"Are you aware of the Hardy Weinberg principle? Hybridization also can cause you to lose polymorphisms because the Hardy Weinberg principle doesn't apply to gene flow and migrant polymorphisms become fixed. If all existing clusters hybridized we'd be left with only one cluster rather than many. Genuine evolution requires new genes into the gene-pool of a species."
-- Weinberg operates as a known non-real world principle. He was a pure mathematician, not a biologist, and his formula only applies to populations that fit his SEVEN ASSUMPTIONS, which in nature are very few. Among these is that mating is random, that allele frequencies are equal in EVERY organism (impossible), and that there is no selection pressure. Applying this as some kind of evolutionary law, rather than its intended use to approximate large gene pool frequencies, is an absurdity.
-- The most obvious hole in the idea of a "DNA wall" is that, obviously, our DNA coding itself has little to do with phenotypic expression. In other words, it is not about whether DNA is present, it is whether DNA is actually being transcribed. In the case of dog breeding, deer populations, etc, all that is required is for certain genes to be EXPRESSED in order for speciation to occur. So many arguments against evolution work in an antiquated Darwinian place, in a land where all organisms are just a function of their DNA code. They are not. They are a product of all of the shuffling of DNA getting selection pressure for expression, not just mutation of DNA itself.....when one breeds a dog, they are not coding for new DNA. They are selecting for which lines of DNA will be EXPRESSED....in nature, this leads to speciation eventually, as enough selection pressure toward certain sets of gene expression are heavily favored, to the point that one set of animals will not breed with another.
-- Also, how is "speciation" being defined? Seeing as everyone is so obsessed with it, what does it mean? If one breed of deer has gene selection pressure towards size, hearing, and being able to live at higher elevations over millenia, producing a mule deer instead of a whitetail, is this speciation? Of course it is....
-- All of those arguments above are built inside the "coding box", as it is known in evolutionary study...it means looking a evolution only in terms of genotype, in actual DNA coding moving, rather than expression which is 95% of phenotypic and thus speciation pressure....In other words, a human could be a fly or a banana on this myopic view. The reason we are not is expression, not genotypic variation.
Again, none of these arguments against evolution are new. They have been fought out for over a century without success. If one is so passionate about their finding holes, go to your nearest university conference and bring them up with people that know the area.
I do this in my particular area, in diabetic research, trying to take on Ivy league stuffy-types that hate any kind of insurgent...but they can't argue with my results. Anyone that seriously studies a topic and refuses to do this is a "B-league All-Star" that is only capable of talking down to those less versed in a particular topic. It is self-serving and pointless.
"They now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry." - Thomas Jefferson, 1826