No. There is no edge. The edge is only in your mind. When walking from a forest into a swamp there is no “line” where forest becomes swamp.
Yes, it has been observed that two separate populations accumulate differences. It is an inevitable consequence of mutation and you haven’t yet come up with any mechanism that is going to prevent these differences from accumulating.
A 2% genetic difference between humans and chimps, and a 6-10% difference over the entire genome - would take some six million years.
The known mutation rate is more than sufficient to explain this change, because many changes are not “fixed” within either population.
So what is going to stop a 2% difference in genetic DNA from accumulating in two separate populations?
You still haven’t proposed a mechanism.
And your only mechanism to explain change in living systems is the one Darwin proposed. You owe a debt to Darwin because his explanation is the only one that you can agree to to account for changes within living systems.
So what is going to stop these changes from accumulating in two separate populations?
Yes, there is an edge. That’s the problem. The edge has never been observed.
By your logic assuming a fixed rate and pure randomness, we should not even expect to see the changes that we do see. That’s another problem. Not enough time has elapsed. So either the theory is wrong, or one of the other assumptions is wrong.
I’m not proposing a ‘different’ method. I’m simply arguing that there’s no evidence for this method actually occurring in nature. My personal belief is that species are immutable.