Sorry, you are pretending to do science so you have to live by the rules and definitions of science. You can't just make it up as you go. In science the inability to interbreed for whatever reason is a major part of speciation.
The Arctic rabbit is an example, it can no longer breed with the southern rabbit, but is in a dog now? No, it is still a rabbit.
Its a different species, just like the example I provided. What does a dog have to do with it? (Or is this a chicken, as below?)
Your example is not of a new species but the same that has lost the ability to interbreed with some of the original stock.
That is a new species, by definition.
It is possible for the northern rabbit to breed with both the Arctic rabbit and the southern rabbit.
How? Do they just catch the next north or south-bound bus? Reproductive isolation is the key to speciation whether you like it or not.
So you feeble attempt to show new species is just variation and or adaptation which by the way is not evolution.
False. Your feeble attempt to explain away a clear-cut case of speciation is noted. I am aware that you are unable to accept the evidence, because if you are shown to be incorrect in one of your beliefs--what other beliefs might also be incorrect?
Evolution by definition has new information added not lost.
By whose definition? Yours? Some other creationist?
Scientists deal with facts, not beliefs. Evolution can easily be through lost information, as well as changed information. Look at the blind and albino cave critters for examples.
NO sir you are not showing change in to a new species like your Tax funded bibles or text books as I like to call them, where a lizard changes into a chicken.
Your definition of change would overturn evolution, not support it. Don't you realize how idiotic it is to expect a lizard to give birth to a chicken? That is a creationist strawman with no relation to the real world or the theory of evolution.
Two very distinct animals, there are not enough seconds in the history of the world for the mutational changes that would to have to happen in both a male and female in the same location for that to happen.
Wrong once again! You sure make a career out of misunderstanding or misrepresenting science, don't you? Evolution takes place by incremental changes in the genomes of populations, not as your silly "lizard to chicken" example. In each generation, the population changes slightly. There are always plenty of males and females to pass on their genomes to the next generation--if they are sufficiently well adapted. Otherwise, extinct; game over.
Your variation of the same species is a joke right? Your intellect really excepts this a proof of one species into another. Wow. Wasted tax dollars at work.
You believe that is science.
It is not a joke; it is an example of speciation, which you asked to see. Now, for religious reasons, you find yourself denying the evidence that is right in front of your face. And you also have to throw in some gratuitous anti-science comments as well.
You have made it clear where you are coming from: you hate science because it disagrees with your preconceived religious beliefs, and you will ignore all evidence that shows your beliefs are incorrect.
And to make it worse, you lecture those of us who know better on what is and is not science.
Stick to religion. You are no good at science.
As PatrickHenry posted before he was banned:
Creative author: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, Alice in WonderlandEvolutionist: "Why, sometimes I've seen new evidence explaining as many as six formerly unexplained things before breakfast."
Creationist: "Bah! I will never believe those six recently explained things, and besides, Darwin, Hitler and Stalin ate breakfast."