Replies

Yet, the change from my ancestors to me which you describe as significant in phenotype is 100% insignificant in terms of “species.”

870 posted on 01/25/2011 12:24:40 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Rules will never work for radicals (liberals) because they seek chaos. And don't even know it.)

The intellectual error on your side is that you believe that genetic changes, which can be described empirically and predicted mathematically, will cause the emergence of discrete species—yet you fail to realize that the change in discrete species can be neither described empirically nor predicted mathematically.

873 posted on 01/25/2011 12:39:20 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Rules will never work for radicals (liberals) because they seek chaos. And don't even know it.)

Yet, the change from my ancestors to me which you describe as significant in phenotype is 100% insignificant in terms of “species.”

LOL. Yeah, well, I knew by using Homo sapiens as an example that you wouldn't be able to accept it. My point, as you surely know, is that if you can accept that 4 gens ago your ancestors were shorter, and then 400 generations ago the phenotype was so different as to be unrecognizable and then 4000 and 40,000 generations ago yes, the genotype will be different enough as to be different species.

"Species" is defined. We have several examples of speciation events in our own backyard. We have ring species. We have blurred lines at times. We address them. To deny any of this is simply denying factual reality.