| happydolphin said: 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. |
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).
Not sure what this is in response to? If it is in response to 2 people populating the Earth, your argument is entirely irrelevant. Fruit flies aren't people, and people have become stronger, faster, smarter disproving your notion (counter-argument) entirely. lmfao how easy was that?
I honestly think I'm incapable of looking further than my 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.
Fixed for truth.
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.
I never argued against this. Learn to read. I said cross-breeding isn't relevant to evolution because evolutionary changes occur within the species itself, not via cross-breeding. Again - read the E. Coli experiment in its entirety. You're clueless.
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.
Funny, no one else has said this.
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.
When the DNA becomes too dissimilar. There is no "hey man this DNA has X number of chromosomes more than this DNA so it's incompatible" - it's such a complex thing that is not quite understood in its entirety. It's somewhat ambiguous at this point.
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?
Ah, you misunderstand. The E. Coli experiment is about generations meaning after X generations ALL offspring experienced this evolution to metabolize citrate.
"Twelve flasks, each containing an independently evolving population of E. coli, have been growing in Lenski’s lab for more than 56,000 generations. A low concentration of E. coli’s favorite food, the sugar glucose, keeps most of the populations in check. But around generation 33,000, one flask, designated Ara–3, suddenly became cloudy as the bacteria within developed the ability to gobble citrate, an acid-controlling chemical that is abundant in the growth solution."
Source: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345247/description/E_coli_caught_in_the_act_of_evolving
You really are clueless when it comes to reading sources and evolutionary biology which explains your ineptitude on the topic at hand and self-proclaiming wins. It really is quite amusing for someone so completely devoid of logic and understanding.
I think Runa is right, best to just step aside and allow you to live in blissful ignorance, unfortunately I've been sucked in too many times.
