[allmendream]

I think one of the major problems you are having is that you don't understand the processes of speciation AT ALL, even after I have described it to you.

I described, precisely, how DNA replication is not 100% accurate, and thus it introduces germline changes. I described to you that these germline changes passed down from parent to child introduce variation into a population. Darwin described, accurately, how natural selection acts upon such variation.

Now if we observe a 0.001% change in a population over 20 years, what is going to stop it from becoming a 1% change in 20,000 years?

If two populations with that rate of change are separated for 20,000 years; why would they not be some 2% different in DNA between them? Why would this 2% difference not be sufficient to call them two different species?

[Religion Moderator]

you don't understand

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[reasonisfaith]

“Now if we observe a 0.001% change in a population over 20 years, what is going to stop it from becoming a 1% change in 20,000 years?”

What will stop it is any event or events within the process which render it nonlinear. It’s far more likely to be nonlinear than linear.

“Why would this 2% difference not be sufficient to call them two different species?”

Again, the answer is very simple. The 2% change is more likely than not to be empty code—meaning it doesn’t have meaningful product.

For the benefit of anyone that might be reading this, let’s clarify the fact that the theory of speciation does not exist as a mathematical statement. It’s theorized to be a real world process. This tells us that throwing numbers out there—especially elementary math—will do nothing to illustrate it.