Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
there are a variety of different ways in which we determine what a species is. It does not necessarily fall into the realm of what can interbreed with what. Though that is a good measure of how we might define a species, it is not in entirety how we define a species.
Again, let me reiterate. The definition of species and how we deduce what is what is largely of human construct.
'If one definition of species is inconvenient, we'll use another so that we can continue to uphold the evolutionary orthodoxy.'
'If one definition of species is inconvenient, we'll use another so that we can continue to uphold the evolutionary orthodoxy.'
Actually, no. As I stated before - I agree that one way of determining what we as human beings define as a species is whether or not they can interbreed. However, your clearly poor reading comprehension has allowed you to forget that I also stated that things such as physical characteristics and DNA triangulation can play a large part in how we define what a species of one organism is in comparison to another. Again, regardless of however we define what a species is, it does not change the fact that organisms change over time. Our perception of the differences, whether subtle or grandiose, of the animal and plant kingdom is what allows us to separate them into different cladistics.
It's not my fault that you think a species is something set in stone by the Grand Wizard upon his time of Creation. I can only inform, I cannot fix your ignorance.
'If one definition of species is inconvenient, we'll use another so that we can continue to uphold the evolutionary orthodoxy.'
That is funny from someone defending the Noah's Ark myth like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ce'st la vie
Many critters considered separate species actually can and do interbreed today.
Many groups of extinct species may have been far fewer than our current taxonomy would lead us to believe.
There is little doubt that if Man's Best Friend the common domesticated pooch was extinct today and all we had to go on were fossilized remains , that most likely they would be classified as numerous species due to large differences in size, head shape, etc
But we know them to be all the same species, correct?
So the number of 'species' required to be on the Ark is subject to wide interpretation.
Did you just accuse someone of changing definitions to uphold orthodoxy? Really?
What on Earth are you talking about? I already explained to you that there are a variety of different ways in which we determine what a species is. It does not necessarily fall into the realm of what can interbreed with what. Though that is a good measure of how we might define a species, it is not in entirety how we define a species.
Sorry, I think s/he got that from me (species = interbreed and produce viable offspring). I was trying to explain species in the simplest way I could in the hopes s/he would understand, but it turned out to be a fruitless endeavor.
c'est la vie: no matter what criteria one uses to define species, they all give us consistent results: organisms DO change over time and are continuing to do so; some species go extinct; new species come about. There is a wealth of evidence to support this besides fossil evidence.
Sorry, I think s/he got that from me (species = interbreed and produce viable offspring). I was trying to explain species in the simplest way I could in the hopes s/he would understand, but it turned out to be a fruitless endeavor.
I gave up too; it was pointless. On another thread, he even suggested that the super-continent of Pangea existed before the flood and only broke up after the waters receded. Mountains formed after this event as well and that was why it the waters covered the land so easily. I explained why this was impossible given the velocity at which the tectonic plates move, but that was ignored. I even made made the complex matter of plate tectonics simple.
As long as the two populations can interbreed, they are one species, yes?
So does an entire population suddenly become unable to breed with the other? No, it must happen one at a time.
So the first member that cannot interbreed with any member of either population (since they are all the same species) would be a new species.
But where is his mate?
take for example a donkey and a horse. They can mate and make a mule. But the male mule is sterile and cannot bred any further. So while the two can breed, the offspring cannot.
Unfortunately for you, evolution is 'purposeless'.
That is, it is not a 'thinking' process. It doesn't not plan to achieve an end.
I know that, of course. I was only formulating it that way to make it easier to understand. But if you wish, I'll rephrase the whole thing:
The individuals that do not have ways to ensure the survival of their genotype are more likely to have that genotype disapear from the gene pool.
This does means that natural selection support traits that protect the individual, up to a point. A dead animal can't reproduce, and can't do any of the other things below. (Being attractive to the other gender also enhance transmission of the genotype. Enough said.)
Those that instinctively protect their children also have an advantage, because they carry one's genetic information. It's also useful, though slightly less so, to protect the close family. Their genetic information is fairly similar to one's own. Over time, individuals with those traits will have more surviving descendents and the traits will spread throughout the population.
But in many species, including our own, the natural equilibrium was found one step further: the whole tribe/group/pack is protected. After all, in a pack, all members are more or less related. Besides, the individual is more likely to survive if he's surrounded by friendly pack members than if he's alone and in a cutthroat competition. So in some situations, when small packs are in competition, the ones who evolved some level of group solidarity will be more likely to survive.
Allow me to add that your understanding of the theory of evolution is extremely poor, and that your sarcasm isn't doing much for other people's willingness to educate you. Stop being so antagonistic, and you'll learn better. [Don't need to change that bit ]
Quote:
Originally Posted by c'est la vie
So build us up in faith by telling us again how a member of one species can give birth to a member of a brand new species.
And how that one and only member is gonna find a mate of his own species to extend the family line of the new species beyond 1 member.
It does take two to tango, does it not?
Wow, are those biologists dumb. Millions and millions of biologists throughout the world and not one thought of that!
French evolved from Latin, did it not?
So who could the first French speaker speak to? It does take two to tango, does it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by c'est la vie
As long as the two populations can interbreed, they are one species, yes?
So does an entire population suddenly become unable to breed with the other? No, it must happen one at a time.
So the first member that cannot interbreed with any member of either population (since they are all the same species) would be a new species.
But where is his mate?
As long as the two groups of speakers can communicate, they have the same language, right?
So how does a group of speakers suddenly become unable to communicate with the other? No, it must happen one at a time.
So the first member that cannot communicate with any member of either group (since they are all the same group) would have a new language.
Sorry, I think s/he got that from me (species = interbreed and produce viable offspring). I was trying to explain species in the simplest way I could in the hopes s/he would understand, but it turned out to be a fruitless endeavor.
c'est la vie: no matter what criteria one uses to define species, they all give us consistent results: organisms DO change over time and are continuing to do so; some species go extinct; new species come about. There is a wealth of evidence to support this besides fossil evidence.
Geographic separation/isolation is often cited as a mechanism which can lead to speciation.
The separated group breeds among themselves and eventually are unable to breed with the 'mother' group.
But what REALLY happens when you separate a small group of critters and only let them breed among themselves?
What animal breeders know is that inbreeding of this nature is often detrimental to producing healthy animals. Far from producing new 'species' that will thrive, inbreeding is more likely to produce a group of sickly critters which would be LESS able to survive in the wild.
Geographic separation/isolation is often cited as a mechanism which can lead to speciation.
The separated group breeds among themselves and eventually are unable to breed with the 'mother' group.
But what REALLY happens when you separate a small group of critters and only let them breed among themselves?
What animal breeders know is that inbreeding of this nature is often detrimental to producing healthy animals. Far from producing new 'species' that will thrive, inbreeding is more likely to produce a group of sickly critters which would be LESS able to survive in the wild.
Perhaps this will help you understand how new species are created...
Speciation often begins when a single species becomes geographically separated into two populations. Individuals cannot travel between the populations, preventing the two populations from interbreeding.
Because the two populations cannot exchange genes, and because they may be subject to different environmental conditions, they slowly evolve differences.
Eventually the two populations become different enough that they do not interbreed even if they come into contact (in other words, they are ‘reproductively isolated’), and are therefore separate species.
Speciation usually takes too long to observe in one lifetime.
Ring Species...
A ring species is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr called ring species “the perfect demonstration of speciation” because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]
