CREATIONISTS: If adaptation can occur WITHIN species, can some adapt enough to prevent mating? (See details.)?

Question

In other words, if you believe that evolution or adaptation can occur WITHIN a species, but not lead to a new species, I ask the following: Is it POSSIBLE nonetheless that two branches of a single species (each adapting to a different environment) could over generations change physically in ways that would prevent them from successfully mating with the progeny of their ancestors?

- {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} -

Answer 1

Yes, but that could take millions of years.

Answer 2

People deny evolution because they haven't figured out that the Genesis passage was written to people who were herding sheep 3000 years ago. These sheep herders did not know about quantum relativity, string theory, Higg's boson or time frames of billions of years. The purpose of the Genesis account is about who (God) made the Universe, not about when or how he made it. Adaptive mutations are rare, Even creationists acknowledge this by conceding that "micro-evolution" occurs. A new species or even a completely new life form is just an accumulation of adaptive mutations. It takes a long time, but so does the crumbling of a mountain, a process which is mentioned in the Bible. (Job 14:18,19)

Answer 3

Um, that's a good question. I am not 100% sure, In order for that to be proven fact, some scientists would have to observe two groups of the same species for a various period of time, keeping the two groups separate. The two groups would also have to be kept in different climate conditions.

It's possible, but what does adaptation have to do with the Creation vs. Evolution debate? We know for a fact that species do change a little over time, but a cat doesn't change into a dog! That just doesnt make any sense!

And besides, how do evolutionists explain all of the missing links that have never been found? For the theory of evolution to be true, the scientists would have to find millions of transitional fossils. They haven't found that many and besides,Java Man was the skull of a gibbon.
Nebraska Man was the tooth of a pig and the Pitdown Man was a low down sham. They built that man form an orangutang. Ramapithics wasn't complete he's a fragment of jaw and a couple of teeth. additional skeletons show us today that he isn't our relative- only an ape. Australapithicus alias Lucy the fossil of this was just vague and confusing.
The wonderful knee bone they're proud to possess was 200 feet deeper- a mile from the rest. Neanderthal Man was probably deficient in Vitamin D which might've been rickets,
but he had religion and musical instruments fire and tools and from you he's no different.

I am a Creationist because I believe in the truth. When you really think about it, evolution doesn't make much sense, I mean, how can someone live life thiking that they're an accident without contemplating suicide because life is pain. I could never believe evolution because the part of my brain that has common sense and logic is telling me that evolution is a dying religion.

Answer 4

Humans completely separated from our closest relative 5.4 to 6.3 million years ago according to science as it stands now. Human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimps. Quoting Wikipedia exactly now "In 2006, research suggested that after the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees diverged into two distinct lineages, inter-lineage sex was still sufficiently common that it produced fertile hybrids for around 1.2 million years after the initial split.[6]" So theres your answer, yes, but only for a time before the strains became too far diverged. (Thus the birth of a new species). However as far as I see this plays no useful part in your political viewpoint, or its furtherment.

Answer 5

There are lines that are alive all the way through and can mate, where the ends can't. It's rare, but here is an example: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

Answer 6

According to your noted scientists thousands of species will die out due to global warming because they cannot adapt to a 2 degree change in temperature.

Answer 7

yes but not likely the only goal for our cells is to reproduce .. if they evolved to fit the environment the would still produce

Answer 8

Are you coming out of the closet here, now. Wow good for you.

Answer 9

I don't think anyone has ever shown this to have happened.
Could bigfoot have fertile babies with a chimpanzee??

Answer 10

I believe you have just described speciation, however you should include 'mating THAT PRODUCES FERTILE OFFSPRING'.