LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIt seems impossible that a couple male-female can come from a gene mutation in the same years and in the same place...
Opinions?
October 3rd, 2008, 03:54 AM
It seems impossible that a couple male-female can come from a gene mutation in the same years and in the same place...
Opinions?
October 3rd, 2008, 05:59 AM
Why do they need to? That is not required for evolution to work.Originally Posted by jash
October 3rd, 2008, 12:35 PM
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...
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...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.
For example: today how much species can couple?
So I discarded this hypothesis...
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.
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...
October 3rd, 2008, 02:14 PM
A single functional mutation generally does not make an individual reproductively incompatible with non-mutant members of its species.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...
I think you really need to make your question clearer.
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
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.
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
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.
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...
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
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.
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".
jash,
may I ask you approximately how old you are and how much biology oyu have studied?
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.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?
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...
I'm not religious...
| « 100% of your brain | What happens to a weak acid in high and low pH solutions? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
