happydolphin said:
You are a man with an agenda. Nothing in my post explaining my understanding of evolution (and its driven/not driven nature) was counter-argued in the document you posted (the first one). If you can't show that I am clueless, better not say that unless you want me to demolish your arguments once again. And lol at cross-breeding not mattering. From your second link: "This concept became criticized by biologists because it was arbitrary. Many examples were found in which individuals of two populations were very hard to tell apart but would not mate with one another, suggesting that they were in fact different species." Wow, using the incompatibility of breeding between two individuals SUGGESTS that they were in fact different species. In your own article. Now look who's clueless. Yep, it's you. Oh my tamil tart, okay this is priceless: 'Biological species concept: This concept states that "a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups." ' IN YOUR OWN SOURCE.
The source then mentions two types of limits to cross-breeding: pre-zygotic isolating mechanisms and post-zygotic isolating mechanisms. Nothing in the section in speciation mentions the intricacies of an evolution and if or when it leads to these isolating mechanisms and thus, speciation ('Given time and selection, the two populations become two species. They may, at some later time, spread back into contact. Then we can ask, are these two "good biological species"? '). We are just blindingly assuming that this is not a problem and that from one evolution to another there is no isolating mechanism such that two individuals would need to have the exact same mutation for the speciation to persist. Talk about a constraint. Imho this could only work over a long time and even so a bridge theory whereby individuals of evolutionary stage B can mate with A and C yet C cannot mate with A is a pretty odd concept to be completely honest, and quite far-fetched. |
Once again, still ignored my post.
"This concept became criticized by biologists because it was arbitrary. Many examples were found in which individuals of two populations were very hard to tell apart but would not mate with one another, suggesting that they were in fact different species."
Wow, using the incompatibility of breeding between two individuals SUGGESTS that they were in fact different species. In your own article. Now look who's clueless. Yep, it's you."
This states that cross-breeding is not relevant. How you missed this obvious point is beyond me. It states that once an evolutionary change occurs (population a -> b) population b is more advanced and would not mate with an inferior population due to incompatibility. This does indeed make sense as per the E. Coli experiment which I cited for you several times.
Perhaps you're incapable of understanding the articles provided to you. Here: http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/sp/Speciation
It's for kids so you should be able to get it.
Now for cross-breeding and its role in evolution - again, not relevant. There are cross-breeds in modern times, but as far as I know that isn't seen historically. Probably because they become extinct over time (as they are generally inferior).
Evolution isn't about cross-breeding, you don't seem to get it.
I'll try again.
http://evolution-for-kids.blogspot.com/
I expect a response to my post you ignored.
EDIT: I find it hilarious that you find all this nonsensical and yet believe two people produced the entirety of the human race (despite inbreeding causing defects).
