The offspring can get some characteristics the parents don't have, since mutation will step in.
You also don't understand mutations. They do not add information, they only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mutation.
As such, genetic differences could manifest themselves as slight phenotypic modification. Now, if those slight modification are beneficial in a given environment, they'll likely spread to the population. Repeat the process with slight modifications accumulating and you may end up with population with new features.
That simply isn't true. A variation in the phenotype will not result in a new species.
Your very insightful explanation omits the concept of mutation, very strange for someone knowledgable about genetics.
You claiming somethng a mutation do will, that it won't is very strange for someone knowledgabe about genetics.
The evidence is presented in the peer-reviewed paper I cited.
No it isn't. Prove me wrong.
There will always be holes, since science isn't perfect. Rejecting an explanation just because there are holes is textbook example of hypercriticism, a feature of science denial.
I don't deny science, insist on it. Real science prove evolution is not possible. If you understood genetics and mutation, you would know that.
Let's extract DNA from a bee, a lion, a house cat and a wasp and make a comparison:
The house cat and the lion will be more similar to each other than any is to bee and wasp. The bee and the wasp will be more similar to each other than any is to the house cat or the lion.
Thus, we'll put house cats and lions in the same box and wasps and bees in another.
So, yes you can categorize species with genetic comparisons.
Of course you can. The DNA will identify each one you mentions correctly and place them all in a differeent species.
Basically, you're insisting that you're right without giving any argument. Great!
Basically you are saying you are right with on evidence and a lack of understanding of genetics.
Show us where the human classification as great apes requires tweaking.
It doens't need tweeking, it needs a better means of classification.
If you think the criteria behind the hominidae group are that superficial.....
.....then you've drunk too much strawman's kool-aid.
What's significant with the set of traits I quoted is
its exclusivity to great apes and humans.
When you show me any other four-limbed placental mammal sharing all of the following characteristics, you will be entitled to mock human classification as great apes. Good luck!
- forward-facing eyes
- close, downward-facing nostrils
- dental formula: 2/2, 1/1, 2/2, 3/3
- digits with flattened nails
- lack of tail
- lack of ischial callosities
- high cognitive abilities (self-recognition, abstract thinking,...)
- complex social behaviors
Speech or other human unique traits can be considered autapomorphous and thus don't constitute ground to exclude us from great apes.
Oh... and are we to assume Linnaeus drank the evo kool-aid and tweaked his results?
All species with eyes have forward facing eyes.
All species with nostrils have downward facing nostrils.
Humans have rounded nails
Lack of a characteristic is not a reason for putting species together.
Most if not all large animals have a pelvis.
Apes do not have high cognative abilities and you have no idea if hey are self recognized, and what you call abstract thinking is what others call natural instinct.
Apes do not have complex social behavior. It is severly limited.