So what??? That only makes it a mutant of an extant species, not a new species.
You wrote: "they are ABSOLUTELY not the same species by the ‘hardest’ criteria of species — not being able to reproduce together."
So reproduction defines what is a species? Does that make gay people a new species?
Two populations that cannot interbreed are definitely different species - the definition of a species being an interbreeding population.
Homosexuals can and do reproduce with ‘normal’ humans all the time. Are you REALLY that dense?
And here is a hint for you.
Any new species will be a “mutant” version of a previous species by biological definition.
What other mechanism could produce a new species with different traits and the inability to reproduce with the ‘parent species’ other than mutation - i.e. a change in DNA?
That is like saying that a lake never becomes a swamp - and when I show you an example of a lake that became a swamp - you say that it is just a dried up lake.
Drying up is how a lake would turn into a swamp.
Duh.
Well, then, I guess someone needs to redefine the species of tigers and lions, and horses and donkeys.
They can interbreed and I don't doubt that there are other examples in nature.
By definition, two populations are different species if a mating between them do not produce fertile offspring.
Horses and donkeys can produce offspring, but the offspring are sterile; ergo, horses and donkeys are not the same species.
LOL
I think liberals may be a different species. :)