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?
Yeah, I did. Seems that the understanding of ‘species’ is not clear in each of these cases.
“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?”
Actually, given the observed rate of mutation, we cannot explain how one species becomes another in the time period that exists. I just explained the numbers to you and why they don’t work.
“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?”
The gulf is just too large to be beat through random mutations over time.