Faith writes:
I guess I'd agree, if we had arrived at a good definition of the unique features of Catness and Dogness and a convincing combination could be demonstrated. But the two species don't go back to a common ancestor according to evolutionism in any case.
False. Aside from your very poor use of the term, "species" (if you're going to use a definition that's entirely different from any common biological definition, you might as well just use "kinds"), canines and felines do share common ancestry according to evolutionary biology.
Faith writes:
It is only by eliminating other genetic possibilities that you get the new "species" and this being the case variation or "evolution" beyond the given genetic potentials of the original ancestral species is impossible.
This assumes that genetic diversity can only be lost, not gained. Thanks to mechanisms like recombination and mutation, diversity within a founder population tends to increase in the absence of new bottlenecks. If this species proves successful and thrives long enough, it will reach a point where it develops enough genetic diversity within the population so that another divergence is possible under the right circumstances, within the genetic potential of
that second species, which is now the ancestor. Repeat this process ad nauseum, and the result of the thousandth iteration may be very different from the 1st species.
Again, I think your improper usage of "species" is really confusing things here.
Faith writes:
Seems to me the more that is known about genetic variability the clearer this pattern is, that the reduction of variability corresponds with phenotypic change, and there has to be a natural limit to this process.
It may seem that way to you, but it doesn't seem that way to biologists, and you haven't provided any compelling support for your gut feeling.
™ Version 4.2
