[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a common misconception because this topic is taught in very basic ways unless you are taking advanced courses. So, the basic explanation is: a species is a group that can only produce viable offspring with those of it's own kind. But, in real science, it just ain't so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're off here. How many evolutionary scientists don't favor Ernst Mayr's definition of species? This theory has been favored in every class I've taken on the subject - both basic and advanced.

Also, I'm assuming this wasn't your intent, but I find the "in real science" part condescending.

[ QUOTE ]
Most species of deer, most gibbons, many many birds, fit this description.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? Can you give citations?

[ QUOTE ]
In future, species designation will be a function of percentage of difference in a population's genome from another population.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, how do you account for polyploidy in interbreeding populations and how would you standardize this across the wild variation seen across organisms? Since species is an evolutionary distinction, how are the barriers preventing gene flow between groups less suitable here?

[ QUOTE ]
Or, we will do away with the species concept altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus, that would just wreck the whole field.

[ QUOTE ]
it just means biology isn't black and white and the living planet doesn't have neat edges between states of being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I'm not saying there aren't exceptions. There are always exceptions in biology. But to dismiss the idea of species because every single animal doesn't fit perfectly in one definition (and doesn't fit because they fit our theory of how they get to be different species) or because you can't draw definite boundaries during their divergence is ridiculous.