[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree with that, absolutely, and it is a somewhat meaningful distinction. I should not have used the word arbitrary. It just doesn't mean what the creationists want it to mean.