"Jim, last time I took English classes, an answer that something does not
exist is still an answer. At least I took a stab at answering your
question. Can you take a stab at answering mine?"
Now that this debate seems to be dying down, concerning which side has the
burden to answer whom, with neither side giving a satisfactory answer to
the other - from the other's perspective - I, and I am sure others, would
appreciate it if anyone who is able to do so, preferably a biologist, but
anyone, would attempt to clearly describe a set (or sets) of circumstances
that would reasonably indicate what a limitation on morphological change
really means, and the conditions that should be met in showing the
limitation does not hold.
For instance, one might say that a change of species could not occur
within a specified number of generations, or a specified time period, for
there to be a clear limitation to morphological change, but this is pure
speculation on my part. I, and I am sure others, would like to see some
progress made in refining this issue.
There has been enough posturing! So let's get beyond that.
Gordie