Evolution is Not Science

[QUOTE][b]i think he was trying to point that species can not breed outside of their species and that would mean an evolved creature would have tough time finding a mate.[/QUOTE][/b]Individuals don't evolve. The chance of an organism being a different species from its parents and from the local breeding population is essentially zero because evolution happens slowly, and one population crosses species over hundreds of generations, not one. The exact point at which you can call it a new species is usually a full of contention among biologists. Porto Santo rabbits are an example. They were European rabbits that were accidentally introduced onto Porto Santo island by the Spaniards about four hundred years ago. They (the rabbits) established a colony on the island that began to diverge from the mainland populations. Now Porto Santo rabbits are smaller than European rabbits even when raised in captivity, and although they breed with other Porto Santo rabbits to produce fertile offspring in the wild, they do not breed with European rabbits except when encouraged to under laboratory conditions. The breedings with European rabbits generate fertile offspring, they just are separated by behaviorisms that prevent it from occuring outside the lab. However it happened slowly enough that the "first" Porto Santo rabbit did not have problems finding a mate.

[QUOTE][b]--that is microevolution of course.[/QUOTE][/b]Macroevolution is microevolution occuring over long periods of time. There is no distinction between micro/macro except the number of generations over which it occurs. [QUOTE][b]Also species is taken in the context of not being able to breed, if they could breed then they would still considered to be in the species[/QUOTE][/b]I'm afraid you're wrong there. Ability to produce fertile offspring is a convenient definition of species for multicellular plants and animals, but Porto Santo rabbits do not reproduce with European rabbits naturally therefore they can potentially be considered a different species.

[QUOTE][b]you didnt state the two species and their differences. Id be interested in what their differences were and what allowed them to succesfully breed.[/QUOTE][/b]Chromosome polyploidy most likely. As you know when an egg is fertilized there must a particular number of homologous chromosomes.
Plants can tolerate having three homologous chromosomes and so sympatric speciation is common. For example, Primula kewensis
is a viable species that appeared in the Kew Gardens, England, in 1898, and cannot reproduce with either parent species but is self-fertile. (2n for viable P. kewensis is 36, 2n for the parents is 18)

TC, if you're going to claim that lobsters and crayfish came from something that doesn't even look like a lobster, isn't that a far bigger leap than from monkeys to man? That's macro if I've ever heard of it.Anyway I think I'm going to look for ASU's "Tree of Life" website and see what lobster-like crustaceans predate lobsters and crayfish and when.