I had a time putting that all together until the wave analogy. Then I got it. My first thought is about the ocean, out of which we arise, and into which we fall back. All the genes, ever, are in there. But I assume there is some evolution, creating new water molecules that did not exist before.

Anyway, I didn't really see a question in there so I'm just thinking out loud in response. Why stop there:

It does remind me of an argument I made some years ago, where the issue of wolves came up. Some scientist, a biologist (and who am I to argue with him?) offered up that canis familiaris and canis lupus is a false distinction, and that biologically, genetically, they are identical. I argued that if that were true, then it proves the old adage about being greater than the sum of parts; a wolf is greater than the sum of it's parts. You cannot wipe out wolves and think we're still all good because, well, we have dogs. That's BS.

I argued that if that were true, then it proves the old adage about being greater than the sum of parts — James Riley

Interesting reference. Yes it would seem that if dogs and wolves truly are genetically identical then the sum is more than its parts for sure.

This is really where “epi-genetics” comes into play.
I say this as a genetic aspect to dogs rather than a nurture or environmental one because of two things; if nurture/ environment was the only difference between dogs and wolves then dogs would look like wolves then they were born and behave as dogs after being nurtured correctly. Secondly dogs obviously have stable traits that last over generations which shows the genetic rather than nurture basis for their difference to wolves.

So the true difference in wolves and dogs may not be the type/ number of genes they have (this being identical - But rather the nature of their “activity”.
Some genes that are “on” or “active” in wolves are “dormant” in dogs and vice versa leading to their variation in appearance and behaviour.

A similar phenomenon is seen in human twins. Twins are most identical in childhood and by old age are easily distinguished because of the accumulation of changes to their genetic activity to the point where tho they are genetically identical, their metabolisms, predisposition to diseases and signs of ageing are actually quite different.

It’s worthy to note that one determinant of “species” is whether two individuals can mate and produce fertile offspring.
The interesting case of dogs is that they can indeed breed with wolves and produce fertile offspring (unlike horses and donkeys. Mules are sterile) but some dogs - a chihuahua for example are incapable of breeding with a wolf .... which suggests that depending on size - some dogs should technically be “a separate species” to wolves.

In this way we see that nature doesn’t do discrete definitions but rather continuum’s for which science has great difficulty compartmentalising

In this way we see that nature doesn’t do discrete definitions but rather continuum’s for which science has great difficulty compartmentalising — Benj96

True dat. And if you think science has trouble dealing with nature, you should see the law!