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.
Didn’t I warn you about arguing with religious fanatics?
Check out “ring species” and then try to tell me with a straight face that the phenomena of increased genetic incompatibility with increased genetic difference has not been observed.
Assuming the observed rate of mutation we should see MORE changes than we see over six to seven million years of separate reproduction. Do you understand why we don’t see even MORE change?
Not enough time has elapsed? You don’t think that there has BEEN six or seven million years of separate reproduction? Well then, you reject almost the entirety of science - astronomy, geology, paleontology, physics, etc, etc. It seems your problem is not so much with Darwin, whose mechanism is the only explanation for change in biological systems you accept - but with almost all of the rest of science.
We see that no species is a perfect replicator. DNA polymerase itself has an inherent error rate. How can a species be “immutable” when mutations are the inevitable consequence of reproduction? What mechanism is keeping them “immutable” in the face of an inherent and inescapable mutation rate?