an example please

[gluadys]

your notice its still a gull and your notice your own wording (IF CIRCUMSTANCE ARE RIGHT) COULD GIVE RISE TO A WHOLE NEW DIFFERENT SPECIES. They cant mate any more because of genetic lose of information, they have some what de-evovled.

So tell us---which one has de-evolved: the British herring gull, the British lesser black-backed gull or the Alaskan gull.

look at breeding of dogs or cats or horses.
Once you breed them down you cant breed them up, same here. another attempt to use a situation to make an assumption that it if the right conditions were there it could possible do it.

Sure you can. All you need to do is introduce them to a mate of a different breed in order to bring more variety into the breed you are working with. That is what would happen in a natural setting.

Or, though it would take longer, sit back and let new mutations appear. Just stop trying to breed to the standard definition, and nature will introduce novelty.

 

[gluadys]

if evolution is the process of random mutations with natural selection, thaen if the environment decides it is easier to be less complex than it should become less complex.

It does. Only creationists equate evolution with "more complex". Evolution can actually go in any direction: more complex, less complex, different form but neither more nor less complex.

A comparison of parasitic species with non-parasites of the same family or genus often shows the parasitic species is less complex. Living off a host does not require as much complexity as making or hunting food.

 

[gluadys]

Look at the first breeding of the horse wild and a work type you breed down to subspecies, then if you breed up do you get back to a wild breed, no you cant breed race horses with pony or plain alpinos and end up with the origanal species.

That's true. That is why the concept of de-evolution is so silly. You can go to a new species, but not back to the original species. De-evolution would require time travel to the past.