No Paul.
@Nesslig20 stated that the populations were “the same species” (i.e. they can successfully interbreed), not that these populations are identical.
Regardless of whether you consider this to be an “inherent absurdity”, this is a real phenomenon:
Your statement could therefore be interpreted as:
Paul thinks reality is absurd.
The core of this phenomenon, and the reason your understanding of biology and species is flawed, is contained in the following from the Wikipedia article:
Formally, the issue is that interfertility (ability to interbreed) is not a transitive relation; if A breeds with B, and B breeds with C, it does not mean that A breeds with C, and therefore does not define an equivalence relation. A ring species is a species with a counterexample to the transitivity of interbreeding.[3]
This in turn requires a more robust understanding of the concept of “species”, in terms of ability to interbreed, rather than an essentialist view involving some arbitrary definition of the species.
In the same way, language comprehensibility is not a transitive function, and the French language can be understood as mutual comprehensibility with other French speakers, and thus a continuous spectrum of speakers, each of which are comprehensible to their immediate intermediates, but with two mutually-incomprehensible, and thus separate languages, Latin and Modern French, at the end-points.