The genome within different species of Darwin's finches differs less from each other than does the genome between different breeds of dog. CNV (Copy Number Variation) is a comparison of the habit of too flimsy, but tell essentially genomic differences. Evolutionists use CNV-differences when there is a pressing need to find the differences between gene sequences. CNV does not really tell us more than that between the compared genetic sequences have some kind, even a small difference. So let's do a little comparison between genome similarities.


At the Figure 3 you can have a look at the  CNV differences (blue color) and epigenetic differences (red color) within different finch species. The readings obtained from the species compared to reference species Geospiza fortis. We note that, for example Camarhyncus parvulus genome differs only by 52 CNV:s to the reference species. And yet, "science" has determined it as a separate species.

There are much larger differences between different dog breeds , such as the enclosed survey shows:

Notably, the total number of CNVs identified in Boxers was lower than in any other breed, with an average of 64.5 loci different from the reference per sample, largely due to the reference being a Boxer. Of the remaining breeds, the average number of CNVs per sample varied from 116.5 (Swedish Elkhound) to 160 (English Springer Spaniel). On average, a sample differs from the reference at 130.9 CNV loci, of which 2.8 are specific to that breed. Fewer than 6% of CNVs found in any one breed are specific to that breed. These patterns are broadly consistent in the wolf samples, which exhibit a slightly lower than average number of CNVs per sample. On average, 2 dogs from the same breed differ at 83.1 CNV loci whereas 2 dogs from different breeds differ at 103 CNV loci.

That is, for example, the boxer's (reference breed) and english springer genome has 160 CNV:s difference. The human genome difference between human populations is also much larger, such as the enclosed survey shows; 1447 CNVr eligible. Yet the similarity between the human genome in various populations is 99.6% of the class.


Evolutionists are absolutely lost with these definitions of speciation. They make the kind of configuration as a rule, on the basis of organism individuals to mate or not. And the geographical isolation is the second pseudoscientific criterion. This low threshold of the definition of the species has its reasons; by this way they keep the fossil discoveries separate of modern species and argue that evolution takes place.

Actual scientific research would make an appropriate question:

Why individuals in practice the same species do not seek to mate with each other, although certainly are capable of producing fertile offspring? Nature is not, after all, full of biological species, it is full of species breeds.