What prevents evolution?

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's cute that you guys are trying to have a debate with Skidoo.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's good to see how the other side lives sometimes. Besides, it's about time I got my post count up!

~MagicMan

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah. As Magic pointed out, the conditions you stated aren't really necessary for evolution. Evolution occurs within species too... we don't necessarily have to talk about speciation to talk about evolution.

This appears to be a semantic problem though. I think when you say the "presupposed processes of natural evolution" you are talking about evolution giving rise to the diversity of species. Which your conditions are required for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't argue the point of "evolution" in the most general sense, as it is too broad. It is the process of speciation that I note logical problems with.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah. As Magic pointed out, the conditions you stated aren't really necessary for evolution. Evolution occurs within species too... we don't necessarily have to talk about speciation to talk about evolution.

This appears to be a semantic problem though. I think when you say the "presupposed processes of natural evolution" you are talking about evolution giving rise to the diversity of species. Which your conditions are required for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't argue the point of "evolution" in the most general sense, as it is too broad. It is the process of speciation that I note logical problems with.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are admitting that evolution occurs in a general sense, then speciation should be easy to understand, as already stated. Take a fertile species, and separate them into two groups. Maybe half of them travel east, while the rest go west. Since evolution involves a random process, clearly these two groups will evolve separately, no?

~MagicMan

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's cute that you guys are trying to have a debate with Skidoo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cute.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah. As Magic pointed out, the conditions you stated aren't really necessary for evolution. Evolution occurs within species too... we don't necessarily have to talk about speciation to talk about evolution.

This appears to be a semantic problem though. I think when you say the "presupposed processes of natural evolution" you are talking about evolution giving rise to the diversity of species. Which your conditions are required for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't argue the point of "evolution" in the most general sense, as it is too broad. It is the process of speciation that I note logical problems with.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are admitting that evolution occurs in a general sense, then speciation should be easy to understand, as already stated. Take a fertile species, and separate them into two groups. Maybe half of them travel east, while the rest go west. Since evolution involves a random process, clearly these two groups will evolve separately, no?

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon, I've seen you do mathematical posts before. Use logic.

I'm not conceding "evolution" at all. I'm just not addressing it directly in favour of another point, i.e. speciation, which is logically weak.

The two groups you mention will "evolve" until their lines go extinct due to internal infertility.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah. As Magic pointed out, the conditions you stated aren't really necessary for evolution. Evolution occurs within species too... we don't necessarily have to talk about speciation to talk about evolution.

This appears to be a semantic problem though. I think when you say the "presupposed processes of natural evolution" you are talking about evolution giving rise to the diversity of species. Which your conditions are required for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't argue the point of "evolution" in the most general sense, as it is too broad. It is the process of speciation that I note logical problems with.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are admitting that evolution occurs in a general sense, then speciation should be easy to understand, as already stated. Take a fertile species, and separate them into two groups. Maybe half of them travel east, while the rest go west. Since evolution involves a random process, clearly these two groups will evolve separately, no?

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon, I've seen you do mathematical posts before. Use logic.

I'm not conceding "evolution" at all. I'm just not addressing it directly in favour of another point, i.e. speciation, which is logically weak.

The two groups you mention will "evolve" until their lines go extinct due to internal infertility.

[/ QUOTE ]

<LOGIC>
Given a group, A, which consists of entirely interfertile individuals:

Divide A into two groups, A1, and A2. These groups are initially interfertile.

Physically separate the groups. They no longer interact, and they move to different environments. One moves to the desert, one moves to a swamp.

Both groups will undergo the "process of evolution," which is defined above. That is, mutations will occur within each group. Some of them will be beneficial to the group, and some will be harmful. However, it is extremely unlikely that the same mutation would be useful to both groups. For example, some individual in group A1, in the desert, may experience a mutation which allows them to store water in their body for future use. This would be a HUGE benefit to an individual in group A1. It would probably NOT be a benefit to an individual in group A2. Thus, each group will begin to diverge, adapting to their current habitat. The groups, many generations later, now become B1 and B2

Some of the mutations that occurred, in addition to helping the groups in their new habitats, caused them to be infertile with the other group. When you but B1 back together with B2, they can no longer mate. Whence, speciation.

</LOGIC>

~MagicMan

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah. As Magic pointed out, the conditions you stated aren't really necessary for evolution. Evolution occurs within species too... we don't necessarily have to talk about speciation to talk about evolution.

This appears to be a semantic problem though. I think when you say the "presupposed processes of natural evolution" you are talking about evolution giving rise to the diversity of species. Which your conditions are required for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't argue the point of "evolution" in the most general sense, as it is too broad. It is the process of speciation that I note logical problems with.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are admitting that evolution occurs in a general sense, then speciation should be easy to understand, as already stated. Take a fertile species, and separate them into two groups. Maybe half of them travel east, while the rest go west. Since evolution involves a random process, clearly these two groups will evolve separately, no?

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon, I've seen you do mathematical posts before. Use logic.

I'm not conceding "evolution" at all. I'm just not addressing it directly in favour of another point, i.e. speciation, which is logically weak.

The two groups you mention will "evolve" until their lines go extinct due to internal infertility.

[/ QUOTE ]

<LOGIC>
Given a group, A, which consists of entirely interfertile individuals:

Divide A into two groups, A1, and A2. These groups are initially interfertile.

Physically separate the groups. They no longer interact, and they move to different environments. One moves to the desert, one moves to a swamp.

Both groups will undergo the "process of evolution," which is defined above. That is, mutations will occur within each group. Some of them will be beneficial to the group, and some will be harmful. However, it is extremely unlikely that the same mutation would be useful to both groups. For example, some individual in group A1, in the desert, may experience a mutation which allows them to store water in their body for future use. This would be a HUGE benefit to an individual in group A1. It would probably NOT be a benefit to an individual in group A2. Thus, each group will begin to diverge, adapting to their current habitat. The groups, many generations later, now become B1 and B2

Some of the mutations that occurred, in addition to helping the groups in their new habitats, caused them to be infertile with the other group. When you but B1 back together with B2, they can no longer mate. Whence, speciation.

</LOGIC>

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonderful, but as a given member of A1 diverges in terms of reproductive compatibility from A, it simultaneously diverges from the other members of A1. Thus A1 becomes internally infertile.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Wonderful, but as a given member of A1 diverges in terms of reproductive compatibility from A, it simultaneously diverges from the other members of A1. Thus, A1 becomes internally infertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

how does a "member" diverge from the group in terms of reproductive compatibility?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wonderful, but as a given member of A1 diverges in terms of reproductive compatibility from A, it simultaneously diverges from the other members of A1. Thus, A1 becomes internally infertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

how does a "member" diverge from the group in terms of reproductive compatibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the same process causing all successive generations to tend to diverge: genetic drift.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah. As Magic pointed out, the conditions you stated aren't really necessary for evolution. Evolution occurs within species too... we don't necessarily have to talk about speciation to talk about evolution.

This appears to be a semantic problem though. I think when you say the "presupposed processes of natural evolution" you are talking about evolution giving rise to the diversity of species. Which your conditions are required for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't argue the point of "evolution" in the most general sense, as it is too broad. It is the process of speciation that I note logical problems with.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are admitting that evolution occurs in a general sense, then speciation should be easy to understand, as already stated. Take a fertile species, and separate them into two groups. Maybe half of them travel east, while the rest go west. Since evolution involves a random process, clearly these two groups will evolve separately, no?

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon, I've seen you do mathematical posts before. Use logic.

I'm not conceding "evolution" at all. I'm just not addressing it directly in favour of another point, i.e. speciation, which is logically weak.

The two groups you mention will "evolve" until their lines go extinct due to internal infertility.

[/ QUOTE ]

<LOGIC>
Given a group, A, which consists of entirely interfertile individuals:

Divide A into two groups, A1, and A2. These groups are initially interfertile.

Physically separate the groups. They no longer interact, and they move to different environments. One moves to the desert, one moves to a swamp.

Both groups will undergo the "process of evolution," which is defined above. That is, mutations will occur within each group. Some of them will be beneficial to the group, and some will be harmful. However, it is extremely unlikely that the same mutation would be useful to both groups. For example, some individual in group A1, in the desert, may experience a mutation which allows them to store water in their body for future use. This would be a HUGE benefit to an individual in group A1. It would probably NOT be a benefit to an individual in group A2. Thus, each group will begin to diverge, adapting to their current habitat. The groups, many generations later, now become B1 and B2

Some of the mutations that occurred, in addition to helping the groups in their new habitats, caused them to be infertile with the other group. When you but B1 back together with B2, they can no longer mate. Whence, speciation.

</LOGIC>

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonderful, but as a given member of A1 diverges in terms of reproductive compatibility from A, it simultaneously diverges from the other members of A1. Thus A1 becomes internally infertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

You took my </LOGIC> too literally. I wanted you to use some of your own.

A1 cannot diverge unless it remains fertile. What you are claiming is this:

Some individual in A1 undergoes a mutation that makes them infertile with the rest of A1. They die.

This repeats endlessly until A1 is extinct.

This doesn't make any sense. If this could happen, why would it wait until the groups are separated to start occurring? Under this assumption, every species on earth should go extinct by becoming internally infertile.


What really happens is this:

Some individual in A1 undergoes a beneficial mutation. They are more successful at passing on their genes within A1, and in many generations all of A1 has the mutation.

This happens again, and again, with different mutations each time. Sometimes it happens simultaneously. The key is that each mutation is small, so the individual remains interfertile with A1. Giant mutations do not occur spontaneously.

Eventually, many successive mutations have occurred within A1. Likewise for A2. They can now be considered B1 and B2. In other words, if you took snapshots at generation 1 and generation 10,000, you would see large mutations between the generations. Those large mutations occurred as a series of small mutations. However, in aggregate, they have made A1 into B1 and A2 into B2. B1 is infertile with B2. However, all members of B1 share approximately the same genome, as do members of B2. Intergroups, the genomes differ significantly. Intragroups, the genomes differ marginally. Whence, speciation.

~MagicMan