[BroJoeK]

annalex: "The definition of the boundary is in my post 176."

There is no serious definition of a biological "boundary" in post 176.

• No physical description of what a "boundary" looks like, and how it might operate
  
• No evidence presented to demonstrate the "boundary's" existence and operations.
  
• No hypothesis presented to explain how & why the "boundary" exists or works.
  
• No reference to previous experts (scientific or otherwise) who have done experiments and produced peer-reviewed reports on this mythical "boundary".

Even the alleged "experiment" intended to "falsify" an idea that is not even defined -- your "experiment" is ridiculous since, among other reasons:

1. it cannot be completed in any reasonable time period for large organisms,
2. has long since been disproved among rapidly reproducing small organisms, and
3. includes no explanation why mechanisms for one should not long-term apply to the other.

What can be done on larger creatures is detailed analysis, using living examples, of exactly what causes speciation -- why do some breeds and sub-species interbreed readily, while others do not?
When precisely does interbreeding begin to become difficult, and when exactly does it become impossible?

It would be interesting to learn, and conclusions are totally obvious: the more identical are DNAs of breeds or sub-species, the easier it is to interbreed.
Correspondingly, the more DNA mutations separating one species from another, the more difficult and finally impossible will be attempts to interbreed them.

And once we estimate, from careful observation, the average rate of mutations per generation (i.e., circa 50 in humans), then it is possible to calculate how many mutations and generations of separation are needed to make interbreeding impossible, species by species.

annalex: "This is, by the way how science is done: by advancing a falsifiable hypothesis and then seeing if it matches all the observed facts."

You need to spend more time studying the definition of scientific method:

"The scientific method's essential elements are iterations and recursions of the following four steps:
• 1. Characterization
• 2. Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation)
• 3. Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
• 4. Experiment (test of all of the above)

The above is an hypothetico-deductive method.
Each step is subject to peer review for possible mistakes."

The scientific Theory of Evolution meets all of these tests.
The "annalex species boundary" meets none of them.

annalex: "Not by adapting definitions to suit the available evidence, pretend that observable facts (namely, selection inside species and evolution of primitive creatures) miraculously prove hypothesis that reach beyond these observable facts, and refer to authority when your magic tricks are called into question.
Evolution is a pseudo-science, -- a cult."

As always, here you deny the first verified fact in evolution: descent with modifications.
So your words, especially "cult", do describe the alleged "annalex species boundary", but not the scientific Theory of Evolution.

Indeed, legitimate references to "scientific authority" are simply reports on peer-reviewed work completed over many years.
That's how real science works.

So what is your problem with science?

[annalex]

Whether two specimens can produce a viable offspring in a lab is a good and simple definition. That is your boundary.

Why it exists: because random mutations are more likely to break an existing genome than create another viable genome: see “Hamlet” randomly becoming “Othello” through random copying errors.

That the experiment will take too long: not my problem, and with genetic engineering you might find ways to accelerate it. If you cannot stage any such experiment then you do not have a solid scientific proof. Too bad — stop then pretending that you do.

Your “peer-reviewed work” does not seem to make logical sense and can only defend itself by demeaning the opponents. It’s a cult, unlike real science.