I am saying that that is the definition of a species. Those two animals cannot have fertile offspring. They are different species.
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