[Dimensio]

Check out the preables(sp?) mouse in Colorado.

Let's see...researchers who were debating whether or not two populations of mice were distinct subspecies conclude that they are not, contrary to an earlier conclusion because they have more up-to-date methods available.

How is that redefinition of species again? Looks to me like they investigated an issue and came to a conclusion that a previous classification was inadequate. They didn't redefine species, they determined that a previous test of speciation was not adequate.

No time to do the rest of your homework for you.

In other words, you are willing to make unsupported assertions, then cowardly duck out when called to defend them. Sadly, this level of dishonesty is all too common amongst creationists around here.

[G Larry]

No, in other words I'm not going pull up data sufficient for a 900 page text book, that would remain insufficient, in your eyes.

[Ichneumon]

Let's see...researchers who were debating whether or not two populations of mice were distinct subspecies conclude that they are not, contrary to an earlier conclusion because they have more up-to-date methods available. How is that redefinition of species again? Looks to me like they investigated an issue and came to a conclusion that a previous classification was inadequate. They didn't redefine species, they determined that a previous test of speciation was not adequate.

Even more to the point, how is that allegedly an example of "evolutionists" allegedly "redefining species"? Or is it G Larry's belief that anything anyone working remotely in biology does is somehow necessarily an example of "evolutionists" performing some nefarious thoughtcrime?

Does he even know for a fact that the researchers in question were "evolutionists" as such, or were doing the alleged redefining *as* evolutionists (as opposed to as ecologists, etc.)?

Methinks he incorrectly sees the biological sciences as just one big undifferentiated "blur" of conspiractorial "evolutionists"...