It is just a classification idea which creationists treat as if it were a law of nature--it ain't. All definitions are, in some measure, subjective and prone to manipulation. As has been pointed out to creationists on innumerable occasions, the social impact of an idea, including how subjectively manipulable it is, is not a valid measure of it's truth.Science is objective. If it is not objective, it is not science. Your (and other evolutionists) avowal of subjective definitions of species shows quite well that the evidence for evolution is so deficient that you need to manipulate the facts in order to support it.
Science is objective. If it is not objective, it is not science. Your (and other evolutionists) avowal of subjective definitions of species shows quite well that the evidence for evolution is so deficient that you need to manipulate the facts in order to support it. Subjective/objective is not the axis in question, no matter how obtuse you insist on being about it. The axis in question is precision/imprecision. Speciation as a classification scheme is precise, but innacurate, relative speciation of variable degree is all one can actually detect in nature.