> again this doesn't negate the existence of distinct species in their lineage. There's only distinct species from the million-years-view. They only look disti

> again this doesn't negate the existence of distinct species in their lineage. There's only distinct species from the million-years-view. They only look distinct because the fossil record does not include every horse-ancestor who ever lived - the vast majority of them are gone from history. From the on-the-ground, year-by-year perspective, you have Eohippus very, very slowly looking more and more like a horse, so slowly that at no point do you really notice them changing from Eohippus to horse. We just arbitarily decided that the total gene pool back then was "Eohippus" and today it is "horse"; and even, say, the modern horse genetic pool is probably more diverse than any arbitrary Eohippus and many of its descendants. The idea of a "species" in general only makes sense to us because almost everything that ever lived is dead. > by this logic you can claim that "there's no bright line between the colors" Well...there isn't. If you're dialing up light-frequencies a thousandth of a nanometer at a time from 400nm to 700nm, there's no point where you say "this is purple" and the next thousandth-meter adjustment you say "this is blue." I'm not sure we're talking about the same things.