Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
We know that some modern fish have X,Y,Z. These will have mated with fish which don't have X,Y,Z. (As in B or C's mate.)
So? You said there were modern fish with X, Y and Z, (the descendants of B) and also that all rabits had X, Y and Z (The descendants of C). This means that if they have a common ancestor, which they do, it should also have genes X, Y and Z. in your example this would be A and in your example it has those genes.
Most common ancestors therefore are unlikely to have X,Y,Z. We cannot therefore use X,Y,Z to determine lineage.
Of course we can, the common ancestor should have those genes. And in your example (A) was the common ancestor and has those genes. Or have you forgotten your own example?
I see a huge difference between the dodo and the TRex in terms of our knowledge of the creatures. The dodo was known to man. TRex never was. I think we even have stuffed dodos in museums. Also the behaviour of dodos has been documented extensively. We can safely say that that was a species.
We can also safely say that T. Rex was a species.
TRex is a mystery. All we have are movie images and directors imaginations to go on. If you found two TRex half skeletons I think you would be hard pushed to even show that it was the same animal.
I would be, the experts, not really, no. With half a skeleton I predict a 100% sure identification.
You would have no idea if they could interbreed and their behaviour is unknown.
So? Also, there is quite a lot known about the behaviour of T. Rex.
If the DNA barcoding was defined such that two African elephants ended up being different species I think we can rest assured that our system needs adjusting.
But how would you determine that with DNA? It's not like there's gonna be a clear point at which you can say: "Aha! if it has these genes, it must be a different species!". That is arbitrarily determined by men, if it is determined at all.
Now if our system showed that African elephants were a different species to an Asian elephant then that would be a matter for debate
Why? Since they are already accepted as different species.
If you are saying that experts in the field are actively advocating that Ugandan elephants are distinguished from Zambian elephants and they want them classified as different species I don't have any objection with that as such. Once the system is established and in place we can stick with it.
But we already have a system in place, why change it?
Robert claims that he sees diversity of species today. Eye witness accounts still constitute evidence (especially in court) from what I understand. Furthermore, Robert refers to the bible, an ancient text which must have had an author. This also is valid evidence (even if you disagree with its contents). Robert has therefore supplied his evidence but Taq isn't offering any evidence to counter Robert's claims.
I claim that I see diversity of species today. Eye witness accounts still constitute evidence (especially in court) from what I understand. Furthermore, I refer to "On The Origin Of Species", a text which must have had an author. This also is valid evidence (even if you disagree with its contents). I have therefore supplied evidence to counter Robert's claims.
Ok, so Robert has supplied evidence and Huntard has countered with evidence too.
Hate to burst your bubble, but neither Robert nor I posted anything coming even remotely close to what would be considered evidence. I had hoped that my silly little attempt at sarcasm would make that clear, but apparently it hasn't. My apologies to you for not telling you in a clear and easy to understand fashion.