(March 18, 2015 at 6:08 am)Huggy74 Wrote: According to YOUR definition, to be considered a new species interbreeding must be prevented by one of four factors, geographic, ( polar and brown bears) OR physiological, OR anatomical(Great Dane and Chihuahua) OR behavioral (tree frog example). It doesn't even require the caveat of differing genetically. Again how is that different from what I said?
I, on the other hand I've made it very clear that I DO NOT consider that to define a different species, because by that same definition a Masai warrior in Africa is isolated from intermixing GEOGRAPHICALLY, with the hill tribes of Vietnam, yet they aren't considered a different species. Also you could make a case for different groups of people not intermixing behaviorally. So explain how YOUR definition excludes Humans?
You are real close to understanding Huggy. Look at the variety within the human species that resulted from geographic isolation in a relatively short amount of time. Is it really inconceivable to you that continuing the population isolation for a couple million years would result in speciation?