This is why I don't like debating religion

[Torillian]

happydolphin said:

Torillian said:

Far as I've read there is no threshold between group A and C, there is only a continuum.  So let's say that a true species 100% of them cannot mate with another true species.  WHile they are being differentiated because of one reason or another they can be anywhere within that range from everyone being able to procreate to noone between two groups being able to procreate, and then they are truly different species.  The point to make though is that there is no point at which someone from a group turns into a different species by themself and therefore can't find a mate.  Groups speciate together because it requires many many generations while separation is maintained, so at no point will you get someone simply unable to procreate because they've basically "evolved" by themselves.  And if you do that's just a genetic defect that obviously won't be included in the gene pool further.  

Yes it's a complex system, but to me that's just the watch maker analogy which I get so tired of hearing because with time we've come to understand many things that at first seemed too complicated and were simply chalked up to god, and this seems like the exact same thing. 

Sorr y for the late reply, I don't post at work anymore (new years resolution :]) and was playing DDR like an animal.

The thing is I get this, I get the watchmaker analogy. If you noticed, nowhere in the convo did I just chalk it up to god. If we backtrack, it was dsgrue who asked me what made me believe it was God, and I gave him the problem of the likelihood of abiogenesis (a probability concern), and then he asked me for others so I gave him the combo of inbreeding, which leads to genetic defects, and the speciation concern (which I was calling cross-breeding at the time). I mean I have the ideas, but I might just not use the right terms all the time. That's ok, I'm human right, I can err. But what is mind-blowing is how I've been pegged an imbecil ITT because I'm asking questions. This far, you are the only one who actually stooped to my "ignorant" level to actually answer the questions I'm asking.

Tbh it's not that complex. Imho, I find it all pretty intuitive. However, it doesn't mean I buy it.

Here, we know from fruit flies that inbreeding leads to genetic defects, and that it is not a good idea to dilute the gene pool. In a speciation scenario, granted it is a continuum ok I understand that, but as time progresses and as evolution works its magic, the compatibility of the individuals amongst the new pockest of populations decreases. As such, the body of eligible individuals for that species proper is reduced. How then does the theory account for the problems that inbreeding causes?

this only matters if those populations were small enough that they'd be forced to inbreed at some point, and that the populations will not grow past that point later.  Sure if you have 10 eligible mates in the population then pretty quickly you run out of possibilities and someone is going to have to sleep with someone related to them by a few generations back or so, but if you have 100 by the time anyone is forced to sleep with someone at some point related to them the inbreeding will be so distant as to be inconsequential.  Sleeping with someone who shares a Great Great Great Grandmother doesn't really matter too much from a genetic standpoint.