tapir and the rhinoceros, which are closely related, but simply cannot reproduce with each other at all, even with the aid of science. Too much time has passed with them being separated, so genetic drift, and differing environmental pressures, have altered them genetically just a bit too much for that.

The above is just one of thousands of reasons science understands that species evolve, and don't merely divide into subspecies. Camels and llamas are not a subspecies of a species. They are not the same species in any sense, yet (with the help of science) they can reproduce infertile offspring. Genetics tells us that tapirs and rhinos are closely related, but not closely enough related to generate offspring of any kind, so their common ancestor lived longer ago than that of camels and llamas.