| dsgrue3 said:
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). |
Yes, because I believe the gene pool degraded over time, which is much more obvious if you look at fruit flies (which your article specifically mentions).
I honestly think you're incapable of looking further than your nose on this topic. I specifically said that I understand that over time a disparity "could" occur between two populations such that they cannot inter-breed, making them two separate species.
But the cross-breeding incompatibility is the foundation for the identification of species and the fact that you missed that is beyond me. I've said since the start that for speciation this is a foundational aspect and you continue to dismiss it, because you're biased, simple as that.
And then I'm getting owned... wow. I can dish this shit out better than you can, and I don't even believe in it.
Yes, two populations would separately evolve and as such would develop an inability to cross-breed, making them more and more "true" species. Don't counter this because your article said that itself. I think they used the word "proper" species. My issue is when does this happen? When does A become B which in turn becomes C, whereby C can no longer mate with A? Because we know (per the article) that the speciation is a gradual process that takes time. So what mutation causes this incompatibility, and what happens with B that can still mate with C and with A, or is there a threshold at which time the mutation is just too much and it creates an incompatibility, but if that's the case where is the partner in procreation? I think you just got powned and are out of articles, so for the sake of it, put it in your pipe and smoke the hell out of it. You too Runa.
EDIT: It's funny you mention that the globalchange article was for kids, I kind of felt like it was all so basic.
