You’re a biologist who realizes that the idea of immutable species – kinds of creatures arranged hierarchically and permanently – is long dead. You see that one type of animal can morph into another type, and (save for some limits on how quickly genes can change) there’s nothing to prevent any new trait from developing in a population of creatures. In other words, all the common people who think that there are real species of animals created by god are wrong.
What do you do? (Choose one.)
a) Realizing that the mutability of animals has profound implications for medicine and husbandry (after all, our doctors and veterinarians must take note, as they already do to some extent, of the fact that there is no real biological barrier between animals, and how can we give different treatments for different animals if there’s no biological difference between them?), you ponder and then write about what should be done in light of the evidence of evolution, suggesting reforms to medicinal practices and new ways to think about breeding various animals.
b) You spend your time concocting new definitions of “species” to replace the immutable kind species that no longer holds.
In my view, choice a) is eminently worthwhile, while choice b) is a complete waste of time. I am mystified that most biologists choose b).