[count-your-change]

The Darwinists will use whatever definition of “species” that suits their doctrine of the moment.

Here are some from Wikipedia but everyone is free to make up or mix their own as the Darwinists do:

Typological species
Morphological species
Biological / Isolation species
Biological / reproductive species
Recognition species
Mate-recognition species
Evolutionary / Darwinian species
Phylogenetic (Cladistic)
Ecological species
Genetic species
Phenetic species
Based on phenotypes
Microspecies
Cohesion species
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)”

I would say by some of the above definitions the Hatfields and McCoys would be distinct species since they refused to interbreed. Or Some of the Indian tribes. Or maybe one African tribe with another.

[Natural Law]

"Here are some from Wikipedia but everyone is free to make up or mix their own as the Darwinists do:"

"Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." - Genesis 2:19

[metmom]

The Darwinists will use whatever definition of “species” that suits their doctrine of the moment.

Exactly. The definition of *species* is so loose and fluid and vague as to be meaningless.

They can get back to me when they have finally bread something that is no longer recongnizable as a fruit fly, providing that they can prove they engaged in no fraud to get there.