What would you answer to this critic to the evolitionary theory...?

First I would state I am no supporter of a creationist theory and so any attack to that as an answer would miss the point. Then I would like to state this aspect of the interpretation of the evolutionary theory that, to me, does not hold water. Namely, if we assume a species gives origin, by mutation or any other... show more First I would state I am no supporter of a creationist theory and so any attack to that as an answer would miss the point.
Then I would like to state this aspect of the interpretation of the evolutionary theory that, to me, does not hold water.
Namely, if we assume a species gives origin, by mutation or any other means, to a different species, it means there is a certain son that is not able to breed with his mother, and so consequently with any other member of the old species. Thus, excluding the unlikely possibility by which many members of the same group are born with exactly the same species designation mutation, this means the mutant cannot have offspring and thus the mutation would extinguish together with the mutant.
Update: ... of course "evolutionary theory" I was not able to update the question title.
Update 2: I expected the "graduated" answer. Still the point remains that as long as breeding is possible we have to do with races, not species. Then there must be a precise moment in time when a mother gives rise to an offspring of a different species for evolution to hold.
Update 3: And so the expected "segregation explanation" is also put forward, also in a very comprehensive way.
Still I do not think it changes too much the picture. Instead of applying my argument to the whole population I do it to the segregated group to still have a mother that cannot breed with her son.
Update 4: And also fossils are put forward. Still they only show some species existed in time but can not obviously give us any information about the connection between them. After all anything would also work if just the extinction process were at work: also confirming the reports since men started to produce them in... show more And also fossils are put forward. Still they only show some species existed in time but can not obviously give us any information about the connection between them. After all anything would also work if just the extinction process were at work: also confirming the reports since men started to produce them in historical times.
Update 5: I see the gradual argument is the most supported. In one instance there is even a sort of graduation in a population: namely that someone could breed with his close parents but not with his far ones. Still no example of this "degradation" of inbreeding is found in nature, at least for what i know, and so... show more I see the gradual argument is the most supported. In one instance there is even a sort of graduation in a population: namely that someone could breed with his close parents but not with his far ones. Still no example of this "degradation" of inbreeding is found in nature, at least for what i know, and so we are probably still in the world of unsupported speculations.
Update 6: I also see as a sort of dogma that I should accept that evolution is gradual; still I would like to inform you that if I accepted dogmatic explanations I would have probably joined the Catholic Church, what would have also saved my soul.
14 answers 14