Dogs -- so many varieties, sizes, temperaments, abilities. Paul of Eugene, in another thread, just referred to dog breeding as a sort of intelligent design. I got to thinking about that example. We didn't design dogs. And I'm not so sure our choices in breeding show a lot of intelligence. The problems that have come from inbreeding are multitudinous! Shepherd have hip problems, Dalmatians have a high percentage of deafness, dobies seem to be prone to seizures....and so it goes. But whether you are creationist or evolutionist, there is no doubt that the parent populations from at least a few thousand years ago did not have these problems. These 'closer to originals' were more robust. I think we would admit to far more intelligent design in the earlier versions than what we have now! But what about the rest of creation? Would this be the same for it all? The original humans -- the Bible lists very long ages! Were they more healthy? What about other animals? Four or five thousand years ago, were there fewer problems? I wouldn't be surprised. The more sub-populations are isolated and must therefore inbreed, the more likely we are to see problems erupting. People are the same way. When the European royal class all chose to marry each other, hemophilia was the tragic and famous result for many of the men. Certainly it changed the entire course of Russian history! In short, as sort of shown by dogs in an artificial sense, speciation and the resultant inbreeding lead to weaknesses, not strengths. It is more of a slide downhill into problems than a climb up into strengths when natural selection and speciation occur. We call a lot of the results of this 'endangered species'. They just can't survive in anything other than their own very limited environments. This is what we see of evolution in a real-life basis. It's a little different from the 'maybe' and 'probably' imaginary scenarios concocted by evolutionists!