Subby, I agree. All known beneficial mutations affect only an organisms biochemistry. Unfortunately all known morphological mutations are harmful. Evolutionists say they are clear about their term species, despite the species problem. Perhaps you'd better ask which one of the CLEAR species category they are using. Usually they use the biological/isolation that is confused by the fact that a dog and wolf (different species) can sucessfully mate as well as other so caled separate species.(Yeah, I know..but this is the so called 'scientific' confusion you are entering here)
Wiki
Typological species A group of organisms in which individuals are members of the species if they sufficiently conform to certain fixed properties or "rights of passage". The clusters of variations or phenotypes within specimens (i.e. longer or shorter tails) would differentiate the species. This method was used as a "classical" method of determining species, such as with Linnaeus early in evolutionary theory. However, we now know that different phenotypes do not always constitute different species (e.g.: a 4-winged Drosophila born to a 2-winged mother is not a different species). Species named in this manner are called
morphospecies[11]
Morphological species A population or group of populations that differs morphologically from other populations. For example, we can distinguish between a
chicken and a
duck because they have different shaped bills and the duck has webbed feet. Species have been defined in this way since well before the beginning of recorded history. This species concept is highly criticized because more recent genetic data reveal that genetically distinct populations may look very similar and, contrarily, large morphological differences sometimes exist between very closely related populations. Nonetheless, most species known have been described solely from
morphology.
Biological / Isolation species A set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations. This is generally a useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but more problematic for
organisms that do not reproduce sexually. The results of breeding experiments done in artificial conditions may or may not reflect what would happen if the same organisms encountered each other in the wild, making it difficult to gauge whether or not the results of such experiments are meaningful in reference to natural populations.
Biological / reproductive species Two organisms that are able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a
mule,
hinny or
F1 male
cattalo are not considered to be the same species.
Recognition speciesbased on shared reproductive systems, including mating behavior. The Recognition concept of species has been introduced by Hugh E. H. Paterson.
Mate-recognition species A group of organisms that are known to recognize one another as potential mates. Like the isolation species concept above, it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually. Unlike the isolation species concept, it focuses specifically on pre-mating reproductive isolation.
Evolutionary / Darwinian species A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, some members may diverge from the main population and evolve into a subspecies, a process that eventually will lead to the formation of a new full species if isolation (geographical or ecological) is maintained.
Phylogenetic (
Cladistic)[
verification needed] A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another: when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are regarded as separate species. This differs from evolutionary species in that the parent species goes extinct taxonomically when a new species evolve, the mother and daughter populations now forming two new species.
Subspecies as such are not recognized under this approach; either a population is a phylogenetic species or it is not taxonomically distinguishable.
Ecological speciesA set of organisms adapted to a particular set of resources, called a niche, in the environment. According to this concept, populations form the discrete phonetic clusters that we recognize as species because the ecological and evolutionary processes controlling how resources are divided up tend to produce those clusters.
Genetic species based on similarity of DNA of individuals or populations. Techniques to compare similarity of DNA include
DNA-DNA hybridization, and
genetic fingerprinting (or
DNA barcoding).
Phenetic speciesbased on
phenotypes.[
verification needed]
Microspecies Species that reproduce without
meiosis or fertilization so that each generation is genetically identical to the previous generation. See also
apomixis.
Cohesion species Most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms. This is an expansion of the mate-recognition species concept to allow for post-mating isolation mechanisms; no matter whether populations can hybridize successfully, they are still distinct cohesion species if the amount of hybridization is insufficient to completely mix their respective
gene pools.
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) An
evolutionarily significant unit is a population of organisms that is considered distinct for purposes of conservation. Often referred to as a species or a
wildlife species, an ESU also has several possible definitions, which coincide with definitions of species.
In practice, these definitions often coincide, and the differences between them are more a matter of emphasis than of outright contradiction.
Nevertheless, no species concept yet proposed is entirely objective, or can be applied in all cases without resorting to judgment. Given the complexity of life, some have argued that such an objective definition is in all likelihood impossible, and biologists should settle for the most practical definition.
For most
vertebrates, this is the biological species concept (BSC), and to a lesser extent (or for different purposes) the phylogenetic species concept (PSC). Many BSC
subspecies are considered species under the PSC; the difference between the BSC and the PSC can be summed up insofar as that the BSC defines a species as a consequence of manifest evolutionary
history, while the PSC defines a species as a consequence of manifest evolutionary
potential. Thus, a PSC species is "made" as soon as an evolutionary lineage has started to separate, while a BSC species starts to exist only when the lineage separation is complete. Accordingly, there can be considerable conflict between alternative classifications based upon the PSC versus BSC, as they differ completely in their treatment of taxa that would be considered subspecies under the latter model (e.g., the numerous subspecies of
honey bees).
(red highlight mine) Good luck talking science with these guys!!!!
