[donh]

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.

[gore3000]

Subjective/objective is not the axis in question, no matter how obtuse you insist on being about it.

Really? So then you propose 'subjective science'? Doesn't that sound ridiculous to you? It does to me. The only valid scientific criteria is objective criteria and when it comes to speciation viability in reproduction is the only objective criteria.

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.

Which is why evolutionists try to redefine speciation! Because it cannot be found in nature.