Every year?! No, not even every tenth generation.
would have predicted?! based on what? AFAIK, no-one's ever made any such prediction.
The fact is, "species" is a fairly blurry concept, and the criterion of interbreeding when left to their own devices is the best that biologists have come up with. It captures the notion of separate gene pools.
Here's an interesting discussion of these issues.
Thanks for the civil discussion, but I have to sign off for the evening.
Well that was my point in the first place. The spam article I was commenting upon was used to attempt to show that evolution of species has been observed, but in order to show it, they had to redefine the term species in order to coincide with the result that they obtained.
They didn't observe the evolution from fly to mosquito or fly to "walk". What they observed was that if they started a gene pool with MUTANT flies and interbred the MUTANT flies for 40 generations, while at the same time artificially removing any hybrids from the gene pool then they could artificially create (rather than naturally evolve) a fly that was not particularly sexually attracted to the mutant flies that were bred in another jar. Big deal. The fact is that they stacked the deck by using mutants in the first place and even with the deck stacked, the result was not reproducible in another independent experiment. This is hardly "evidence" for naturalistic macro evolutionary changes in the creation.
But I suspect that if this experiment were mentioned in a high school textbook and a christian teacher were to point out this fact and question the result in a high school classroom that they would have their credential pulled.
Thanks for the civil discussion, but I have to sign off for the evening.
You are most welcome.
Good night.