There is no such thing as “intra-species” change that is different than “inter-species” change. Change within a population is change that is “intra-species”, but will in separate populations eventually BECOME “inter-species” change when the change is so great that they can no longer reproduce fertile offspring.
Just as the changes to Latin that made it into Italian and Spanish were all intra-language changes, until the languages were so distinct that people could no longer understand eachother; then the changes were obviously inter-language changes.
Based upon the observation that change in DNA of a population is INEVITABLE in all species over any significant portion of time - what is going to STOP this change?
If genetic change has “a negative feedback effect” such that it “will cause inability to reproduce” - where is ANY example of such?
What species has ever changed in its DNA so much that it could no longer reproduce?
And if your “answer” holds any water AT ALL, why would bacteria have an error prone DNA polymerase that is expressed during stress?
Wouldn’t you think that such would accelerate the point where they change so much in their genetics that they would “dead end” and die off?
If such was even slightly reasonable, why would they have such a gene, and have it expressed during times of high stress?
Do you presume that bacteria, despite all observations, engage in behaviors that are suicidal?
“There is no such thing as “intra-species” change that is different than “inter-species” change. Change within a population is change that is “intra-species”, but will in separate populations eventually BECOME “inter-species” change when the change is so great that they can no longer reproduce fertile offspring.”
Your assertion depends on doing away with the definition of “species.” Yet evolution depends on maintaining the definition.
“Based upon the observation that change in DNA of a population is INEVITABLE in all species over any significant portion of time - what is going to STOP this change?”
The problem with your argument is that it depends on both preservation of species and termination of species, which seems to be inherently contradictory.
“What species has ever changed in its DNA so much that it could no longer reproduce?”
An example, if one accepts the premise of evolution, is when one “species” tries to mate with another and can’t conceive offspring. For example (according to evolution), dogs and cats for are separated by evolutionary changes in their dna.
“And if your “answer” holds any water AT ALL, why would bacteria have an error prone DNA polymerase that is expressed during stress?”
Do you think this proves evolution?