The "Law of noncomtradiction" is not a law of science. At best it is a law of logic and you have not shown how it applies to your cause.<quoted text>
"Although the concepts of a law or principle in nature is borderline to philosophy, and presents the depth to which mathematics can describe nature, scientific laws are considered from a scientific perspective and follow the scientific method; they "serve their purpose" rather than "questioning reality" (philosophical) or "statements of logical absolution" (mathematical). For example, whether a law "refers to reality" is a philosophical issue, rather than scientific.
Fundamentally, all scientific laws follow from physics, laws which occur in other sciences ultimately follow from physical laws. Often, from mathematically fundamental viewpoints, universal constants emerge from scientific laws."
The "law of non-contradiction" is a concept of a law or principle in nature.
Do you see the universal constant principle found in scientific laws. This means non-changing and if it changes with an opposing idea this would be a "contradictory" of the universal constant principle found in a scientific law that is backed with empirical evidence. It is this principle extracted from a scientific law that is backed with the empirical data that followed the scientific method I use to validate “The law of non-contradiction”, which is the foundation to my scientific reasoning I use to interpret all things found in the laws of nature.
You are trying to use it in a circular argument. And as I showed you already the existence of ring species debunks your claim of the invariance of species.