Increases in Genetic Information

But lions and tigers can do this (to an extent; as far as I know, only female ligers are fertile and all tigons are infertile). Are you saying that lions and tigers are the same species? That's ridiculous. Let's take a quick look at the definition that you cited.

quote:

---

An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.

---

Note the bolding. The word "usually" tells us that the ability to produce viable offspring is not always a necessity. Also, look at the last sentence; the organisms must be ecologically and recognisably the same before they can be considered as being the same species. Do you think that lions and tigers are "recognisably the same"? I would hope not.What you have done here is to quote a source that actually disproves your point. You failed to understand what you were reading so badly that you actually cited evidence against your own position as if it were supporting.Take a moment to reflect upon that. Do you really think that someone who is capable of misreading the situation so badly is capable of seriously challenging the Theory of Evolution?Mutate and Survive

Can they interbreed? Can you show me the puppies?According to your definition, they are separate species. So you're just going to ignore the source you just cited? Why bother to cite a source if you're just going to contradict it the moment it becomes inconvenient?Mutate and Survive

That's the problem; they would require artificial help. That's what makes your definition so poor.Remember that in nature there is no artificial insemination. If any natural species diverged to the point that chihuahuas and great Danes have, they would be effectively reproductively isolated. Just as Bluejay was trying tell you, what matters is that the two daughter populations are effectively isolated. It's not a matter of whether they could, in principle, interbreed, it's a matter of whether they do, in fact, interbreed.So to recap, you have acknowledged that a species can diverge to the point where they can no longer naturally interbreed. In essence, you have conceded that macro-evolution occurs.Mutate and Survive

But they still don't agree with the definition of species that you present. Earlier, you said that all that mattered was that they are able or unable to reproduce. Now you have changed your tune.
So which is it?Lions and tigers are quite clearly different species, yet they can, in captivity at least, reproduce together.Great Danes and chihuahuas are the same species, yet they cannot reproduce.Clearly your definition does not work.Mutate and survive

Non-physical reproduction? Really? What's that virtual reproduction? Spiritual reproduction?All reproduction is physical. A very silly definition, given that all but the tiny handful of species that are kept in captivity must reproduce in the natural fashion. If your definition were used, we would have to attempt artificial insemination between every single species on Earth before we could classify any of them. That is absurd.I challenge you to show me a single reputable source that uses sperm/egg compatibility as the defining characteristic of a species.Mutate and Survive