That is not the singular species qualification, sir. Horses and donkeys can interbreed, but they are NOT the same species, since the vast majority of the offspring from that cross are infertile. Crosses between plant species are actually quite common. Ever heard of hybrid vigor? Seriously.
You mean have I heard them refuse to follow their own definition when they crossbreed plants and animals? Sure, I recognize pseudoscience when I see it from refusing to follow their own definitions.....
-_- not all finches can interbreed, and I am not sure why you think they can. Most of the ones on the Galapagos islands could if they lived on the same island, but they live on separate islands with different habitats (the reason for their physical differences). If two groups are prevented from interbreeding via distance from each other, they are considered separate species with enough time.
That is so nonfactual its actually pathetic. Why before the grants began to study a few of them they said none of them could interbreed. Then you got the DNA data that says they have been interbreeding since arriving on the islands, every last one of them. That you have yet to observe it says nothing, since for 200 years they were humpin like rabbits and you never once saw it..... Claimed then what you claim now, that they couldn't....
Genomes reveal Darwin finches' messy family tree - BBC News
"The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.
This indicates that the species
have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."
"In fact, the team's findings suggest that hybridisation is very important to these birds' evolution. In particular, they saw that the rise and fall of pointed beaks in one species - once again, the medium ground finch - was driven by hybridisation with a different, pointed-beak species."
Though, just to clarify, not every single species of finch is biologically compatible with every other finch. They don't even all belong to the same genus, but rather are in the same family of birds.
Another nonfactual claim.....
"She told the BBC: "The fact that they're finding this hybridisation going on - this genetic mixing - it's quite a seminal finding."
Yah it is, but the question now remains, will they continue the pseudoscience or correct the mistaken classifications?
""When you look at their results, you can see the trees are quite messy, in terms of the traditional species groupings.""
Doesnt sound like biological incompatibility to me.....
"Prof Peter Keightley from the University of Edinburgh, though largely convinced by the results, was less surprised that the finches had interbred so extensively.
"These islands are pretty close together. So it's not surprising that they are flying from one island to the other," he said."
"Some of the traditional species might not, in fact, be genuinely distinct, he added."
What? Shoot him, quick........
You are literally only talking about 1 distinction that can lead to two groups being classified as different species, and you don't even have it correct. Two different organisms are considered different species if they cannot breed to produce FERTILE offspring.
How did you manage to remember only part of it?
And yet those claimed finches are indeed producing fertile offspring healthier than the originals..... But youll ignore that, right?
Also, correct their classifications? The official classification doesn't match the definition you personally think it should, and thus you arrogantly declare the official species definition wrong. Yours is much more generic and less useful.
And yet there they are, producing fertile offspring. I'll accept that part of the definition too, so what's your problem with ignoring all of it just because they do?
Also, what about bacteria species, and other organisms that don't generally reproduce via breeding with another member of their species? That seems like a pretty useless qualification for species when it comes to them, doesn't it? And you wonder why the same hat won't fit every head equally well, sigh.
We are not discussing bacteria. They are still working that out.
The bacterial species definition in the genomic era | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
"The bacterial species definition, despite its eminent practical significance for identification, diagnosis, quarantine and diversity surveys, remains a very difficult issue to advance. Genomics now offers novel insights into intra-species diversity and the potential for emergence of a more soundly based system."
Except that doesnt seem to be working out either....
Defining bacterial species in the genomic era: insights from the genus Acinetobacter
"In pursuit of this goal, we generated a set of thirteen new draft genome sequences, representing ten species, combined them with other publically available genome sequences and analyzed these 38 strains belonging to the genus. We found that analyses based on 16S rRNA gene sequences were not capable of delineating accepted species...... Among rapid distance-based methods, we found average-nucleotide identity (ANI) analyses delivered results consistent with traditional and phylogenetic classifications, whereas gene content based approaches appear to be
too strongly influenced by the effects of horizontal gene transfer to agree with previously accepted species."
So when they figure out a definition that fit bacteria I guess we will know....
Pay attention here AV and xianghua....
Or not since they seem to be ignoring the DNA data too because it doesnt fit their beliefs. Yet that same HGT is claimed to be able to prove human descent, lol, just got to love their inconsistencies.....
For once, I'd understand using "kind" over "species" in a statement. This one, since this definitely doesn't match the actual definition of what a species is.
-_- you're the one with a middle school definition of species trying to present it as more valid than a professional level one. You are entirely mistaken about how that label works, and why it isn't necessarily consistent among the various kingdoms of life on Earth. A few plants, some single celled animals, many protists, a few fungi, and all archea and bacteria primarily reproduce asexually. Your incomplete definition of species can't even handle that form of reproduction.
And yet the professionals are ignoring the definition for animals and admitting they dont really know how to classify bacteria since even DNA tests are failing to differentiate between "claimed" species. Probably because almost all of the species tested were actually subspecies......