It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A common creationist fallacy when presented with evidence for evolution is "That is adaptation/microevolution, not [macro]evolution". However, genetic change is genetic change. The only difference between the (supposed) micro and macroevolution (terms that only creationists seem to use) is the amount of genetic change in a population. Furthermore, "species" is nothing more than a man-made construct. It's not a tangible "thing". We could define species in any way we please so this barrier that stops genetic change in populations from accumulating to the arbitrary point of speciation needs to be defined and supported with evidence. Otherwise, the argument is baseless.
originally posted by: Pistoche
As you've stated, we do not currently have a clearly defined outline of what amounts to a new "species".
Therefore, without a clearly defined meaning of what counts as a "species", the question you are imploring is moot.