>> There are no species that were present on Earth a billion years ago that are still present in the same form, i.e. able to interbreed with their forebears.
> That's not really a useful basis for conclusions about the outer limits for either species in general or any particular species, as sexual reproduction itself may only be around 1 billion years old (from what I can tell, that's the age of the oldest fossil evidence), but, in any case, the oldest animal species seems to be around a 445 million years old, which is a sizable fraction of the time that multicellular life has existed on earth.
First, you have simply confirmed what I said above, while simultaneously attempting to deny its evidentiary basis.
Second, let me explain something to you, something you very clearly do not understand. You are trolling. You have nothing constructive to offer this discussion, you offer no evidence or productive arguments of your own, and you are constantly restating the terms of the argument to suit yourself. If I offer a guess about the future based on statistical probability, you reinterpret that clearly stated guess as a statement of fact about the future, and call it false. But in point of fact, probabilistic guesses about the future are neither true nor false.
You have yet to argue against what I have actually said -- instead you argue against a series of straw men of your own fabrication.
Stop trolling -- it's not constructive, it's a waste of time, and it makes you look inexperienced and narcissistic.
> That's not really a useful basis for conclusions about the outer limits for either species in general or any particular species, as sexual reproduction itself may only be around 1 billion years old (from what I can tell, that's the age of the oldest fossil evidence), but, in any case, the oldest animal species seems to be around a 445 million years old, which is a sizable fraction of the time that multicellular life has existed on earth.
First, you have simply confirmed what I said above, while simultaneously attempting to deny its evidentiary basis.
Second, let me explain something to you, something you very clearly do not understand. You are trolling. You have nothing constructive to offer this discussion, you offer no evidence or productive arguments of your own, and you are constantly restating the terms of the argument to suit yourself. If I offer a guess about the future based on statistical probability, you reinterpret that clearly stated guess as a statement of fact about the future, and call it false. But in point of fact, probabilistic guesses about the future are neither true nor false.
You have yet to argue against what I have actually said -- instead you argue against a series of straw men of your own fabrication.
Stop trolling -- it's not constructive, it's a waste of time, and it makes you look inexperienced and narcissistic.