"species" classifications do not mean "impossible" to interbreed, only increasingly difficult.
Very well. So prove to me that evolution of a subspecies (what I previously called "breed") leads to a different species, such that the breeding inside the new species is natural and leads to a healthy population, while the breeding with the old species is completely impossible. I postulate, you cannot.
No, not "possible".
You mean the experiment I defined is not possible? I agree, that's the whole point.
refusal to learn, and repeated mis-characterizations of even the grade-school basics of biological classifications,
Yawn. I don't need to learn your voodoo to know that it is voodoo. Go ahead, take a manatee and make an elephant, like you make those genetically modified crops. It is not a complicated challenge. When you do, wake me up.
You won't pay attention, you just won't learn what science is all about.
You obviously hate science and care only about attempting to discredit it.
In this case, you have not defined an "experiment", not even close.
First of all, the scientific definition of "species" does not include the term "completely impossible".
As I demonstrated in post #187 virtually nothing is "impossible".
What happens is that as evolution more-and-more separates one sub-species from another, interbreeding becomes more difficult and the offspring less viable in nature.
That would be your "species boundary" coming more-and-more into effect.
The examles of Zebra species and sub-species serve perfectly well to illustrate.
However, in captivity, in a laboratory, your "species boundary" is far less solid.
There species can be interbred and the offspring might be "viable" in a zoo.
And today, with genetic engineering, there is virtually no limit on inter-species interbreeding, since totally unrelated genes can be mixed and reproduced.
So nothing is truly "completely impossible", which means there is no real "species boundary."
Second, your request for an "experiment" which in nature could take millions of years is not serious science.
It simply shows how much you loathe and despise real science.
annalex: "You mean the experiment I defined is not possible?
I agree, that's the whole point."
And thus helps confirm my conclusion that you hate science.
annalex: "I don't need to learn your voodoo to know that it is voodoo."
Now you've added to your list of anti-science epithets: "cult" and "voodoo."
Really, I don't have a problem with your hating science, as long as you are honest about it.
If you think science is all a crock of nonsense, that is your total right, guaranteed in the US Constitution's First Amendment.
So believe whatever you wish to believe.
But if your are dishonest about it -- pretending to speak as some kind of scientist yourself, proposing "scientific experiments", claiming to have "scientific objections" to whatever you loathe, all the while demonstrating you actually know nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about real science; well then I'll have an interest in your shenanigans, and will make an effort to point out errors, FRiend.
;-)