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.
;-)
Really? Fine, let the new species have the same probability of successfully mating in a lab with the old as a manatee today has with an elephant today, and let each species have the same probability of producing a healthy offspring as a manatee has with a manatee and an elephant has with an elephant.
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
Aha. Show me, -- not by waving hands in the air and cute pictures but with experiment, like an adult scientist. Take a manatee, make an elephant. Take a zebra, make a monkey. Something. Please.
your request for an "experiment" which in nature could take millions of years is not serious science.
Not my problem, and I did not ask to observe it in nature. I said, use genetic engineering and accelerate the mutations. And if you cannot prove your hypothesis, call it what it is, a hypothesis.
point out errors
I am grateful for pointing any errors of mine, but I think you could not overcome my evo-skepticism in substance. Further, there has been so much switching of definitions, substituting one claim for another, psychologizing your opponent, arguing over words, segueing into theology, and arguing from authority, that I think the real damage to science is being done by your side.