Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Evolution seems wrong because of the couple male-female

  1. #1 Evolution seems wrong because of the couple male-female 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13
    It seems impossible that a couple male-female can come from a gene mutation in the same years and in the same place...


    Opinions?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Evolution seems wrong because of the couple male-female 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by jash
    It seems impossible that a couple male-female can come from a gene mutation in the same years and in the same place...


    Opinions?
    Why do they need to? That is not required for evolution to work.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Evolution seems wrong because of the couple male-female 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by jash
    It seems impossible that a couple male-female can come from a gene mutation in the same years and in the same place...


    Opinions?
    Why do they need to? That is not required for evolution to work.

    I know evolution depends on probability calculus and if we have to consider only 10-50 years then no couple can be statistically created so evolution would have to be wrong if it's objective...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You appear to think that new species suddenly emerge with a whole host of different characteristics, arising through mutation, so that they can no longer successfully mate with their ancestor species. That is not the way evolution works. It is not even close. It is not even near enough to be wrong, it simply ...

    Mutations arise that create a small change in an organism. If this change is beneficial there is an increased chance that the small change will be passed on to the organisms offspring. Over time more beneficial changes may arise, through mutation, and be passed on to the offspring.
    If these changes are occuring amongst a group of organisms isolated in some way from their fellows, then, over time, the changes will become sufficiently large for the group to be considered a new species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You appear to think that new species suddenly emerge with a whole host of different characteristics, arising through mutation, so that they can no longer successfully mate with their ancestor species. That is not the way evolution works. It is not even close. It is not even near enough to be wrong, it simply ...

    Mutations arise that create a small change in an organism. If this change is beneficial there is an increased chance that the small change will be passed on to the organisms offspring. Over time more beneficial changes may arise, through mutation, and be passed on to the offspring.
    If these changes are occuring amongst a group of organisms isolated in some way from their fellows, then, over time, the changes will become sufficiently large for the group to be considered a new species.
    I know but I was thinking a continuous line that doesn't exist in nature...
    For example: today how much species can couple?
    So I discarded this hypothesis...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Look up a simple example like ring species, you can see gradients in changes, and the species at the extremes can no longer mate, although each can still mate with those close to them.



    The lesser-black back gull can't breed with the Herring gull, but the other species can breed with those close to them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Look up a simple example like ring species, you can see gradients in changes, and the species at the extremes can no longer mate, although each can still mate with those close to them.



    The lesser-black back gull can't breed with the Herring gull, but the other species can breed with those close to them.

    It seems too little because a positive gene mutation requires a lot of years...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Evolution seems wrong because of the couple male-female 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by jash
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by jash
    It seems impossible that a couple male-female can come from a gene mutation in the same years and in the same place...


    Opinions?
    Why do they need to? That is not required for evolution to work.

    I know evolution depends on probability calculus and if we have to consider only 10-50 years then no couple can be statistically created so evolution would have to be wrong if it's objective...
    A single functional mutation generally does not make an individual reproductively incompatible with non-mutant members of its species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by jash
    It seems too little because a positive gene mutation requires a lot of years...
    I think you really need to make your question clearer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by jash
    It seems too little because a positive gene mutation requires a lot of years...
    I think you really need to make your question clearer.

    My question is practically: at a certain point, a male or a female has to be able to couple with two different species. Isn't it?
    At a certain point a male or a female cannot couple with animals of the previous species, isn't it?
    But at this point we have not a couple male/female of the same species but a male or a female has to be able to couple with different species...

    Example:
    male1 ----> female1 female1-------mutation------>female2(different species)

    male1... ------> female1 male1... -------> female2
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by jash
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by jash
    It seems too little because a positive gene mutation requires a lot of years...
    I think you really need to make your question clearer.

    My question is practically: at a certain point, a male or a female has to be able to couple with two different species. Isn't it?
    At a certain point a male or a female cannot couple with animals of the previous species, isn't it?
    But at this point we have not a couple male/female of the same species but a male or a female has to be able to couple with different species...

    Example:
    male1 ----> female1 female1-------mutation------>female2(different species)

    male1... ------> female1 male1... -------> female2

    Jash, what everyone here has been trying to tell you is that speciation is gradual. Look at tired_sleepy's picture. Start with the Vega Herring gull. Let's say that is the ancestral species. One sub-group of Vega herring gulls migrated across the ocean, another sub-group migrated south but on the same continent. Slowly, mutations arise in each sub-group. No single mutation is enough to stop, say, one of the new American Herring Gulls to mate with each other. But over time these mutations build up between the American Herring Gulls and the new Birula's gull. After enough time, take one American Gull and one Birula's gull, and they can no longer mate together.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Jash, you seem to be suffering from the delusion that a new species originates from its parent species fully-formed and unable to interbreed with it
    however, that is not the case : when seen over evolutionary time there is always a population of interbreeding individuals, and it's that population of individuals that over time changes its genetic make-up

    e.g. look at present-day Homo sapiens : there are genetic differences between certain groups of people, such as different levels of lactose intolerance or resistance to HIV infection or malaria, but all living human beings can still fully interbreed
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by jash
    My question is practically: at a certain point, a male or a female has to be able to couple with two different species. Isn't it?
    At a certain point a male or a female cannot couple with animals of the previous species, isn't it?
    But at this point we have not a couple male/female of the same species but a male or a female has to be able to couple with different species...

    Example:
    male1 ----> female1 female1-------mutation------>female2(different species)

    male1... ------> female1 male1... -------> female2
    No, there's no "point", like when chin stubble suddenly becomes a beard. But for some reasons evolutionary stubble is discouraged. <- Someone else can better explain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13
    It's not a delusion...
    My support are especially the plants because the species have the couple male-female also.
    The plants cannot live separated from other plants of the same species so a continuous line would have to exist but it doesn't.
    We know the plants don't live separated...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i'm afraid you don't understand what various people have been trying to explain, and that your idea of how new species form is wrong

    there is not a single moment where a child mutates into a new species and can no longer mate with the rest of the species
    what you DO get is mutations leading to increased variability (but more often than not still with the ability to interbreed) , followed at some point by reproductional separation of populations and if this separation is maintained long enough reproductional isolation of population

    you see ? while mutation happens at the level of the individual, speciation happens at the level of the population - so at no stage do you have a single individual that can no longer interbreed with the rest of the population
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jash
    We know the plants don't live separated...
    Of course they do. The pollen from a plant in the south of France cannot reach the plants in the north of France, or the plants on side of a mountain chain separated from those on the other side, or a wide river, or....... the list goes on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    If a newly mutated individual can interbreed with its own species and if the mutation is beneficial enough to undergo favourable selection, then the mutation spreads throughout a population. Repeat this a number of times and add in some form of differential selection due to geographical separation or somesuch and you end up with two populations that cannot interbreed, rather than a species plus one individual. Of course, it is possible for a single mutation to result in an individual incapable of breeding with its parent species. But since this individual cannot breed at all, they (and their mutation) are removed by natural selection just as any other detrimental mutation would be. So what we get instead is the product of anything that did manage to breed. Simply "survival of the stable".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    jash,
    may I ask you approximately how old you are and how much biology oyu have studied?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Aren't we seeing a familiar pattern here?

    - Question/claim
    - Answer/rebuttal ignored
    - Repeat


    Perhaps jash is a creationist? Or is it too soon to tell?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Aren't we seeing a familiar pattern here?

    - Question/claim
    - Answer/rebuttal ignored
    - Repeat


    Perhaps jash is a creationist? Or is it too soon to tell?
    I <3 creationists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by jash
    We know the plants don't live separated...
    Of course they do. The pollen from a plant in the south of France cannot reach the plants in the north of France, or the plants on side of a mountain chain separated from those on the other side, or a wide river, or....... the list goes on.

    They need a lot of years before having another positive gene mutation so a plant with a positive gene mutation can reach every nation...
    The plants have the couple male-female as animals...
    What I want to say is that an animal could live separated but a plant cannot live separated and they have the same result.

    If a plant have a positive gene mutation then these gene mutations go on all the plants...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13
    I'm not religious...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •