No. Read it again, carefully. As you will learn,
the extreme ends of the loop can't interbreed. So according to your definition, two species. You need to think about it again. Are you beginning to realize why it's so hard to define species, and why this is such a problem for creationists?
Nope. Brazilians and Indians can interbreed just fine. Even most creationists now admit that is possible. People like Henry Morris have become a minority even among creationists. Ironically, the last world-class biologist to doubt evolution, agreed with you. He thought each "race" originated separately.
I'm glad you admit that, now. It's an important step in solving your problem. You say that they are Different species, because they are Separated by their Environment.
This is entirely wrong. As the Human Genome Project makes clear, there is more variation within any "race" you might select, than there is between such "races." Race is a social construct, not a biological reality.
You would have been better off to learn first, and tell us about it afterwards. But it's good that you're beginning to think about evidence. I'm guessing instead of going to the scientific literature, you'll go back to the same creationists who fooled you in the first place.
Incipient speciations are especially galling for creationists, since their belief requires that there will be no such things. But if one species evolves from another, there should be many such cases, which there are.
But if you want to sell your belief as a fact, you'll have to account for them.
Nope. Didn't say at all. I was just pointing out that your definition of "species" would have them as two different species, since they are not all able to interbreed.
Sounds like someone's looking for a way out. Why not just admit that since they aren't all able to interbreed, they are, by your definition, more than one species? Everyone sees what you wrote. Perhaps you'd like to try defining it one more time?
[OLOR="DarkRed"]Less than 5,000 years ago, a sandbar formed and cut off Lake Nagubago from the larger Lake Victoria. Since then, at least 5 new species of cichlid fish have evolved in Lake Nagubago, and these species are found nowhere else in the entire world.(Mayr, 1970)
[/COLOR]
http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html
But you're fighting a battle creationists have already surrendered:
[CLOR="DarkRed"]Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging...As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time.[/COLOR]
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/
The ICR says that all modern species of land animals evolved by hyper evolution in a few years, from a few "kinds" kept on the Ark.
[OLOR="DarkRed"]There are more examples of how different kinds of reproductive isolation cause speciation from a common kind of animal. Speciation events are documented for nearly every kind of animal that has been described, and recently it has been estimated that 10 percent of all animal species still hybridize (mate with other species, producing fertile offspring) in the wild, and even more when brought into contact with each other in captivity. This evidence indicates that most species had a common ancestor from which similar species have descended...However, it is not correct to assume that a few thousand species would have produced the millions of species extant (alive) today. There are fewer than 30,000 extant species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and possibly land-reproducing amphibians (many salamanders) that were represented on the Ark. The millions of other species are the invertebrates (>95 percent of all animal species), fish, and a few aquatic mammals and reptiles that survived in the water during the Flood. The processes of speciation discussed above need to only double the number of animal species from 15,000 to 30,000.[/COLOR]
http://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/
See above. Dobzhansky gave you an example. The African fish took only about 5,000 years. And as you learned, even your fellow creationists sawed off the branch you were sitting on.
Yep. Pandas and polar bears, for example, are genetically so far apart, they can't interbreed. Polar bears have 74 chromosomes, and Pandas only 42. Spectacled bears have 54 (Should say 52 =M=). So none of them can reproduce. Humans and chimps can't reproduce for the same reason. We are genetically much closer to chimps than polar bears are to spectacled bears, for example, but humans underwent a chromosome fusion at some point, making it impossible to breed a human/chimp hybrid.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/translocation.html
No, they can't. Some species of humans could interbreed, such as Neandertals and H. sapiens. But it's doubtful of more primitive humans could have done that.
Bears vary much more than humans genetically, even in chromosome number. A difference of about 16 chromosomes for the most striking difference I know. Humans and chimps have a difference of 1.
In fact, in terms of genes, humans and chimps are more closely related genetically than chimps and other apes:
Percent difference in genes humans and chimps: 0.8% (not 8 percent, eight tenths of a percent)
Humans and gorillas: 0.93%
Humans and orangutans: 1.96%
Surprise. Remember when I suggested that you learn about this before you told us about it? If you don't know what you're talking about, you'll be continuously blindsided by reality.
