do you know what a species of, say, ant is, troll? the distant multi-mutation descendants of an ant will still be "ants" - but what species? or are you so trollish that you will insist that the Pennsylvania Carpenter Ant is the same species of ant as the Brazilian Fire-Ant?
nevermind, troll - you are too evidently satisfied with your chronic craniorectal impaction for any argument to ever reach your ears, let alone your mind.
Corn is corn. If it's still corn, it isn't a new species, it's more a "breed". Nobody in his right bloody mind would call a Stallion a new "species" of horse because they hadn't seen one before. They'd call it a horse. And they'd be right for doing so. It is only in your convoluted logic that corn becomes something else when the only thing you can demonstrate is that it is corn. You may reference a breed as being a variation within given livestock; but a breed is not a seperate species. Sorry. That may be a semantics game you guys have gotten by with up to now in your own bubble; but, it's part of the reason nobody attaches credidibility to evo junk science. An ant is an ant. Ant is a species. Types are breeds within the species. Get over it. Corn is corn. When you produce something other than corn by growing corn, do let us all know. You'll then have something of note to talk about. Till then, you're gum flapping.
He's just applying the creationist tactic of dishonestly redefining well established terms to a slightly less-often redefined word. He's not any more dishonest than many other creationists, but it somewhat seems that way because he's redefining the word "species" as opposed to more commonly dishonestly redefined by creationist words such as "theory", "law" and "evolution"