Re:Finally!- Could someone please define "species" (Score 1)

Hi, First, YIIAS, and a mathematician. But I have a big problem with evolution since I have yet to see a definition of species that works for the theory. IMHO, if you can't define after >100 years one of your key concepts, your "theory" is junk. Before you jump the guns, ask yourself- is your definition transitive? Let == mean "the same species as". Now, if A==B and B==C, does A==C? Now assume that every child is the same species as its mother. Then by transitivity, we can go right back up the family tree and show that you are the same species as that first mammal who shared the earth with the dinosaurs. Now as for this "slow genetic drift" thing, via random mutation. Odd type of randomness, if it does not revert to the mean, isn't it? Oh, ok, the mean is time- and space-varying. Still, does it vary enough to drift from one "species" to another? Oops, forgot, can't answer that because we haven't defined "species"! Do keep in mind that most "species" as understood in the vernacular, have tremendous variation in phenotype, often a full order of magnitude or more (obviously true for dogs (chiwawa to great dane) horses (japanese toy pony to draft horse) humans (pigmy to basketball player)). The swedish dairy cow, the american bison, and the indian buffalo all can interbreed and produce viable offspring. By the way, so do ALL the finches on the Galapagos islands. These supposed different species interbreed quite happily, and their offspring generally do better than the parents. Are these different species? Think how they vary. So, given this level of variation, exactly HOW FAR does the random distibution need to vary to produce a new species? Oh, do remember that the more extreme a breed gets, the less fit it is. Have you every considered the health problems faced by purebred dogs vs muts? bulldogs with eyeballs that fall out, hips that give way early, etc. Yea gods, I've been caught up in a rant! Stop me! Stop me!!