>>9436599

>>9436073

The point is, X makes more X, Y makes more Y, Z makes more Z.

X[math]_{ab}[/math] can mix with X[math]_{c}[/math] to result X[math]_{abc}[/math], but it will always first and foremost be X. X doesn't mix with Y, Y doesn't mix with Z, and Z doesn't mix with X. If Z existed with features that defined Z[math]_{qr}[/math] where [math]_{q} || _{r}[/math] would be beneficial features for X, there is no conceivable "evolutionary" method for X to acquire [math]_{qr}[/math]. X cannot mix with Z, so the [math]_{qr}[/math] mutation cannot be introduced to X. X will instead only ever be X, and only produce more X with features like [math]_{abc}[/math]. If an X[math]_{abd}[/math] mutated, surviving to fertility to pass on the trait, an ecology of X[math]_{abcd}[/math] could arise or even eventually replace all extant X[math]_{abc}[/math]'s, but first and foremost will still be X's.

If

X[math]_{abcdefghijklmnopstuvwxyz}[/math] exists, and

Y[math]_{abcdefghijklmnopstuvwxy}[/math] exists, even despite near identicality of traits, X and Y would still not mix.

The only support for evolution, even if it's misattributed, is the idea that things can change with enough time. However things do not change into other things, and this is what also defies evolution. X's will never become X2's, or G's - the method of acquiring significantly enough mutated traits even in a controlled group would still allow any X[math]_{abc}[/math] to mix with an X[math]_{gfhpbsy836z907}[/math]. No accumulation of mutations and traits, provided they did not outright defy fertility for the specific X's sole existence, would be sufficient enough to change such a complex X away from an X into a G.

The human form may change ever so slightly in skin color, facial and skull structure, height, build, but will not change significantly enough to ever become or have ever been something that wasn't or isn't "modern human". Ancient apes did not slowly change to adapt standing upright.