Evolution of The Beetles

[lao tzu]

That's not what it's a rebuttal of, Magellan.

He quoted himself accurately, if in abbreviated form.


I understand that by using characters we can place Whales and Mice in different groups. What I dispute is that the groups we end up with reflect underlying relatedness. That has to be shown , not assumed.

Genetic characters have the additional advantage of showing relationships between separate species, but they're just as useful for showing intraspecific hereditary relationships, and can be used to assign biological groupings at any level from siblings to biological kingdoms.

But above all else, respective of this conversation, they are undeniably inherited.

As ever, Jesse

[ericmurphy]

True, but there's also the whole long-branch thing which is more of a problem with genetic characters than with morphological characters because there are fewer possibilities (four, for any one location along the genome).

Magellan simply cannot get it through his head that evolutionary theory does not "assume" common descent. It infers common descent.

And on what is that inference based?

The same thing I've been telling him for more than a year: a specific pattern of distribution of character similarities and differences forming a nested hierarchy of groups within groups.

The Song Remains the Same.

[magellan004]

Cause I was winning, duh!

As ever, yet another Adonis from Mars

I didn't think I would have to explain
but really I did think I would have to explain , so I was kidding myself thinking that you would understand.

Either - Genetic Chracters are part of Characters or
Genetic Characters are not Part of Characters.

Let's go with ' Genetic Characters are not Part of Characters.'
How would non-characters be a rebuttal of a claim about characters?

For example -

Person A - 'I doubt that any sort of hammer will strike sense into your head.'
Person B - 'Try a steel hammer.'
Person A (Bangs B with steel hammer. No Effect. Looks around for baseball bat)
Person B - 'You ignored my rebuttal. I told you you were wrong.'

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

I didn't think I would have to explain
but really I did think I would have to explain , so I was kidding myself thinking that you would understand.

Either - Genetic Chracters are part of Characters or
Genetic Characters are not Part of Characters.

Let's go with ' Genetic Characters are not Part of Characters.'
Why on earth would we do that, Magellan? YOU might do that, because you're losing this argument.


How would non-characters be a rebuttal of a claim about characters?

They wouldn't be. So it's a good thing genetic characters aren't non-characters.


For example -

Person A - 'I doubt that any sort of hammer will strike sense into your head.'
Person B - 'Try a steel hammer.'
Person A (Bangs B with steel hammer. No Effect. Looks around for baseball bat)
Person B - 'You ignored my rebuttal. I told you you were wrong.'

Magellan

Were you sober when you typed this up, Magellan? Because it makes absolutely no sense.

[lao tzu]

Let's go with ' Genetic Characters are not Part of Characters.'

You're a right character, Mugs, even if you're just playing a part.


How would non-characters be a rebuttal of a claim about characters?

For example -

Person A - 'I doubt that any sort of hammer will strike sense into your head.'
Person B - 'Try a steel hammer.'
Person A (Bangs B with steel hammer. No Effect. Looks around for baseball bat)
Person B - 'You ignored my rebuttal. I told you you were wrong.'

Magellan

Cute.

Looks like you intercepted that baseball bat somewhere tender.


Burns a bit, doesn't it?

You could try whining about it some more.

Either way, I'm still winning, duh.

[Faid]

It doesn't.
Species has nothing to do with common descent.
You don't think it does, neither do I.Good.


The Species that Whales belong to , let's call it Whales for now, has always been Whales. It was always composed of whales. It has no biological relationship to any other species and never did. The ancestors of any whales now living were also members of 'Whales'.
We agree. Non sequitur. The fact that the term species does not depend on CD does not mean that CD is false.

But of course, you know that already.

RIP Evolution.Yawn.


By the way, did you ever figure out -

What is Speciation?
Lol, let's talk about speciation again, shall we? Not before you answer the question clearly, little weasel.

You said that whales have always been whales. So, does that mean that whales and mice are NOT the same species? Is your answer "NO", and WHY?

Grow a spine. Respond.
Magellan[/QUOTE]

[Faid]

How do you know when something is unsafe for you to say? You have said the most preposterous things and never batted an eyelid.

The simulation of evolution is a classic case - 'It can't be done'
'It would take too long'
'We can't do this, we can't do that.'
'We can't do a verbal simulation'.
'We can't identify one individual - we can only look at overall masses of things.'
and so on.


The Beetles was presented as a simulation and you have had to eat your words because it (simulation) can be done and is being done.

SO how do you overcome the problem that (according to your Darwinistic fairy story) there would have to have been one first Beetle born to parents and different in a way that prevented it from mating with Brown Beetles when its parent could have mated with Brown Beetles?

MagellanAs we have already explained, there is no such "problem". Perhaps if you read and responded to people's posts you would have figured it out already. Or perhaps you're just pretending.
Either way, who cares?

Are whales and mice the same species, mags, and WHY?

[Faid]

Why is what Linneaus thought relevant?Because it shows that the concept of species is detatched from that of Common Descent.

Next.

You think Linneaus is relevant yet what you think is irrelevant.Hardly. I showed you that accepting the concept of species, and determining species, has nothing to do with CD. Deal with it.


'Do whales and mice belong to the same unknown group?'

MagellanSquid ink.

If one cannot determine whether mice and whales are the same species without accepting CD, then why could Linnaeus have done it?

Make sure you respond to that, AFTER you give us your OWN substantiated opinion on whether whales and mice are the same species.

:popcorn:

[lao tzu]

True, but there's also the whole long-branch thing which is more of a problem with genetic characters than with morphological characters because there are fewer possibilities (four, for any one location along the genome).

Ah, but you're not considering creationist logic. Which isn't surprising, because you need to grow up in that culture to really appreciate it. We can follow the morphological evidence because of our confidence that morphology reflects heredity. A creationist doesn't have that freedom. They've been conditioned to reject the fossil record and its billion year story. The dinosaurs have been tamed and saddled.

But they've seen birth defects. They know in their hearts that gene stuff is the real thing. They know that what's written in the genes isn't a lie.

They've watched Maury ask and answer that age old question dozens of times, "Who's your baby's daddy (http://www.whosyourbabysdaddy.com/)."

That question is answered using genetic characters, which likewise answer who's your cousins, or grandparents. This stuff is real to them. A black family famously attempted to show descent from Thomas Jefferson using those characters. We know who's related, and how closely, and even their countries and continents of origin and we know it using a character that creationists have been conditioned to accept. That's what makes genetic characters disproportionately important to this discussion, and disturbing enough to get our punctiliously polite resident straight man to grunt out an epithet fashioned just for me. He's acting gut punched.


Magellan simply cannot get it through his head that evolutionary theory does not "assume" common descent. It infers common descent.

Ontologically, but not practically. Having inferred common descent, it's pointless not to assume it. Makes conversations work better and proceed more cogently. And, conversely, refusing to accept it provides a shield of ignorance against any more illuminating conversation.


And on what is that inference based?

The same thing I've been telling him for more than a year: a specific pattern of distribution of character similarities and differences forming a nested hierarchy of groups within groups.

The Song Remains the Same.

It's not a real Crevo™ discussion if it doesn't end up at nested hierarchies. Now, with more character than ever! Accept no substitutes.

As ever, Jesse

[magellan004]

Hardly. I showed you that accepting the concept of species, and determining species, has nothing to do with CD. Deal with it.

So you think that we could have species without common descent.

Because other people don't - they're called Evolutionists.

Now you say - 'It's not about what I think - it's about what you think.'
Then I say - 'Some people think that species has everything to do with common descent' (- more accurately , everything to do with Speciation, since you can have common descent without Speciation (As on Planet Zardoz))'.

Then you say - 'Linnaeus didn't think so.'
Then I say 'Some people do think so. They're called evolutionists.'

Then you say 'Grow a spine'

Meanwhile I have bigger fish to fry. Beetle Land is up and running and it's getting exciting !


But I am curious - why the interest in Whales and Mice?

Magellan

[lao tzu]

Meanwhile I have bigger fish to fry. Beetle Land is up and running and it's getting exciting !

Whoa. Some of us were amused when you lobotomized yourself enough to forget how to tell mice and whales apart, but at least they were both mammals. You've done did outdo yourself this time, Muddles.

[magellan004]

Magellan simply cannot get it through his head that evolutionary theory does not "assume" common descent. It infers common descent.

And on what is that inference based?

The same thing I've been telling him for more than a year: a specific pattern of distribution of character similarities and differences forming a nested hierarchy of groups within groups.

I doubt that. If you repeated Theobald's babble to 99.99% of evolutionists they would have no idea what you are talking about. Several evolutionists have disagreed with you on that point here in TWeb.

Theobald realised one important thing - there is no evidence so he concocted the 'Nested Hierarchies' argument.

Most evolutionist 'infer' common descent , as you say, from being told by people like David Attenborough - 'This is how it is ' and from other media savvy people doing exactly what you and other evolutionists do here in Tweb -Try to bully , ridicule and humiliate so the feeble minded think - 'Wow, I don't want to be a loser. I'll get on board the hip Evo-train. Instant friends and peanut gallery.'

As I have said in the past, umpteen times: there is nothing wrong with seeing similarities and patterns and proposing an explanation. The thing is there used to be a thing called 'Science' where ideas were meant to be tested.

Dare I remind you that your use of Big Words doesn't help. 'Infer' has several meanings . There are better words - words that are less ambiguous.

For example -
Evolutionary theory infers common descent.
Evidence for evolutionary theory leads to a conclusion of common descent.
The premise of evolutionary theory [i]leads to a conclusion of common descent.
We can reason from circumstances that evolutionary theory [i]leads to a conclusion of common descent.
Evolutionary theory [i]implies common descent.
Evolutionary theory hints at common descent.

Or any other term that more clearly conveys what you mean.

Magellan

[Faid]

So you think that we could have species without common descent.

Because other people don't - they're called Evolutionists.

Now you say - 'It's not about what I think - it's about what you think.'
Then I say - 'Some people think that species has everything to do with common descent' (- more accurately , everything to do with Speciation, since you can have common descent without Speciation (As on Planet Zardoz))'.

Then you say - 'Linnaeus didn't think so.'
Then I say 'Some people do think so. They're called evolutionists.'

Then you say 'Grow a spine'

Meanwhile I have bigger fish to fry. Beetle Land is up and running and it's getting exciting !


But I am curious - why the interest in Whales and Mice?

MagellanIOW, "Keep asking- I'm just gonna keep ignoring you and avoid to respond, repeating the same mantras as if you haven't addressed (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?144614-Evolution-of-The-Beetles&p=3188280#post3188280) them already".

Why don't you say it clearly and be done with it? It's not like you're fooling anyone at this point.

Here, try it: "I, magellan004, do not want to answer Faid's question". Something tells me you'll find it quite relieving. Think of how Theo must've felt when he finally exposed himself.

[magellan004]

IOW, "Keep asking- I'm just gonna keep ignoring you and avoid to respond, repeating the same mantras as if you haven't addressed (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?144614-Evolution-of-The-Beetles&p=3188280#post3188280) them already".

Why don't you say it clearly and be done with it? It's not like you're fooling anyone at this point.

Here, try it: "I, magellan004, do not want to answer Faid's question". Something tells me you'll find it quite relieving. Think of how Theo must've felt when he finally exposed himself.

You've humiliated me into submission with your psychological acumen. I must answer your question. Well done.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Ah, but you're not considering creationist logic. Which isn't surprising, because you need to grow up in that culture to really appreciate it. We can follow the morphological evidence because of our confidence that morphology reflects heredity. A creationist doesn't have that freedom. They've been conditioned to reject the fossil record and its billion year story. The dinosaurs have been tamed and saddled.

But they've seen birth defects. They know in their hearts that gene stuff is the real thing. They know that what's written in the genes isn't a lie.

They've watched Maury ask and answer that age old question dozens of times, "Who's your baby's daddy (http://www.whosyourbabysdaddy.com/)."

That question is answered using genetic characters, which likewise answer who's your cousins, or grandparents. This stuff is real to them. A black family famously attempted to show descent from Thomas Jefferson using those characters. We know who's related, and how closely, and even their countries and continents of origin and we know it using a character that creationists have been conditioned to accept. That's what makes genetic characters disproportionately important to this discussion, and disturbing enough to get our punctiliously polite resident straight man to grunt out an epithet fashioned just for me. He's acting gut punched.

Yep. Even creationists don't deny the accuracy of paternity tests. Although, given the RWA propensity to believe whatever is convenient, I'm sure a creationist on the wrong side of a paternity suit most certainly will deny the accuracy of DNA paternity tests!


Ontologically, but not practically. Having inferred common descent, it's pointless not to assume it. Makes conversations work better and proceed more cogently. And, conversely, refusing to accept it provides a shield of ignorance against any more illuminating conversation.

Right, but there's a distinction to be made between an a priori assumption of common descent and an assumption based on a century and a half of accumulated confirmatory evidence. No one thinks homology is anything but the result of common descent anymore. The distinction between homoplasy and homology is made assuming common descent.

Many creationists seem to think any assumption is wrong. But somehow they're comfortable with assuming the sun will rise tomorrow based on nothing more than the fact that it's risen every single day they've been alive.

But absolutely; every systematics paper doesn't first go through all the evidence supporting the general assumption of common descent. Outside the intellectually-narrow confines of creationism, common descent is considered well-supported enough to be an unspoken assumption. That ship has, in other words, sailed.


It's not a real Crevo™ discussion if it doesn't end up at nested hierarchies. Now, with more character than ever! Accept no substitutes.

Yep! But I've never been able to actually walk a Creo™ through a discussion of them without their getting angry and abusive and eventually bailing on the discussion. There's a reason for that. :-)

[ericmurphy]

So you think that we could have species without common descent.

Because other people don't - they're called Evolutionists.

Stop guessing what "evolutionists" think, and guessing wrong, Magellan.

NO ONE thinks the notion of a "species" is in any way dependent on the notion of common descent. Show us where, in the definition of "species" as, e.g., "a group of organisms which can and do interbreed in nature" there is any assumption of common descent. Show us where, in the definition of "species" as, e.g., "a group of morphologically-similar organisms which are hypothesized, based on fossil data, to belong to a freely-interbreeding group" there is any assumption of common descent.


Now you say - 'It's not about what I think - it's about what you think.'
Then I say - 'Some people think that species has everything to do with common descent' (- more accurately , everything to do with Speciation, since you can have common descent without Speciation (As on Planet Zardoz))'.

No one denies that common descent depends on speciation. What they are denying, over and over and over again, is that the species concept depends on common descent. Since the notion of "species" existed millennia before the notion of common descent, this should be obvious.

Fascinating that it's not obvious to you. Apparently, little is.


Then you say - 'Linnaeus didn't think so.'
Then I say 'Some people do think so. They're called evolutionists.'

You haven't been able to find a single person yet who believes species are only possible if common descent is true. Not one.

So stop trying to tell other people what they think. Concentrate on figuring out what you think.


Then you say 'Grow a spine'

Meanwhile I have bigger fish to fry. Beetle Land is up and running and it's getting exciting !

It's going nowhere, Magellan. You haven't made a single point with your "Beetle Land."



But I am curious - why the interest in Whales and Mice?

We're trying to figure out what is the stupidest and most bizarre position we can get you to take. So far, your position that whales and mice might be able to interbreed is definitely up there in both categories.

[Sparko]

Magellan, did you know that we classified animals and plants into various species before we even knew about DNA? even before Darwin?

[ericmurphy]

I doubt that. If you repeated Theobald's babble
Theobald's concise, closely-argued article is "babble" to you in the same way a discussion of quantum physics is "babble" to a cocker spaniel, Magellan.


to 99.99% of evolutionists they would have no idea what you are talking about. Several evolutionists have disagreed with you on that point here in TWeb.

Find one quote from one "evolutionist" here or anywhere else who has disagreed with me that Theobald's article is a concise and well-argued source for a summary of the evidence for—not speciation, Magellan—common descent.


Theobald realised one important thing - there is no evidence so he concocted the 'Nested Hierarchies' argument.

That's a retarded statement even by your standards, moron. Nested hierarchies as evidence for common descent is hardly original to Theobald. If you weren't perfectly ignorant of just about everything there is to be ignorant of, you'd know that.


Most evolutionist 'infer' common descent , as you say, from being told by people like David Attenborough - 'This is how it is ' and from other media savvy people doing exactly what you and other evolutionists do here in Tweb -Try to bully , ridicule and humiliate so the feeble minded think - 'Wow, I don't want to be a loser. I'll get on board the hip Evo-train. Instant friends and peanut gallery.'

David Attenborough is a freaking broadcaster, moron. He's not even a scientist. "Evolutionists," i.e., evolutionary biologists, infer common descent from the evidence. Evidence that you, as a creationist, avoid like the plague. You've never even read Theobald's article, let alone any of the primary research on the topic. Did you ever read the article I cited to on mammalian phylogeny? Of course not.


As I have said in the past, umpteen times: there is nothing wrong with seeing similarities and patterns and proposing an explanation. The thing is there used to be a thing called 'Science' where ideas were meant to be tested.

Those ideas ARE tested, moron. Theobald provides more than two dozen tests of common descent in that one article. Tests that can be both passed and failed, a concept that is utterly foreign to you.


Dare I remind you that your use of Big Words doesn't help.
Doesn't help what, Magellan? Doesn't help educate you? Lest you've forgotten, my aim here is not to educate you, who are ineducable in any event.


'Infer' has several meanings .
Like what? What are these "several" meanings to the word "infer"? What does it mean other than "deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements"?


There are better words - words that are less ambiguous.

Such as?


For example -
Evolutionary theory infers common descent.
Evidence for evolutionary theory leads to a conclusion of common descent.
What's the distinction? Other than one uses five words where one would suffice?


The premise of evolutionary theory [i]leads to a conclusion of common descent.
We can reason from circumstances that evolutionary theory [i]leads to a conclusion of common descent.
Evolutionary theory [i]implies common descent.
Evolutionary theory hints at common descent.

Or any other term that more clearly conveys what you mean.

None of those terms convey more clearly what I mean. But I suppose we can add "infer" to the list of Magellan's Forbidden Words.

[ericmurphy]

You've humiliated me into submission with your psychological acumen. I must answer your question. Well done.

Magellan's dug himself in so deep there's no way he can ever answer the question of whether he believes whales and mice to be the same species or different species. He couldn't tell me which of these two swans was white and which was black, either:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/BlackAndWhite.jpg

[magellan004]

Magellan, did you know that we classified animals and plants into various species before we even knew about DNA? even before Darwin?

Yes I did.

Why?

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Then why do you keep insisting "evolutionists" think the existence of species means common descent is true?

[magellan004]

You haven't been able to find a single person yet who believes species are only possible if common descent is true. Not one.

Got a mirror?

Do you agree that we could have the distribution of species on Earth now without common descent?

Magellan

[Sparko]

Yes I did.

Why?

Magellan

Because you keep arguing like Taxonomy is some Evilutionist plot.

[magellan004]

Because you keep arguing like Taxonomy is some Evilutionist plot.

What is the result?
Are taxonomists worried?
Are you worried? You sound like something bad is going to come of it all.

If someone is going to be hurt then that is a problem.

If it helps - I don't think you will be harmed. I certainly hope you are not. I reckon you can cope.

Magellan

[Sparko]

What is the result?
Are taxonomists worried?
Are you worried? You sound like something bad is going to come of it all.

If someone is going to be hurt then that is a problem.

If it helps - I don't think you will be harmed. I certainly hope you are not. I reckon you can cope.

Magellan

Are you as insane in real life as you appear on tweb?

[ericmurphy]

Got a mirror?

Magellan, how many times must I repeat that I do not believe the concept of species is in any way dependent on the concept of common descent? Are you incapable of understanding English?


Do you agree that we could have the distribution of species on Earth now without common descent?

Of course I do. How many times must I repeat that the concept of species has nothing to do with the concept of common descent?

[ericmurphy]

What is the result?
Are taxonomists worried?
Are you worried? You sound like something bad is going to come of it all.

No one is "worried" about your slack-jawed refusal to accept overwhelming evidence. Don't flatter yourself.


If someone is going to be hurt then that is a problem.

If it helps - I don't think you will be harmed. I certainly hope you are not. I reckon you can cope.

Just because someone argues with you about something doesn't mean they think the world will end if they lose the argument, Magellan.

[ericmurphy]

And by the way, Magellan: none of this is distracting anyone from noticing that you don't know whether a whale and a mouse are the same species or different species.

[Faid]

You've humiliated me into submission with your psychological acumen. I must answer your question. Well done.

MagellanNot really. But you must openly admit that you don't want to. Trust me, it will do you good.

[ericmurphy]

What's curious is what possible reason could there be why Magellan won't answer this simple, obvious question that any six year old could answer without thinking about it. The only reason I can think of (other than sheer obstinacy) is that Magellan does not want to even admit that species actually exist. This is after we've explained to him that accepting the existence of species (which really aren't the different from biblical "kinds" as a concept beyond the fact that there are actually operational definitions for what a "species" is) does not mean he has to accept common descent.

But then, shown a picture of two swans, one black, one white:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/BlackAndWhite.jpg

—he refused to identify which one was black and which one was white. I don't even have a hypothesis as to why that would be.

[lao tzu]

And by the way, Magellan: none of this is distracting anyone from noticing that you don't know whether a whale and a mouse are the same species or different species.

You must have missed the late breaking news:


Meanwhile I have bigger fish to fry. Beetle Land is up and running and it's getting exciting !

Now Magoo has trouble telling fish from beetles.

[ericmurphy]

It's sort of like this: you tune into the 11 o'clock news:

"Breaking News: the British Prime Minister was caught on camera having sex with a 13-year-old male prostitute. But first, a message from our sponsors."

There follows five minutes of commercials, and when the news comes back on, a story about a kitten rescued from a fire escape in Lawrence, Texas. You watch the whole rest of the news, but no story about the British Prime Minister.

That's what waiting for Magellan to explain himself is like.

[magellan004]

Just because someone argues with you about something doesn't mean they think the world will end if they lose the argument, Magellan.

Ah good. My 'opponents' have learned from their experience.

Magelllan

[magellan004]

Like what? What are these "several" meanings to the word "infer"? What does it mean other than "deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements"?


'Hint at' and 'Deduce from reasoning' are two different meanings of one word.
"Species' also has various meanings.

You have said that often.

Here's another example -
'Did you beat your wife last night?
Answer yes or no. What are you afraid of? People were beating their wives long before chess was invented.'

Magellan

[Tiggy]

BWAHAHAHAHA!!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Just noticed the "sabots clownii" tag at the bottom of this Clownshoes thread.

Whoever did that, well played! :thumb:

- T

[magellan004]

What's curious is what possible reason could there be why Magellan won't answer this simple, obvious question that any six year old could answer without thinking about it. The only reason I can think of (other than sheer obstinacy) is that Magellan does not want to even admit that species actually exist. This is after we've explained to him that accepting the existence of species (which really aren't the different from biblical "kinds" as a concept beyond the fact that there are actually operational definitions for what a "species" is) does not mean he has to accept common descent.

But then, shown a picture of two swans, one black, one white:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/BlackAndWhite.jpg

—he refused to identify which one was black and which one was white. I don't even have a hypothesis as to why that would be.

The answer is here -


So you think that we could have species without common descent.

Why do you get so upset when I try to clarify the concepts we are discussing? If we are discussing two different things, then the discussion goes no where. I have already explained that.

If I am unsure of your meaning - make it clear.
If you are unsure of my meaning - ask me.

You find it hard to allow that others have a different view to you. It would be nice for you if everyone saw the world as you do. But they don't. And then you get upset and say 'I'm not interested in communicating.' And you post these so-called humiliating excerpts from the past- which are nothing more than an admission by you that you can't hold a two way discussion.

You are doing a fine juggling act between trying to express yourself and having to perform for your crowd.

If you want to discuss the Swans - then do it.
If you want to discuss Species then do it.
If you want to put on a show allow me to give you these little lectures.

It's up to you.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Ah good. My 'opponents' have learned from their experience.

Magelllan

First, no one here ever learns anything from you. Second, they already knew your winning an argument wouldn't be the end of the world.

It's just extremely unlikely ever to happen.

[ericmurphy]

'Hint at' and 'Deduce from reasoning' are two different meanings of one word.

No. You're confusing "infer" with "imply." "Infer" does not mean "hint at."



"Species' also has various meanings.

Lots of words have several meanings. Are you eventually going to arrive at a point?


You have said that often.

Here's another example -
'Did you beat your wife last night?
Answer yes or no. What are you afraid of? People were beating their wives long before chess was invented.'

There's no commonality between asking someone if he (or she; hey, I'm from San Francisco) has stopped beating his wife, and asking you if you think whales and mice are the same species. We're not asking you to buy into common descent just to answer the question. No matter how you answer the question, you're not being required to accept common descent.

[ericmurphy]

The answer is here -

That's not an answer. That's you asking me a question without using a question mark.


Why do you get so upset
Magellan, I don't find you "upsetting." Amusing, yes. Hilarious, yes. Exasperating, yes.

Upsetting? Hardly.


when I try to clarify the concepts we are discussing?
You don't try to clarify anything. You deliberately try to muddle and confuse things as much as possible. You take simple, obvious questions—"is this swan black, or is it white?"—and reply with things like, "Well, that depends on what you mean by 'white.'" That's not clarifying things.


If we are discussing two different things, then the discussion goes no where. I have already explained that.

And that's why you refuse to clarify whether, for example, you're talking about an individual animal or about a whole species. Because you are not interested in clarification.


If I am unsure of your meaning - make it clear.
If you are unsure of my meaning - ask me.

I gave up trying to get you to explain yourself long ago, Magellan. I believe part of the reason you are incapable of explaining yourself is because most of the time you don't even know what you mean.


You find it hard to allow that others have a different view to you.
I don't find it hard at all, Magellan. I'm perfectly accepting of people who believe evolution is false. I think they're wrong, but I don't have a problem with their holding differing views. The problems I have with you have nothing to do with your views. They have to do with your pervasive, fundamental, systemic intellectual dishonesty and lack of integrity.


It would be nice for you if everyone saw the world as you do. But they don't.
Actually, no. Evolution sites where everyone agrees with each other are incredibly tedious. You probably haven't noticed that I rarely even get into conversations with people who agree with me. The main reason I interact with you at all is because we disagree. The reasons our discussions are rarely very amicable is because I find your intellectual dishonesty to be reprehensible.


And then you get upset and say 'I'm not interested in communicating.'
Stop assuming I'm "getting upset." I like it when you behave badly. It reflects poorly on creationists, which works just fine for me. You probably don't get this, but my entire aim here is to get you to stake out ludicrous, indefensible positions. Something you do with very little coaxing.


And you post these so-called humiliating excerpts from the past- which are nothing more than an admission by you that you can't hold a two way discussion.

I assure you, no one else sees them that way, Magellan. Your failure to be able to distinguish between a black swan and a white swan is not an "admission" from me. It's a rather perplexing example of just how dysfunctional your thinking is.


You are doing a fine juggling act between trying to express yourself and having to perform for your crowd.

I have zero difficulty expressing myself, Magellan. I'm a much better writer than you are.


If you want to discuss the Swans - then do it.
If you want to discuss Species then do it.
If you want to put on a show allow me to give you these little lectures.

These "little lectures" aren't making you look very good, Magellan, believe me.


It's up to you.

You can try to answer simple questions, like "Is this swan black, or is it white," or "do you think whales and mice are the same species, or different species," or not.

It's up to you.

[magellan004]

You can try to answer simple questions, like "Is this swan black, or is it white," or "do you think whales and mice are the same species, or different species," or not.

Whales and mice belong to two unrelated species.

Magellan

[Sparko]

BWAHAHAHAHA!!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Just noticed the "sabots clownii" tag at the bottom of this Clownshoes thread.

Whoever did that, well played! :thumb:

- T

I added "Clown Shoes" fer ya. :thumb:

[Tiggy]

Whales and mice belong to two unrelated species.

Magellan

How did you determine that they're unrelated as opposed to distantly related?

What are your criteria for relatedness?

- T

[ericmurphy]

Whales and mice belong to two unrelated species.

How hard was that, Magellan? Why did it take you four days to answer the question?

You're still wrong, of course; whales and mice are actually fairly closely-related, by comparison to the entire tree of life. But it's good to know you don't think whales and mice can mate and have offspring.

I'm not sure this counts as "progress," but it counts for something. Magellan regains a toehold in reality, maybe.

[ericmurphy]

How did you determine that they're unrelated as opposed to distantly related?

What are your criteria for relatedness?

- T

And, if they're totally unrelated, how do you account for the fact that both have:


cells with nuclei
bilateral symmetry
a notochord (in the embryo)
a vertebral column
a cranium
a jaw
a zygomatic arch
a single jawbone
three inner ear bones, two of which derive from bones which in other gnathostomes are in the jaw
hair
mammary glands
enucleated red blood cells
tidal lungs


Why, indeed, do whales have lungs at all?

I can explain why whales and mice share these and other characteristics. What's your non-ad-hoc explanation, Magellan? Chance?

And don't worry, Magellan. I'm perfectly willing to accept a non-answer as meaning you don't have an explanation.

[magellan004]

How hard was that, Magellan? Why did it take you four days to answer the question?

You're still wrong, of course; whales and mice are actually fairly closely-related, by comparison to the entire tree of life. But it's good to know you don't think whales and mice can mate and have offspring.

I'm not sure this counts as "progress," but it counts for something. Magellan regains a toehold in reality, maybe.

You need to do something see someone about that memory of yours.

Post 628: (We're now at Post 792 so I'll let you count the days)


Here is the system.
1. We start with a collection of animals that are related and that are not related.
2. We sort them into categories based on physical features.
3. We call those categories Species.
4. Whales and mice are different species. All whales are related. All mice are related. Whales and mice are not related.

Post 634:

Wrong a fourth time. Whales and mice are related.

I hope when I 'reveal all ' about The Beetles you really try to concentrate and takes notes.


Magellan

[ericmurphy]

You need to do something see someone about that memory of yours.

My memory is not only just fine; it's also much, much better than yours. You frequently can't remember what you've said or claimed from one end of your sentence to the next.


Post 628: (We're now at Post 792 so I'll let you count the days)



Post 634:


Wrong a fourth time. Whales and mice are related.




Gee Magellan, maybe you can point out the inconsistency between saying "You're still wrong, of course; whales and mice are actually fairly closely-related, by comparison to the entire tree of life" and saying "Wrong a fourth time. Whales and mice are related."

Sometimes I don't think you can remember what you think I've said from the time you copy it to the time you paste it into a new message.


I hope when I 'reveal all ' about The Beetles you really try to concentrate and takes notes.

You mean when you "come up with even more stupid stuff to say"? I have no difficulty remembering what either you or I say. You seem to have difficulty remembering not just what I say, but what you're trying to prove when you copy and paste what I say.

But I'm glad you never tire of making a complete fool of yourself nearly every day on this forum. The day just wouldn't be complete without Magellan making an ass of himself yet again.

[ericmurphy]

I suppose Magellan sees the statements "whales and mice are actually fairly closely related" and "whales and mice are related" as being "totally contradictory" because they're not exactly identical.

[magellan004]

My memory is not only just fine; it's also much, much better than yours. You frequently can't remember what you've said or claimed from one end of your sentence to the next.






Gee Magellan, maybe you can point out the inconsistency between saying "You're still wrong, of course; whales and mice are actually fairly closely-related, by comparison to the entire tree of life" and saying "Wrong a fourth time. Whales and mice are related."

Sometimes I don't think you can remember what you think I've said from the time you copy it to the time you paste it into a new message.



You mean when you "come up with even more stupid stuff to say"? I have no difficulty remembering what either you or I say. You seem to have difficulty remembering not just what I say, but what you're trying to prove when you copy and paste what I say.

But I'm glad you never tire of making a complete fool of yourself nearly every day on this forum. The day just wouldn't be complete without Magellan making an ass of himself yet again.

Ah , you've started on that 'Fool' calling caper again.
Just when I showed that you couldn't remember anything.
I had answered the 'Whales and Mice ' question in POST 628.
You had acknowledged my answer in POST 634. (So you can't say 'I didn't see your answer')
By Post 792 you had forgotten that I answered the Whales and Mice question.
I pointed out that you had forgotten-
So I'm the fool.

Nope. Get a new Gig.

Now on to more important things:

Tiggy wants to know the important question - How do I know that Species are not related?

I have explained why. There are several reasons. I have mentioned them often. They are too advanced for you to digest. Therefore we have to use a step by step approach. You can't cope with the general argument so I have to present a detailed line-by-line argument.

One of the first threads I started in Tweb was 'Was there a first human?' That was about 15 months ago. It has taken that long for you and others to even acknowledge that a step-by-step approach might be feasible. Dealing with evolutionists takes an Indonesian-like patience.

Thankfully Lao-Tzu had a glimpse of something and acted as a catalyst. Sylas ran away but you, showing true-metal ventured into the land of The Beetles. That is great. We have made fantastic progress. You can't expect to cope with the Whole Truth in one hit.

The purpose of The Beetles is to explain in a step-by-step fashion why Species cannot be related.

Be patient. Have faith. I may be wrong. You may be wrong. But let's find out.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Ah , you've started on that 'Fool' calling caper again.
Well, if you keep making a fool of yourself…


Just when I showed that you couldn't remember anything.
You showed no such thing, moron.


I had answered the 'Whales and Mice ' question in POST 628.
Really? Was your quote in post 628 what you, personally, believe? Or was it you telling us what evolutionary theory claims? With you, it's hard to tell.


You had acknowledged my answer in POST 634. (So you can't say 'I didn't see your answer')
It's not a matter of not seeing your answer. It's a matter of deciphering what you intend your answer to mean. Half the time, you mix in (and up) what you believe and what others believe.

I'm hardly the only one here who has been trying to get you to give a simple, straightforward answer to a simple, straightforward question.


By Post 792 you had forgotten that I answered the Whales and Mice question.
I "forgot" no such thing.


I pointed out that you had forgotten-
You "pointed out" no such thing.

And no matter how you slice it, Magellan, even granting you every claim you're making, it still took you days to answer a question a seven year old would have been able to answer without thinking about it for ten seconds.


So I'm the fool.

You certainly are.


Nope. Get a new Gig.

I don't think so. I'm confident you'll be making a fool of yourself in public for as long as you post here.


Now on to more important things:

Tiggy wants to know the important question - How do I know that Species are not related?

Yes. It would be nice to know why.


I have explained why.

Not really.


There are several reasons. I have mentioned them often.
But somehow you can't think of them right now.


They are too advanced for you to digest.
Magellan, you can't tell black from white. It's pretty unlikely anything you ever say would be "too advanced" for your average kindergartener.


Therefore we have to use a step by step approach. You can't cope with the general argument so I have to present a detailed line-by-line argument.

Well, you've had well over a year now, and you haven't managed to get even to step one of your argument as to how you "know" different species are totally unrelated.


One of the first threads I started in Tweb was 'Was there a first human?' That was about 15 months ago.
Yes. That thread was a trainwreck. You could establish not a single claim you made, and eventually abandoned the thread with your tail between your legs. It was explained to you over and over again that any line dividing "pre-first humans" from "post-first humans" would be completely arbitrary and meaningless. As an argument against common descent it was one of the more laughable I've ever seen, and believe me, I've seen a few.


It has taken that long for you and others to even acknowledge that a step-by-step approach might be feasible.
Dealing with evolutionists takes an Indonesian-like patience.

It also requires a brain; something you lack.


Thankfully Lao-Tzu had a glimpse of something and acted as a catalyst. Sylas ran away but you, showing true-metal ventured into the land of The Beetles. That is great. We have made fantastic progress. You can't expect to cope with the Whole Truth in one hit.

The Land of the Beetles was a complete bust as any kind of model of evolution, let alone speciation. You got exactly nowhere with it, and you certainly didn't lay out any sort of coherent argument for why different species are completely unrelated.


The purpose of The Beetles is to explain in a step-by-step fashion why Species cannot be related.
That maybe what you think its purpose is, and it may be what you intended to do with it, but all you really accomplished with it was to illustrate your complete and utter cluelessness when it comes to how evolutionary change actually happens.


Be patient. Have faith. I may be wrong. You may be wrong. But let's find out.

We're all a little bit wrong. All scientific models are at least a little bit wrong.

You, on the other hand, aren't even wrong.

[Faid]

'Hint at' and 'Deduce from reasoning' are two different meanings of one word.
"Species' also has various meanings.

You have said that often.

Here's another example -
'Did you beat your wife last night?
Answer yes or no. What are you afraid of? People were beating their wives long before chess was invented.'

MagellanLol, you can't even get your analogies straight.

Did I beat my wife last night? No.

Why? Because I don't beat my wife.

See?

Now, do you think that whales and mice are the same species? And why?

[Faid]

Whales and mice belong to two unrelated species.

MagellanFINALLY. Thank you. Now, all that remains is for you to explain WHY.

[ericmurphy]

Magellan's idea of winning an argument:

"You claim it took me four days to answer your question about whether whales and mice are the same species or different species. But it only took me three days, and I can prove it."

But yes, I'm curious to know what Magellan's criteria are for deciding that whales and mice are different species.

It shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks to get an answer. Although he never did say which of these guys is white and which is black:
http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/BlackAndWhite.jpg

[magellan004]

Magellan's idea of winning an argument:

"You claim it took me four days to answer your question about whether whales and mice are the same species or different species. But it only took me three days, and I can prove it."


What happened was -
1. You claimed I had not answered.
2. I showed I had already answered.

Now you are trying to salvage something.

Here's a question - any idea what poor old Faid is up to? He claims I hadn't answered the Whale Mice question after we (Eric and I) had had our conversation where you agreed I had already answered. The he sees I had answered already and he goes and asked about how I arrive at my view of unrelated species when I had already answered that question also!

I guess 'we' - you know - those of you who need to lean on each other, are very , very confused. That is why I need to spell everything out in the simplest of terms.

Magellan

[magellan004]

I'm curious to know what Magellan's criteria are for deciding that whales and mice are different species.

The experts say that Whales and Mice have different characteristics and therefore they classify them as different species - that is as belonging to two unrelated groups.

Are you unsure about Whales and Mice? Do you think that Whales and Mice should belong to the same group?

I think you'll find, if you examine your own head, that you will hold these inconsistent thoughts in your head at the one time -
1. Whales and mice are physically different
2. Whales and mice cannot interbreed
3. Therefore whales and mice are related.

And we all know that related things can interbreed.


Magellan

[ericmurphy]

What happened was -
1. You claimed I had not answered.
2. I showed I had already answered.

Now you are trying to salvage something.

Funny how Faid is also under the impression that you hadn't answered, Magellan. Because what you quoted as evidence that you had answered could just as easily be interpreted as your understanding of what evolutionary theory says. Given your irritating propensity for attributing assertions to both your opponents and to evolutionary theory that neither ever actually asserted, and mixing up what you actually think from what you think we think you think, there are half a dozen different ways to interpret your quote, which at best means it didn't take you four days to answer but rather only three.

Is that your idea of actually scoring a rhetorical point?

I don't have to "salvage" anything, Magellan. I'm not the one with the reputation here for being a complete idiot and a clumsy troll.


Here's a question - any idea what poor old Faid is up to? He claims I hadn't answered the Whale Mice question after we (Eric and I) had had our conversation where you agreed I had already answered.

First, yes, I know exactly what Faid is up to. Since you apparently reject every definition of "species" we have proffered, he is interested, as am I, in finding out by what criteria you classify whales and mice as separate species. Second, no, I do NOT agree that you had already answered the question about the conspecificity of whales and mice. While your quote could be interpreted as an answer, it could just as easily be interpreted as your saying what you think evolutionary theory says.

That's what happens when you constantly confuse what you think with what you think your opponents think.

And at best, it only took you three days to answer a question you should have been able to answer the first time you were asked. It hardly reflects well on you to point out that you answered a simple question the twelfth time you were asked rather than the fifteenth time.


The he sees I had answered already and he goes and asked about how I arrive at my view of unrelated species when I had already answered that question also!

Oh, really? And what was your answer to that? They're different species because they look different? But you've repeatedly rejected that as a criterion when we use it!

So which is it, Magellan? Do you accept morphological distinctiveness as diagnostic of membership in a species, or don't you? Do you even know?


I guess 'we' - you know - those of you who need to lean on each other, are very , very confused. That is why I need to spell everything out in the simplest of terms.

Given the incredible, irritating ambiguity of almost every statement you make, Magellan, it should hardly be surprising that your opponents are frequently unclear about your positions. It's pretty obvious you're just as unclear about those positions as we are.

[ericmurphy]

The experts say
The same experts who you think are liars and frauds, and whose statements have no credibility with you at all? Those experts? The very same experts who assert all life is related by descent from a universal common ancestor? Those experts?

You're actually making an appeal to the authority of scientists to support your belief that whales and mice are different species?


that Whales and Mice have different characteristics and therefore they classify them as different species - that is as belonging to two unrelated groups.
Those experts do NOT classify whales and mice as belonging to two unrelated groups. Whales and mice are both mammals, and therefore both synapsids, both amniotes, both tetrapods, both stegocephalians, both osteichthyes, both gnathostomes, both vertebrates, both chordates, both deuterostomes, both bilaterians, both metazoans, both eukaryotes.

They are hardly "unrelated," Magellan.

But it's entertaining that you accept the authority of experts that whales and mice are different species, but do not accept that exact same authority that they are related by common descent. How do you decide what claims made by authorities to accept and what claims to reject? Do you base your acceptance or rejection on how they comport with what you want to believe?

Seems your argument about the nonconspecificity of whales and mice needs a little work, Magellan.


Are you unsure about Whales and Mice?
Asks the guy who couldn't answer the question of whether they're the same species or different species for days.

You're cute when you try to condescend to people who are vastly more knowledgeable than you are, Magellan.



Do you think that Whales and Mice should belong to the same group?

They do belong to many of the same groups, Magellan. They don't belong to the same species, genus, family, or order. They do belong to all the same higher taxa.

And I'm a lot more clear about why that is than you are about why they're not members of the same species.


I think you'll find, if you examine your own head, that you will hold these inconsistent thoughts in your head at the one time -
1. Whales and mice are physically different
2. Whales and mice cannot interbreed
3. Therefore whales and mice are related.

The 3. does not follow from the 2., Magellan, which if you had any clarity at all in your own head, you would already know. The 3. follows from a line of argument and evidence that has nothing to do with the fact that whales and mice are not the same species.


Fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea.
Therefore sharks are fish.


Does that conclusion follow from the premises listed, Magellan?


And we all know that related things can interbreed.

We know no such thing. Whales and mice are related, but they cannot interbreed. Get your logic straight: everything that can interbreed is related. Not everything that is related can interbreed. All dogs are mammals. Not all mammals are dogs.

I'd like an answer to Phaedrus's question, too. Except I don't think you've ever even been to school. Do they homeschool in Australia?

[Tiggy]

The experts say that Whales and Mice have different characteristics and therefore they classify them as different species - that is as belonging to two unrelated groups.

'Different species' does not mean 'unrelated' Clownshoes.


Are you unsure about Whales and Mice? Do you think that Whales and Mice should belong to the same group?

Last time I checked they were both mammals, so yes.


I think you'll find, if you examine your own head, that you will hold these inconsistent thoughts in your head at the one time -
1. Whales and mice are physically different
2. Whales and mice cannot interbreed
3. Therefore whales and mice are related.

And we all know that related things can interbreed.

It's not binary Clownshoes. Whether they can interbreed or not depends on how closely or how distantly they are related. Are you really so stupid you can't grasp that simple concept?

- T

[ericmurphy]

Can't, or won't; the distinction is unimportant.

[magellan004]

Those experts do NOT classify whales and mice as belonging to two unrelated groups. Whales and mice are both mammals, and therefore both synapsids, both amniotes, both tetrapods, both stegocephalians, both osteichthyes, both gnathostomes, both vertebrates, both chordates, both deuterostomes, both bilaterians, both metazoans, both eukaryotes.

This is exactly the sort of 'none' thinking I have been at pains to point out .
You assume that Species = Related.
Then you ask me if Whales and Mice belong to these 'related' groups.

:stop:

These are two different questions -
Do Whales and Mice belong to two unrelated groups called Species ? Answer - Yes.
Do Whales and Mice belong to two related groups called species ? Answer - No.

I don't even think you understood your own dumb game.

Don't kid yourself. Interbreeding has nothing to do with classifying animals in taxonomy. Character states is all that is used. The interbreeding thing is a paste over , a bad fit.


Theobald
Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees

This is your one and only ground for saying that you think Species are related.
And it is palpably not true.
The most natural group you can get - a family group does not produce a nested phylogenetic tree. You can only get a 'tree' if you leave out data.

That should be enough to blow common ancestry away. But wait ! There's more. The model of Speciation as presented by evolution theory produces a result totally unlike life on Earth.

And that's what The Beetles will show.

Here's some homework and I want you to concentrate, think really , really hard; take notes . Don't rush to your keyboard. Draw diagrams, ask friends, try out various combinations.


If the parents (and Beetles of their type) of The First Green Beetle That Couldn't Breed With Brown Beetles were green themselves and got wiped out because they were green then why didn't Green Beetles That Can't Breed With Brown Beetles get wiped out by the same environmental factor?




Magellan

[ericmurphy]

This is exactly the sort of 'none' thinking I have been at pains to point out .

You can't "point out" what you don't understand.

You assume that Species = Related.

Wrong. I don't "assume" anything. I infer that not just species, but all living things, are related. I INFER that based on overwhelming observational evidence.


Then you ask me if Whales and Mice belong to these 'related' groups.

What, now we're not even allowed to ask you questions? Bad enough you won't answer them…


These are two different questions -
Do Whales and Mice belong to two unrelated groups called Species ? Answer - Yes.
Do Whales and Mice belong to two related groups called species ? Answer - No.

Gee, thanks ever so for clarifying that for me, moron.

I already know you don't accept common descent, Magellan. That's not exactly news.


I don't even think you understood your own dumb game.

I understand exactly what's going on here. You have no basis for your belief that whales and mice are different species, and you have no basis for your belief that whales and mice are not related. You have no apparent basis for any of your beliefs. You believe things you want to believe, and you don't believe things you don't want to believe.

Those of us in the reality-based community believe things based on supporting evidence.


Don't kid yourself. Interbreeding has nothing to do with classifying animals in taxonomy.
Stop trying to lecture me on topics you are completely ignorant of, Magellan.

Conspecificity is diagnosed in some instances on observations of interfertility (which is only even available for testing in living organisms) and sometimes is based on the possession of shared characters exclusive to a particular group of organisms.


Character states is all that is used. The interbreeding thing is a paste over , a bad fit.

Wrong as always, clown-boy. Does your mother know how much of a clown you are?

Sadly, she probably knows it better than we do.



Theobald

This is your one and only ground for saying that you think Species are related.
That's all I need, clownboy. Common descent is the only known non-ad hoc explanation for the pattern of distribution of character states we actually observe, without exception, in organisms both living and extinct. I know, because I have asked you repeatedly for one, that you do not have an alternative explanation. There IS no other explanation. "Goddidit" is not an explanation.


And it is palpably not true.
Really? You think so? Do you?

Then provide me with ONE piece of evidence that even hints at the possibility that all life on earth is not related by common descent.

Another question I have asked you repeatedly over the past year. No answer has ever been forthcoming.


The most natural group you can get - a family group does not produce a nested phylogenetic tree. You can only get a 'tree' if you leave out data.

Like what? What data do we need to leave out, Magellan? Morphological data? No: all the morphological data strongly, conclusively supports a single phylogenetic tree. Genetic data? No, that all also strongly supports a single phylogenetic tree.


That should be enough to blow common ancestry away.
"That"? What is this "that" that you speak of? I heard an assertion: that there's some data that doesn't support a phylogenetic tree. Did you actually provide such data? OF COURSE NOT! Magellan doesn't believe in data. Well, he makes up data all the time, like his "green" and "brown" beetles. Actual, real-life data?

He doesn't do that.


But wait ! There's more.
"More"? In order to have "more" of something, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO BEGIN WITH.

You ain't got nothin' so far.


The model of Speciation as presented by evolution theory produces a result totally unlike life on Earth.

Oh, really? And what "result" is that, Magellan? Another of your unevidenced assertions.


And that's what The Beetles will show.

Stop arguing with evidence you don't have, Magellan. Your "The Beetles" circus isn't a simulation of anything let alone of evolutionary processes. We've got, let's see: some beetles. They live somewhere. Some of them are different colors. They reproduce.

And that's a "model" of what?


Here's some homework and I want you to concentrate, think really , really hard; take notes . Don't rush to your keyboard. Draw diagrams, ask friends, try out various combinations.


If the parents (and Beetles of their type) of The First Green Beetle That Couldn't Breed With Brown Beetles were green themselves and got wiped out because they were green then why didn't Green Beetles That Can't Breed With Brown Beetles get wiped out by the same environmental factor?

Look, idiot: any organism that can't interbreed with any other organism dies. It goes extinct.

Here's how it really goes. We've got a single interbreeding population of beetles. Some event or process divides that population into two subpopulations between which gene flow is reduced or eliminated. Over time, genetic drift occurs as mutations accumulate in both subpopulations. Eventually, individuals of one subpopulation cannot interbreed with individuals of the other subpopulation.

There is never a time when members of one subpopulation cannot interbreed with members of that same subpopulation.

Your imagined "problem" for speciation exists nowhere other than in the vast empty wasteland between your ears.

[ericmurphy]

You know, Magellan, it would help your currently-nonexistent credibility if, instead of simply ignoring my repeated explanation of how speciation happens, you actually articulate what about it you think is unworkable or unrealistic. Continuing to pretend I have no explanation isn't going to work when I keep posting explanations.

And before you go there, let me point out once more than two passages are not "totally contradictory" just because they're worded differently.

[lao tzu]

I think you'll find, if you examine your own head, that you will hold these inconsistent thoughts in your head at the one time -
1. Whales and mice are physically different
2. Whales and mice cannot interbreed
3. Therefore whales and mice are related.

And we all know that related things can interbreed.

Say what you will about Magellan, but that's an awesome troll.

[ericmurphy]

Say what you will about Magellan, but that's an awesome troll.

I'm frankly surprised he was even be able to identify it as an example of flawed reasoning.

[Astra49]

Re: Evolution of The Beetles Jump to Post Originally posted by magellan004 I think you'll find, if you examine your own head, that you will hold these inconsistent thoughts in your head at the one time - 1. Whales and mice are physically different 2. Whales and mice cannot interbreed 3. Therefore whales and mice are related. And we all know that related things can interbreed.


Say what you will about Magellan, but that's an awesome troll.

This thread has been almost as much fun as "keys in the drawer". The horse with one leg longer than the other three was close, but the keys in drawer or pocket has been the best by far.!!!!:yes:
Thanks to everyone concern!!!:thumb:

[magellan004]

Here's how it really goes. We've got a single interbreeding population of beetles. Some event or process divides that population into two subpopulations between which gene flow is reduced or eliminated. Over time, genetic drift occurs as mutations accumulate in both subpopulations. Eventually, individuals of one subpopulation cannot interbreed with individuals of the other subpopulation.

No .
The 'accumulated differences' thingamy explains nothing. There can only be one difference that causes an inability to interbreed.

Look at the lizard diagram.

The light green lizard has one difference to the green lizard.
The blue lizard has one difference to the green lizard.
The red lizard has one difference to the blue lizard.
Three differences. They are one species.

The brown lizard cannot interbreed with the green lizard. Only one difference has caused that.

It would not matter if there were 100 'accumulated changes' . Only one difference can cause inability to interbreed.

Other wise the red lizard would be a different species to the green lizard.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

No .
The 'accumulated differences' thingamy explains nothing.

It explains nothing to you. I wish you would stop assuming everyone is clueless as you are.


There can only be one difference that causes an inability to interbreed.

Totally, stupidly wrong. There can be thousands of differences, no one of which prevents interfertility but which taken together do prevent interfertility.

You don't make arguments, Magellan. You make assertions, which have neither argument nor evidence to support them.


Look at the lizard diagram.

The light green lizard has one difference to the green lizard.
The blue lizard has one difference to the green lizard.
The red lizard has one difference to the blue lizard.
Three differences. They are one species.

The brown lizard cannot interbreed with the green lizard. Only one difference has caused that.
Other wise the red lizard would be a different species to the green lizard.

This is retardo evolution. Where did you get the idea that color is enough to prevent interbreeding, Magellan? Two dogs that are different colors seem to have no problem interbreeding. A blue-eyed woman doesn't seem to have any problem getting pregnant after sex with a brown-eyed man.

When your arguments are blown away this effortlessly, it's time to admit you're completely out of your depth.


It would not matter if there were 100 'accumulated changes' . Only one difference can cause inability to interbreed.

Sure. Like polyploidy. But you're pretending one and only one genetic difference is the only thing that can prevent interbreeding.

So apparently Magellan's objection to my explanation of speciation is that there can somehow be a single difference between two organisms that are the same species, but there can only be a single difference between two organisms which are not the same species.

Is it even possible he could be that stupid?

[ericmurphy]

And of course this is all part of Magellan's stupid insistence on an equivalence of "one mutation = one difference." I don't know where he got that idea—maybe he just dreamed it up himself—but it explains a lot of his idiotic misunderstandings of how evolution works.

Maybe he thinks lions and cheetahs differ by one mutation and lions and tigers differ by, oh, say, one and-a-half mutations.

[ericmurphy]

Of course, the other stupid misconception of Magellan's is that interfertility is either 100% or 0. Apparently he thinks (if that's not too strong a word for what he's doing) that there can be 999 differences which still allow 100% interfertility, but then just adding that one extra difference suddenly drops interfertility to zero.

If that were actually the case (and it's not), that would explain Magellan's apparent belief that it's always just one single difference that prevents interbreeding.

Is that in fact what you think, Magellan? That interfertility is either 100% or 0? Is it possible that's still what you believe?

[lao tzu]

Look at the lizard diagram.

The diagram sucks. Where'd the brown lizard come from? Is it supposed to be a sibling with the green lizard? Who's supposed to be able to breed with it?

[magellan004]

Of course, the other stupid misconception of Magellan's is that interfertility is either 100% or 0. Apparently he thinks (if that's not too strong a word for what he's doing) that there can be 999 differences which still allow 100% interfertility, but then just adding that one extra difference suddenly drops interfertility to zero.

That's right. That's the only way it can work. Otherwise you would have no group where 'all individuals can interbreed'. That means 100%. If it were 99% then in a group of 99 individuals one individual could not be a member of that species.

It's not me who said a Species is 'Where everyone can interbreed.' That's what you say Species means.

If a certain individual in a group cannot interbreed - is that individual a member of the same species, and if so, using what criteria?



Magellan

[ericmurphy]

That's right. That's the only way it can work.
So you are that stupid.


Otherwise you would have no group where 'all individuals can interbreed'. That means 100%. If it were 99% then in a group of 99 individuals one individual could not be a member of that species.

That's already the case, moron. Look; we've been through this with you a million times before. There are undoubtedly individuals in any population who are sterile, for one reason or another. Surely you're not so ignorant and stupid you've never heard of a human being who is sterile. Does that make them somehow "not human"? Does that mean they're not members of the human species?

Also, we see real, life, actual populations of organisms where interfertility is neither 100% or 0. THIS IS WHAT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS IF SPECIATION ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

Which it does.


It's not me who said a Species is 'Where everyone can interbreed.' That's what you say Species means.

One more time, apparently:

Evolutionary theory in no way depends on a rigorous definition of the term "species."


Every time you point out ambiguities or inconsistencies in definitions of the word "species," you STRENGTHEN the case for evolutionary theory, and WEAKEN the case for special creation.

It's amazing how you keep shooting yourself in the head like this, Magellan, over and over again, with increasingly larger-caliber bullets.

How many times will it need to be repeated?

According to evolutionary theory, unlike special creation, "species" are not static. They are in a constant state of flux. A population may start out all morphologically and genetically very similar, and 99+% of the members of that population may be interfertile, but over time evolutionary theory predicts that state of affairs will change. We observe such things happening, with horses and donkeys, lions and tigers, lions and leopards, etc.

Of course, Magellan will emit his usual bleat that we can't actually observe declining interfertility among, say, horses and donkeys, but given that speciation takes hundreds of thousands of years to take place, and that observed rates of genetic change are entirely consistent with hypothesized convergence times (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_rates), the simplest explanation in accord with observation is simply that SPECIATION HAPPENS.

Special creation, by contrast, predicts that a freely-interbreeding population will ALWAYS be freely-interbreeding. That's what it means for a group of organisms to always reproduce "after their kind." What is YOUR explanation for the partial interfertility among horses and donkeys, or among lions and tigers, Magellan?


If a certain individual in a group cannot interbreed - is that individual a member of the same species, and if so, using what criteria?

One more time, apparently:

Evolutionary theory would be JUST FINE if there were NO rigorous definition of the term "species."

Are you ever going to understand this, Magellan?

My guess is, "No."

On the other hand, speciation creation depends critically on a rigorous definition of the term "created kind." And, of course, there isn't one.

[lao tzu]

65100

[magellan004]

According to evolutionary theory, unlike special creation, "species" are not static. They are in a constant state of flux. A population may start out all morphologically and genetically very similar, and 99+% of the members of that population may be interfertile, but over time evolutionary theory predicts that state of affairs will change. We observe such things happening, with horses and donkeys, lions and tigers, lions and leopards, etc.

Hold on a minute there Buster!


Your definitions, remember -


According to evolutionary theory, unlike special creation, "species" are not static. They are in a constant state of flux. A group of individuals that can interbreed (belong to the same species) may start out all morphologically and genetically very similar, and 99+% of the members of that population may be interfertile
....
Screeching halt.

'A group of individuals that can interbreed may be able to interbreed.'


Evolutionary theory would be JUST FINE if there were NO rigorous definition of the term "species."

Apparently 'A classification of organisms that can interbreed' is not rigorous.
Therefore members of a species do not necessarily interbreed.
So given that - why would you say that Whales and Mice are in different species?

Magellan

[Tiggy]

Apparently 'A classification of organisms that can interbreed' is not rigorous.
Therefore members of a species do not necessarily interbreed.
So given that - why would you say that Whales and Mice are in different species?

Magellan


Hey Clownshoes, have you forgotten already when I corrected you on your misunderstanding of 'species'?


A more precise definition is: "Speciation" is the process whereby one group of individual organisms which can freely interbreed splits into two different groups of individuals between which mixing of genetic material no longer naturally occurs, either due to genetic incompatibility or due to other differences (behavioral, territorial, etc.)

When's the last time you saw whales and mice exchanging their DNA?

- T

[ericmurphy]

Hold on a minute there Buster!


Your definitions, remember -


Screeching halt.

'A group of individuals that can interbreed may be able to interbreed.'

Look, Bozo the Clown: how many times am I going to have to repeat it?

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOES NOT STAND OR FALL ON THE DEFINITION OF "SPECIES."

I could have NO definition for the term, and it wouldn't matter!

What you don't seem to get is that YOU are the one who needs a rigorous definition for the term "kind." I don't need ANY definition for the term "species." Evolutionary theory does JUST FINE without one.

You can continue to pester me with your idiot whinings about "my" definition of "species," but all you're going is digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.


Apparently 'A classification of organisms that can interbreed' is not rigorous.


Duh!

How long have I been telling you that?



Therefore members of a species do not necessarily interbreed.

Duh!

Is a sterile woman "not a human"?


So given that - why would you say that Whales and Mice are in different species?

Because they can't interbreed. Because they have MASSIVE morphological differences. Because their common ancestor was neither a whale nor a mouse.

All of those are true. All of them are part of the definition of "species." Anyone who isn't mentally retarded or insane can tell you that mice and whales are different species. By any conceivable definition, they're not the same species. They're not the same genus. They're not the same family. They're not even the same ORDER.

And if you don't like that, WHO CARES?

It's the same old stupidity. You can't tell without looking at a map whether 200 Stockton Street and 700 Stockton Street in San Francisco are in the same area code. You don't have to look at a map, or even really know what a zip code is other than that it has something to do with delivering postage, to know that 200 Stockton Street, San Francisco, and 70 Fifth Avenue, New York, are in different zip codes.

Evolutionary theory does not stand or fall on a rigorous definition of a species.

It's the same simple, obvious explanations, repeated over and over, that STILL cannot penetrate your cement-like cranium. But that's okay; my aim here is not to educate you. It's to get you to say incredibly stupid things, things even CREATIONISTS think are daft.

[magellan004]

Because they can't interbreed. Because they have MASSIVE morphological differences. Because their common ancestor was neither a whale nor a mouse.

That mean a baby whale is a different species to a fertile adult whale - Massive morphological differences, can't interbreed.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Really? The last common ancestor of a whale and its progeny isn't a whale?

You never learn, do you, Magellan? How badly are you going to make special creation look before you finally realize how stupid this argument you're making is?

[magellan004]

Really? The last common ancestor of a whale and its progeny isn't a whale?

Let's have a look at your arithmetic-
Take two animals -

1. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . Cannot interbreed = Same species.
2. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . Can interbreed = Same species.
3. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . Cannot interbreed, massive morphological difference = Same species.
4. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . Cannot interbreed, tiny morphological differences = Same species.
5. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . Can interbreed, massive morphological differences = Same species.
6. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . Can interbreed, tiny morphological differences = Same species.
7. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . massive morphological difference = Same species.
8. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . tiny morphological differences = Same species.



Ummm, have you heard of redundant criteria?

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Let's have a look at your arithmetic-
No one other than you is talking about "arithmetic," Magellan.


Take two animals -

1. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . Cannot interbreed = Same species.
2. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . Can interbreed = Same species.
3. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . Cannot interbreed, massive morphological difference = Same species.
4. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . Cannot interbreed, tiny morphological differences = Same species.
5. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . Can interbreed, massive morphological differences = Same species.
6. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . Can interbreed, tiny morphological differences = Same species.
7. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . massive morphological difference = Same species.
8. Common ancestor is the same sort of animal . tiny morphological differences = Same species.



Ummm, have you heard of redundant criteria?

Are you ever going to stop barking up the wrong tree, Magellan? The type can only get so big around here, so this is the last time:

Evolutionary theory does not stand or fall on the definition of "species." Evolutionary theory PREDICTS that species will be difficult to define. By contrast, any ambiguity at all in what "kind" of organism something is is ABSOLUTELY FATAL TO SPECIAL CREATION.

Are you ever going to stop doing my work for me, moron?

[ericmurphy]

Eric: 2 + 2 ≠ 5

Magellan: If you think 2 + 2 = 5, then why do you keep saying 2 + 2 = 4?

Eric: I don't think 2 + 2 = 5. I keep telling you 2 + 2 ≠ 5

Magellan: If 2 + 2 = 5, then why doesn't 5 - 2 = 2?

Eric: It doesn't. That's how we know 2 + 2 ≠ 5

Magellan: Your whole argument depends on 2 + 2 = 5.

Eric: No it doesn't. I've been saying for weeks now 2 + 2 = 4.

And so on.

And so on.

And so on.

And so on.

And so on.

[ericmurphy]

So Magellan: how do you tell whether or not two animals are the same "kind"?

[ericmurphy]

Sorry—insomnia. Daylight Savings Time just started. Probably an evil Darwinist plot.

Here's another concept Magellan cannot begin to grasp. Two organisms can be considered to be conspecific if they meet one definition of the term "species." They don't have to be conspecific under every conceivable definition of the term.

Under the BSC, lions and tigers are the same species. Under other definitions, they are not.

Apparently just thinking stuff like this makes Magellan's brain lock up like a lawnmower engine with no oil in the crankcase.

[magellan004]

Sorry—insomnia. Daylight Savings Time just started. Probably an evil Darwinist plot.

Here's another concept Magellan cannot begin to grasp. Two organisms can be considered to be conspecific if they meet one definition of the term "species." They don't have to be conspecific under every conceivable definition of the term.

Under the BSC, lions and tigers are the same species. Under other definitions, they are not.

Apparently just thinking stuff like this makes Magellan's brain lock up like a lawnmower engine with no oil in the crankcase.

One of the definitions of species is -
'A group of organisms with similar characters that is not related to any other group of organisms.'

But that plays havoc with Speciation.

Maybe you mean 'I (Eric) can pull any definition out of my hat that I like while rejecting your common sense definition of species which is actually the definition used in practice.'.

With Speciation - one population splits into two groups of what?
'Any two groups depending on your definition'.

Sorry - that's not science - that's quackery .


Species means anything that those who believe in evolution want it to mean.

Magellan

[magellan004]

65100

How is your new thread going - the one where you boast evisceration and proceed to do that (I'm guessing) by asserting that you 'can do it' ?


' we've got the silver bullets of nested hierarchies. Lots of them. Lots of them that agree between themselves, moreover. Independent, consilient, nested hierarchies, that can cut them down from all sides. We have morphologies, and genes, and genetic markers that span the entire gamut from universal to specific of individual organisms, thus incorporating all macroscopic life into the web of common descent.'

'We've got this and that' , 'We can do this and that' . It reminds me of your rebuttal to 'Characters do not support ....' which was 'Some characters do support ... '

For me, your assertions are of a lesser weight than the assertions you seek to refute. And even if I am wrong , they can never be of more weight.

Magellan

[lao tzu]

How is your new thread going - the one where you boast evisceration and proceed to do that (I'm guessing) by asserting that you 'can do it' ?

How thoughtful of you to ask, muggles.

Did you like my diagram? You see, that's how it's done. When the message is clear, it doesn't need explaining. Still trying to figure out where your brown lizards came from?


'we've got the silver bullets of nested hierarchies. Lots of them. Lots of them that agree between themselves, moreover. Independent, consilient, nested hierarchies, that can cut them down from all sides. We have morphologies, and genes, and genetic markers that span the entire gamut from universal to specific of individual organisms, thus incorporating all macroscopic life into the web of common descent.'

I bet you wish you'd written that.


'We've got this and that' , 'We can do this and that' . It reminds me of your rebuttal to 'Characters do not support ....' which was 'Some characters do support ... '

Still burns, eh?


For me, your assertions are of a lesser weight than the assertions you seek to refute. And even if I am wrong , they can never be of more weight.

That's okay, Mags. Unlike genetic characters, ignorance isn't heritable. You can save yourself, but your kids will belong to us.

[Sparko]

Eric: 2 + 2 ≠ 5

Magellan: If you think 2 + 2 = 5, then why do you keep saying 2 + 2 = 4?

Eric: I don't think 2 + 2 = 5. I keep telling you 2 + 2 ≠ 5

Magellan: If 2 + 2 = 5, then why doesn't 5 - 2 = 2?

Eric: It doesn't. That's how we know 2 + 2 ≠ 5

Magellan: Your whole argument depends on 2 + 2 = 5.

Eric: No it doesn't. I've been saying for weeks now 2 + 2 = 4.

And so on.

And so on.

And so on.

And so on.

And so on.


It's called "Trolling" - and Magellan is good at it.

[ericmurphy]

One of the definitions of species is -
'A group of organisms with similar characters that is not related to any other group of organisms.'

No one who isn't a creationist defines species that way. All species are related, if common descent is correct (which it is).


But that plays havoc with Speciation.

That's why that's not how species is defined.


Maybe you mean 'I (Eric) can pull any definition out of my hat that I like while rejecting your common sense definition of species which is actually the definition used in practice.'.

No, it means there are different definitions for the word. Every definition I have given you is in common usage, Magellan. Of course you, being perfectly ignorant of science, wouldn't know that.


With Speciation - one population splits into two groups of what?
'Any two groups depending on your definition'.

Lions and tigers, Magellan. Deal with them.


Sorry - that's not science - that's quackery .

Like you would have any idea what is or what isn't science.



Species means anything that those who believe in evolution want it to mean.


By the way, Magellan: what is a "kind"? How do you tell if two organisms are the same or different "kinds"? And lest you've forgotten, special creation predicts there should be no ambiguity at all as to whether two organisms are the same or different "kinds."

[ericmurphy]

And just out of curiosity, Magellan: what are the "massive morphological differences" between an adult whale and a juvenile whale?

[Tiggy]

It's called "Trolling" - and Magellan is good at it.

I hate to say it because I like the guy, but he's hooked a big fish in eric. :shrug:

- T

[Sparko]

I hate to say it because I like the guy, but he's hooked a big fish in eric. :shrug:

- T
When people start responding to him in giant red letters, you know they are hooked.

I suggest doing the same thing to Magellan as he does and see how he likes it. Troll away!!!

[ericmurphy]

It's called "Trolling" - and Magellan is good at it.

Magellan doesn't think he's a troll. He genuinely believes what he's saying.

Which is why he's hilarious.

[ericmurphy]

I hate to say it because I like the guy, but he's hooked a big fish in eric. :shrug:

- T

I only do it because I find it entertaining. I'm well aware that many people don't find it entertaining.

I don't engage Magellan because I think he's some sort of existential threat to rational thinking. I engage him because doing so makes him say some amazingly stupid things.

[ericmurphy]

By the way, Magellan, if you think "species" can mean anything anyone wants it to mean, then why is it that no biologists believe the following pairs of organisms to be conspecific:


sheep and goats
red-tailed deer and caribou
wolves and foxes
leopards and cheetahs
chimps and bonobos
seagulls and terns


Why is it that in the vast majority of cases, there is no question (for people of normal intelligence, anyway) as to whether two organisms are the same or different species? Why is it that there are only a relatively small number of edge cases, which if speciation happens but takes place over long periods of time, is what we should observe?

Why is it that everything we observe about living organisms fits in with the predictions of evolutionary theory?

(And before you claim evolutionary theory makes no falsifiable predictions, I should tell you I have big long list of falsifiable predictions it does make.)

[magellan004]

By the way, Magellan, if you think "species" can mean anything anyone wants it to mean, then why is it that no biologists believe the following pairs of organisms to be conspecific:


sheep and goats
red-tailed deer and caribou
wolves and foxes
leopards and cheetahs
chimps and bonobos
seagulls and terns


Why is it that in the vast majority of cases, there is no question (for people of normal intelligence, anyway) as to whether two organisms are the same or different species? Why is it that there are only a relatively small number of edge cases, which if speciation happens but takes place over long periods of time, is what we should observe?

Why is it that everything we observe about living organisms fits in with the predictions of evolutionary theory?

(And before you claim evolutionary theory makes no falsifiable predictions, I should tell you I have big long list of falsifiable predictions it does make.)

Normal people do not pretend that sheep and goats are related.
Normal people do not depend on 'seagulls and terns have to be related' to see that seagulls and terns are different animals.

That evolutionists have differing and conflicting ideas about evolution is no surprise (it's a necessary consequence of evolution).

But here in this thread it's all about being clear and presenting concepts that can be tested according to the principles of science.

So can you outline clearly what speciation is without using the term 'Species'?


Speciation is where one group of individuals splits into two groups of individuals where/that....

Some suggestions -

Speciation is where one group of individuals splits into two groups of individuals where neither group contains ANY individual that can interbreed with individuals from the other group.

Speciation is where one group of individuals splits into two groups of individuals where one group contains SOME individuals that can interbreed with individuals from the other group.

Speciation is where one group of individuals splits into two groups and the composition of the two resultant groups is undefined.

They are just hints - to show how you might answer without begging the question about What does Species mean? In other words, please leave 'Species' out of your answer and state what you mean by Speciation.



Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Normal people do not pretend that sheep and goats are related.
Normal, educated people can tell sheep and goats are related by the big long list of shared characteristics. Only someone as ignorant as yourself would think they're completely unrelated, Magellan.


Normal people do not depend on 'seagulls and terns have to be related' to see that seagulls and terns are different animals.

You and your sister are different people. Does that mean you're not related?


That evolutionists have differing and conflicting ideas about evolution is no surprise (it's a necessary consequence of evolution).

It's a necessary consequence of being a member of the reality-based community.


But here in this thread it's all about being clear and presenting concepts that can be tested according to the principles of science.

Being clear is anathema to you, Magellan. You thrive in darkness and ambiguity, like some kind of intellectual fungus.


So can you outline clearly what speciation is without using the term 'Species'?


"Speciation": The process during which a population of freely-interbreeding organisms becomes divided into reproductively-isolated subpopulations which after many generations of genetic drift become two separate freely-interbreeding populations between which interbreeding is no longer possible.

See the word "species" in there anywhere, champ?



Speciation is where one group of individuals splits into two groups of individuals where/that....

Some suggestions -

Speciation is where one group of individuals splits into two groups of individuals where neither group contains ANY individual that can interbreed with individuals from the other group.

Speciation is where one group of individuals splits into two groups of individuals where one group contains SOME individuals that can interbreed with individuals from the other group.

Speciation is where one group of individuals splits into two groups and the composition of the two resultant groups is undefined.

They are just hints - to show how you might answer without begging the question about What does Species mean? In other words, please leave 'Species' out of your answer and state what you mean by Speciation.

I really didn't need your help, Magellan.

[ericmurphy]

And by the way, Magellan: how do you tell whether two organisms are the same "kind," or different "kinds"?

I imagine it will take you even longer to answer this question than it will take you to answer the whales-and-mice question.

[Roy]

You and your sister are different people. Does that mean you're not related?

In magellan004's case it's entirely possible that he and his sister are the grandchildren of non-overlapping sets of grandparents.

Roy

[magellan004]

"Speciation": The process during which a population of freely-interbreeding organisms becomes divided into reproductively-isolated subpopulations which after many generations of genetic drift become two separate freely-interbreeding populations between which interbreeding is no longer possible.

See the word "species" in there anywhere, champ?
I really didn't need your help, Magellan.

Yes I do and so Yes you did need my help.

Remember that your 'Population' definition depends on 'Species'?
I'll clean up your definition of Speciation -


"Speciation": The process during which a group of individual organisms that can freely-interbreed becomes divided into reproductively-isolated groups of individual organisms which after many generations of genetic drift becomes two groups of individual organisms that can freely-interbreed within their own group but between which individual organisms can no longer interbreed.

If you are happy with that let me know and we can proceed.

Fair warning - this will prevent you from saying stuff like 'There are many definitions of species we can use' because we won't need any other definitions - it's all in the above definition of Speciation. That's the beauty of not begging the question.

Also , if you think you might have to rely on 'Do you think an infertile female belongs to a separate group?' you had better tighten up the definition of Speciation above because using the above definition means we both accept that we are talking about a capacity or ability for potential breeding in that 'kind or type of animal'.

Once we agree on these terms I will proceed to show that 'accumulated change' does not cause Speciation (if you are interested.)


Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Yes I do and so Yes you did need my help.

Really? Can you bold the word "species" in this text?


"The process during which a population of freely-interbreeding organisms becomes divided into reproductively-isolated subpopulations which after many generations of genetic drift become two separate freely-interbreeding populations between which interbreeding is no longer possible."

Because it's not there.

The word simply does not appear in that definition—and I can't get help from the helpless. I didn't even read your hapless attempts at help until I'd already written my explanation.


Remember that your 'Population' definition depends on 'Species'?
I remember no such thing because it does no such thing.

A "population" as I have defined it is "a group of freely-interbreeding organisms where gene flow is much higher within that group than between it and other groups."

Where's the word "species" in there, Magellan?



I'll clean up your definition of Speciation -


"Speciation": The process during which a group of individual organisms that can freely-interbreed becomes divided into reproductively-isolated groups of individual organisms which after many generations of genetic drift becomes two groups of individual organisms that can freely-interbreed within their own group but between which individual organisms can no longer interbreed.

All you did was replace "population" with "groups of individual organisms that can freely interbreed," but leave out the part of the definition that includes "where gene flow is higher within the group than it is between it and other groups." How does that "clean" anything up, Magellan? It makes matters worse. It makes matters ambiguous. A group of wolves mountain lions is a "group of individuals that can freely-interbreed." Wolves can breed with wolves, and mountain lions can breed with mountain lions. Can "speciation" occur with such a group?

As I said earlier, you thrive on darkness and ambiguity, like some sort of intellectual fungus. You try to remove precision wherever possible and replace it with ambiguity.


If you are happy with that let me know and we can proceed.

Of course I'm not "happy" with it. Contrary to your claims that you are interested in "being clear and presenting concepts that can be tested according to the principles of science," it's pretty obvious your intent is to be as ambiguous and unclear as it is possible to be without just typing random characters on your keyboard.


Fair warning - this will prevent you from saying stuff like 'There are many definitions of species we can use' because we won't need any other definitions - it's all in the above definition of Speciation. That's the beauty of not begging the question.

Fair warning: my definition of "speciation" doesn't use the term "species," but it DOES refer to a specific type of group of organisms. Not just any type of organisms. The group of organisms living on the North American continent is a "group of individual organisms." Such a group does not undergo speciation.


Also , if you think you might have to rely on 'Do you think an infertile female belongs to a separate group?' you had better tighten up the definition of Speciation above because using the above definition means we both accept that we are talking about a capacity or ability for potential breeding in that 'kind or type of animal'.

My definition of speciation is just fine as it is. Having infertile members of a population does not affect that definition in the slightest. And we're not both going to use the broken, useless definition of speciation you provided because it is so ambiguous as to be worthless.

You complain that the term "species" is ambiguous—which evolutionary theory predicts it will be—and then replace every relevant term you can find with maximally-ambiguous replacements.

You are many things, Magellan, but honest is not one of them. Hypocritical, though—that you definitely are.


Once we agree on these terms
We've never going to agree on those terms, because your terms are worthless.


I will proceed to show that 'accumulated change' does not cause Speciation (if you are interested.)

You will show no such thing, because you have not the first idea what you're talking about. Virtually every single statement you make is riddled with inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and breathtaking stupidity.

[ericmurphy]

Still no answer from Magellan as to how we tell whether two organisms are the same "kind" or different "kinds." Nor will there ever be one.

[Faid]

Let me get this straight. Mags thinks that, if species are implied in a definition of speciation, then that definition is begging the question?

You know, like it's begging the question if say, the definition of liquefaction implies liquids?

Or if the definition of crystallization implies crystals?

Or if the definition of metamorphosis implies forms?

[ericmurphy]

"Speciation" begs the question of whether or not species exist.
"Species" begs the question of whether populations exist.
"Population" begs the question of whether groups of freely-interbreeding organisms exist.
"Groups of freely interbreeding organisms" begs the question of whether organisms exist.

Any definition begs the question of whether the concept being defined exists. If we played by Magellan's rules, no word could be defined at all.

[lao tzu]

I hate to say it because I like the guy, but he's hooked a big fish in eric. :shrug:

- T

I've said it myself.


Magellan doesn't think he's a troll.

Yes, he does.


He genuinely believes what he's saying.

No, he doesn't. Well, not often enough to matter, anyway.


Which is why he's hilarious.

Not laughter.

Mags has a talent for word games. He's good at it. "Mendel's son." It's what makes him a great troll. Pin him down and he'll find the exact phrase to omit, muddle, or miscomprehend with a specificity that's awesome to behold.

With respect, Eric, there are many of us now who think you should stop allowing him to use you as his foil.

As ever, Jesse

[ericmurphy]

I've said it myself.



Yes, he does.

Frankly, whether he actually believes what he's saying or not is a matter of utter indifference to me.


No, he doesn't. Well, not often enough to matter, anyway.

Whether he does or doesn't…


Not laughter.

Chaq' un a son goût. If you don't enjoy it, don't read the thread.


Mags has a talent for word games. He's good at it.
I disagree.


"Mendel's son." It's what makes him a great troll. Pin him down and he'll find the exact phrase to omit, muddle, or miscomprehend with a specificity that's awesome to behold.

With respect, Eric, there are many of us now who think you should stop allowing him to use you as his foil.

I'm using Magellan at least as much as he's using me. I've never, ever been able to get any other creationist to say things as utterly, dumbfoundingly stupid as the things Magellan says on a regular basis.

But if I stopped responding to him, then what? Magellan goes away? Is that what you want? I thought you think he's a great troll. I guarantee if no one interacts with him, or doesn't address his "arguments," he'll leave.

Magellan stays out of most threads on this forum. So do I. We're both pretty avoidable if you don't like our posts. I'm here for my own entertainment, not that of others.

[sylas]

Mags has a talent for word games. He's good at it. "Mendel's son." It's what makes him a great troll. Pin him down and he'll find the exact phrase to omit, muddle, or miscomprehend with a specificity that's awesome to behold.

I'm persuaded on this point. The thread has recently imploded completely and Mags is simply into continuous deliberate obfuscation, rather than raising questions which were able to be addressed and answered in a way that gave some value in the thread.

So I'm not interested in it for the time being. (Though I remain subscribed.) But if other folks want to engage, I don't think there's a problem; I don't think others "should" stop.

Lao Tze, I have in mind a post to continue our exchange on species, but it's really low priority for the moment. Might never happen. Or one day I might post a thread on the nature of discreteness and spectrums in biology and species, in more general terms that can stand alone, and a link back to the posts which prompted it.

Cheers -- sylas

[ericmurphy]

This is definitely not a thread for serious discussion of ideas. No Magellan thread is.

This thread is, however, an interesting exploration of the limitations of the RWA mindset, for those who have an interest in such things.

[lao tzu]

Lao Tze, I have in mind a post to continue our exchange on species, but it's really low priority for the moment. Might never happen. Or one day I might post a thread on the nature of discreteness and spectrums in biology and species, in more general terms that can stand alone, and a link back to the posts which prompted it.

That would be great. Make sure to drop me a PM if you do.

There've been some quality exchanges in this thread, notwithstanding the implosions. But we're approaching a thousand posts now, and it's time to bring out the coffee. I'm unsubscribing. There's nothing left unsaid here.

As ever, Jesse

[rogero]

Quick question and possibly irrelevant, but has I'm-Gellin' posted his alternative theory to evilution? Is he a 24/7 6Ka YE creationist or a Scofield Gapper or a some kind of mystical OEC? Heya 'Gellin' --- STAND AND DELIVER!!!!

Roger

[Faid]

There is a crucial difference between a troll and an internet wise-ass. Both know their claims are wrong, but the troll is not interested in actually winning an argument; the internet wise-ass is. The troll simply posts intentional fallacies and flame-provoking posts to stir responses and animosity. The wise-ass uses every dirty little trick in his book to confuse his opponents, obfuscate the discussion and come out on top.

I believe Mags is the latter, although he looks a lot like the former.

[ericmurphy]

Quick question and possibly irrelevant, but has I'm-Gellin' posted his alternative theory to evilution? Is he a 24/7 6Ka YE creationist or a Scofield Gapper or a some kind of mystical OEC? Heya 'Gellin' --- STAND AND DELIVER!!!!

Roger

He doesn't have one. But he is very, very sure evolution is wrong.

Of course it's wrong. Scientists believe it. What more need be said?

[magellan004]

Remember that your 'Population' definition depends on 'Species'?

I remember no such thing because it does no such thing.

A "population" as I have defined it is "a group of freely-interbreeding organisms where gene flow is much higher within that group than between it and other groups."

Where's the word "species" in there, Magellan?
It's here -

"Population" can mean different things in different contexts. In the context of this discussion (or essentially any discussion I'm likely to have in Nat Sci301), "population" simply means a group of organisms of the same species among which reproduction is essentially unrestricted. (that was from Feb 27th Australian time)

I changed this -


"The process during which a population of freely-interbreeding organisms becomes divided into reproductively-isolated subpopulations which after many generations of genetic drift become two separate freely-interbreeding populations between which interbreeding is no longer possible."
to this -

"Speciation": The process during which a group of individual organisms that can freely-interbreed becomes divided into reproductively-isolated groups of individual organisms which after many generations of genetic drift becomes two groups of individual organisms that can freely-interbreed within their own group but between which individual organisms can no longer interbreed.
Then you say -

All you did was replace "population" with "groups of individual organisms that can freely interbreed," but leave out the part of the definition that includes "where gene flow is higher within the group than it is between it and other groups."

I did not leave it out . You never had that in your definition to start with!

You are wasting my time.

Magellan

[magellan004]

Let me get this straight. Mags thinks that, if species are implied in a definition of speciation, then that definition is begging the question?

You know, like it's begging the question if say, the definition of liquefaction implies liquids?

Or if the definition of crystallization implies crystals?

Or if the definition of metamorphosis implies forms?


A. What is a crystal?
B. There are many meanings of crystal.
A. So when you say crystallisation - what forms ?
B. Crystals.

Perhaps you can give me an example of a scientifically testable process that produces a result/effect where that result 'depends on your definition'.

And if you reply 'Speciation' or 'Evolution' then you would be begging the question.

Magellan

[magellan004]

I'm persuaded on this point. The thread has recently imploded completely and Mags is simply into continuous deliberate obfuscation, rather than raising questions which were able to be addressed and answered in a way that gave some value in the thread.

So I'm not interested in it for the time being. (Though I remain subscribed.) But if other folks want to engage, I don't think there's a problem; I don't think others "should" stop.

Lao Tze, I have in mind a post to continue our exchange on species, but it's really low priority for the moment. Might never happen. Or one day I might post a thread on the nature of discreteness and spectrums in biology and species, in more general terms that can stand alone, and a link back to the posts which prompted it.

Cheers -- sylas

Your arrogance led you to conclude that a scientific issue was beyond question.
No issues in science are beyond question. A Natural Science discussion thread is worth less than tuppence if the assumption is that the topic is 'beyond question'.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

It's here -
(that was from Feb 27th Australian time)

I changed this -

to this -

Then you say -


I did not leave it out . You never had that in your definition to start with!

Really? The part about gene flow was never part of the definition of "population"? You sure about that?

Then what's this?


A more precise definition is: "Speciation" is the process whereby one group of individual organisms which can freely interbreed splits into two different groups of individuals between which mixing of genetic material no longer naturally occurs, either due to genetic incompatibility or due to other differences (behavioral, territorial, etc.)


You are wasting my time.

Magellan

Then LEAVE, Magellan. No one is forcing you to post here.

It's not that you object to the use of specific words. You object to the use of specific concepts. Even when those concepts are necessary to discuss the concepts you claim you want to discuss!

What exactly is your point here, Magellan? We define words in terms of other words. You don't want us to do that. You want to talk about "speciation"—that's the subject of this thread, isn't it?—but you don't want us to use the term "species." You want us to talk about "speciation" without talking about "populations." You want us to talk about "speciation" without any mention of "gene flow." How is that going to work? You don't like "species" so we use the term "group of organisms among which gene flow occurs or can occur." You don't like the term "gene flow."

I'm frankly surprised you don't object to the use of the term "organism."

You don't like any words that actually mean anything.

How do you propose we discuss evolution without discussing, speciation, species, gene flow, or populations? All of those terms are central to the notion of how evolutionary change occurs.

What words are allowed under Magellan rules, Magellan? Any? You want us to tell you how you get from a group of beetles which can all interbreed to a group of beetles some of which can interbreed but others can't, but we're not allowed to use any of the words necessary to convey the relevant concepts.

Meanwhile, you have been manifestly unable to come up with a single coherent criticism of my explanation of how that happens. They only criticism you've managed to engage in is literary criticism.

A RWA postmodernist, it would seem.

[ericmurphy]

A. What is a crystal?
B. There are many meanings of crystal.
A. So when you say crystallisation - what forms ?
B. Crystals.

Perhaps you can give me an example of a scientifically testable process that produces a result/effect where that result 'depends on your definition'.

And if you reply 'Speciation' or 'Evolution' then you would be begging the question.

Magellan

Wow.

After spending essentially this entire thread whining about "definitions," Magellan now claims that definitions aren't important.

Magellan is many things, but consistent isn't one of them either.

[ericmurphy]

Your arrogance led you to conclude that a scientific issue was beyond question.
Your stupidity led you to conclude it wasn't.

Despite all of your weaseling, you've never been able to demonstrate the slightest doubt that whales and mice are different species. You've never been able to demonstrate that except in a small minority of cases, it is trivially easy to tell whether or not two organisms are the same or different species (in the minority of cases where the term applies in the first place).


No issues in science are beyond question. A Natural Science discussion thread is worth less than tuppence if the assumption is that the topic is 'beyond question'.

There most certainly are. It's beyond question, for example, that the existence of black swans falsifies the notion that all swans are white.

But for some reason you think there's some question on that issue.

No one here is arguing that the notion of speciation is "beyond question" (although it's certainly "settled science"). But you're questioning the very existence of species in the first place.

No rational person doubts that species exist. But then, you're not exactly a rational person.

[Theostudent]

Then LEAVE, Magellan. No one is forcing you to post here.

It would me much better if you left sir, you are lucky you are protected by a wall of n00bishness over at Talk Rational, but I am coming for you, once they release the Commander, be afraid Eric.

Keep these N00bs in derision Magellan, you are doing great work my good sir.

- Pwner of Noobs A.K.A. Commander Shepard

[rogero]

He doesn't have one. But he is very, very sure evolution is wrong.

Of course it's wrong. Scientists believe it. What more need be said?

But in my narrow-minded binary logic there has to be an a alternate hypothesis. If it's not a form of creationism, do you place your bets (after Faid) on "troll" or "wise-ass-ism?"

[ericmurphy]

But in my narrow-minded binary logic there has to be an a alternate hypothesis. If it's not a form of creationism, do you place your bets (after Faid) on "troll" or "wise-ass-ism?"

I put it on fear and hatred of science and scientists, and hence a refusal to accept anything proposed by either one.

Magellan isn't interested in advancing an alternative hypothesis. He's just interested in rejecting the consensus hypothesis. You'll note that at no time in this thread does he ever say how he thinks there came to be more than one colored beetle. Nor does he ever marshall any evidence contrary to the consensus hypothesis. He doesn't really even argue against them, other than by assertion. Example: his claim that accumulations of mutations cannot lead to speciation. He asserts that interfertility is either 100% or 0, an assertion that is demonstrably untrue, and that there can only be one mutation's difference between complete interfertility and complete lack of interfertility, an assertion that is also demonstrably untrue (most human children differ from their parents with at least 150 mutations that are present in neither parent). He never actually answers objections to his own claims, and he never proposes any alternative explanation for any observation.

But he does have a tendency to say astoundingly stupid things, which is why I personally find him entertaining.

[rogero]

I put it on fear and hatred of science and scientists, and hence a refusal to accept anything proposed by either one.

Magellan isn't interested in advancing an alternative hypothesis. He's just interested in rejecting the consensus hypothesis.

He is a sad little man. STAND and DELIVER, sad little man! I'm not a nihilist so I need to see you posit something positive.

Roger

P.S. The Sad Little Man (SLM) is Magellan, not you, Eric. :-)

[magellan004]

It would me much better if you left sir, you are lucky you are protected by a wall of n00bishness over at Talk Rational, but I am coming for you, once they release the Commander, be afraid Eric.

Keep these N00bs in derision Magellan, you are doing great work my good sir.

- Pwner of Noobs A.K.A. Commander Shepard

Thank you Theo!
Take care.

Magellan

[rogero]

Thank you Theo!
Take care.

Magellan


Sad Little Man (SLM henceforth),

What is your protological view?

Thanks!

Roger

[magellan004]

I put it on fear and hatred of science and scientists, and hence a refusal to accept anything proposed by either one.

Magellan isn't interested in advancing an alternative hypothesis. He's just interested in rejecting the consensus hypothesis. You'll note that at no time in this thread does he ever say how he thinks there came to be more than one colored beetle. Nor does he ever marshall any evidence contrary to the consensus hypothesis. He doesn't really even argue against them, other than by assertion. Example: his claim that accumulations of mutations cannot lead to speciation. He asserts that interfertility is either 100% or 0, an assertion that is demonstrably untrue, and that there can only be one mutation's difference between complete interfertility and complete lack of interfertility, an assertion that is also demonstrably untrue (most human children differ from their parents with at least 150 mutations that are present in neither parent). He never actually answers objections to his own claims, and he never proposes any alternative explanation for any observation.

But he does have a tendency to say astoundingly stupid things, which is why I personally find him entertaining.

The only way there could be more than one coloured Beetle is if there were at least two Beetles to start with. You may have forgotten, (given your penchant for ignoring that groups of animals are composed of individuals that had a pair of parents) that the only way to get a number of newly coloured Beetles (Beetles with a novel colour) is to start with the first Beetle to have that colour and for that Beetle's offspring to breed (with different coloured Beetles at the start) .

But that's all beyond you. You seem to think that groups can mate and have a child 'group'.

For the purposes of this discussion I have always accepted that differences/change results in different coloured Beetles.


He asserts that interfertility is either 100% or 0, I am not sure I made that comment (you didn't give a reference) but that's true in the context of the claim that 'Species is a classification of animals that can interbreed.'

Otherwise that definition automatically becomes nonsense - 'Species is a classification of animals where some of the animals can interbreed.'

That would place Whales and Mice in with the whale species. In a group of whales and mice, some of the animals can interbreeed. True, therefore = Species.


(Magellan claims) there can only be one mutation's difference between complete interfertility and complete lack of interfertility,

Not true (but it's really the only way your system can work - and it leads to not-credible results) . I have said that one difference between a parent and child must (acording to evolution) result in that child not being able to breed with animals that the parent could breed with. It doesn't matter how many differences the parent has accumulated. If the parent can breed with Brown Beetles (for example) and the child cannot , then there is one difference separating child and parent. How could it work otherwise? It's just a mathematical fact.

For example with humans - today all humans can interbreed with other humans. The only way speciation could happen is if tomorrow two parents had a child that could not breed with say, pygmies. The parents can breed with pygmies. The child cannot. One difference separates them. Only one- the inability to breed with pygmies.

Why would a child be born with that 'difference'? It makes no sense.
That is the only way a new species of 'humans' could start. And the idea that species could grow out of that process is even more bizarre because it means that all 'old type' humans would have to be wiped out and the 'new type' remain becuase of only one factor - the inability of new-types to interbreed with pygmies.


This is the inevitable and necessary result of evolution.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

The only way there could be more than one coloured Beetle is if there were at least two Beetles to start with.
The only way you could ever have any beetles after the first generation is if you had at least two beetles to start with.

So that's not exactly a penetrating observation, Magellan.


You may have forgotten, (given your penchant for ignoring that groups of animals are composed of individuals that had a pair of parents)
Actually, that's my position, not yours. You don't even seem to believe that members of an individual species are related by common descent. Apparently you think some of them just "poof" into existence.


that the only way to get a number of newly coloured Beetles (Beetles with a novel colour) is to start with the first Beetle to have that colour and for that Beetle's offspring to breed (with different coloured Beetles at the start) .

Where is any of this helping you, Magellan?


But that's all beyond you. You seem to think that groups can mate and have a child 'group'.

Actually, no. That was you. You were the one who thought taxa could mate and have baby taxa, remember?

You also seem to have this decidedly peculiar notion that beetles have single offspring, rather than the dozens to hundreds they actually have. Who knows where you got that idea.


For the purposes of this discussion I have always accepted that differences/change results in different coloured Beetles.

You seem to think that each difference is the result of a single mutation. That's another weird idea you got from who knows where.


I am not sure I made that comment (you didn't give a reference) but that's true in the context of the claim that 'Species is a classification of animals that can interbreed.'

No it's not, moron. We have plentiful examples of hybridization where interfertility is somewhere between 100% and 0. In fact, in any population fertility, to say nothing of interfertility, is somewhere between 100% and 0. In humans fertility is somewhere between 100% and 0.

Another bizarre notion you can neither argue for nor support with evidence.


Otherwise that definition automatically becomes nonsense - 'Species is a classification of animals where some of the animals can interbreed.'

What's "nonsensical" about it, Magellan? In any population there are always members which are infertile. Explain why it's impossible to have a population where some members are infertile.


That would place Whales and Mice in with the whale species. In a group of whales and mice, some of the animals can interbreeed. True, therefore = Species.

Really? Some whales can interbreed with some mice?

I'd like to see that happening.


Not true (but it's really the only way your system can work - and it leads to not-credible results) .
You keep saying that, but of course it's demonstrably untrue. Even the direct offspring of a mating pair differ by far more than a single mutation.

Just more and more bizarre notions. It seems like not one thing Magellan thinks is true actually is true.


I have said that one difference between a parent and child must (acording to evolution) result in that child not being able to breed with animals that the parent could breed with.
Where are you getting this from, Magellan? Where on earth do you get the idea that a single genetic difference, and ONLY single genetic difference, is the only way to produce a lack of interfertility? And where on earth do you get the notion that speciation requires an organism be unable to breed with members of its parents' generation? These are absolutely preposterous claims without even the semblance of an argument to support them.

You differ from your parents by a lot more than a single mutation, Magellan. Are you unable to interbreed with women of your parents' generation? Why is that?


It doesn't matter how many differences the parent has accumulated. If the parent can breed with Brown Beetles (for example) and the child cannot , then there is one difference separating child and parent. How could it work otherwise? It's just a mathematical fact.

Yet ANOTHER unevidenced assertion without even an attempt at an argument. Can you even being to explain how this could happen, Magellan? We already know the mutation rate for humans, and it's much higher than one mutation per generation. If you were correct, no human could interbreed with any other human, and humans would have long since gone extinct!

Do you think there is only a one-mutation difference between the human genome and the chimp genome?


For example with humans - today all humans can interbreed with other humans. The only way speciation could happen is if tomorrow two parents had a child that could not breed with say, pygmies.
Why on earth would anyone think speciation could possibly happen tomorrow, Magellan? How many times do we have to tell you that it takes hundreds of thousands of generations for speciation to happen? If you took a population of humans—say, a hundred thousand of them—and reproductively isolated them from the rest of the population, it would be hundreds of thousands of years before they would lose interfertility with other humans! And you expect it to happen tomorrow?

You have more crazy ideas than any other creationist I have ever seen.


The parents can breed with pygmies. The child cannot. One difference separates them. Only one- the inability to breed with pygmies.

Humans can't interbreed with bonobos. Do you think there's only "one difference" between humans and bonobos? If we looked at the genomes of both, do you think they would be identical except for one single difference?

Are you really that daft?


Why would a child be born with that 'difference'? It makes no sense.

It sure doesn't. But you seem to think that's how speciation is supposed to work. No wonder you don't think it works.

Are you ever going to explain why a hundred thousand different mutations can't cause a lack of interfertility, but one and only one mutation can and must?

I seriously doubt it.


That is the only way a new species of 'humans' could start.
Why? Explain why, Magellan. Explain how it could be that there can only be a single mutation separating one species from another. We already know that any two humans differ by vastly more than a single mutation.


And the idea that species could grow out of that process is even more bizarre because it means that all 'old type' humans would have to be wiped out and the 'new type' remain becuase of only one factor - the inability of new-types to interbreed with pygmies.

Why would that have to happen, Magellan? Do you think lions have to be "wiped out" in order for tigers to exist?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone with a more ludicrous misunderstanding of what speciation is.

But do continue; it's richly entertaining.


This is the inevitable and necessary result of evolution.

What? That speciation happens in a single day?

[ericmurphy]

Speaking of beetles, famed biologist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked if studying biology had taught him anything about the Creator, replied, "I'm really not sure, except that He must be inordinately fond of beetles."

Is that where beetles came from, Magellan? Did God really, individually create more than 300,000 species of beetles?

[magellan004]

Why would that have to happen, Magellan? Do you think lions have to be "wiped out" in order for tigers to exist?

If tigers and lions were living together, interbreeding, then for all tigers to end up unable to interbreed with lions, all tigers that could interbreed with lions have to have been wiped out.

That's just simple mathematics.

You keep misrepresenting what I say because the consequences are undeniable - evolution is unworkable. You must distort and ridicule otherwise you have to face the simple truth.


Here's the situation -

1. Today on Beetle Island we have Brown Beetles and Green Beetles living together unable to interbreed.
2. For a Green Beetle to be unable to breed with a Brown Beetle, these Green Beetle have one and only one difference to their ancestors that were able to interbreed with Brown Beetles.
3. The Green Beetles ancestor type was all wiped out.
4. Those ancestor Beetles were wiped out for one reason only - they had the ability to interbreed with Brown Beetles.

No wonder you can't cope. The implications are absurd.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

If tigers and lions were living together, interbreeding, then for all tigers to end up unable to interbreed with lions, all tigers that could interbreed with lions have to have been wiped out.

That's just simple mathematics.

Uh, No.

First, in case you haven't noticed, Magellan, lions and tigers do not live together, and in fact that's how allopatric speciation happens. But there are known examples of sympatric speciation anyway. I don't know what kind of "mathematics" you think are involved, but they're wrong to the extent they're not non-existent.


You keep misrepresenting what I say because the consequences are undeniable - evolution is unworkable.

I don't have to "misrepresent" what you say, Magellan. Your words are right here in this thread, so that anyone who wants to can marvel at their incomparable vacuity.


You must distort and ridicule otherwise you have to face the simple truth.

Which is what, Magellan? That you haven't made a single coherent argument against evolutionary theory in much more than a year of trying? When you say things like the only possible way speciation can happen is if there is one and only one mutation difference from one generation to the next, it's hardly necessary to "distort" your words.


Here's the situation -

1. Today on Beetle Island we have Brown Beetles and Green Beetles living together unable to interbreed.
And why is it impossible for one of these species to be invasive, or to have arisen elsewhere? Why is that impossible, Magellan?


2. For a Green Beetle to be unable to breed with a Brown Beetle, these Green Beetle have one and only one difference to their ancestors that were able to interbreed with Brown Beetles.
Why? You keep saying this, but you can't explain why. You, Magellan, have way more than one difference from either of your parents. And yet you can still interbreed with members of your parents' generation. How is that possible?


3. The Green Beetles ancestor type was all wiped out.
You mean they died. So? Everything dies eventually. What happens if the gene that causes green pigment goes to fixation in a population that was originally all brown? Why is this a problem? You keep SAYING it's a problem, but you can't explain why.


4. Those ancestor Beetles were wiped out for one reason only - they had the ability to interbreed with Brown Beetles.

But there are still green beetles today, Magellan. You said so yourself. So in what way were green beetles "wiped out"?

You just get more and more incoherent, as your "case" against speciation collapses.


No wonder you can't cope.
What can't I "cope" with, Magellan? So far you haven't given me even the slightest reason to doubt speciation happens. You haven't pointed out a single problem with my explanation of how speciation works. All you've done is repeated your own idiotic misapprehension of how it's supposed to happen. Sure, your version of speciation is unworkable.

But your reason bears no resemblance to reality anyway.


The implications are absurd.

They sure are. If I thought speciation happens the way you seem to think it happens, I'd think it's absurd, too.

[ericmurphy]

How do you tell whether or not two organisms are the same "kind," or different "kinds," Magellan?

I'm going to keep asking you this. You don't have to answer it, but everyone's going to see you not answering it.

[Faid]

A. What is a crystal?
B. There are many meanings of crystal.
A. So when you say crystallisation - what forms ?
B. Crystals. Since no one is saying anything like that, what's your point?


Perhaps you can give me an example of a scientifically testable process that produces a result/effect where that result 'depends on your definition'.Sure. To use examples I'm more familiar with- How about Life and Death? Doesn't the process of emergence of an individual life, and of its end, defend on how we define the term 'Life'? Or, how about the emergence of self-awareness, or intelligence, or whatever makes us human?

Are you seriously saying that the process leading to a specific term does not depend on the meaning of that term? Are you basically denying the usefulnes of defining things?


And if you reply 'Speciation' or 'Evolution' then you would be begging the question.Sigh. OK, time for another Logic lesson.

Mags, definitions are not arguments. Definitions cannot "beg the question", because there is no question to be begged.

Essentially, all definitions are tautologies. Surprised? You shouldn't be. Because they aren't mere tautologies, they are tautologies formed in a way that advances our information and knowledge on a subject.

For example: "Crystallization is the forming of crystals" is not a proper or useful definition, it says nothing more than "making crystals is making crystalls". However, "crystallization is the process by which matter obtains properties X, Y and Z" (where X,Y,Z essentially define 'crystal'), IS a proper definition, since it increases our knowledge on the subject. Both statements are the logical equivalent of "making crystals is making crystals", but the second one actually tells us something about the term discussed. And that is what definitions are supposed to do.


Hope that helps. No wait, actually I could care less if that helps or not. Your ignorance is your fault, if you really wanted to learn anything (instead of just trying to "win at teh internets" you would have begun the effort by now.

[magellan004]

For example: "Crystallization is the forming of crystals" is not a proper or useful definition, it says nothing more than "making crystals is making crystalls". However, "crystallization is the process by which matter obtains properties X, Y and Z" (where X,Y,Z essentially define 'crystal'), IS a proper definition, since it increases our knowledge on the subject. Both statements are the logical equivalent of "making crystals is making crystals", but the second one actually tells us something about the term discussed. And that is what definitions are supposed to do.

That's good.
That helps.

1. 'Speciation is the process of forming species' = begging the question of what a species is.
It tells us nothing.
2. 'A population is a group of individuals of one species'
'Speciation is the process of populations splitting into two species. ' = Dumbo.

We agree. That's great.

Here is a clear definition of Speciation-

Speciation is the process whereby one group of individuals which can interbreed splits into two groups of individuals where the members of one group cannot breed with the other group.'

Happy with that?
If not , pinpoint what is wrong and present a clearer definition.


Magellan

[ericmurphy]

That's good.
That helps.

1. 'Speciation is the process of forming species' = begging the question of what a species is.
Obviously it didn't help. You're still confusing a "definition" with an explanation. As Faid points out, definitions cannot "beg questions," because there is no question pending.


It tells us nothing.
2. 'A population is a group of individuals of one species'
'Speciation is the process of populations splitting into two species. ' = Dumbo.

We agree. That's great.

As usual, Magellan pretends to have agreement on some idiot point he's making where there is in fact no agreement.


Here is a clear definition of Speciation-

Speciation is the process whereby one group of individuals which can interbreed splits into two groups of individuals where the members of one group cannot breed with the other group.'

Happy with that?

You weren't asking for a definition of speciation. You were asking for an explanation for how it happens. An explanation you've been given repeatedly. You cannot find any problem with that explanation, so instead you engage in literary criticism, objecting to specific terms, such as "species," "population," "gene flow," "geographic isolation," etc., all of which have been defined for you repeatedly.


If not , pinpoint what is wrong and present a clearer definition.

We're not arguing over the definition of speciation, Magellan.

[Faid]

That's good.
That helps.

1. 'Speciation is the process of forming species' = begging the question of what a species is.
It tells us nothing.Wrong already. I told you, definitions don't 'beg the question'. Definitions are not arguments.

2. 'A population is a group of individuals of one species'
'Speciation is the process of populations splitting into two species. ' = Dumbo.What's that even supposed to be?

We agree. That's great.


Here is a clear definition of Speciation-

Speciation is the process whereby one group of individuals which can interbreed splits into two groups of individuals where the members of one group cannot breed with the other group.'

Happy with that? You know what, I actually would be, if I didn't know you. Between people debating honestly, who will agree on specific terms, it is a useful statement. But that is if we understand some very basic things, like that we are dealing with living organisms, who undergo birth and developemental growth, and reproduce sexually (in the case of beetles), and so on.

Unfortunately, we are dealing with you, whose sole aim is to confuse and obfuscate. SO, accepting that definition will immeditely lead to you saying inanities like f.e. that the egg is not the same species as the chicken (morphological differences, can't breed), or that the females of a population are not the same species, since they can't breed with each other, and so on.

For you, a definiton of speciation will require definitions of polulations, developement, growth, sex and probably life. At that point, it will be complicated enough to be a full explanation of speciation. Something you were given multiple times already.

If not , pinpoint what is wrong and present a clearer definition.
See above. If you didn't try to hack at the definition by pretending we have no concept of how living organisms appear and behave, we could accept that. In the meantime, how about the definition Eric offered?

[ericmurphy]

As far as I can tell, these are Magellan's problems with my explanation of how speciation happens:



He doesn't like the fact that the term "species" is not precisely defined
He doesn't understand what the term "population" means, and how it differs from the term "species."
He doesn't understand what the term "gene flow" means
He thinks if a new species forms, the previous species must be "wiped out"
He thinks interfertility (and fertility) must be either 100% or 0
He thinks there can only be a single-mutation difference between sister taxa



is a prediction of evolutionary theory. Since species are not static, but are in a more or less constant state of flux, there are frequently no sharp boundaries between species
has been explained to him repeatedly. A species may be made up of multiple populations. E.g. two groups of a particular species of rat, one in Kuala Lampur and one in Stockholm, may be different populations if there is very low or zero exchange of genetic information (i.e., "gene flow") between the two groups.
has been explained to him repeatedly. Gene flow occurs within or between a group or groups of organisms if successful reproduction (which necessarily results in the transfer of genetic information) within that group or between those groups occurs.
is nonsensical. If speciation is the result of geographic isolation, what happens to one subpopulation has no effect on what happens to the other. In the case of sympatric speciation, there is absolutely no reason why both subpopulations cannot continue to thrive and diverge genetically. In cases of anagenesis, it is simply the case that one variety may out-reproduce the other one. No matter what happens, all but the most recent ancestors of any population are no longer alive. In the case of Magellan's beetles, it is doubtful that anything beyond the three most recent generations are alive at the same time. All of the ancestors of those beetles have been "wiped out." By death. Death happens.
is clearly false. Even with a particular mating pair, some matings might result in offspring, and others might not. Within a population, different individuals will have varying levels of fertility. Between two populations, interfertility may be nearly 100% (two populations of the same species) or zero (two populations of different species.
There are many more than one mutation separating any individual from any of its offspring. There may be hundreds of thousands of mutations separating a species from its most closely related sister species. Humans and chimps differ genetically by between 95–99%, depending on exactly what is being measured. That equates to differences in roughly thirty million base pairs per haploid genome. That's hardly a "single mutation," despite the fact that there is no species closer to humans than chimps.


Of course, Magellan's real problem with my explanation is simply that he disagrees with anything science has to say about anything. Since evolutionary theory is proposed by scientists, it must be wrong, and hence any hypothesis subsumed within evolutionary theory must also be wrong.

[magellan004]

As far as I can tell, these are Magellan's problems with my explanation of how speciation happens:



He thinks if a new species forms, the previous species must be "wiped out"



is nonsensical. If speciation is the result of geographic isolation, what happens to one subpopulation has no effect on what happens to the other. In the case of sympatric speciation, there is absolutely no reason why both subpopulations cannot continue to thrive and diverge genetically. In cases of anagenesis, it is simply the case that one variety may out-reproduce the other one. No matter what happens, all but the most recent ancestors of any population are no longer alive. In the case of Magellan's beetles, it is doubtful that anything beyond the three most recent generations are alive at the same time. All of the ancestors of those beetles have been "wiped out." By death. Death happens.


You need to work through an example yourself to see the importance of this.
For there only to be left -Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles, all other types of Beetles must have been wiped out. That means the ancestor (type) of Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles must have been wiped out. Not just died , actually wiped out by some environmental factor that left Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles alone.

At one stage there must have existed -
Brown Beetles
Non-Brown Beetles That Can Breed With Brown Beetles
Non- Brown Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles.

Therefore at an earlier stage there must have existed -
Brown Beetles
Non-Brown Beetles That Can Breed With Brown Beetles

We end up with only -
Brown Beetles
Non-Brown Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles


What separates
Non- Brown Beetles That Can Breed With Brown Beetles and
Non- Brown Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles.?
One difference and only one difference - the inability to breed with Brown Beetles.

Therefore the inability to breed with Brown Beetles. is the cause of
Non- Brown Beetles That Can Breed With Brown Beetles all being wiped out and
Non- Brown Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles surviving.

So somehow this 'inability to breed with Brown Beetles' has produced a selective advantage. And there's no reason that such a 'thing' could ever be advantageous.

So that's a problem for evolution.



If you are having trouble getting your head around this idea of 'difference' (as opposed to mutation or trait) think about how you might program a computer simulation.

You would need a rule of this kind - 'If this unit has feature a, b c etc it can still breed with other units. If this unit has feature x then it cannot interbreed.'

So a unit might have a, b, c, d, e, f differences to another unit - they can still interbreed.
Another unit might have p, q, r, s, t, u, v differences to another unit - they can still interbreed.
But if a unit has p, q, r, s, t, u, v and x differences to another unit - they cannot interbreed.

One difference is all it takes.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

You need to work through an example yourself to see the importance of this.
Magellan, the chances you have anything to teach me about how speciation happens are zero. You have no conception about how the process works, and your misconceptions—that one species must be "wiped out" for speciation to occur, that interfertility is always 100% or 0—are comically inept.


For there only to be left -Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles, all other types of Beetles must have been wiped out.

That is an incredibly retarded thing to say, that's massively contradicted by observational reality. Lions and cheetahs cannot interbreed. That does not mean all other kinds of felid have to be "wiped out."

It would be entertaining if you could actually explain why you think the appearance of one species necessarily requires that all other species be "wiped out," but apparently that's entertainment you're going to deny us.


That means the ancestor (type) of Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles must have been wiped out. Not just died , actually wiped out by some environmental factor that left Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles alone.

Why, Magellan? You keep saying this, but you cannot even explain why you think it's the case.

Take a single population of freely interbreeding beetles. Now, interpose some reproductive barrier, like a geographical barrier, that divides that original population into two subpopulations. Each of those subpopulations continues happily interbreeding within its own members, growing more and more dissimilar from the other, until eventually no member of one population can interbreed with any member of the other population.

Where is the requirement that one of these populations be "wiped out"? Where is it? Why do you keep saying this, without being able to explain why you think it's true.


At one stage there must have existed -
Brown Beetles
Non-Brown Beetles That Can Breed With Brown Beetles
Non- Brown Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles.

Therefore at an earlier stage there must have existed -
Brown Beetles
Non-Brown Beetles That Can Breed With Brown Beetles

We end up with only -
Brown Beetles
Non-Brown Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles


What separates
Non- Brown Beetles That Can Breed With Brown Beetles and
Non- Brown Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles.?

A geographic barrier, for example. Explain why that cannot, even in principle, be the case.


One difference and only one difference - the inability to breed with Brown Beetles.

There could be millions of other differences. Look at humans and dogs. Are you saying the only difference between humans and dogs is an inability to interbreed?

This whole notion that there can only be a single difference between any populations which cannot interbreed is one of your stupidest ideas yet, Magelan.


Therefore the inability to breed with Brown Beetles. is the cause of
Non- Brown Beetles That Can Breed With Brown Beetles all being wiped out and
Non- Brown Beetles That Cannot Breed With Brown Beetles surviving.

Where is there any necessity that any kind of beetle be "wiped out," Magellan? You keep making this harebrained assertion, but you simply cannot explain why you think it is true.

Chimps and bonobos are clearly the descendants of a single ancestral species. Yet they both exist. How is that possible? According to you, only one or the other could have survived, the other necessarily having been "wiped out."

With evidence this obviously contrary to your position, I cannot believe you continue to assert it.


So somehow this 'inability to breed with Brown Beetles' has produced a selective advantage. And there's no reason that such a 'thing' could ever be advantageous.

So that's a problem for evolution.

No it's not. First, drift can drive two populations apart even with exactly the same selective pressure acting on both populations. Second, even if one population does have a selective advantage vis a vis the other, if they're in different environments then it is physically impossible for one to drive the other to extinction. They're not even competing against each other!


If you are having trouble getting your head around this idea of 'difference' (as opposed to mutation or trait) think about how you might program a computer simulation.

I know what a difference between two organisms is. You seem to have a very foggy notion of it yourself. You seem to think that the only possible difference between any two taxa is an inability to interbreed. This notion is so obviously daft I don't think it can possibly be what you think.

So maybe you can explain to us what it is you think.

Assuming you know.


You would need a rule of this kind - 'If this unit has feature a, b c etc it can still breed with other units. If this unit has feature x then it cannot interbreed.'

So a unit might have a, b, c, d, e, f differences to another unit - they can still interbreed.
Another unit might have p, q, r, s, t, u, v differences to another unit - they can still interbreed.
But if a unit has p, q, r, s, t, u, v and x differences to another unit - they cannot interbreed.

One difference is all it takes.

Wrong.

Let's make a simplified model. Two populations, A and B, that are both subpopulations of an original population X. Initially, both populations start out identical genetically. After a certain number of generations, individuals in population B differ from individuals in population A in between 100 and 10,000 thousand places. Individuals in B which differ from A in 100 places have an interfertility of 90%, meaning 9 of 10 matings result in offspring, whereas individuals in B which differ from A in 10,000 places have an interfertility of 1%, meaning 1 of 100 matings result in offspring. At a later time, some individuals in B differ from individuals in A by as many as 20,000 places, at which point interfertility is effectively zero.

As time goes on, the number of individuals in B which differ from A by only 100 places gets smaller and smaller while the number with larger numbers of differences continues to grow, such that the median number of differences (i.e., the number where there are an equal number of individuals with a smaller number and a larger number) gets higher and higher. Over time, interfertility between the populations gets lower and lower, declining from 90% some time after the initial isolation to 1% after hundreds of thousands of generations, and finally, it declines to zero, such that no member of B can interbreed with A.

So—where's the "one difference" that "prevents interbreeding," Magellan? It looks to me like you would have to pick an arbitrary number. Is interbreeding "prevented" when interfertility declines to 20%? How about 10%? 1%? Or is it only "prevented" when it gets to zero? But the number of differences can grow almost without bound once the 20,000-difference limit is reached. There could eventually be millions of "differences." Where is the "one difference" in this scenario that "prevents interbreeding"?

All of this confusion on your part is based on your misapprehension that interfertility is either 100% or 0, which is clearly not the case, before we even get to situations like with horses and donkeys, where interfertility is some number between 100% and 0 as it always is but with the added complication that the offspring of such a mating is nearly 100% of the time sterile. How would you classify the interfertility between horses and donkeys, Magellan? Is it 100%? Or is it 0? Or is it some number in between?

I don't expect you to answer these questions, because you can't. Not unless you're going to admit you're totally wrong about how speciation works, and I frankly can't see that happening.

[sylas]

This is getting back to being almost substantive again; although completely incorrect. So a quick comment...



So somehow this 'inability to breed with Brown Beetles' has produced a selective advantage. And there's no reason that such a 'thing' could ever be advantageous.


Two essential points.

The inability to cross breed does is indeed a selective advantage in many cases.
But even if it isn't; that's fine. Not everything that changes has to convey selective advantage.


For the first point, refer to the paper I cited previously in msg #562. Here's a repeat of what I said in that post, with some added emphasis.



An interesting example of this occurs when the hybrids (cross breed between the two subgroups) are less fit in the environment... less likely to survive and breed. There may be no loss of fertility involved whatever; but the reduced fitness of the hybrids means that the geneflow between the sub-populations is limited. It also means there is a selective pressure for individuals who can identify and prefer to mate with others in the same subgroup.

This is a slightly different case from the geographical isolation of populations we considered previously; it's just another way in which the geneflow gets restricted between populations and contributes to divergence and eventual speciation.

An example from the scientific literature: Jones, F.C. et. al. (2006) Reproductive isolation in a threespine stickleback hybrid zone. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16910983), J. Evol. Biol 19(5) pp 1531-44. The abstract is full of technical terms and may appear a bit daunting; but it's pretty much what I describe above.


For the second point, if a change in color is being used to identify a newly emerging species, then you must have reduced geneflow between two populations. Otherwise you simply have one population with individuals have two possible colors -- a common thing in nature.

It can happen by geographic isolation, for example. This is the simplest way geneflow stops, and contributes to circumstances in which speciation might occur. With geographic isolation, the essential point is that there is no advantage to being able to breed with a group you never meet anyway.

Natural selection is fundamentally a conservative force. It works to maintain already existing useful traits. The capacity to mix with another different population is something that will naturally and spontaneously degrade over time, given no pressure to maintain it. So really, all you need is for there to be no benefits in a capacity to cross breed, and the capacity will degrade. Even if there's no particular benefit.



So that's a problem for evolution.


As we've seen in the thread, it simply isn't possible to come up with coherent descriptions of problems with evolution while refusing to learn what evolution involves and how it works.

One of the oddities here is that Magellan is continously portraying himself in the role of an instructor, explaining concepts to people; and he clearly doesn't have anything close to the basic knowledge for that to work effectively.

Analogies and simplifications can help with explanations, or to highlight a question, or to set up a case where one particular aspect of biology stands out as significant and hence allows a useful discussion. When the thread was giving hypothetical situations and asking questions about them, there was scope for a useful exchange. When the hypothetical situations are used in the context of emphatic claims that are simply false, then it often just gets silly again.



If you are having trouble getting your head around this idea of 'difference' (as opposed to mutation or trait) think about how you might program a computer simulation.

You would need a rule of this kind - 'If this unit has feature a, b c etc it can still breed with other units. If this unit has feature x then it cannot interbreed.'


This isn't true. I've programed simple simulations from time to time to illustrate various points, and when dealing with cross breeding, the right way for a simulation to work is to deal with a percentage chance of success.

You don't just pick on one "x" as the barrier; because that isn't how biology works, in general. You might sum all the differences and use the total to modulate your fertility; that is a slightly better match to biological reality. But definitely you should be using some random chances of success which are modified by aspects of the simulation; not just an "x" that makes interbreeding impossible.

Again, the point is that you cannot hope to write a useful simulation unless you know more about what you are simulating. Magellan doesn't know enough biology to make his simulations anything but encoding his own errors. (Whether he's just pretending to be clueless, or actually is clueless.)



One difference is all it takes.


You can make a simulation do any damfool thing you like. If you want to match up with real biology, however, you need to learn more biology and get rid of the artificially invented and incorrect notions, like the above one, that don't fit reality. The reality here is not especially about evolution; just good old conventional biology of fertility and cross breeding.

Cheers -- sylas

PS. Crossed posts with Eric. I was still writing this while the previous post appeared. They are therefore independent comments.

[ericmurphy]

Since Magellan apparently believes there is only one "difference" separating organisms that cannot interbreed—that is what you think, right, Magellan?—he will undoubtedly dispute my model's assumption of "differences" running from 0 to 20,000 or more. But we already have good estimates for human mutation rates, which are important for cancer research. Those estimates are in the range of one to five mutations per hundred million base pairs per generation in humans. Given the human (haploid) genome size of ~3 billion base pairs, this means somewhere between thirty and one hundred fifty mutations—"differences"—per generation in humans. Hence, if anything my model is conservative in the number of "differences." In one hundred thousand generations, we should expect to see a significant fraction of all base pairs mutate at least once per lineage (or once per generation in the entire human population of nearly 10 billion).

If Magellan wants to dispute that these "differences" can lead to declines in fertility, then he's going to have to come up with some other explanation for the observed fertility rates in humans that are clearly and obviously less than 100%: not every mating during ovulation leads to a pregnancy, let alone every mating, and not every pregnancy actually goes to term.

And remember, Magellan: it's not enough to cast doubt on my model (which is undoubtedly a very rough approximation of reality, as are all models). If you want me to believe evolution is wrong, you have to show that a model like this is impossible.

Especially since you have nothing, not even a conjecture, let alone a fully worked-out model, to replace it with.

[Faid]

When Mags was asking more-or-less the same questions 40 pages ago, I had replied with this post:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?144614-Evolution-of-The-Beetles&p=3183120#post3183120

Which he had proceeded to thoroughly ignore.

Any bets on whether he'll now essentially ignore all the points raised by sylas and Eric?

[ericmurphy]

Maybe a picture will help:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/InterfertilityVsDifferences.png

[magellan004]

Let's make a simplified model. Two populations, A and B, that are both subpopulations of an original population X. Initially, both populations start out identical genetically. After a certain number of generations, individuals in population B differ from individuals in population A in between 100 and 10,000 thousand places. Individuals in B which differ from A in 100 places have an interfertility of 90%, meaning 9 of 10 matings result in offspring, ...

Take the '100 places' type individuals in Group B.
Take a sample of them - 10 of them.
Put these 10 with Group A individuals.
One couple cannot breed. 9 couples can breed.
That means, from the ten '100 places' Group B individuals, one of them is different to the other 9.
That individual is different in one way - it cannot breed with Group A.

To save typing things like ' A 100 place individual that cannot breed with Group A' I'll use symbols for the various individual types. The colours I am using are merely symbols of difference, not a trait, a mutation of anything particular - they just represent an animal that is different.

Let's make a simplified model. Two Groups of Blue Beetles , Group A and Group B, that are both subgroups of an original Grouip - Brown Beetles. Initially, both Blue groups start out identical genetically. After a certain number of generations, individuals in Group B differ from individuals in Group A in 100 places. Individuals in B which differ from A in 100 places have an interfertility of 90%, meaning 9 of 10 matings result in offspring.

That means if we take 10 Blue Beetles from Group B and couple them with Group A Beetles, one Group B Beetle will be unable to mate - call that Beetle 'The First Green Beetle' (it's not Blue because it is different to Blue Beetles. It cannot mate with Group A. Blue Beetles can mate with group A.)

We have 9 Blue Beetles and 1 Green Beetle.
Years later we end up with only descendants of Green Beetle on the bush with the original Brown Beetle. No Blue Beetles.

Our First Green Beetle could breed with Blue Beetles. It had children. Reason tells us that those children could be either Green Beetles or Blue Beetles. That is - if a Green Beetle (which cannot breed with Group A ) mates with a Blue Beetle (which can breed with group A) then the child could be either -
1. A Green Beetle or
2. A Blue Beetle.

But we don't get Blue beetle children in the end. Why not?
There is no reason.

So It's worse than I first thought.
All Blue Beetles must get wiped out AND Green Beetles can't have Blue Beetle children.

There is no good reason to account for that. The evolution model just doesn't make sense.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Take the '100 places' type individuals in Group B.
Take a sample of them - 10 of them.
Put these 10 with Group A individuals.
One couple cannot breed. 9 couples can breed.
That means, from the ten '100 places' Group B individuals, one of them is different to the other 9.
That individual is different in one way - it cannot breed with Group A.

No, Magellan. That's not how it works. You're assuming that because one group's interfertility is 90%, that means nine beetles' fertility is 100% and the other is 0. That's the same mistake you make over and over and over again. That's like assuming that if a particular group of individuals has a risk of lung cancer of 10%, that means 90 individuals have a zero risk of cancer and ten of them have a 100% risk of cancer.

Amazing you could be this clueless, but you are.


To save typing things like ' A 100 place individual that cannot breed with Group A' I'll use symbols for the various individual types. The colours I am using are merely symbols of difference, not a trait, a mutation of anything particular - they just represent an animal that is different.
Another one of Magellan's pointlessly confusing and ambiguous "models." All of these beetles are "different," Magellan. They all have varying degrees of difference. Some beetles have a hundred differences from the original population; some have ten thousand differences. Some have numbers in between.


Let's make a simplified model.

We already have a simplified model. Mine. Instead of actually dealing with mine, or trying to find a problem with it, you're instead going to come up with a different, and vastly less realistic model.

That's because you already fail to understand my model. You claim there's only one difference between two organisms which have a hundred differences.

In other words, you're trying to get rid of the parts of my model you don't like. Not because they're unworkable or because they're unrealistic, but rather because you don't like the conclusion they lead to.


Two Groups of Blue Beetles , Group A and Group B, that are both subgroups of an original Grouip - Brown Beetles. Initially, both Blue groups start out identical genetically. After a certain number of generations, individuals in Group B differ from individuals in Group A in 100 places.
No. That's completely unrealistic. You've got a group of beetles that all mutate in lockstep, which makes absolutely no sense. Your "model" is hopelessly unrealistic. In the real world, you'd have an average number of differences of 100. Some beetles would only have 20 differences. Some would have 2,000 differences. Instead, you seem to think all the beetles in your group B first have one difference, then two differences, then three differences, etc.

That's retarded.


Individuals in B which differ from A in 100 places have an interfertility of 90%, meaning 9 of 10 matings result in offspring.

Which, of course, contradicts your earlier stance, that interfertility can only be 100% or 0. A position you now have apparently abandoned.

But what about the other beetles? Some have many more than 100 differences. Some have thousands of differences. What happened to those beetles?
Did you just remove them from your model because their existence obliterates your argument?

And it's still the same problem. You think a fertility rate of 90% means ninety percent of your beetles have a 100% fertility rate and ten percent of them have zero fertility.


That means if we take 10 Blue Beetles from Group B and couple them with Group A Beetles, one Group B Beetle will be unable to mate - call that Beetle 'The First Green Beetle' (it's not Blue because it is different to Blue Beetles. It cannot mate with Group A. Blue Beetles can mate with group A.)

We have 9 Blue Beetles and 1 Green Beetle.
Years later we end up with only descendants of Green Beetle on the bush with the original Brown Beetle. No Blue Beetles.

Why? How does that follow from anything at all, Magellan? Why is your green beetle, which is far less interfertile than the blue beetles, outcompeting the blue beetles? Your green beetle can't mate with brown beetles at all, apparently, and yet you think it's going to somehow outcompete blue beetles, which have a 90% interfertility rate with brown beetles (and presumably close to 100% interfertility with other blue beetles, although of course you neglected to specify that).

How does that happen, Magellan? How does a variety of beetle with lower fertility outcompete a variety with higher fertility?

And why are any of these beetles even in contact with each other? You've taken a critical part of my model—reproductive isolation—and removed it from your model. I wonder why that is.


Our First Green Beetle could breed with Blue Beetles. It had children. Reason tells us that those children could be either Green Beetles or Blue Beetles.
Why does it tell you that, Magellan? On what are you basing your assumption that the cross between a green beetle could be either blue or green? How do you know it's not invariably blue, or invariably green?

Your model is so underdetermined as to be completely worthless.


That is - if a Green Beetle (which cannot breed with Group A ) mates with a Blue Beetle (which can breed with group A) then the child could be either -
1. A Green Beetle or
2. A Blue Beetle.

Based on what? What makes you think this is the case?


But we don't get Blue beetle children in the end. Why not?

You have no idea whether you get blue beetles or not. And given that green beetles are getting outcompeted by blue beetles due to their reduced interfertility, it makes no sense that there would be no blue beetles. If anything there should be no green beetles.


There is no reason.

You're right. There is absolutely no reason why, in your model, you would end up with no blue beetles and only green beetles. Green beetles have no selective advantage against blue beetles, and have a major selective disadvantage: they can't breed with brown beetles at all. Your own model predicts you will get more blue beetles than green beetles, and yet you claim you're getting only green beetles. Are you just making the results of your own model up with no regard for what your model actually predicts?


So It's worse than I first thought.

Your own inability to understand your own model is worse than I ever would have thought.


All Blue Beetles must get wiped out AND Green Beetles can't have Blue Beetle children.

What's wiping the blue beetles out, Magellan? What's causing green beetles, which have lower fertility than the blue beetles, to outcompete the blue beetles?


There is no good reason to account for that. The evolution model just doesn't make sense.

No. YOUR model doesn't make sense. Your model has nothing to do with evolution.

But instead of dealing with my model, which is clear, straightforward, bears some resemblance to reality, and doesn't have inexplicable features like beetles with low interfertility outcompeting beetles with high interfertility, Magellan makes up his own wacky "model" that has 'A' beetles, 'blue' beetles (which aren't actually blue but are just called blue), 'b' beetles, 'brown' beetles (which apparently really are brown), 'green' beetles' (which aren't actually green but are just called green), which interbreed in more or less random fashion and which increase or decrease in number due to no discernible pattern.

Now: I've pointed out multiple problems with your model, Magellan. Where are the problems with my model? My model results in speciation. Yours results in nothing coherent.

Maybe that's because I understand how speciation happens and you don't.

[magellan004]

No, Magellan. That's not how it works. You're assuming that because one group's interfertility is 90%, that means nine beetles' fertility is 100% and the other is 0.

Then what does it mean?
Take 100 individuals from the 90% group and try to get them to mate with Group A.
What is the average result?
How many couples have children?

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Then what does it mean?
It means that if you've got a hundred beetles, ninety will be interfertile and ten won't, on average. It doesn't mean ninety will definitely be fertile and ten definitely won't be.

Seriously, Magellan: I'm no expert on probability and statistics, but I'm not quite that clueless.



Take 100 individuals from the 90% group and try to get them to mate with Group A.
What is the average result?
How many couples have children?

On average, ninety.

What, you think there are only 100 beetles? There are hundreds of thousands of beetles. Out of that group, hundreds of thousands will be interfertile, and tens of thousands will be infertile. Even with individual beetles, matings with some other beetles will be relatively more fertile, and others will be relatively less so. You have this broken, wrong idea that interfertiliity is either definitely 100% or definitely 0. It's not. Surely you must know of women who got pregnant on their first try, others who took years of attempts to get pregnant, and others who never successfully gave birth to any children.


It's an RWA thing:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GrayVsBandW.png

You're still not getting what this chart implies:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/InterfertilityVsDifferences.png

You have two incorrect notions:


that fertility and infertility are absolutes, such that for one group of beetles fertility is 100% and for another it's 0. There are no such groups. Every group you come up with has some very fertile beetles and some very infertile beetles.
that interfertility stays the same over time. It doesn't. Over time, interfertility between the two subpopulations in my model declines steadily. It starts out very close to 100%. After a certain amount of time it's only 50%. After more time it's only 10%. After still more time it's only 1%.


And at some point, interfertility is zero, as it currently is between whales and mice. At that point, where once you had one species, you now have two.

[ericmurphy]

Think of it this way, Magellan:

You've got two groups of beetles. Take any beetle from the first group and any beetle from the second group. In any matching, the number of differences between the two beetles (not groups, individuals) varies from 100 differences to 10,000 differences. For every 1,000 extra differences, interfertility declines by another ten percent. Thus, with 1,000 differences, interfertility is 90%; with 2,000 differences, it's 80%; etc.

We now how have two populations with interfertility rates between 99% (100 differences) to 0 (10,000 differences).

Now: over time, add a thousand differences on average every ten thousand generations. After ten thousand generations, the maximum interfertility is less than 90%, and 20% of your beetles are completely interfertile. After twenty thousand generations, the maximum interfertility is 80%, and 30% of your beetles are completely interfertile.

What is the inevitable result after a hundred thousand generations, Magellan?

[magellan004]

Think of it this way, Magellan:

You've got two groups of beetles. Take any beetle from the first group and any beetle from the second group. In any matching, the number of differences between the two beetles (not groups, individuals) varies from 100 differences to 10,000 differences. For every 1,000 extra differences, interfertility declines by another ten percent. Thus, with 1,000 differences, interfertility is 90%; with 2,000 differences, it's 80%; etc.

We now how have two populations with interfertility rates between 99% (100 differences) to 0 (10,000 differences).

Now: over time, add a thousand differences on average every ten thousand generations. After ten thousand generations, the maximum interfertility is less than 90%, and 20% of your beetles are completely interfertile. After twenty thousand generations, the maximum interfertility is 80%, and 30% of your beetles are completely interfertile.

What is the inevitable result after a hundred thousand generations, Magellan?

It doesn't work like that. If you pair up two Beetles you will either get a child or you won't.
Saying that in one couple there is '90% interfertility' is wrong.

You've got two groups of beetles. Take any beetle from the first group and any beetle from the second group.

We are going to try to mate these two Beetles. The result will either be 'Child' or 'No Child'.
Let's say we take a Beetle from Group B, couple it with a Beetle from Group A and they bare a child.

We run the test again. This time we take another individual from Group B and couple it with a Group A Beetle. This time - no child.

There is a difference between those two individual Group B Beetles we selected - one of them could interbreed, the other couldn't.

That doesn't change - percentages or no percentages.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Here's another diagram, Magellan. It should be pretty self-explanatory, but if not, let me know what part is giving you trouble:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDrift.png

[ericmurphy]

It doesn't work like that. If you pair up two Beetles you will either get a child or you won't.
Saying that in one couple there is '90% interfertility' is wrong.

We're not talking about "one couple." We're talking about hundreds of thousands of couples. It's still not the case that one group of hundreds of thousands of beetles is 100% interfertile and the other is 0 interfertile.

But it's not even true with an individual beetle. Many organisms mate and reproduce many times over their lifespan, Magellan. Look at humans. Human females start out, prepubescent, as essentially completely infertile. Fertility gradually increases from menarche until sometime around the age of thirty, and then declines thereafter until it ceases completely at menopause. Do you think it's even true that an individual human female is either "fertile" or "infertile"? Fertility in humans varies over even a monthly cycle.

Other organisms may have more offspring, or healthier offspring, in one litter than another, which may be dependent on which organism it mates with. Obviously a mare is more fertile with a stallion than with a donkey.

Your inability to see shades of gray, constantly reducing everything to black and white, is tripping you up yet again.


You've got two groups of beetles. Take any beetle from the first group and any beetle from the second group.

We are going to try to mate these two Beetles. The result will either be 'Child' or 'No Child'.
Let's say we take a Beetle from Group B, couple it with a Beetle from Group A and they bare a child.

We still end up with a group of beetles. You're basically saying, "okay, the only beetles that count are the ones that can have offspring," or "the only beetles that count are the ones that can't have offspring."

BOTH groups count.


We run the test again. This time we take another individual from Group B and couple it with a Group A Beetle. This time - no child.

There is a difference between those two individual Group B Beetles we selected - one of them could interbreed, the other couldn't.

No. A proportion of the first group could interbreed, and a proportion of the group couldn't.

You seem to be literally incapable of understanding continuous functions.


That doesn't change - percentages or no percentages.

Yes it does. And worse, it changes over time. You start out with two groups that are nearly 100% interfertile, which becomes 90%, then 80%, then 70%...then 20%, then 10%, then 0. You have this fiction in your mind of a discontinuous function that is always either 100% or 0, and no matter how many times I point it out to you, you just don't get it.

Look at my diagram, Magellan.

[sylas]

It doesn't work like that. If you pair up two Beetles you will either get a child or you won't.

It does work precisely like I said.

If you pair up the EXACT SAME PAIR of beetles, sometimes they get children and sometimes they don't. You are wrong, hopelessly wrong, to think of it as either they are 100% infertile or else as fertile as any normal pair of the same species.

I am not particularly interested in "debating" this; you can play whatever silly games you like. But the fact of the matter is, there IS a measurable level of fertility for breeding pairs which can be anything from highly likely to breed successfully and quite unlikely to breed successfully; and this is routinely used in the scientific literature where there is an interest in whether or not two populations are part of the same species, or different species, or else somewhere along a process of speciation. The term "incipient species" is often used.

The fact is your comments are hopelessly out of touch with straightforward biology, even without worrying about the processes of evolution and speciation. The real test of your ability is not whether you know everything, but whether you are capable of learning anything. And it is not arrogance to say I know a lot more about this that you do. That's just a simple recognition of a pretty obvious difference of knowledge and comprehension. It doesn't make me necessarily better or smarter; but if you can't even recognize that you need to learn a lot more biology then your situation is hopeless.

Cheers -- sylas

[magellan004]

I am not particularly interested in "debating" this;


I am.

Magellan

[Tiggy]

I am not particularly interested in "debating" this;

I am interested in anything that will get me attention.

Magellan

Fixed if for you Clownshoes. You're welcome.

- T

[Sparko]

/Magellan Mode on:

OK you smarty pants evo guys, tell me this!

If non-related species can't interbreed then how come aliens in movies keep stealing our women? And how was Spock born? and how did the aliens on The Event breed with the humans on earth? Hmmm?

/Magellan Mode off.

[Faid]

I am.

MagellanThen address sylas' post in its entirety.

[ericmurphy]

I am.

Magellan

No you're not, Magellan. You're interested in trying to score rhetorical points.

And, incidentally, in defending your worldview against the demons of science.

[ericmurphy]

If Magellan were actually interested in debating this subject, I would have expected that he actually critique at least one of the discussions of my model I posted in the past twelve hours, or at least one of the diagrams I drew for him.

Fortunately, I just like drawing the diagrams anyway, as little graphics projects. Here's a revised version of the one I did last night:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDriftV2.png

[ericmurphy]

Here's another thought, Magellan, while you're trying to squirm out of the box you're in:

Instead of thinking 90% fertility means "nine out of ten beetles will produce offspring"—which you interpret to mean nine beetles have 100% fertility and one has zero fertility, think more realistically. 90% fertility means that a given beetle has nine chances in ten of producing offspring. Where two populations have an interfertility rate of 50%, this doesn't mean five matings will produce offspring every time and five will never produce offspring. It means that any given mating between the populations has a 50% probability of producing offspring.

[magellan004]

Here's another thought, Magellan, while you're trying to squirm out of the box you're in:

Instead of thinking 90% fertility means "nine out of ten beetles will produce offspring"—which you interpret to mean nine beetles have 100% fertility and one has zero fertility, think more realistically. 90% fertility means that a given beetle has nine chances in ten of producing offspring. Where two populations have an interfertility rate of 50%, this doesn't mean five matings will produce offspring every time and five will never produce offspring. It means that any given mating between the populations has a 50% probability of producing offspring.

It simply doesn't matter. Either there are differences between individuals or there aren't.

Take a sample from Group B. We are going to couple them with Group A individuals.
Take 10, 20, 100 , take 1,000. If small numbers upset you take 10 to the power of 16.
There they are lined up ready to go.

Now there are either differences between those individuals or they are all identical.

Let's say they are all identical -
1. They are all identical yet some will have babies and some won't.
2. They are all identical and they will all have the same mating success rate.
Whatever the future of their descendants, differences (mutations, traits, genetics bone shapes , behavior or some other difference) cannot be the cause of what happens.

Let's say the individuals in our sample are different -
1. They are different yet they all have the same mating success rate.
Again, the differences have no bearing on the future of their descendants.

So we are left with only one viable option to explain speciation-
The sample individuals are different to each other in some way and their differences explain the success of their mating.

Magellan

[sylas]

I am not particularly interested in "debating" this;
I am.

It really doesn't matter. I remain uninterested in "debate" in any case.

Debate is a useful discussion format when you have two sides able to give coherent views and in particular, who are able to describe with some level of coherence the views they are debating. In this thread, that's not on the cards. You simply don't have the comprehension of basic biology yet -- whether you agree with it or not -- to make debate a meaningful format.

To be brutally frank; I don't believe your above remark. It's not clear how much of your posts are genuine ignorance and how much are silly word games. But I'll swallow skepticism and presume you are serious for the rest of this post.

You can demonstrate better that you are serious by actually engaging the substance of the post. Feel free to do so. Or else try again, and engage the substance of this post.

My interest is explaining some fairly basic biological fundamentals in response to obvious errors of understanding. This can add some value in the thread for some folks following along. Sometimes a useful exchange will result with other readers, or I can get a useful criticism or correction from onlookers.

In this case, the above exchange was in the context of computer simulations of fertility in breeding and cross breeding populations.

Your suggestion for a simulation is found at the end of post #883. Here's a key extract.


You would need a rule of this kind - 'If this unit has feature a, b c etc it can still breed with other units. If this unit has feature x then it cannot interbreed.'


My suggestion for a simulation is found at the end of post #885. Here's a key extract.


This isn't true. I've programed simple simulations from time to time to illustrate various points, and when dealing with cross breeding, the right way for a simulation to work is to deal with a percentage chance of success.

You don't just pick on one "x" as the barrier; because that isn't how biology works, in general. …

Note that simulations don't prove anything about biology. They don't attempt to match the full complexity of real biology, and they are most often used simply as a teaching aid, to focus in on some aspect or concept and help explain how it works. In this case, we are using simulations, or proposed simulations, to explain how biological fertility and infertility manifests.

The key difference between the two proposed simplifications in the above simulations is as follows:

Your simulation provides for a sharp distinction, distinguishing organisms unable to cross breed from those which are able to cross breed; and no shades of gray between.
My simulation provides for a varied distinction, with a given pair of organisms having a 90% chance of success, or a 50% chance of success, or a 2% chance of success.


The important question is this. Which is a closer correspondence to real biology?

The answer is not something I want to "debate". The answer is that the second is the closer correspondence to biological reality; and that's why I gave it -- to show what was wrong with the first proposal.

Your comment in #894 was a non sequitur for the differences in how fertility might manifest.

It doesn't work like that. If you pair up two Beetles you will either get a child or you won't.
Saying that in one couple there is '90% interfertility' is wrong.

If you toss a six sided die, you either get a six or you won't; and saying that there is a 1 in 6 chance is correct.

In the same way, any given pairing will either give a child or not, and this says nothing useful whatsoever about whether it is possible to tell in advance whether a child would result by examining one specific trait; or whether the prior expectation is of some probability of success, that might be anywhere along a spectrum of probabilities for different couples.

Now feel free to say something substantive about this, or ask a coherent question. If you can do that, I may respond, or not. In either case, the above stands as an explanation of why your previously posted remarks on fertility are incorrect.

Cheers -- sylas

PS. Magellan's latest post appeared while I was writing this one. So just quickly.


So we are left with only one viable option to explain speciation-
The sample individuals are different to each other in some way and their differences explain the success of their mating.

You may prefer to continue to engage Eric, which is fine by me. But for what it is worth.

ALL individuals are different from each other, whether they are in the same species or not.

The concept of "species" becomes useful when you have populations of individuals who are able to breed with a high probability of success within a population, but a very low probability of success when going across populations. The species concept is also often applied when individuals of the populations have a strong preference for mating within their own population, so that there is little gene flow between populations and also clear identifiable differences, or heritable markers of some kind, between the populations.

Hence there are indeed certain differences which appear between the two species, but not within the two species. These differences accumulate over time, so that populations that have speciated will tend to become more and more distinct over time. Frequently you get species for which viable cross breeds are very likely, if artificially placed in circumstances where such mating occurs, but it tends not to occur in the wild. This indicates closely related species, which have comparatively recently been diverged from a single parent species.

Nothing here bears upon the differences in how fertility manifests, which is the topic we had illustrated with suggestions for computer simulations.

[ericmurphy]

It simply doesn't matter. Either there are differences between individuals or there aren't.

It's becoming ever more clear that you aren't even beginning to follow the arguments being made here.

Of course there are differences between individuals. The only individuals that are ever identical are clones. I think we can assume that none of the organisms being discussed here are clones.

You're simply thinking of your probabilities wrong. An overall interfertility rate of 90% simply does not mean that in ten matings, nine couples will definitely produce offspring and one definitely will not. It means that in any randomly selected group of organisms, 90% of the matings will produce offspring. It isn't even true that for a single mating pair, all matings either will or will not produce offspring.

You're simply wrong on this point, and endless repetition of the same mistaken reasoning will not make you right.


Take a sample from Group B. We are going to couple them with Group A individuals.
Take 10, 20, 100 , take 1,000. If small numbers upset you take 10 to the power of 16.
There they are lined up ready to go.

Now there are either differences between those individuals or they are all identical.

None of them are identical. That's not even at issue. No one is even arguing about whether they're identical or not. Unless you think they're identical. Do you think any of these organs are identical?

If you think there's any dispute over whether a group of even ten beetles, let alone ten thousand beetles, are all identical, you're even more lost than I thought you were.


Let's say they are all identical -

Let's not. They are definitely not identical. You're completely off course here, arguing a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. In a population of beetles that are always identical (an impossibility), no change at all, let alone speciation, is possible.


1. They are all identical yet some will have babies and some won't.
2. They are all identical and they will all have the same mating success rate.
Whatever the future of their descendants, differences (mutations, traits, genetics bone shapes , behavior or some other difference) cannot be the cause of what happens.

Let's say the individuals in our sample are different -
1. They are different yet they all have the same mating success rate.
Again, the differences have no bearing on the future of their descendants.

This is completely nonsensical babbling. You're saying there's no difference in mating success if all these organisms are identical or if they're all different. In fact, you're saying if they're all identical, they simultaneously have different fertility and the same fertility. Do you even understand what it is you're trying to say?


So we are left with only one viable option to explain speciation-
The sample individuals are different to each other in some way and their differences explain the success of their mating.

Well, since we already know they are going to be different from each other in many ways, it appears your objection just imploded.

Meanwhile, you've made no comment on either my model or the illustrations of that model, which leads to the very strong conclusion you didn't understand a single word of it. Instead, you're off in the weeds discussing whether these organisms are all identical or not, which isn't even an issue.

In eight hours, this is the best you could come up with? A completely irrelevant non-sequitur?

[ericmurphy]

Let's try this one more time: We've got an original, ancestral population. At some point, some barrier to reproduction, whether geographic or otherwise, separates that freely-interbreeding population into two subpopulations. Beyond this point, there is no interbreeding between the two subpopulations.

Got that? Anything unclear about what's happening here so far?

Time goes by, during which each of the subpopulations' members freely interbreed with each other—but not with members of the other subpopulation. Over time, mutations accumulate in both subpopulations. Note: we know this happens; we even have a figure for the mutation rate per generation. That mutations occur and accumulate is an observed fact and not subject to dispute.

As mutations accumulate in each subpopulation, the interfertility (which is only potential, as there is no actual interbreeding going on between these two subpopulations) between members of one subpopulation and the other continues to decline, as shown in this diagram:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDriftV2.png
[Also: it's clear this diagram was indecipherable to you, so I'll give you some additional hints. Each of the colored regions corresponds to one of the two populations at a given moment in time. All three regions correspond to the same population at different times. The area under the curve corresponds to the total population. The curve shows a normal distribution of the number of differences this population has compared to the other population. Individuals range from relatively small differences to relatively large differences, with the largest cohort having a number of differences intermediate between the extremes. Over time, that median value moves towards the right—towards greater numbers of differences—as do the extremes at either end of the curve. But the normal distribution remains the same, as we would expect to do within a population, since selective pressures tend to keep intra-population differences from increasing.]

There is some quantity of accumulated genetic differences between these two subpopulations beyond which interbreeding is essentially impossible. That point is indicated by the vertical dashed line in the above diagram. When all or nearly all members of these subpopulations have at least that number of genetic differences relative to the other subpopulation, then interbreeding between the two subpopulations becomes essentially impossible. And at that point, we have two distinct, reproductively isolated species. Speciation has occurred.

Now: if you have problems with this model, then explain what you think those problems are. Don't go creating some entirely different model that has nothing to do with my model. I don't care if you can come up with unworkable models of speciation all day. It doesn't matter if your unrealistic, convoluted, implausible models involving large numbers of identical organisms which are not reproductively isolated can't speciate. I've given you a clear, comprehensible, easy-to-follow model. If you can't find anything wrong with it, then what is your objection to speciation?

And note: at this point I'm not even asking you to accept that my model actually occurs in nature, so don't start asking me for evidence that any of this occurs. At this point, all I want is some indication from you, Magellan, that you even understand my model in the first place. You can't criticize a model you don't understand.

And you can't criticize one model by proposing an alternate model. This is not a discussion where you've got one idea about how speciation happens and I have another. You don't believe speciation can happen at all. So the notion that you would come up with your own model of speciation doesn't even make any sense. The topic of this thread, supposedly, is for us to come up with an explanation—a model—for how speciation happens. We give you a model, and instead of actually discussing that model, you go off and develop your own model by which you are trying to show speciation can't happen. That's not going to work. Just because you can come up with a model under which speciation can't happen doesn't mean there don't exist any models under which it can happen.

[magellan004]

Whilst I admire the presentation of your graph I don't think it gives a clear representation of how things change over time. First you examine each individual to determine the differences between individuals then you dissociate these differences from individuals and assign them to a mass of individuals.

Say you came home from a party -
Wife - 'How was the party?'
Evolutionist - 'It was OK.'
Wife - 'Who was there?'
Evolutionist - 'Well, there were four bald heads, a pair of 3 foot legs, some short sighted eyes, and 6 pot-bellies.'
Wife - 'And who did you talk to?'
Evolutionist - 'At first I talked to a population of 40% estrogen but as the night went on there was genetic drift and I ended up talking with 80% tetosterone.'




Before I say what's wrong with your model let me clarify something -
In your model - Do all individuals have the same interbreeding capacity as their parents?

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Whilst I admire the presentation of your graph I don't think it gives a clear representation of how things change over time.
I think it does. But I'm all ears. So, let's see what you think is unclear about it.


First you examine each individual to determine the differences between individuals then you dissociate these differences from individuals and assign them to a mass of individuals.
I'm not determining the differences between individuals. I'm determining the number of differences between individuals of one population and individuals of another population. The differences within a freely-interbreeding population are irrelevant, because they don't, by definition, interfere with interbreeding. The relevant differences are the ones between populations, which my diagram clearly illustrates.

Further, I'm not even discussing individual differences. I'm discussing numbers of differences, and those numbers are not assigned to masses of individuals. Imagine that each pixel in the colored region corresponds to a particular individual. Then the height of each column of pixels simply represents the number of individuals with a particular number of differences (compared to the other subpopulation, not to members of its own subpopulation). Each individual gets a single pixel.


Say you came home from a party -
Wife - 'How was the party?'
Evolutionist - 'It was OK.'
Wife - 'Who was there?'
Evolutionist - 'Well, there were four bald heads, a pair of 3 foot legs, some short sighted eyes, and 6 pot-bellies.'
Wife - 'And who did you talk to?'
Evolutionist - 'At first I talked to a population of 40% estrogen but as the night went on there was genetic drift and I ended up talking with 80% tetosterone.'

Irrelevant, because my diagram says nothing about which specific differences there are, but rather only the number of differences. In my (obviously simplified, as are all models) model, the specific differences are irrelevant. All that is depicted on my diagram is the number of individuals which have a particular number of differences compared to a different population. If you think which specific individuals have what number of differences, then you're going to have to justify to me why you think that matters.


Before I say what's wrong with your model let me clarify something -
In your model - Do all individuals have the same interbreeding capacity as their parents?

On average, yes—with members of their own population. I should not need to repeat this, since it's the single most important part of the whole model, but in case I do: over time, interfertility between populations does decline. There is no significant difference in consecutive generations, but over thousands to tens of thousands of generations there will be a significant drop in interfertility between populations—not within a population. Not only do they have the same average fertility (among members of their own population) as their parents, but that level of fertility does not change significantly over the lifetime of the population. This is typical of most wild populations; we don't see significant losses of fertility among, say, squirrel populations, or deer populations, or beetle populations. While such problems do exist in real populations (such as, say, cheetahs) we are not modeling losses of fertility intra-population—we're not modeling extinction—but rather inter-population.

If you think this is unrealistic (for populations which are not going to extinction), that's another thing you need to justify.

But it's interesting that you're apparently already sure there is something wrong with my model despite your admission that you're not clear on parts of it.

[ericmurphy]

Look at my diagram, Magellan. It's a graph. The graph has two dimensions: number of individuals; and number of differences. Nowhere on the graph do "individuals," or "differences," appear.

[magellan004]

In your model - Do all individuals have the same interbreeding capacity as their parents?

On average, yes—with members of their own population.

In your model - Does each individual always have the same interbreeding capacity with any organism as their parents?

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

In your model - Does each individual always have the same interbreeding capacity with any organism as their parents?

Magellan

Let's try this again: there is no significant difference in interbreeding capacity between an organism and its parents. If its parents are 60% likely to produce offspring with the other population (which, I need to remind you again, never happens), then the child offspring does as well (within natural limits of variability).

There is no significant difference in interfertility between any two immediately-consecutive generations. This seems to be a major conceptual stumbling-block with you, Magellan. If generation X has 99% interfertility within its own population and 40% interfertility with the other population, generation X=1 will have the same figures for both. Interfertility within a population does not vary even between widely-separated generations. Intra-population, generation X and generation X+100,000 will probably be 90% or higher. But inter-population, generation X might be 80% and generation X + 100,000 might be 5%.

I've explained this over and over and over again in my model of how speciation happens. I established these parameters weeks ago. Interfertility within a population does not decline. Interfertility between populations does. These questions are all answerable just by looking at my diagram. You should not have to still be asking these questions.

[ericmurphy]

Despite Magellan's continuing inability to comprehend my model, forcing him to ask questions he should have known the answers to at the beginning of this thread after I first gave an explanation for speciation, he's still sure my model must be wrong.

I wonder how he thinks he would even know if it were wrong.

[magellan004]

There probably is no single "thing", to do that, unless by "thing" you mean some kind of threshold of accumulated different mutarions. And that's not like a wall- more like a slope (see, I'm using simple analogies for you). And if that is the case, both "Green X" AND Brown beetles have that factor.
Then Green Beetle X cannot mate with Brown beetles, Green Plain can. OK so far.
There have to be several intermediate steps between Brown and Green Beetles.
Why do we "need" that? Green beetles X could also be isolated, and therefore not share their "X factor" with Green Plain. That may not hinder their possible interbreeding, so they might be able to interbreed when they are reunited. Just saying.
Why? Brown beetles could have just chosen a new ecological niche on the island (perhaps one that allows them better camouphlage- say, sand close to the beach rather than green bushes), and essentially avoid the other ones (and also remain brown due to the beneficial aspect of the color). But anyway, let's go with your example.
OK, although that sounds rather weird- Why not a Brownish-Green beetle? Anyway.
Hmm. OK, let's assume that the green color provides better camouflage where the beetles on the mainland live. Or it could be by Genetic Drift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift) (see below).
Well, this could happen, although there's no need to suppose a fundamental inefficiency that led to Green Plain being wiped out... Perhaps something endangered all the population, and a small random sample that survived had a much larger prevalence of factor X (like in a small community). And the factor was led to fixation through further interbreeding. That's what genetic drift is about.
OK.
That's assuming factor X is an actual trait. If it simply means that Green beetles X have substantially more different genetic changes than Brown ones, then essentially ALL Green beetles Plain will become Green X as the reproductive isolation with the Brown ones continues. So there's no need to postulate this "wiping out" in the first place.

But even if X is an actual trait (say, too different reproductive organs), there is still a chance for the trait to prevail through random genetic drift, as I explained above.

Your scenario might also be theoretically possible- for example, too different reproductive organs might prevent an infection that caused sterility. But it's not a very likely scenario. The scenarios I described above are much more likely, and the first is essentially unavoidable the more reproductive isolation continues.
Well, in that case, your example is not about speciation at all. Green and Brown could just be different interbreeding variations. Which makes the whole discussion moot.

I didn't reply to this post because you seemed to be agreeing with what I was saying.
Substitute a few words and phrases and we are saying the same thing.

Factor X is a difference. It might be a mutation, a trait, lots of mutations, lots of traits, of some other difference. Whacking another label on to something doesn't really help. Factor X is a difference that causes a Beetle not to be able to interbreed as well as its parents did.



Well, this could happen, although there's no need to suppose a fundamental inefficiency that led to Green Plain being wiped out... Perhaps something endangered all the population, and a small random sample that survived had a much larger prevalence of factor X (like in a small community). And the factor was led to fixation through further interbreeding. That's what genetic drift is about.

This is window dressing my term 'wiped out'.
If there are no more Green Beetles Plain on Earth then they have been wiped out.


That's assuming factor X is an actual trait. If it simply means that Green beetles X have substantially more different genetic changes than Brown ones, then essentially ALL Green beetles Plain will become Green X as the reproductive isolation with the Brown ones continues. So there's no need to postulate this "wiping out" in the first place.
You used the phrase 'ALL Green Beetles Plain will become Green X'. More accurately 'eventually no Beetles of any sort will have a child Green Beetle Plain that survives.'

But we need more than that.
If a Green Beetle X can give birth to a Green Beetle Plain then there will always be Green Beetles Plain.
So the only way for Green Beetles Plain to disappear is -
1. No Green Beetle X can give birth to a Green Beetle Plain even if the Green Beetle X mates with a Green Beetle Plain.
2. Something stops the Green Beetles Plain from mating.

I'd say that sounds far fetched. And remember , if I am right about the mechanics of it all then every example of speciation relies on this far-fetched combination.

But anyway - why do you say 'essentially ALL Green beetles Plain will become Green X '?
Lets say there is a bush full of Green Beetles Plain and Green Beetles X all happily interbreeding. I see no reason to think that years later there will necessarily be no Green Beetles Plain on the bush. Some environmental change has to occur.


Magellan

[Faid]

I didn't reply to this post because you seemed to be agreeing with what I was saying.We both know why you didn't reply to my post, as we both know why you reply to it now, being cornered by Eric and sylas. But whatever.

Substitute a few words and phrases and we are saying the same thing.Not really.


Factor X is a difference. It might be a mutation, a trait, lots of mutations, lots of traits, of some other difference. Whacking another label on to something doesn't really help. Factor X is a difference that causes a Beetle not to be able to interbreed as well as its parents did.It's not "a difference", if it actually amounts to "too many differences". I already told you why. Because if that's the case, BOTH populations now have that "factor". So no, it's not just a "label".





This is window dressing my term 'wiped out'.
If there are no more Green Beetles Plain on Earth then they have been wiped out. Did i say that all GBPs on Earth have to get wiped out? No. I said that a POPULATION of them is endangered (climate, new predators, younameit), and the survivors have a large prevalence of "X". Not all GBP die, not even in that remaining popultaion: The GBX simply dominate in future generations because they are dominant in the remaining population.



You used the phrase 'ALL Green Beetles Plain will become Green X'. More accurately 'eventually no Beetles of any sort will have a child Green Beetle Plain that survives.'
Nope, that's less accurately. More accurately would be: "That's assuming factor X is an actual trait. If it simply means that Green beetles X have substantially more different genetic changes than Brown ones, then essentially ALL Green beetles Plain will become Green X as the reproductive isolation with the Brown ones continues. So there's no need to postulate this "wiping out" in the first place".

It's simple. When many mutations accumulate in subsequent generations, the original gentype continuously changes. You don't need an "extinction", it's just change.
But we need more than that.

If a Green Beetle X can give birth to a Green Beetle Plain then there will always be Green Beetles Plain. If Green Beetle X means "GB with a different genotype than GBP", then it's easy to understand that that's more and more unlikely as generations of differences pile up.

So the only way for Green Beetles Plain to disappear is -
1. No Green Beetle X can give birth to a Green Beetle Plain even if the Green Beetle X mates with a Green Beetle Plain.
2. Something stops the Green Beetles Plain from mating.No. GBP do not "die out": Their descendants CHANGE.


I'd say that sounds far fetched. And remember , if I am right about the mechanics of it all then every example of speciation relies on this far-fetched combination.You're not right about the mechanics. See above.


But anyway - why do you say 'essentially ALL Green beetles Plain will become Green X '?
Lets say there is a bush full of Green Beetles Plain and Green Beetles X all happily interbreeding. I see no reason to think that years later there will necessarily be no Green Beetles Plain on the bush. Some environmental change has to occur.
I already explained above. But even if we were talking about X as a specific trait, and not as simply "lots of differences", the probability of a trait becoming dominant in a population is directly analogous to its prevalence in the population. For example, if the trait exists in 80% of the population, then we have an 80% chance (IIRC) of the trait being fixated (assuming its due to a single genetic change).

[magellan004]

I already explained above. But even if we were talking about X as a specific trait, and not as simply "lots of differences", the probability of a trait becoming dominant in a population is directly analogous to its prevalence in the population. For example, if the trait exists in 80% of the population, then we have an 80% chance (IIRC) of the trait being fixated (assuming its due to a single genetic change).

You are asserting that - the probability of a trait becoming dominant in a population is directly analogous to its prevalence in the population.

I see no reason to think it is correct.
Any references? (Sawyers rule)

It doesn't make any difference since we are not necessarily talking about a trait. We are talking about an ability that the parent couple had that the child does not have - the ability to interbreed.

Magellan

[Tiggy]

You are asserting that - the probability of a trait becoming dominant in a population is directly analogous to its prevalence in the population.

I see no reason to think it is correct.
Any references? (Sawyers rule)

It doesn't make any difference since we are not necessarily talking about a trait. We are talking about an ability that the parent couple had that the child does not have - the ability to interbreed.

Magellan

Let's not forget this idjit is still talking about his fantasy beetles on the planet ClownshoesWorld. They have not even the slightest passing resemblance to any actual living creatures back here on planet Earth. So when Clownshoes stacks the deck so that evolution can't happen on ClownshoesWorld it has zero bearing on the processes of evolution that work here.

- T

[ericmurphy]

It doesn't make any difference since we are not necessarily talking about a trait. We are talking about an ability that the parent couple had that the child does not have - the ability to interbreed.

That is absolutely not what we are talking about, Magellan. As I explained to you—repeatedly—in my model, any child's ability to interbreed is exactly the same as its parents (within natural limits of variability). You've got two massive misconceptions you cannot seem to shake: first, any inability to interbreed does NOT occur within a population but rather between populations. In my model, both populations are made up of freely-interbreeding individuals. The "inability to interbreed" takes place between populations, but that has no effect on any individual organism's ability to reproduce because these two populations are isolated from each other anyway.

And second, even between populations, there is no significant difference in interfertility from one generation to the next. There is a significant difference in interfertility between two generations that are tens to hundreds of thousands of generations apart.

I keep explaining these two points to you, but you keep failing to grasp them. Until you do grasp them, you have no hope of ever understanding how speciation is even alleged to work.

[magellan004]

Here's another thought, Magellan, while you're trying to squirm out of the box you're in:

Instead of thinking 90% fertility means "nine out of ten beetles will produce offspring"—which you interpret to mean nine beetles have 100% fertility and one has zero fertility, think more realistically. 90% fertility means that a given beetle has nine chances in ten of producing offspring. Where two populations have an interfertility rate of 50%, this doesn't mean five matings will produce offspring every time and five will never produce offspring. It means that any given mating between the populations has a 50% probability of producing offspring.

Your error seems to be bound up with a misunderstanding of ‘interfertility’. These posts are indicative or your thinking -
Post 892

No, Magellan. That's not how it works. You're assuming that because one group's interfertility is 90%, that means nine beetles' fertility is 100% and the other is 0.
In Post 907 sylas seems to be saying the same thing.

The key difference between the two proposed simplifications in the above simulations is as follows:
Your simulation provides for a sharp distinction, distinguishing organisms unable to cross breed from those which are able to cross breed; and no shades of gray between.
My simulation provides for a varied distinction, with a given pair of organisms having a 90% chance of success, or a 50% chance of success, or a 2% chance of success.
Post 905

Instead of thinking 90% fertility means "nine out of ten beetles will produce offspring"—which you interpret to mean nine beetles have 100% fertility and one has zero fertility, think more realistically. 90% fertility means that a given beetle has nine chances in ten of producing offspring. Where two populations have an interfertility rate of 50%, this doesn't mean five matings will produce offspring every time and five will never produce offspring. It means that any given mating between the populations has a 50% probability of producing offspring.
I am not sure what your formula for Interfertility rates is. If it is something to do with chance then it is irrelevant to our discussion. If you calculate interfertility by counting the number of matings and the number of matings that were successful then your mathematics is wrong. You can’t have an individual with ‘90% interfertility’. And it doesn’t matter anyway. Whether it’s 90% or 10% make no difference.

Our initial Group B consisted of individual Beetles and every one of those Beetles could successfully mate (interbreed) with any Beetle in the other Group (Group A – Brown Beetles). If we selected one individual we could determine whether it was able 100% to interbreed. It either could breed or it couldn’t. If this is not what you understand by ‘Initially Group b consisted of individuals that could interbreed’ then we have a massive misunderstanding.

Our final Group B consisted of individual Beetles and every one of those Beetles could not mate with any Beetle in the other Group (Group A – Brown Beetles). If we selected one individual we could determine whether it was able 100% to interbreed.

You have said yourself that each child has the same interbreeding capacity as its parents.

Therefore if we take the final Group B and select an individual we could trace its parents. The parents would 100% not be able to interbreed. If we tracked back to those parents’ parents they would 100% not be able to interbreed. We could track back as many generations as we like. (Such an exercise would be easy with a computer simulation.) We will never get back to the initial Group B.

We could track forward from an individual in the Initial Group B , examine its children. The children would 100% be able to interbreed. No matter how far forward we track the family line we will never arrive at the Final Group B.

So something is wrong with your model.

This is how it must work -
If we take an intermediate Group B we will be able to find an individual that 100% cannot interbreed. We could track back to an ancestor of that that was able 100% to interbreed. That ancestor parent and its child have a difference that causes lack of ability to interbreed.

I understand you don’t like this. I understand you will insist that we ‘must’ only look at the overall group. But that’s not right. A group consists of individuals with abilities to interbreed. That’s how we’ve agreed to define the model. We don’t say ‘In the Initial Group B are individuals whose interbreeding ability varies’. Initially each Group B Beetle can 100% interbreed. Finally each group B individual can 100% not interbreed. The ability to interbreed is a Yes/No feature. And we determine that by examining individuals, not the overall group.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Maybe Magellan doesn't really grasp the concept of two reproductively-isolated populations. Maybe it's time for another diagram:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Isolation.png

[ericmurphy]

Your error seems to be bound up with a misunderstanding of ‘interfertility’.
I don't have a misunderstanding of interfertility. You do. You have this idea idea that an interfertility rate of 80% means 80% of the population is 100% fertile and the other 20% has zero fertility. That's simply wrong, as both sylas and I have explained to you repeatedly.


These posts are indicative or your thinking -
Post 892

In Post 907 sylas seems to be saying the same thing.

Post 905

There's a reason we're both saying the same thing, Magellan.


I am not sure what your formula for Interfertility rates is.
There's no "formula." It's simply an observation of how likely matings are to result in viable offspring.


If it is something to do with chance then it is irrelevant to our discussion.
Of course it has something to do with chance—it's a measure of probabilties—and it has everything to do with your discussion. A discussion, it is abundantly clear, you are not really following.


If you calculate interfertility by counting the number of matings and the number of matings that were successful then your mathematics is wrong. You can’t have an individual with ‘90% interfertility’. And it doesn’t matter anyway. Whether it’s 90% or 10% make no difference.

Wow. Of course I have an an individual with 90% fertility. If 10 matings result in 9 successful fertilizations resulting in viable offspring, then the fertility rate is 90%. It doesn't matter if those matings are all with the same individual or with different individuals, and there is absolutely no reason why a single organism cannot have a fertility rate of 90%. This has been explained to you repeatedly.


Our initial Group B consisted of individual Beetles and every one of those Beetles could successfully mate (interbreed) with any Beetle in the other Group (Group A – Brown Beetles).
This is unrealistic in the extreme, but it doesn't matter anyway. All it means is that the fertility rate is 100%. If you have a group of beetles where 80% of them can interbreed, then the fertility rate is 80%.


If we selected one individual we could determine whether it was able 100% to interbreed. It either could breed or it couldn’t.
Totally wrong. Has it ever occurred to you that the probability that an organism can produce viable offspring might have something to do with what it is trying to interbreed with? It might be able to interbreed successfully with these three organisms but not with these five other organisms. What does that tell you about its fertility rate, Magellan? Is it 100%, or is it zero, or is it possibly some other number?

Once again we've got this problem:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GrayVsBandW.png


If this is not what you understand by ‘Initially Group b consisted of individuals that could interbreed’ then we have a massive misunderstanding.

YOU have a massive misunderstanding. You still think fertility, and interfertility, can only be 100% or zero. That is totally, categorically incorrect. Interfertility rates, especially among large populations, can take any value between 100% and zero.

What is the interfertility rate of horses and donkeys, Magellan?


Our final Group B consisted of individual Beetles and every one of those Beetles could not mate with any Beetle in the other Group (Group A – Brown Beetles). If we selected one individual we could determine whether it was able 100% to interbreed.

Still wrong. Group B could consist of beetles which could interbreed successfully with some fraction of the other beetles and could not interbreed with some other fraction of the other beetles. That does NOT result in a fertility rate of either 100% or zero.


You have said yourself that each child has the same interbreeding capacity as its parents.

Within natural variability (which is NOT just 100% or zero), yes. But that does NOT mean it has the same interbreeding capacity with some population of individuals as its distant ancestors did.


Therefore if we take the final Group B and select an individual we could trace its parents. The parents would 100% not be able to interbreed.

Interbreed with WHAT, Magellan. You seem to have completely forgotten that we are talking about two distinct populations here. The parents could certainly interbreed with at least some members of their own population (or they wouldn't be parents). That tells nothing about how successful they would be interbreeding with members of the other population.


If we tracked back to those parents’ parents they would 100% not be able to interbreed.

Come on Magellan, this is retarded. If they were 100% unable to interbreed, then how did they become parents? They had to have been able to interbreed with each other, right?


We could track back as many generations as we like. (Such an exercise would be easy with a computer simulation.) We will never get back to the initial Group B.

Nonsense. The ancestors of both groups could freely interbreed, because they were all members of a freely interbreeding population.


We could track forward from an individual in the Initial Group B , examine its children. The children would 100% be able to interbreed. No matter how far forward we track the family line we will never arrive at the Final Group B.

This is so utterly off-course it's hard to believe you could be this lost. All members of each population can interbreed with each other. All members of the initial population X could interbreed. All members of the subpopulation A can interbreed. All members of the subpopulation B can interbreed.

All that happens is that after sufficient time has passed, members of A cannot interbreed with B.

This is not a complex concept. You should be able to understand it intuitively. The problem is that you don't WANT to understand it.


So something is wrong with your model.

Nothing is wrong with my model. You clearly do not even understand my model. Your misunderstandings lead to absurdities like "parents" who are 100% infertile.


This is how it must work -
If we take an intermediate Group B we will be able to find an individual that 100% cannot interbreed. We could track back to an ancestor of that that was able 100% to interbreed. That ancestor parent and its child have a difference that causes lack of ability to interbreed.

I warned you not to make your own model, Magellan. We are discussing MY model. In my model there is nowhere you can look where you will find an individual which cannot interbreed. All individuals can interbreed. That they cannot interbreed with members of a different population is irrelevant, because they can always interbreed with members of their own population.

Why you cannot be made to understand this is not that much of a mystery. You don't WANT to understand it.


I understand you don’t like this.
It's not a matter of not "liking" it. It's a matter of realizing it's wrong. You have this completely mistaken notion that there are some beetles somewhere in my model which cannot interbreed. There are no such beetles. You have not been able to identify any place in my model or in my diagram illustrating that model where there are any beetles which cannot interbreed.


I understand you will insist that we ‘must’ only look at the overall group.
No we don't. All we need to look at is any individual population. In my (simplified) model, all individuals in any population can interbreed. There is no place, nor is there any necessity, for any individuals at any point which cannot interbreed.


But that’s not right. A group consists of individuals with abilities to interbreed.
That's the only kind of group there is in my model. There is no group of organisms anywhere in my model which cannot interbreed.


That’s how we’ve agreed to define the model. We don’t say ‘In the Initial Group B are individuals whose interbreeding ability varies’.

It does not vary WITHIN THE GROUP. It DOES vary OUTSIDE OF the group. It varies WITH TIME.


Initially each Group B Beetle can 100% interbreed. Finally each group B individual can 100% not interbreed.

Of course it can interbreed. Are you daft? All of the beetles in group B can interbreed.

They just can't interbreed with beetles in group A, from which they are isolated anyway.



The ability to interbreed is a Yes/No feature. And we determine that by examining individuals, not the overall group.
Even if that were the case, and it is not, it doesn't matter, because all of the beetles in any group can always interbreed WITH EACH OTHER.

Even if you were correct in your insane belief that any organism is either 100% fertile or sterile, it still wouldn't matter. Let's say there's a hard dividing line where up to a certain number of differences, two beetles are 100% fertile, and beyond that point they are 100% infertile.

So what? We've got two populations of freely-interbreeding organisms, slowly drifting apart genetically as differences pile up between them. The members of each population always are 100% interfertile with members of their own population. Up to a certain point, they are also 100% interfertile with members of the other population. But as soon as the number of differences with the other population exceeds a threshold value, interfertility with the other population suddenly drops to zero. But it is still 100% within its own population.

Even with this hopelessly unrealistic assumption that fertility is always either 100% or zero, speciation still happens. In fact, under your assumptions about fertility rates, it is even more likely to happen.

So your arguments about fertility rates are irrelevant anyway.

[ericmurphy]

So now that I've obliterated your complains about my interfertility rates, Magellan, are you read to tackle some other aspect of my model?

[Faid]

You are asserting that - the probability of a trait becoming dominant in a population is directly analogous to its prevalence in the population.

I see no reason to think it is correct.
Any references? (Sawyers rule)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_%28population_genetics%29

"Probability of fixation

Under conditions of genetic drift alone, every finite set of genes or alleles has a "coalescent point" at which all descendants converge to a single ancestor (i.e. they 'coalesce'). This fact can be used to derive the rate of gene fixation of a neutral allele (that is, one not under any form of selection) for a population of varying size (provided that it is finite and nonzero). Because the effect of natural selection is stipulated to be negligible, the probability at any given time that an allele will ultimately become fixed at its locus is simply its frequency p in the population at that time. For example, if a population includes allele A with frequency equal to 20% and allele a with frequency equal to 80%, there is an 80% chance that after an infinite number of generations a will be fixed at the locus (assuming genetic drift is the only operating evolutionary force)."



It doesn't make any difference since we are not necessarily talking about a trait. We are talking about an ability that the parent couple had that the child does not have - the ability to interbreed.

MagellanExactly. We're not talking about a trait, we're talking about the constantly increasing number of genetic changes. And as I explained, the ability to interbreed will eventually occur, if more and more genetic differences add up in the two populations, as reproductive isolation continues for generations and generations. Not only is it "far-fetched", it's practically unavoidable in time.


And for the reasons I explained, it's not "an ability that the parent couple had that the child does not have": It's more like "an ability the parent couple almost didn't have that the child does not have". As genetic differences pile up, the loss is gradual. It doesn't just vanish from a 100% capacity of interbreeding.

And just to be more clear, we're not talking about the ability to interbreed with its parents (duh), it's the ability to interbreed with the members of the other isolated population.


I also take it that you agree with the rest of my post, since you had nothing to comment. So, are we done?


EDIT: Looks like my clarification was needed, since you actually thought that the loss of interbreeding happens within the same population.

[ericmurphy]

An amplification of one of my previous comments:

Magellan believes fertility, and interfertility, are always either 100% or zero. If this were true, speciation would be more likely, not less likely. Why? Because hybridization would be impossible. Hybridization tends to homogenize the two populations. But if interfertility is either 100% or 0, hybridization between members whose interfertility is 0 is by definition impossible.

Let's say, as I said before, that below a certain number of genetic differences, interfertility between two populations is 100%. No interbreeding is actually happening, because the two populations are isolated from each other. Above that number, interfertility between those two populations is zero. If, at any point, the threshold number is exceeded, speciation is instantaneous, even if not all members of either population exceed that threshold. Let's say that 10% of population A exceed the threshold. That fraction of the population now has zero interfertility wrt population B, and hence constitutes a separate species. Whether or not that fraction can interbreed with other members of A, and whether or not those other members of A can still interbreed with B, is irrelevant. We've still got two populations which now have an interfertility of zero: A and B (most of A is still interfertile with B and hence is the same species as B), and that fraction of A which can no longer interbreed with B, which fraction constitutes a separate species.

[ericmurphy]

Exactly. We're not talking about a trait, we're talking about the constantly increasing number of genetic changes. And as I explained, the ability to interbreed will eventually occur, if more and more genetic differences add up in the two populations, as reproductive isolation continues for generations and generations. Not only is it "far-fetched", it's practically unavoidable in time.


And for the reasons I explained, it's not "an ability that the parent couple had that the child does not have": It's more like "an ability the parent couple almost didn't have that the child does not have". As genetic differences pile up, the loss is gradual. It doesn't just vanish from a 100% capacity of interbreeding.

And just to be more clear, we're not talking about the ability to interbreed with its parents (duh), it's the ability to interbreed with the members of the other isolated population.


I also take it that you agree with the rest of my post, since you had nothing to comment. So, are we done?


EDIT: Looks like my clarification was needed, since you actually thought that the loss of interbreeding happens within the same population.

Note that as I pointed out in my last two messages, even if it were true that interfertility between two populations of organisms were to go from 100% to zero in a single generation, speciation can still happen. In fact, it's more likely to happen.

Magellan just cannot seem to get his mind around this concept of two distinct populations that do not interbreed (regardless of whether or not they actually could interbreed absent whatever circumstances are isolating them from each other):

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Isolation.png

Individuals within a population can always interbreed with each other.

[ericmurphy]

Magellan also seems fixated on the notion of a single trait which bars interbreeding. While such traits do exist (polyploidy being the obvious example; chromosomal fusion being another possibility), they are in the minority. Such traits are frequently important in sympatric speciation: speciation where two different species arise in the same territory. Such instances are rare because a trait that bars interfertility with other members of the same species results in the extinction of that trait unless another organism in the same population also possesses that trait. In large populations where organisms give birth simultaneously to large numbers of offspring (e.g. beetles), such events are obviously not as rare as they are in "charismatic megafauna" like ungulates (which typically give birth to single offspring) or bears (which typically give birth to one or two offspring).

These sudden bars to interbreeding are completely unnecessary in allopatric speciation: speciation that results from (typically) geographic isolation. Two populations which do not interbreed, even if they are physiologically capable of interbreeding, are free to drift apart to an arbitrary degree. The members of those populations can always interbreed with each other; that's what makes them populations, and not just groups of unrelated organisms. But as they drift further and further apart from the other population, eventually they reach the point where interbreeding is no longer possible. Whether this happens instantaneously, in a single generation, as Magellan seems to think is necessary, or over a long period of time due to slowly decreasing interfertility, as is what really happens, is in the final analysis irrelevant. In either case, speciation is inevitable.

[magellan004]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_%28population_genetics%29

"Probability of fixation

Under conditions of genetic drift alone, every finite set of genes or alleles has a "coalescent point" at which all descendants converge to a single ancestor (i.e. they 'coalesce'). This fact can be used to derive the rate of gene fixation of a neutral allele (that is, one not under any form of selection) for a population of varying size (provided that it is finite and nonzero). Because the effect of natural selection is stipulated to be negligible, the probability at any given time that an allele will ultimately become fixed at its locus is simply its frequency p in the population at that time. For example, if a population includes allele A with frequency equal to 20% and allele a with frequency equal to 80%, there is an 80% chance that after an infinite number of generations a will be fixed at the locus (assuming genetic drift is the only operating evolutionary force)."
That's wrong then. All descendants don't converge to a single ancestor. There is always a matrix of ancestors. Think about you and your cousins. At the grandparent level there is no convergence at all.

Of course, if you assume common ancestry then ... but hey, we've covered 'begging the question'.




Exactly. We're not talking about a trait, we're talking about the constantly increasing number of genetic changes. And as I explained, the ability to interbreed will eventually occur, if more and more genetic differences add up in the two populations, as reproductive isolation continues for generations and generations. Not only is it "far-fetched", it's practically unavoidable in time. The consequences show that it is far-fetched. I have outlined the consequences. I am happy to outline them again.

And for the reasons I explained, it's not "an ability that the parent couple had that the child does not have": It's more like "an ability the parent couple almost didn't have that the child does not have". As genetic differences pile up, the loss is gradual. It doesn't just vanish from a 100% capacity of interbreeding.
I don't understand 'It's more like "an ability the parent couple almost didn't have that the child does not have'.
If a parent can interbreed with X and their child can't then that is an ability the parents have that the child doesn't.


And just to be more clear, we're not talking about the ability to interbreed with its parents (duh), it's the ability to interbreed with the members of the other isolated population.


I also take it that you agree with the rest of my post, since you had nothing to comment. So, are we done?


EDIT: Looks like my clarification was needed, since you actually thought that the loss of interbreeding happens within the same population.

If a parent can interbreed with X, Y and Z and the child can only interbreed with X and Y then the child has a difference. That's what I was talking about.

The loss of interbreeding is certainly happening within the same 'population' - Eric's Group B - the Blue Beetles, the Blue Beetles that once could interbreed with Group A, the Brown Beetles.
In the end , none of the Group B Blue Beetles descendants can interbreed with Group A.

Magellan

[magellan004]

Two populations which do not interbreed, even if they are physiologically capable of interbreeding, are free to drift apart to an arbitrary degree. The members of those populations can always interbreed with each other; that's what makes them populations, and not just groups of unrelated organisms.

You seem to be contradicting yourself -


If this is not what you understand by ‘Initially Group b consisted of individuals that could interbreed’ then we have a massive misunderstanding.

YOU have a massive misunderstanding. You still think fertility, and interfertility, can only be 100% or zero. That is totally, categorically incorrect. Interfertility rates, especially among large populations, can take any value between 100% and zero.

'The members can always interbreed.' That means each individual has the potential , when paired with another member, will have 100% success at breeding.

In our model, in the final Group B , Green Beetles cannot interbreed with Group A, Brown Beetles. That means that each and every Group B individual cannot mate successfully. There is no shade of grey. If you examine one individual from the final Group B and ask one question - 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ there is only ever one answer – ‘No’.

If you examine one individual from the initial Group B and ask one question - 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ there is only ever one answer – ‘Yes.’.

So let’s ask that question (which in our model it is possible to do) of say 10,000 generations of a family line of group B Beetles.

Generation 1. 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
Generation 2. 'Can this child breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
Generation 3. 'Can this grandchild breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
…
Generation 28. 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
Generation 29. 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
…
…
Generation 9998. 'Can this child of Gen 9997 breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.
Generation 9999. 'Can this child breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.
Generation 10,000. 'Can this can this child breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.

There is no doubt, there is no fuzziness, there is no quarrel, there is no dispute that the above is how it must happen according to evolution.

So let’s fill in a few more years –
Generation 555. 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
Generation 556. 'Can this child of Gen 555 with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
Generation 557. 'Can this child breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
…
…
Generation 600 'Can this child of Gen 9997 breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.
Generation 601. 'Can this child breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.
Generation 602. 'Can this can this child breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.

I’ll let you fill in the missing 2 years. Let me know if a child always has the same interbreeding ability as its parents.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

That's wrong then. All descendants don't converge to a single ancestor. There is always a matrix of ancestors.

Unevidenced assertion, as usual. Just because individuals have more than one ancestor (and, of course, they all do) does not mean they do not share a common ancestor. All humans share a single common ancestor through the maternal line: "Mitochondrial Eve." They also share a common paternal ancestor" "Y-chromosome Adam" (who not only was not a mate of Mitochondrial Eve, but also wasn't even alive at the same time). Just because individuals have more than one ancestor doesn't mean they don't share a common ancestor.


Think about you and your cousins. At the grandparent level there is no convergence at all.

So what? Go back far enough (in humans, about 70,000 years), and you find a common ancestor. Remember this?

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/NH/CompleteFamilyTree.png


Of course, if you assume common ancestry then ... but hey, we've covered 'begging the question'.

We're not "assuming" common ancestry. We are, as always inferring it, based on a great deal of empirical evidence. If you don't mind having the crap kicked out of you again over that evidence, I'm happy to oblige, but common descent is not the topic of this thread. Speciation is.



The consequences show that it is far-fetched. I have outlined the consequences. I am happy to outline them again.

You can outline your wrong, mistaken "consequences" as many times as you like. It won't make you any less wrong. You still don't seem to understand that we are talking about fertility (or lack of it) between populations, not within a single population.


I don't understand 'It's more like "an ability the parent couple almost didn't have that the child does not have'.
If a parent can interbreed with X and their child can't then that is an ability the parents have that the child doesn't.

Still stuck on this notion that interfertility is either 100% or it's zero. You're still wrong about that, but it doesn't matter even if you're right. I have demonstrated that even if interfertility must go from 100% to zero in a single generation, it doesn't matter, because that lack of interfertility does not affect an individual's ability to interbreed with members of its own population.


If a parent can interbreed with X, Y and Z and the child can only interbreed with X and Y then the child has a difference. That's what I was talking about.

What difference does it make, Magellan? What are the "consequences" to such a scenario? In such a scenario, speciation has definitely happened: something you claim can't happen. The child can still interbreed with members of its own population. So could its parents. If it's parents could interbreed with a different population—Z, in your example—and the child can't, then speciation has occurred.


The loss of interbreeding is certainly happening within the same 'population' - Eric's Group B - the Blue Beetles, the Blue Beetles that once could interbreed with Group A, the Brown Beetles.
In the end , none of the Group B Blue Beetles descendants can interbreed with Group A.

Who cares? They couldn't interbreed with A anyway; they're isolated from A. They can still interbreed with B—their own population. And, since you admit they can't interbreed with A, then speciation has happened.

So what was your objection to my model of speciation, again? You seem to have admitted that it works.

[ericmurphy]

Based on this snippet:


The loss of interbreeding is certainly happening within the same 'population' - Eric's Group B - the Blue Beetles, the Blue Beetles that once could interbreed with Group A, the Brown Beetles.
In the end , none of the Group B Blue Beetles descendants can interbreed with Group A.

It seems clear that Magellan still does not understand that group A and group B are separate populations. Regardless of whether A and B can interbreed, they do not interbreed. The loss of interbreeding is NOT happening within the same population. All members of every population can still interbred within that population. There is no "loss of interbreeding" within either group A or group B.

This diagram is turning out to be more useful then I thought during the three minutes it took me to make it:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Isolation.png

[ericmurphy]

You seem to be contradicting yourself -

It only seems that way to you because you simply cannot understand that we are talking about two separate, reproductively-isolated populations. It doesn't matter if they are physiologically incapable of interbreeding. They don't interbreed.


'The members can always interbreed.'
The members can always interbreed within their own population. The will not always be able to interbreed with other populations. Why can't you grasp this concept?

Maybe another diagram is in order:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Interbreeding.png


That means each individual has the potential , when paired with another member, will have 100% success at breeding.

That's not what it means, but it doesn't matter in any event, as I have exhaustively detailed. Even if it were true (and it is true, in my simplified model), it doesn't matter. Just because interfertility is 100% within a population doesn't mean it will always be 100% (or any other value you care to mention) with other populations.


In our model, in the final Group B , Green Beetles cannot interbreed with Group A, Brown Beetles.That means that each and every Group B individual cannot mate successfully. There is no shade of grey.
No It Does Not. Your "final group B" beetles can still interbreed with other "final group B" beetles. Even if that were true that there are no "gray areas" (and it's not), it doesn't matter. Every group B individual can still mate with every other group B individual. Whether or not they can mate with any group A individual is irrelevant to this fact.


If you examine one individual from the final Group B and ask one question - 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ there is only ever one answer – ‘No’.

If you examine one individual from the initial Group B and ask one question - 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ there is only ever one answer – ‘Yes.’.

Why is this a problem, Magellan? It is, in fact, exactly what happens in speciation. In the beginning, individuals of group A and group B can interbreed. At the end, individuals of group and and group B cannot interbreed.

Which is exactly what you claim (without being able to say why) can't happen.


So let’s ask that question (which in our model it is possible to do) of say 10,000 generations of a family line of group B Beetles.

Generation 1. 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
Generation 2. 'Can this child breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
Generation 3. 'Can this grandchild breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
…
Generation 28. 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
Generation 29. 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
…
…
Generation 9998. 'Can this child of Gen 9997 breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.
Generation 9999. 'Can this child breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.
Generation 10,000. 'Can this can this child breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.

There is no doubt, there is no fuzziness, there is no quarrel, there is no dispute that the above is how it must happen according to evolution.

This is not what happens in reality. In reality, we see this:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDriftV2.png

A slow decline in interfertility between A and B. You can claim all you want that it doesn't happen that way, but you'll still be wrong, and you've got no evidence whatsoever that you're right. But what's even worse is that even if you are right, and interfertility suddenly drops from 100% to 0, speciation still happens. It just happens more suddenly.


So let’s fill in a few more years –
Generation 555. 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
Generation 556. 'Can this child of Gen 555 with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
Generation 557. 'Can this child breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’.
…
…
Generation 600 'Can this child of Gen 9997 breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.
Generation 601. 'Can this child breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.
Generation 602. 'Can this can this child breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.

I’ll let you fill in the missing 2 years. Let me know if a child always has the same interbreeding ability as its parents.

In reality, yes, it always does. It might not have the same interbreeding ability as distant ancestors or distant descendants. But the key point, which makes your entire argument a red herring, is that IT DOES NOT MATTER EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT.

We STILL get speciation. You ADMIT we get speciation.

What's left to say, Magellan? You've picked a detail of my model which does not in any way effect its validity, and which even if you're right it hurts your case, and wasted the better part of a day arguing it.

[ericmurphy]

It appears that by arguing over a subsidiary point—whether or not interfertility can ever be anything other than perfect or non-existent—Magellan has lost the war. He finds himself forced to admit that speciation can and does happen.

[Faid]

[QUOTE]That's wrong then.Not my job to defend leading geneticists. You are free to think whatever you want. You asked for a reference so apparently a reference meant something to you- and I gave it to you.
All descendants don't converge to a single ancestor. There is always a matrix of ancestors.What does that have to do with the point of the issue, the fixation of a character? And didn't you repeatedly state that the change "starts with a single individual"? Why the sudden change?
Think about you and your cousins. At the grandparent level there is no convergence at all.What.


Of course, if you assume common ancestry then ... but hey, we've covered 'begging the question'.
Since we are talking about emergent variation within an existing population, common ancestry has nothing to do with it (unless by "common ancestry" you mean "heredity", lol). And besides, I AM describing the model in which speciation happens, so how would I explain HOW speciation happens, if it was forbidden to postulate that speciation happens?

You need to read up on what "begging the question" means.


The consequences show that it is far-fetched. I have outlined the consequences. I am happy to outline them again.I showed why your "mechanics" are flawed, and therefore the "consequences" you "outlined" are wrong. I explained why, under the "many accumulated differences" model, the lack of interbreeding would be eventually inevitable.

I would be more happy if you tried to address my points, instead of just ignoring them and reasserting yours.


I don't understand 'It's more like "an ability the parent couple almost didn't have that the child does not have'.
If a parent can interbreed with X and their child can't then that is an ability the parents have that the child doesn't. Except that's not the case. The loss is gradual. The parents of the first individual completely unable to breed with members of the other population did not fully and without any restrictions breed with members of that population. The ability was already greatly reduced. The last stages would be something like going from "very, very very hard to inderbreed" to "almost impossible to interbreed" to "impossible to interbreed", and even those would last for many generations.


Get it now? If not, why not?




If a parent can interbreed with X, Y and Z and the child can only interbreed with X and Y then the child has a difference. That's what I was talking about.
See above. The parents have a difference too, and that difference keeps increasing.

The loss of interbreeding is certainly happening within the same 'population' - Eric's Group B - the Blue Beetles, the Blue Beetles that once could interbreed with Group A, the Brown Beetles.The loss of interbreeding is in regard to groups A and B, Mags. Not within the individuals of each group.

In the end , none of the Group B Blue Beetles descendants can interbreed with Group A. Two different groups, Mags.

[ericmurphy]

See above. The parents have a difference too, and that difference keeps increasing.

In the end , none of the Group B Blue Beetles descendants can interbreed with Group A.
The loss of interbreeding is in regard to groups A and B, Mags. Not within the individuals of each group.
Two different groups, Mags.

This is where we have Magellan admitting that speciation happens. He already admits that at the beginning, members of "initial group B" can mate with members of group A (which is what my model states):


If you examine one individual from the initial Group B and ask one question - 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ there is only ever one answer – ‘Yes.’.

He also admits that at the end, members of the "final group B" can no longer mate with group A:


If you examine one individual from the final Group B and ask one question - 'Can this individual breed with a Group A individual ?’ there is only ever one answer – ‘No’.

That's what speciation is, Magellan.

[magellan004]

In reality, yes, it always does. It might not have the same interbreeding ability as distant ancestors or distant descendants. But the key point, which makes your entire argument a red herring, is that IT DOES NOT MATTER EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT.

We STILL get speciation. You ADMIT we get speciation.

Jumping the gun.

Now we can deal with the inevitable consequences of -
Generation 559. 'Can this parent breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’
Generation 600 'Can this child of Gen 559 parent breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.

Let's drop the colours as identifiers of The Beetles - some people were getting awfully mixed up by them.

And also, can we stop this pretence that sometimes we are discussing something other than
'an ability to interbreed'?

Can Interbreed = Has an ability, a capacity to interbreed. Your definition of a species. No need to pretend we mean 'can interbreed' in any other sense. OK?

So, to save typing, I'll use 'Gen 559 type Beetle' to identify Beetles that have the same interbreeding ability (and yes, that means the extent of an ability to breed with anything and everything, not just This Group or That Group) as the parent in Generation 559 and
I'll use 'Gen 600 type Beetle' to identify any Beetle with the same interbreeding ability as the child Beetle in generation 600.

To make that clear -
Generation 559. 'Can this parent breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’
Generation 600 'Can this child of Gen 559 parent breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.

Gen 559 Beetles can interbreed with Group A Beetles. They posses the ability to successfully mate with Group A Beetles. YES they can.
Gen 600 Beetles cannot interbreed with Group A Beetles. They do not posses the ability to successfully mate with Group A Beetles. NO they can't.

In the year/s of Generation 600 both Gen 559 Beetles and Gen 600 Beetles are in Group B. (Well there is one Gen 600 type Beetle.) At Gen 601 there are both types in Group B.

Gen 559 and Gen 600 Beetles can interbreed. They posses an ability to mate successfully with each other. That means the individuals have this ability. It says nothing and it doesn't matter what you think about 'The Group' and 'The Group interfertility rate'. You can make up formulae until you are blue in the face.

The ability to interbreed (as outlined in your definition of Species) is what I am talking about. A Group cannot mate. An individual can as part of a couple.

Now given that , at Generation 600, we have two types of Beetles in Group B and at end of the model, the final Group B has only one type of Beetle left, we need to see how that could arise.

I have outlined what must have arisen to account for that result.
I'll outline it again when you have absorbed the fact that we don't have to dance around the meaning of 'The ability to interbreed'

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Jumping the gun.

Not really. You're just a little behind. Quite a bit behind, actually.


Now we can deal with the inevitable consequences of -
Generation 559. 'Can this parent breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’
Generation 600 'Can this child of Gen 559 parent breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.

Let's drop the colours as identifiers of The Beetles - some people were getting awfully mixed up by them.

Yes. Let's just refer to them by what they are: members of population A, and members of population B. And yes, we do need to deal with those inevitable consequences: for you and your argument.


And also, can we stop this pretence that sometimes we are discussing something other than
'an ability to interbreed'?

There's no pretense, Magellan, because that's all we've ever been discussing. "Ability to breed," or lack thereof, is diagnostic of whether or not two organisms are members of the same species. Your argument that that ability either is or is not present, i.e., is either 100% or 0, regardless of whether you're correct or not, is a red herring. It has no actual bearing on my model.


Can Interbreed = Has an ability, a capacity to interbreed. Your definition of a species. No need to pretend we mean 'can interbreed' in any other sense. OK?

That's all we've ever been discussing, Magellan.


So, to save typing, I'll use 'Gen 559 type Beetle' to identify Beetles that have the same interbreeding ability (and yes, that means the extent of an ability to breed with anything and everything, not just This Group or That Group) as the parent in Generation 559 and
I'll use 'Gen 600 type Beetle' to identify any Beetle with the same interbreeding ability as the child Beetle in generation 600.

For all intents and purposes they're the same, Magellan. Any generation has essentially the same interbreeding ability as its immediate ancestors and its immediate descendants. But if you disagree—if you think that ability suddenly goes from 100% to zero in a single generation—I'm perfectly okay with that. It has absolutely no effect on my model. It's ludicrously unrealistic—real organisms don't act like that—but it has no effect on my model.


To make that clear -
Generation 559. 'Can this parent breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘Yes.’
Generation 600 'Can this child of Gen 559 parent breed with a Group A individual ?’ – ‘No.’.

Same objections, but as I've now said repeatedly and at great length, it makes no difference to my model. Well, actually it does make a minor difference: it makes hybridization impossible, which makes speciation more likely. I believe I raised this point with you months ago. Either that or I'm just getting a strong feeling of deja vu.


Gen 559 Beetles can interbreed with Group A Beetles. They posses the ability to successfully mate with Group A Beetles. YES they can.
Gen 600 Beetles cannot interbreed with Group A Beetles. They do not posses the ability to successfully mate with Group A Beetles. NO they can't.

Hey, if you want to stipulate that, I'm fine with it. Guess what? Instant speciation. In a single generation, we've gone from two populations of beetles which can interbreed to two populations of beetles which can't. Which fits the definition of speciation.

So why do you think speciation can't happen?


In the year/s of Generation 600 both Gen 559 Beetles and Gen 600 Beetles are in Group B. (Well there is one Gen 600 type Beetle.) At Gen 601 there are both types in Group B.

Gen 559 and Gen 600 Beetles can interbreed. They posses an ability to mate successfully with each other. That means the individuals have this ability. It says nothing and it doesn't matter what you think about 'The Group' and 'The Group interfertility rate'. You can make up formulae until you are blue in the face.

But I'm not going to bother, because you just won my argument for me. You have essentially conceded not just this battle but also the entire war. Under your (unrealistic) assumptions, speciation definitely happens.


The ability to interbreed (as outlined in your definition of Species) is what I am talking about.
It's what I'm talking about too.


A Group cannot mate. An individual can as part of a couple.

Well, at least we agree on something.


Now given that , at Generation 600, we have two types of Beetles in Group B and at end of the model, the final Group B has only one type of Beetle left, we need to see how that could arise.

Simple. Let's call beetles in group B that can still mate with beetles in group A type B1 beetles. Let's call beetles in group B that cannot mate with beetles in group A type B2 beetles. At the beginning of my model, all beetles in group B are B1. At the end, they are all B2.

How does that happen?

Genetic drift. Just like this:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDriftV2.png

If you want the line of declining interfertility to be vertical, I'm fine with that. It doesn't change the outcome of my model in the slightest.


I have outlined what must have arisen to account for that result.
I'll outline it again when you have absorbed the fact that we don't have to dance around the meaning of 'The ability to interbreed'

I've already explained why it doesn't matter. Since you obviously missed it the first couple of times, I'll quote it again at length:


An amplification of one of my previous comments:

Magellan believes fertility, and interfertility, are always either 100% or zero. If this were true, speciation would be more likely, not less likely. Why? Because hybridization would be impossible. Hybridization tends to homogenize the two populations. But if interfertility is either 100% or 0, hybridization between members whose interfertility is 0 is by definition impossible.

Let's say, as I said before, that below a certain number of genetic differences, interfertility between two populations is 100%. No interbreeding is actually happening, because the two populations are isolated from each other. Above that number, interfertility between those two populations is zero. If, at any point, the threshold number is exceeded, speciation is instantaneous, even if not all members of either population exceed that threshold. Let's say that 10% of population A exceed the threshold. That fraction of the population now has zero interfertility wrt population B, and hence constitutes a separate species. Whether or not that fraction can interbreed with other members of A, and whether or not those other members of A can still interbreed with B, is irrelevant. We've still got two populations which now have an interfertility of zero: A and B (most of A is still interfertile with B and hence is the same species as B), and that fraction of A which can no longer interbreed with B, which fraction constitutes a separate species.

Under this (unrealistic) scenario, "ability to interbreed" is always either 100% or zero.

We still get speciation.

Ready to concede, Mags? You've lost this one pretty catastrophically.

/thread, as they say.

[ericmurphy]

Throughout this entire discussion, Magellan has been conflating two terms with different meanings, as is his habit. He conflates "ability to interbreed," which in some sense at least is actually a yes-or-no proposition, with "fertility," which can take different values. Certainly Magellan must be aware that some individuals are "more fertile," or "less fertile," than others.

He has this notion that if two organisms mate and produce offspring, they therefore "can interbreed," and if they can't, they then "can't interbreed." What he apparently hasn't thought of is the possibility that an individual may be able to produce offspring with one individual of the same species, but be unable to produce offspring with another individual of the same species.

Take a male human, who mates with a female human who for one reason or another is sterile. According to Magellan, this means that male human "can't interbreed." But that same human male may be able produce offspring with a different human female who is not sterile. But now that male human can interbreed. But that's impossible! According to Magellan, an individual either "can interbreed" or "can't interbreed," and "there is no gray area."

None of this has any effect on my model. My model remains exactly the same even if the only possibilities are "can interbreed" or "can't interbreed." But I'm just pointing out how utterly daft Magellan's belief is that those are the only two possibilities.

[ericmurphy]

But I'm curious, Magellan: you keep asserting that organisms either "can interbreed" or "can't interbreed," but you never provide any reason why you think this is true. I've provided you countless examples where this is not true: whether organisms can interbreed with some other organisms but not with others, where two organisms can interbreed but the offspring are sterile, etc.

In the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, why do you continue to insist on your position, a position which actually hurts your case?

[magellan004]

But I'm curious, Magellan: you keep asserting that organisms either "can interbreed" or "can't interbreed," but you never provide any reason why you think this is true. I've provided you countless examples where this is not true: whether organisms can interbreed with some other organisms but not with others, where two organisms can interbreed but the offspring are sterile, etc.

In the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, why do you continue to insist on your position, a position which actually hurts your case?

Your definition (well one of them) of Species is 'A classification of animals as that can interbreed.'

So in our model we start off with a group of animals that have the exact same property that you say a Species has. We start off with Group A - a group of animals that can interbreed. I have no idea whether you actually think that is possible. But it's your formulation and so that's where our model starts.

I am assuming you think it's possible.

The idea is to see if and how we can end up with two of these 'Species'.






However you determine that ability to interbreed, whatever you mean by that is the meaning that I am using. Two whales have the capacity to breed, interbreed, mate, have children. That is the sense in which I am using 'Can interbreed'. A whale and a mouse cannot interbreed, breed, mate, have children. That is the sense in which I am using 'Cannot interbreed'

For example 'Can this whales and this mouse interbreed?' NO.
For example 'Can this whale and this whale interbreed?' Yes.

Is that confusing? Is that ambiguous? Does it mean I am talking about sterile individuals, exceptional individuals? abnormal individuals, individuals that have been run over by a bus?

Because if 'Can interbreed' makes no sense to you then telling me that a Species is 'animals that can interbreed ' sure makes no sense to anyone other than you.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Your definition (well one of them) of Species is 'A classification of animals as that can interbreed.'

Yep, except you've left out a crucial detail: a "species" is "a classification of animals that can interbreed with each other. Any groups of animals that isn't extinct can "interbreed," Magellan, or they'd be extinct.

And since you've clearly forgotten, I'll remind you that since evolutionary theory predicts that conspecificity will often be difficult to determine, we should expect that there will be more than one definition of "species." After all, we certainly can't tell if the fossils of two 350 million year old mollusks can interbreed or not.


So in our model we start off with a group of animals that have the exact same property that you say a Species has. We start off with Group A - a group of animals that can interbreed. I have no idea whether you actually think that is possible. But it's your formulation and so that's where our model starts.

Since I have repeated over and over that all the members of population A can interbreed, and all the members of population B can also interbreed, it's mysterious why you can't tell whether I think it's possible the members of each population can breed with each other. I've asked you several times if you were clear up to this point, and I took your silence as meaning you were. Was I mistaken about that?


I am assuming you think it's possible.

Why are you "assuming"? I'm telling you I think it's possible.


The idea is to see if and how we can end up with two of these 'Species'.

Well, given I've told you about half a dozen times now how it could happen, you should have a pretty clear idea how I think it happens. But I get the strong impression you have absolutely no idea how I think it happens. Am I mistaken about that, too?


However you determine that ability to interbreed, whatever you mean by that is the meaning that I am using. Two whales have the capacity to breed, interbreed, mate, have children. That is the sense in which I am using 'Can interbreed'. A whale and a mouse cannot interbreed, breed, mate, have children. That is the sense in which I am using 'Cannot interbreed'

I'm with you so far.


For example 'Can this whales and this mouse interbreed?' NO.
For example 'Can this whale and this whale interbreed?' Yes.

Is that confusing? Is that ambiguous?
Not to me it isn't. But given your prior reluctance to commit to whether or not whales and mice can interbreed, I can only assume you yourself recently had some confusion on this point.


Does it mean I am talking about sterile individuals, exceptional individuals? abnormal individuals, individuals that have been run over by a bus?

Well, I don't know, Magellan. Because you have stressed, over and over, that an organism either can or can't breed, and there is "no gray area." But now you seem to be conceding that there are, in fact, gray areas. After all, what is an "abnormal" individual, other than one which has mutations?


Because if 'Can interbreed' makes no sense to you

It makes sense to me, Magellan, in ways it clearly doesn't make sense to you. I'm aware that whether or not an organism "can interbreed" depends in part on what it is trying to interbreed with. I'm getting the impression you don't think that matters.


then telling me that a Species is 'animals that can interbreed ' sure makes no sense to anyone other than you.

But since that's not what it means, I'm not sure what the problem is. A species is made up of organisms that can breed with each other. Mice can breed. Whales can breed. Does that make whales and mice a "species"? Well, they can "interbreed," so…

Do you see why it's important to specify what members of a species can interbreed with?

[ericmurphy]

Let's grant Magellan his wacky belief that interbreeding is either 100% or zero. Here's a revised version of the diagram illustrating my speciation model:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDriftV3.png

Within the gray region, organisms in one population with the number of differences relative to the other population are still able to interbreed with that other population (even though, due to reproductive isolation, they do not in fact do so). Outside of the gray region, they are 100% unable to interbreed with them. I.e., their interfertility is 0. In other words, at any point on the X axis (number of differences), interfertility between the two populations is either 100% or zero.

Does this have any effect on my model?

No. At the time indicated by the green region ("time 1") all members of one population, regardless of the number of differences, can still interbreed with the other population.

At the time indicated by the magenta region, some members of one population can still interbreed with the other population. But all of those individuals who are outside the gray "region of interfertility," even if it's by a single difference, cannot interbreed with the other population.

At the time indicated by the blue region, all members of one population have more differences than the maximum number that still allow interbreeding with the other population. No member of one population can interbreed with the other population.

Looks like we still have speciation, Magellan.

(And not to blow my own horn too much, but while many probably think this thread is really stupid, I think I do a decent job of at least making it look attractive.)

And [ETA: I wouldn't think this would need to be pointed out by now, after how many times it's been stressed, but individuals in the area of "no interfertility" are not interfertile with the other population. They still have the same (100%) interfertility with members of their own population.

In the words of a famous pseudo-philosopher, I do not want this point to be lost.]

[magellan004]

Yep, except you've left out a crucial detail: a "species" is "a classification of animals that can interbreed with each other. Any groups of animals that isn't extinct can "interbreed," Magellan, or they'd be extinct.


It makes sense to me, Magellan, in ways it clearly doesn't make sense to you. I'm aware that whether or not an organism "can interbreed" depends in part on what it is trying to interbreed with. I'm getting the impression you don't think that matters.



But since that's not what it means, I'm not sure what the problem is. A species is made up of organisms that can breed with each other. Mice can breed. Whales can breed. Does that make whales and mice a "species"? Well, they can "interbreed," so…

Do you see why it's important to specify what members of a species can interbreed with?

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
:bonk::bonk::bonk:

What the animal can interbreed with determines what is in the group. Not the other way around.

What ever animal X can interbreed with puts X and that other animal into the same group - 'A Species'.


For example - Whales and mice can interbreed but only those whales that can interbreed with whales belong in the Species 'Whales' ????

Your having the same problem you had with 'Green Beetles' - you can't see beyond the labels.

This is how your evolution system 'works' (although no one does this in practice - it's all armchair biology) -

1. We have an unknown animal and we want to classify it -
2. We check it with a mouse. It cannot interbreed.
3. we check it with a whale. It can interbreed
4. Therefore our unknown animal earns the label 'Whale'.
5. The animal now belongs to a group of animals that can interbreed.

You might have noticed that a whale can attempt to mate with a mouse for as long as it likes - it can't interbreed. It makes no difference what the animal is attempting to interbreed with.

If it can interbreed with a critter - it belongs to that critter's group.

Magellan

[Tiggy]

What the animal can interbreed with determines what is in the group. Not the other way around.

What ever animal X can interbreed with puts X and that other animal into the same group - 'A Species'.

If it can interbreed with a critter - it belongs to that critter's group.

Magellan

Hey Clownshoes:

Lions can interbreed with lions

Tigers can interbreed with tigers

But lions can also interbreed with tigers and produce viable offspring.

Are lions and tigers the same species?

- T

[sylas]

Most of the discussion here has focused on comparatively simple models, which is the right way to explain the relevant concepts. This post is an attempt to give a bit more background, aimed at any readers who are serious about understanding the concepts being used in biology, and what scientific work goes on right now on species and emerging species.

Much of this post refers to direct observations of the kinds of intermediate stages of separation that exist in nature. Arguing that these intermediate stages don't even exist or are somehow "illogical" is merely silly. They do exist; they are observed; and the evolutionary model of gradual or progressive divergence of species is a clear account of how such things arise. They make no sense at all in a biological model based on clearly separated "kinds" with no shared ancestry.

Because speciation nearly always occurs gradually over a period time, there are many intermediate cases in nature where it is not at all clear whether speciation is occurring or not; and there are methods to test that hypothesis. Scientific studies reflect this.

We've focused a lot on the capacity for breeding between two groups. But typically, a species is well established long before you have a total loss of fertility between the two species. There are many cases in nature where you can get hybrids from two crossing two species; and yet geneflow remains highly restricted.

The biological species concept

There is an excellent introductory website on evolution developed at Berkeley University, called Understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html). It is designed to be used by teachers, but there is a wealth of well put together information for anyone who would like to use it. They have a good page in the Evolution 101 section, on the Biological Species Concept (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml), which has been cited before. Here is how they describe this concept.
The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species.
There's more at that page, spelling out some of the difficulties with this concept, and linking to pages on other concepts of species which are sometimes used. But remember, it is impossible to give a definition of species which doesn't run into problems, in the sense of being ambiguous around the gray areas that always occur as new species are arising.

The biological concept is not limited to a simple notion of "fertility". In many cases (the page gives an example of two different meadowlark species) it simply comes down to mate recognition. Individuals of the two populations don't interbreed because they use different songs. They qualify as different species under this biological species concept.

Barriers to cross breeding

Each of the terms here can be googled -- particularly with google scholar -- to find more about the particular mechanisms.

Geographic isolation. A physical barrier can prevent cross breeding between two separated populations. This is not enough to define a species (the word "potentially" in the definition is intended to cover this) but it is enough to prevent geneflow, and this inevitably leads to a gradual accumulation of differences. Over a long period of physical separation, the potential for mixing when the barrier is removed becomes lost, and so you have two species as a result.

Prezygotic isolation. A zygote is a fertilized egg; so pre-zygotic isolation is anything that prevents a zygote at all. Generally this means mating is prevented somehow. Mate recognition is a common example, as in the meadowlarks isolated by virtue of having different songs, described in Evolution 101 page I linked above. An interesting case of "post-mating pre-zygotic" isolation has been observed in two closely related beetle species.
Wade, M.J., et. al. (1994) Postcopulatory, prezygotic isolation in flour beetles (http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v72/n2/abs/hdy199423a.html), Heredity vol 72, pp 163–167.
In this case, the paper describes a case where a female is paired simultaneously with males of the two species. In this case, almost all the resulting offspring are descended from the male that is the same species as the female, and not from the heterospecific male. However, when pairing only with the male of the opposite species, near normal numbers of offspring result.

The paper is available at the link above, and it is good fun. In nature, these beetles (of either sex) will mate several times an hour. In particular, the males "attempt copulation with other males, dead beetles of both sexes, or with any object, such as a lump of flour or frass, which looks like a beetle". Hence there is little role for mate selection here.

The offspring two beetles of the different species tend to be sterile; which would be very bad for a female in particular; all the work of producing offspring having no ultimate descendants. But because of the whatever process is involved (sperm competition, perhaps) she will nearly always produce fertile offspring from one of her matings with males of the same species. The paper also reports:
However, the progeny resulting from the interspecific cross (CC-F) are nearly always sterile or, in rare instances (approximately 1 per cent) are weakly fertile, producing a few offspring.

Here, since it was mentioned earlier, is an example of a percentage fertility result being measured in a laboratory; and also of a notion of "weakly fertile"; an intermediate between being infertile and having normal fertility.

It is important to note that this is a case where you do have two different species, but not a case of 100% infertility between the two species. There is very little geneflow, but still occasional cases where you may get some exchange. It is not nearly enough to prevent the inevitable ongoing divergence of the two species as time goes by.

Postzygotic isolation. This is a case where you do get zygotes forming across species, but they do not result in any geneflow. The most usual case is sterility of the hybrids; a very common phenomenon. Another case was illustrated in a paper I cited back in msg #563:
Jones, F.C. et. al. (2006) Reproductive isolation in a threespine stickleback hybrid zone. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16910983), J. Evol. Biol 19(5) pp 1531-44.
This is a case where fertile hybrids can result when there is mating between two species; but that the progeny are less likely to survive to adulthood; that is, they are less fit in the environment that either of the two parent populations. The example studied shows evidence of both prezygotic and postzygotic isolation mechanisms at work. The concluding sentence of the abstract reads:
We discuss the potential contribution of temporal, spatial, and sexual prezygotic barriers to the observed reproductive isolation as well as postzygotic selection against hybrid zygotes or fry.
That gives an idea of the range of mechanisms that can contribute to isolation. "Isolation", by the way, essentially means that there is very little gene flow between the populations for whatever reason. Once geneflow is restricted, populations will continue to diverge and this invariably further reduces geneflow. There are also cases where barriers to geneflow are removed before full speciation, and two incipient species may merge again to make a unified hybrid population.

Summary

People may refuse to believe in evolution, or in the capacity for new species to arise in nature, for all kinds of reasons. But any sensible discussion of speciation needs to recognize that in nature there really are observed many cases corresponding to intermediate or incipient species, as is expected from evolutionary models. Objection based on a lack of intermediate cases, therefore, are simply out of touch with what we see in nature right now.

The notion of fertility between two different populations is an important one. Simple accounts or simple pictures may obscure the many different aspects of inter-species isolation.

You may get a lack of hybrids because individuals don't mate across the species; there's no mate recognition.
You may get a lack of hybrids because attempting mating is unsuccessful for some reason.
Mating and fertilization may occur, but fail to survive to adulthood or birth.
Hybrids may result, but are sterile, or only very weakly fertile.
Hybrids may be unfit in the environment, and strongly selected against -- unlikely to live long enough to mate into the next generation; or else unable to find a mate.

All of these can exist in intermediate forms. That is, there is "preferential mating" rather than complete lack of mate recognition. Attempted mating may be less likely to succeed. And so on. Sharp boundaries in which an isolation mechanism suddenly appears in full force with a single generation are very unusual.

None of this refutes the simple pictures that are being used in the thread in the apparently futile attempt to explain really simple basics to the deliberately obtuse. This is simply intended as a reminder of what kinds of intermediate levels of barriers to gene flow exist in nature.

Cheers -- sylas

[ericmurphy]

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
:bonk::bonk::bonk:

Don't throw a temper tantrum little monkey.


What the animal can interbreed with determines what is in the group. Not the other way around.

What do you mean, "Not the other way around"?. That's pretty much exactly what I just said, just phrased differently. Members of a species can interbreed with each other, not just interbreed in general.

So explain what you think is "wrong" when you agree that organisms are in the same species if they can interbreed with each other?


What ever animal X can interbreed with puts X and that other animal into the same group - 'A Species'.

Right. So since I said the same thing, either I'm right or we're both wrong.

Or are we now back to two statements which are not phrased identically are therefore contradictory?



For example - Whales and mice can interbreed but only those whales that can interbreed with whales belong in the Species 'Whales' ????

Huh? What? Where are you getting this from? Whales can interbreed with whales. Mice can interbreed with mice. Whales cannot interbreed with mice, nor can mice interbreed with whales.

What distinction do you see between what you're saying and what I'm saying.


Your having the same problem you had with 'Green Beetles' - you can't see beyond the labels.

I'm not having a problem, Magellan, although you certainly seem to be. I'm not saying anything about labels, so I don't know why you think I have a problem "seeing beyond" them.


This is how your evolution system 'works' (although no one does this in practice - it's all armchair biology) -

1. We have an unknown animal and we want to classify it -
2. We check it with a mouse. It cannot interbreed.
3. we check it with a whale. It can interbreed
4. Therefore our unknown animal earns the label 'Whale'.
5. The animal now belongs to a group of animals that can interbreed.

Well, that's not exactly how I would phrase it, and it's certainly not how anyone does it (I've never even thought about doing it that way, so I don't know why you think this is my "system"), but what do you think is the problem here? Whales are the same species because they can interbreed with each other. Whales and mice are not the same species because they can't interbreed with each other. What we choose to "label" them is irrelevant. We could call whales "fire hydrants," but if they can interbreed with other "fire hydrants," they're both the same species.

Do you disagree?

Let's say you've got two butterflies. They look very different. But when you put them together, they mate and produce viable offspring. I would say they're different varieties of the same species. What would you say they are? And what do "labels" have to do with it?


You might have noticed that a whale can attempt to mate with a mouse for as long as it likes
Well, for as long as the mouse can survive the attempt, anyway.


- it can't interbreed. It makes no difference what the animal is attempting to interbreed with.

If it can interbreed with a critter - it belongs to that critter's group.

Right. So what's your point? What are you saying that's any different from what I'm saying? It's like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing where there's no disagreement.

So—back to my model. I've shown that whether or not "interfertility" can vary over a range or can only be 100% or 0 is irrelevant. Your first attempt to show what is "wrong" with my model has failed.

What's your next attempt going to be, I wonder.

[magellan004]

What do you mean, "Not the other way around"?. That's pretty much exactly what I just said, just phrased differently. Members of a species can interbreed with each other, not just interbreed in general.

I'm happy with that.



Let's say you've got two butterflies. They look very different. But when you put them together, they mate and produce viable offspring. I would say they're different varieties of the same species. What would you say they are? And what do "labels" have to do with it?
I would say they are diferent coloured butterflies.
But in this discussion , the both can breed so they are the same Species.


So—back to my model. I've shown that whether or not "interfertility" can vary over a range or can only be 100% or 0 is irrelevant. Your first attempt to show what is "wrong" with my model has failed.

I thought I was the one saying the interfertility figures were irrelevant!
But who cares. We are getting on famously.
We can steam ahead now.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Most of the discussion here has focused on comparatively simple models, which is the right way to explain the relevant concepts.

Certain readers seem to have trouble even with these (extremely simple, and getting simpler) models, so yes; I'd say we definitely need to start out simple.

[ericmurphy]

I'm happy with that.

So that's it with the temper tantrums then?


I would say they are diferent coloured butterflies.
But in this discussion , the both can breed so they are the same Species.

I would describe them as different morphotypes, i.e., different varieties, of the same species. But yes, they're the same species, pretty much by definition. Especially if they actually do interbreed in the wild, and not just in a lab somewhere.

Once again, you don't disagree.


I thought I was the one saying the interfertility figures were irrelevant!
No, you were arguing that they are always one of two values, which you seemed to think was important, and presented some sort of problem for my model. But I showed that even under your ludicrously unrealistic conditions, speciation still happens. Which makes one wonder why you fought hammer and tong over an issue that, even though you're wrong about it, doesn't affect my model one way or another.

Pick your battles, Magellan.


But who cares. We are getting on famously.
We can steam ahead now.

I'm hoping you'll catch up eventually.

So: you sounded pretty sure there was something wrong with my model. So far, though, you haven't identified anything. And there isn't too much more to it.

I think you're eventually going to have to admit that if my model conforms even roughly to reality, then speciation must happen.

And, of course, once we get to the evidence supporting the existence of speciation, you're going to have to admit that speciation actually does happen.

[magellan004]

So that's it with the temper tantrums then?



I would describe them as different morphotypes, i.e., different varieties, of the same species. But yes, they're the same species, pretty much by definition. Especially if they actually do interbreed in the wild, and not just in a lab somewhere.

Once again, you don't disagree.


No, you were arguing that they are always one of two values, which you seemed to think was important, and presented some sort of problem for my model. But I showed that even under your ludicrously unrealistic conditions, speciation still happens. Which makes one wonder why you fought hammer and tong over an issue that, even though you're wrong about it, doesn't affect my model one way or another.

Pick your battles, Magellan.



I'm hoping you'll catch up eventually.

So: you sounded pretty sure there was something wrong with my model. So far, though, you haven't identified anything. And there isn't too much more to it.

I think you're eventually going to have to admit that if my model conforms even roughly to reality, then speciation must happen.

And, of course, once we get to the evidence supporting the existence of speciation, you're going to have to admit that speciation actually does happen.

Here's on issue you can chew the cud over -

In the final Group B - the group of individuals that cannot breed with Group A Beetles there is only one type of Beetle - a Beetle that cannot breed with Group A Beetles. They are 'Gen 600' type Beetles.

So these Gen 600 Beetles are not giving birth to any Gen 599 Beetles (Beetles that can breed with Group A Beetles).

Therefore one of the features of not being able to breed with Group A Beetles is that you cannot give birth to a Beetle that can breed with Group A Beetles. Yet the ancestors of Gen 600 Beetles could breed with Group A Beetles.

Why is there this necessary dual feature to a difference between ancestor-descendant?

Another example - Orcas have been sighted as currently 'splitting' or 'speciating'. That would require the new type of Orca- the one that can no longer breed with 'old' type Orcas to be unable to give birth to 'Old type Orcas'.

I don't understand why such a dual feature is necessary (let alone possible) .

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Here's on issue you can chew the cud over -

In the final Group B - the group of individuals that cannot breed with Group A Beetles there is only one type of Beetle - a Beetle that cannot breed with Group A Beetles. They are 'Gen 600' type Beetles.

In real life, probably not. Remember the normal distribution of the population in my model, Magellan. It is not true that all of these beetles are identical. Sure; they're all the same species. They can interbreed. But that doesn't make them identical.

I'm willing to simplify my model to a point. But not to the point of meaninglessness.


So these Gen 600 Beetles are not giving birth to any Gen 599 Beetles (Beetles that can breed with Group A Beetles).

I'm with you so far. But there is in reality no reason why a gen-600 (or 700, or 800) beetle could not have a gen-599 offspring, and it would have no effect on my model if it occasionally, or even frequently, happened. You seem to be under the impression that there is one, and only one, specific genetic difference that can prevent interbreeding. In reality, there are many, many differences that could do so, and an even larger number of combinations of differences that could do so.


Therefore one of the features of not being able to breed with Group A Beetles is that you cannot give birth to a Beetle that can breed with Group A Beetles. Yet the ancestors of Gen 600 Beetles could breed with Group A Beetles.

No, this isn't quite true, because there are reversals, and in real life (in contrast to your mistaken impression of it), there is a long period of slowly decreasing fertility, and it's certainly possible there will be beetles in population B that can interbreed with population A even though their several-generations-ago ancestors may not have been able to. Even if occasionally, or even frequently, gen-599-type beetles (let's just call them what they are: population B beetles which can still interbreed with population A beetles) are born long after the first population B2 beetles (the ones that cannot interbreed with population A beetles) appear, it doesn't affect my model at all. Let's look at my diagram again:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDriftV3.png

This is my simplified model, where interfertility ceases abruptly after a certain number of differences have accumulated. Note that all of the beetles in the magenta region are alive at roughly the same time. Some of them can interbreed with population A beetles (the ones within the gray "region of interfertility") and some of them cannot. It can even be the case that some of these type B1 beetles (the ones which can still interbreed with population A beetles) were born after the type B2 beetles first started appearing.

In fact, in real life, this is certainly the case. But that's sort of irrelevant in this (vastly simplified) model.


Why is there this necessary dual feature to a difference between ancestor-descendant?

It's not necessary, as I just pointed out. And remember, Magellan: regardless of whether your gen-600 or gen-599 (or, for that matter, gen-150 or gen-1,200) beetles can interbreed with population A, they don't interbreed with population A.

Geographic isolation, remember? That's still, and always has been, a feature of my model. It hasn't gone anywhere.


Another example - Orcas have been sighted as currently 'splitting' or 'speciating'. That would require the new type of Orca- the one that can no longer breed with 'old' type Orcas to be unable to give birth to 'Old type Orcas'.

Sure. If actual speciation completes. At this point, it may or it may not. The two varieties may continue to drift apart—if they continue not to interbreed—or they may remix, if they start interbreeding at some point.


I don't understand why such a dual feature is necessary (let alone possible) .

While it's possible, it's not necessary. And it's not a "dual feature" anyway. All we have is steadily decreasing interfertility. Or, if you insist, sudden mutual infertility. If there are occasional reversals, so what? As long as the eventual trend is towards increasing genetic differences (and what would reverse the course, Magellan? There are many, many, many ways these two populations can be different, but there is only one way they can be the same), speciation isn't just possible, it isn't just likely, it's inevitable..

You're still missing two crucial elements of my model: 1) increasing amounts of genetic difference over time (it doesn't matter whether there's some threshold amount of difference which suddenly prevents interfertility or just a slow decline in interfertility); and 2) isolation. Regardless of whether at any time beyond the initial isolation these two populations can interbreed, they don't interbreed.

And by the way, Magellan: I hope you are not under the impression, even in this simplified model, that all the beetles in generation 599 can interbreed with population A beetles and none of the ones in population 600 can. That's way too unrealistic even for me to stomach, and besides, you've said many times yourself that there must have been a "first" type B2 beetle: a population B beetle that cannot interbreed with population A beetles.

[sylas]

Therefore one of the features of not being able to breed with Group A Beetles is that you cannot give birth to a Beetle that can breed with Group A Beetles. Yet the ancestors of Gen 600 Beetles could breed with Group A Beetles.

Why is there this necessary dual feature to a difference between ancestor-descendant?


Because differences accumulate over time in lineages. Every new individual born has a significant number of new mutations that were not in either of their parents. In the case of humans, this is of the order of around 150 new mutations or so, with every individual born. These are germ line mutations, which will get passed on to your descendants.

These differences accumulate, from generation to generation. This is observed right now.

The new changes or mutations also get passed around within a breeding population. This is called gene flow.

The inevitable result of this is that after a significant number of generations (generally, much more than 600!) you have accumulated many many differences, all of which add up to make individuals of the species different, in all kinds of ways, from an original ancestor series.

When you have two groups, or two populations, which are isolated from each other so that they do not continue to interbreed and share genetic information around a single gene pool, you will inevitably have two populations which are, over time, become more and more different from each other; and that invariably means they are less and less able to mate successfully between the two groups. So at one time you have two populations (group A and group B) which can breed with each other quite effectively given the opportunity, and are thus from a single species. Then, at a much later time, you have two descendent populations (group A' and group B') which cannot breed effectively with each other even given an opportunity, and are thus two different species.

This is one of the basic ways in which speciation occurs. What has been explained to you now endlessly includes the following points.

Each generation is just a little bit different from the previous.
Differences accumulate, without any special generation at which you can identify a definite point of sudden change.
When there is no geneflow between two populations, they will gradually diverge from each other as the differences accumulate.




Another example - Orcas have been sighted as currently 'splitting' or 'speciating'. That would require the new type of Orca- the one that can no longer breed with 'old' type Orcas to be unable to give birth to 'Old type Orcas'.


No, it doesn't require that. It only requires that you have groups that DON'T breed with each other, for whatever reason. It also doesn't require a "new" type and "old" type that changes with one generation, as has been explained now many times.

A recent reference for this:

Morin, P.A. et. al. (2010) "Complete mitochondrial genome phylogeographic analysis of killer whales (Orcinus orca) indicates multiple species (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2010/04/15/gr.102954.109.abstract)", in Genome Research vol 20, pp 908-916. (Full text of the paper is available).



Abstract:

Killer whales (Orcinus orca) currently comprise a single, cosmopolitan species with a diverse diet. However, studies over the last 30 years have revealed populations of sympatric ‘ecotypes’ with discrete prey preferences, morphology and behaviors. Although these ecotypes avoid social interactions and are not known to interbreed, genetic studies to date have found extremely low levels of diversity in the mitochondrial control region, and few clear phylogeographic patterns worldwide. This low level of diversity is likely due to low mitochondrial mutation rates that are common to cetaceans. Using killer whales as a case study, we have developed a method to readily sequence, assemble, and analyze complete mitochondrial genomes from large numbers of samples to more accurately assess phylogeography and estimate divergence times. This represents an important tool for wildlife management, not only for killer whales but for many marine taxa. We used high-throughput sequencing to survey whole mitochondrial genome variation of 139 samples from the North Pacific, North Atlantic and southern oceans. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that each of the known ecotypes represents a strongly supported clade with divergence times ranging from approximately 150,000 to 700,000 years ago. We recommend that three named ecotypes be elevated to full species, and that two additional types be recognized as subspecies pending additional data. [...]

Orca generation time is similar to humans; about 20 to 40 years. So the genetic differences MEASURED between the different non-interbreeding populations correspond to what would accumulate with divergence from a single parent population over something between 5000 to 30000 generations ago.

Orca taxonomy is under review in the light of this and other related research, and the recognition of a number of different species is likely to be official sometime soon.


I don't understand why such a dual feature is necessary (let alone possible).

Maybe so. At this stage, that is not because the concepts are particularly hard; or because there are any scientific, biological or logical problems. It has much more to do with your own inability or refusal to follow bog simple concepts which apparently violate something to which you personally have some great attachment.

Cheers -- sylas

PS. What you mean by "dual" feature is obscure. There is an "arrow" of time, so that differences accumulate from past to present, and not in reverse. ALL populations accumulate differences from the ancestral stock; you don't have any lineage remaining unchanged -- although the changes may not necessarily be apparent when all you have are bones to compare.

[Faid]

We've all repeatedly explained that to Mags. His MO seem to be:

Ask Poster 1 about point X

When Poster 1 explains point X, ignore their response and ask same question to Poster 2.

When Poster 2 also responds, ignore their response as well and ask same question to Poster 3.

Continue in the same way, and, having asked all posters, return to Poster 1 with same question.

Rinse, repeat.

[ericmurphy]

I should make one additional point for Magellan's benefit about my model.

I'm wondering if Magellan has the idea in his head that the only changes happening in my model are in population B. We've been talking a lot about mutations in population B that eventually prevent interbreeding with population A. However, the converse is also true: mutations are accumulating in population A that eventually prevent interbreeding with population B. I only needed to illustrate one population in my diagram because obviously differences between B and A can also be expressed as differences between A and B.

It is definitely not the case that population B is changing over time (differences in allele frequencies over time; remember?) and population A is not. Both populations are experiencing genetic drift relative to each other (and relative to the original ancestral population X). The rates of change each population experiences may, and probably do, differ, and selection pressures may be, and probably are, different in the different environments A and B find themselves.

But both populations are changing over time. Not just population B.

[ericmurphy]

Magellan still seems hung up on the notion that since a child's fertility is essentially the same, on average, as its parent's fertility, that therefore fertility can never go down.

But let's look at this simple white-to-black gradient:


http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Intergeneration.png

The difference in color between any two adjacent columns of pixels is indistinguishable. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the gradient we have what are clearly white pixels, and at the other end we have what are clearly black pixels.

How does that happen?

[magellan004]

About the Orcas-

Another example - Orcas have been sighted as currently 'splitting' or 'speciating'. That would require the new type of Orca- the one that can no longer breed with 'old' type Orcas to be unable to give birth to 'Old type Orcas'.


No, it doesn't require that. It only requires that you have groups that DON'T breed with each other, for whatever reason. It also doesn't require a "new" type and "old" type that changes with one generation, as has been explained now many times.
That's not correct. It requires at a minimum that there used to be one group of Orcas that could interbreed, and that requires that those 'old Orcas' could have 'old Orca' type children.

The ancestors of those 'old type Orcas' have two features - 1. They cannot interbreed in the same way and 2. They cannot have 'old type Orca' children.

When you say 'This has been explained now many times I presume you mean some sort of proclamation issued from a lofty throne, rather than anything being shown through reason.



A recent reference for this:

Morin, P.A. et. al. (2010) "Complete mitochondrial genome phylogeographic analysis of killer whales (Orcinus orca) indicates multiple species (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2010/04/15/gr.102954.109.abstract)", in Genome Research vol 20, pp 908-916. (Full text of the paper is available).



Abstract:

Killer whales (Orcinus orca) currently comprise a single, cosmopolitan species with a diverse diet. However, studies over the last 30 years have revealed populations of sympatric ‘ecotypes’ with discrete prey preferences, morphology and behaviors. Although these ecotypes avoid social interactions and are not known to interbreed,[...]

This is yet another example of 'These animals can't interbreed and comprise a category that can interbreed.'

Magellan

[magellan004]

But let's look at this simple white-to-black gradient:


http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Intergeneration.png

The difference in color between any two adjacent columns of pixels is indistinguishable. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the gradient we have what are clearly white pixels, and at the other end we have what are clearly black pixels. How does that happen?

We can see what's going on if we take the trouble to look at the underlying cause of the grey - the pixels. If we can't analyse the image at the pixel level then we can't analyse what's happening in the picture - we can only observe generalities.

Magellan

[magellan004]

It is definitely not the case that population B is changing over time (differences in allele frequencies over time; remember?) and population A is not. Both populations are experiencing genetic drift relative to each other (and relative to the original ancestral population X). The rates of change each population experiences may, and probably do, differ, and selection pressures may be, and probably are, different in the different environments A and B find themselves.

But both populations are changing over time. Not just population B.

Can you point me to where in your model you show this 'populations are changing over time'? Or if your model hasn't yet shown it, can you demonstrate how it occurs? By demonstrate I don't mean 'insist that it occurs' ; I mean show the process.

Thanks,

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

About the Orcas-



That's not correct. It requires at a minimum that there used to be one group of Orcas that could interbreed, and that requires that those 'old Orcas' could have 'old Orca' type children.

Don't you think that kind of goes without saying, Magellan? I mean, in order to have speciation in the first place, you have to have an original species, right? Do we have to include in our list the fact that life exists in the first place?


The ancestors of those 'old type Orcas' have two features - 1. They cannot interbreed in the same way and 2. They cannot have 'old type Orca' children.

No. Neither of these is a requirement. All that is required is that the two populations don't interbreed, not that they can't interbreed. And it doesn't matter if the two populations have your "old type" orcas at any point in the process, so long as the "new type" orcas eventually come to predominate.


When you say 'This has been explained now many times I presume you mean some sort of proclamation issued from a lofty throne, rather than anything being shown through reason.

No. He means an explanation being "shown through reason"—repeatedly, in detail, and exhaustively, including with diagrams and illustrations—rather than "some sort of proclamation issued from a lofty throne."


This is yet another example of 'These animals can't interbreed and comprise a category that can interbreed.'

This is yet another example of Magellan's demand to be shown a process in real time that takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years to complete.

[ericmurphy]

We can see what's going on if we take the trouble to look at the underlying cause of the grey - the pixels. If we can't analyse the image at the pixel level then we can't analyse what's happening in the picture - we can only observe generalities.

Magellan

What you're now looking at analogizes to looking at a stomach muscle cell and a neuron, noting that they are different, and from that concluding that there are discernible differences between two consecutive generations.

Analogy fail, Magellan. The difference in value between two adjacent pixels in my gradient is imperceptible. That each of those pixels is made up of individual subpixels which have discernible differences between them is utterly irrelevant, and hence your argument is utterly without merit.

But it's interesting to see how far you will go to try to deny the obvious: in my gradient, the difference in value between adjacent columns of pixels is undetectable.

[ericmurphy]

Can you point me to where in your model you show this 'populations are changing over time'?
Sure. Let's look at the diagram again:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDrift.png

You'll note that the graph has two axes: one is the number of individuals, and one is the number of differences. The intersection of any two lines drawn perpendicular to both axes gives the number of individuals with a particular number of differences (note: this is not the number of differences those individuals have compared to their own population, but rather to the other population, the one with which they are not interbreeding, regardless of whether they can interbreed with them).

In the graph itself, you will note there are three different curves in three different colors. Each of those curves represents a normal distribution of numbers of differences (not the differences themselves, but merely the number of differences) members of one population have compared to the other population. The area under each curve represents the total size of the population. You will note that a relatively small number of individuals have a small number of differences; a relatively large number have a medium number of differences; and a relatively small number have a large number of differences.

Each of the three curves represents a snapshot of the number of individuals having a particular number of differences at a particular point in time. If it's not clear, "Time 1" is earlier than "Time 2" which is earlier than "Time 3." As you can readily see, as time goes on, the minimum, average, and maximum number of differences increases, although the proportion of individuals with minimum, average, and maximum numbers of differences does not change over time.

Obviously, we are seeing "populations changing over time." As we move forward in time, the trend is towards greater and greater differences between the two populations (but the number of differences within a population does not change).

I've explained this diagram, and others based on it, numerous times in different ways. I'm hoping that you now understand it.


Or if your model hasn't yet shown it, can you demonstrate how it occurs? By demonstrate I don't mean 'insist that it occurs' ; I mean show the process.

As for "how this occurs": mutations, Magellan. Mutations accumulate over time. In human beings, roughly one mutation per hundred million base-pairs per haploid genome occurs in germline cells per generation. This means each child has roughly one hundred fifty mutations not present in either parent in its germline cells which it will pass on to any descendants. So after one generation, we've got 150 mutations, after two generations we've got 300 mutations, and after a hundred thousand generations we've got fifteen million mutations.

As sylas points out, this is a matter of empirical fact. As Theobald points out (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_rates), this is a well-established empirical fact, because mutation rates are important in cancer research.

[ericmurphy]

I'm hoping that Magellan will not now object that my diagram illustrating my model is not made up of actual organisms.

[Theostudent]

We've all repeatedly explained that to Mags. His MO seem to be:

Ask Poster 1 about point X

When Poster 1 explains point X, ignore their response and ask same question to Poster 2.

When Poster 2 also responds, ignore their response as well and ask same question to Poster 3.

Continue in the same way, and, having asked all posters, return to Poster 1 with same question.

Rinse, repeat.


hahah and guess what the jokes on you ya damn N00bs

[ericmurphy]

At least Magellan usually comes up with something entertaining to say, TS. You stopped doing that a long time ago.

[Faid]

Theo is an obedient little troll. Eventually, he'll do what I commanded him to do, as he always does.

[magellan004]

I've read back over page 60 - which contained several interesting posts.


This is from Post 891 -

Why? How does that follow from anything at all, Magellan? Why is your green beetle, which is far less interfertile than the blue beetles, outcompeting the blue beetles? Your green beetle can't mate with brown beetles at all, apparently, and yet you think it's going to somehow outcompete blue beetles, which have a 90% interfertility rate with brown beetles (and presumably close to 100% interfertility with other blue beetles, although of course you neglected to specify that).

How does that happen, Magellan? How does a variety of beetle with lower fertility outcompete a variety with higher fertility?

Those objections you raise are the same as the objections I have to the evolutionary model.
We know that in the end there are only Gen 600 type Beetles (Green Beetles) that cannot mate with Group A Beetles (Brown Beetles).
But that outcome means that the less fertile type Group B Beetle did outcompete the more fertile type Beetle - the Gen 599 Beetle (Blue Beetle) that could mate with Group A Beetles (Brown Beetles).

Using the explanation of evolution - in particular Speciation, we can only arrive at the end result - complete lack of fertility , if less fertile types do outcompete more fertile types.

Magellan

[magellan004]

This was also from Page 60 , Post 894-

Think of it this way, Magellan:

You've got two groups of beetles. Take any beetle from the first group and any beetle from the second group. In any matching, the number of differences between the two beetles (not groups, individuals) varies from 100 differences to 10,000 differences. For every 1,000 extra differences, interfertility declines by another ten percent. Thus, with 1,000 differences, interfertility is 90%; with 2,000 differences, it's 80%; etc.

We now how have two populations with interfertility rates between 99% (100 differences) to 0 (10,000 differences).

Now: over time, add a thousand differences on average every ten thousand generations. After ten thousand generations, the maximum interfertility is less than 90%, and 20% of your beetles are completely interfertile. After twenty thousand generations, the maximum interfertility is 80%, and 30% of your beetles are completely interfertile.

What is the inevitable result after a hundred thousand generations, Magellan?
I am not sure where you got the ‘For every 1,000 extra differences, interfertility declines by another ten percent.’ But whatever the figure – the results spell Doomsday for Speciation-

I’ve done some quick calculations about the ‘accumulated differences’ thing –

Let’s say -
1. A child Human Sapien has about 160 differences to its parents.
2. A parent pair has at least 320 differences between them at Year 0.
3. Two parent pairs have at least 640 differences between them at Year 0. (I think these are very conservative figures).
4. For the first Generation of children, the first Parent Couple – Parents 1, have a child (Child 1) that has 160 differences to them. The next door couple has a child (Child 2) and that child will have say the difference between the couples – 640 and the difference between the children – 320. So two children from different families will have at least a difference of 960 features.
5. Take another neighbouring child and the difference between Child 1 and Child Three is 1920 differences.
6. In the second generation the children of Child 1 and Child 2 will be 1280 differences apart and 320 differences apart from their grandparents. Child of Child 1 and child of Child 3 will be 2560 difference apart and 320 from their respective grandparents. The gap between neighbours is getting much wider than the gap between descendants and ancestors.
7. Let’s say a generation is born every 30 years.

If my calculations are any indication then –
1. By year 50,000 the descendant of Parent Couple 1 will have 266,666 differences from Parent Couple 1.
2. By year 50,000 two children from different families will have a minimum difference between them of 533,333 features.
3. In a population of 40,000 some children will have a minimum difference between them of 10,666,666

So that if the differences (266,666) between Parent couple 1 and their descendant child of generation 50,000 is enough to prevent interbreeding – ie, a different species, then what happens when we have a difference of 10.666,666 between members of the same species (in a group of 40,000) . Of course their will be some cross over of family lines but the differences will still be huge.

Another oddity is (if my maths is right) if we had one group of 40,000 individuals compared to two groups of 10,000 groups that had split from an original group , the differences between members of the large group would exceed by far the differences between the two separate smaller groups.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

I've read back over page 60 - which contained several interesting posts.

So I guess you've given up on critiquing my model, and going back to your own model? Remember what I said about that? I don't care how many unworkable, unrealistic models you come up with; I only need one model you can't refute.

Anyway:


This is from Post 891 -


Those objections you raise are the same as the objections I have to the evolutionary model.
No they're not. Your model does not include reproductive isolation; mine does. It doesn't matter if B2 beetles can't interbreed with A beetles and B1 beetles can; neither variety actually does interbreed with population A beetles because they are reproductively isolated from each other. Thus, B2 beetles are not at a selective disadvantage relative to B1 beetles.


We know that in the end there are only Gen 600 type Beetles (Green Beetles) that cannot mate with Group A Beetles (Brown Beetles).
But that outcome means that the less fertile type Group B Beetle did outcompete the more fertile type Beetle - the Gen 599 Beetle (Blue Beetle) that could mate with Group A Beetles (Brown Beetles).

That's why your model is unworkable, Magellan. Without some barrier that reduces or eliminates gene flow between two populations, it is very difficult for speciation to happen.


Using the explanation of evolution - in particular Speciation, we can only arrive at the end result - complete lack of fertility , if less fertile types do outcompete more fertile types.

Nope. You're missing this:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Isolation.png

Because of the reproductive isolation between the two populations, an inability for any beetle to interbreed with members of the other population does not put it at a selective disadvantage. And as my diagram shows, the number of members of either population which cannot interbreed with the other population must inevitably rise.

You really need to re-read my model a few more times, Magellan. You keep missing critical elements of it. Reproductive isolation is a critical element of my model. If you forget it exists, you won't understand why my model works.

[ericmurphy]

This was also from Page 60 , Post 894-

I am not sure where you got the ‘For every 1,000 extra differences, interfertility declines by another ten percent.
I didn't get it from anywhere. It's a feature of my model. The real figure in nature could be very different, and the figure could vary depending on how you count "differences" in any event. The only thing that matters is that more differences = lower interfertility. What the exact ratio is is irrelevant to my model.


But whatever the figure – the results spell Doomsday for Speciation-

Nope, and before I even read the rest of your post I can tell you what you forgot to take account of: selection pressures.

Within a freely-interbreeding population, selection pressures weed out members who have lower fertility. Members with higher fertility leave more descendants—by definition—ensuring that fertility remains high (in reasonably-sized populations; in very small populations selection pressures are often insufficient to keep fertility-lowering mutations at bay, which is why very small populations typically go extinct).

Anyway, let's see if I'm right about what you got wrong.


I’ve done some quick calculations about the ‘accumulated differences’ thing –

Let’s say -
1. A child Human Sapien has about 160 differences to its parents.
2. A parent pair has at least 320 differences between them at Year 0.
3. Two parent pairs have at least 640 differences between them at Year 0. (I think these are very conservative figures).
4. For the first Generation of children, the first Parent Couple – Parents 1, have a child (Child 1) that has 160 differences to them. The next door couple has a child (Child 2) and that child will have say the difference between the couples – 640 and the difference between the children – 320. So two children from different families will have at least a difference of 960 features.
5. Take another neighbouring child and the difference between Child 1 and Child Three is 1920 differences.
6. In the second generation the children of Child 1 and Child 2 will be 1280 differences apart and 320 differences apart from their grandparents. Child of Child 1 and child of Child 3 will be 2560 difference apart and 320 from their respective grandparents. The gap between neighbours is getting much wider than the gap between descendants and ancestors.
7. Let’s say a generation is born every 30 years.

If my calculations are any indication then –
1. By year 50,000 the descendant of Parent Couple 1 will have 266,666 differences from Parent Couple 1.
2. By year 50,000 two children from different families will have a minimum difference between them of 533,333 features.
3. In a population of 40,000 some children will have a minimum difference between them of 10,666,666

So that if the differences (266,666) between Parent couple 1 and their descendant child of generation 50,000 is enough to prevent interbreeding – ie, a different species, then what happens when we have a difference of 10.666,666 between members of the same species (in a group of 40,000) . Of course their will be some cross over of family lines but the differences will still be huge.

Another oddity is (if my maths is right) if we had one group of 40,000 individuals compared to two groups of 10,000 groups that had split from an original group , the differences between members of the large group would exceed by far the differences between the two separate smaller groups.

Yep. I was exactly right. You completely failed to take into account selection pressures that prevent fertility-reducing mutations from propagating through the population. You may recall that in my diagram:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDriftV2.png

—the width of each each of the curves remains more or less constant compared to the other curves, even as the absolute number of differences between one population and the other steadily increase. There's a reason for that: selection pressures weed out individuals who have so many mutations interfertility (within their own population; always within their own population) suffers.

But there are no such selection pressures keeping the number of differences down between reproductively isolated populations. There's no selective disadvantage to a beetle in population A which cannot breed with a beetle in population B, because no beetles in A are breeding with B anyway.

The two populations are free to drift apart genetically.

But members of the same population are not free to drift apart. Members with reduced fertility have a selective disadvantage and are outcompeted by members of the same population with higher fertility.

Rule of thumb:


Members of different populations: free to drift apart genetically
Members of the same population: not free to drift apart genetically


That's exactly why speciation happens.

Looks like two swings and two misses, Magellan. I'm getting close to another strikeout.

[magellan004]

I didn't get it from anywhere. It's a feature of my model. The real figure in nature could be very different, and the figure could vary depending on how you count "differences" in any event. The only thing that matters is that more differences = lower interfertility. What the exact ratio is is irrelevant to my model.



Nope, and before I even read the rest of your post I can tell you what you forgot to take account of: selection pressures.

Within a freely-interbreeding population, selection pressures weed out members who have lower fertility. Members with higher fertility leave more descendants—by definition—ensuring that fertility remains high (in reasonably-sized populations; in very small populations selection pressures are often insufficient to keep fertility-lowering mutations at bay, which is why very small populations typically go extinct).

Anyway, let's see if I'm right about what you got wrong.



Yep. I was exactly right. You completely failed to take into account selection pressures that prevent fertility-reducing mutations from propagating through the population. You may recall that in my diagram:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDriftV2.png

—the width of each each of the curves remains more or less constant compared to the other curves, even as the absolute number of differences between one population and the other steadily increase. There's a reason for that: selection pressures weed out individuals who have so many mutations interfertility (within their own population; always within their own population) suffers.

But there are no such selection pressures keeping the number of differences down between reproductively isolated populations. There's no selective disadvantage to a beetle in population A which cannot breed with a beetle in population B, because no beetles in A are breeding with B anyway.

The two populations are free to drift apart genetically.

But members of the same population are not free to drift apart. Members with reduced fertility have a selective disadvantage and are outcompeted by members of the same population with higher fertility.

Rule of thumb:


Members of different populations: free to drift apart genetically
Members of the same population: not free to drift apart genetically


That's exactly why speciation happens.

Looks like two swings and two misses, Magellan. I'm getting close to another strikeout.

The Australian Aborigines are said to have arrived in Australia about 50,000 years ago. Some of them are in Western Australia (WA) and some were in Tasmania (Tas) (a separate Island a few thousand miles from Western Australia.)

There's your reproductive isolation. There's heaps more difference between a WA aborigine and a Tas aborigine than between either and any missing link ancestor. Yet they are both Human Beings. They can interbreed.

There's a zillion differences between an Aborigine and an African Zulu - many, many more differences than between an Aborigine and any Missing Link Homo Erectus type cave-man.

One more thing - you said 'Members with higher fertility leave more descendants—by definition—ensuring that fertility remains high.' You have not shown this 'accumulation of differences ' to be true. Faid cited a Wiki article that was based on a premise of Speciation.

What you need is either-
1. a demonstration that differences do accumulate and THEREFORE speciation happens or
2. Some obsevation that differences accumulate.
Until you do that , we can't know that differences do accumulate. Maybe some do and maybe some don't. It may well be true that new differences do not last and things revert to some sort of state of balance.

But if differences do accumulate then differences between members of a group can far exceed any differences between members and ancestors. Otherwise Zulu's couldn't mate with Australian Aborigines.


Magellan

[ericmurphy]

The Australian Aborigines are said to have arrived in Australia about 50,000 years ago. Some of them are in Western Australia (WA) and some were in Tasmania (Tas) (a separate Island a few thousand miles from Western Australia.)

There's your reproductive isolation. There's heaps more difference between a WA aborigine and a Tas aborigine than between either and any missing link ancestor. Yet they are both Human Beings. They can interbreed.

Major problem, Magellan: speciation takes much, much longer than 50,000 years. We're talking a hundred thousand generations. At least sixty times that long. But now, it will never happen, because there is no longer any reproductive isolation between Australia and Tasmania.

In fact, anatomically-modern humans first appear roughly 200,000 years ago. Even two populations which had been isolated for that entire time would probably still be interfertile, and at best would be considered subspecies.


There's a zillion differences between an Aborigine and an African Zulu - many, many more differences than between an Aborigine and any Missing Link Homo Erectus type cave-man.

Really? And you know this how? You've done a genetic comparison between Aborigines and H. erectus? A species that died out at least a million years ago (or twenty times longer ago than any two human populations have been isolated). If so, that's major, prize-winning news. I'm sure anthropologists all over the world will be clamoring to find out where you got the H. erectus genetic material.

But, you know, scientists have done a genetic analysis of H. sapiens neanderthalensis, which probably diverged from the lineage leading to anatomically-modern humans 500,000 years ago, before anatomically-modern humans even appeared. And yet the differences are too small for them to really have been separate species (hence my use of the subspecies nomenclature for neanderthals).

So unless you can actually support your claim that Aborigines are closer to H. erectus than to Zulus—and I know you can't—your argument once again fails.


One more thing - you said 'Members with higher fertility leave more descendants—by definition—ensuring that fertility remains high.' You have not shown this 'accumulation of differences ' to be true. Faid cited a Wiki article that was based on a premise of Speciation.

Yes I have, Magellan. Read the Theobald article and cited references once more (I've only cited it to you about two dozen times now—I'm not going to give you the link because by now you should have it bookmarked anyway). But even if I couldn't cite a link to it, you'd be hard-pressed to explain how they can possibly not accumulate, given the lack of a mechanism by which inherited differences can somehow revert back to the original some generations later. Any idea how that would work?


What you need is either-
1. a demonstration that differences do accumulate and THEREFORE speciation happens or
2. Some obsevation that differences accumulate.
I've already given you both, Magellan.


Until you do that , we can't know that differences do accumulate.
We do know they do. I've even given you figures for the rate.


Maybe some do and maybe some don't.
Some don't: the ones that confer a major selective disadvantage. All neutral and beneficial differences do accumulate. And what can be neutral within a population can easily be deleterious between populations.


It may well be true that new differences do not last and things revert to some sort of state of balance.

Really? How does that happen, Magellan? As I've already said, there are many, many, many ways two genomes can differ, but only one way they can be the same. You're asking me to believe a pencil standing on its point will not only never tip over, but if it does tip over, it will somehow magically right itself.

if your principal objection to my model is you think differences never accumulate, but rather somehow magically go back to their original form in the absence of selective pressure I'd say you've already lost this argument.


But if differences do accumulate then differences between members of a group can far exceed any differences between members and ancestors. Otherwise Zulu's couldn't mate with Australian Aborigines.

Yes, Magellan, they can. But not in a single population, and only if isolation lasts a long, long time. No human population has been isolated from all others long enough yet to have spectated. However, without travel between widely-separated groups—if humans had never mastered seafaring or air travel, eventually human populations would undergo speciation.

And by the way, Magellan: it's a bit premature to ask me for evidence supporting my model. First you have to understand my model, and I'm still not persuaded you do. Until this morning, you seem to have missed the fact that it includes reproductive isolation between populations.

[Theostudent]

Theo is an obedient little troll. Eventually, he'll do what I commanded him to do, as he always does.

Just make sure I do not find you lurkin in the Commander Shepard thread of Pwnage again, keep out, yer not invited.

Pwned N00b

[Faid]

Faid cited a Wiki article that was based on a premise of Speciation.Please explain how a formula based on variation within a single population is "based on a premise of speciation".

You didn't even try to read what I posted did you?

[ericmurphy]

Magellan's demand that I produce evidence that mutations "accumulate" means he suspects they do not. Imagine taking an article in a newspaper, and then copying it on a photocopier. Then copying the copy, and copying that copy, again and again, a hundred thousand times. Magellan wants us to accept the possibility that a 80,000th-generation photocopy will be more like the original than a 10,000th-generation copy.

Does he have any takers?

[Faid]

Just make sure I do not find you lurkin in the Commander Shepard thread of Pwnage again, keep out, yer not invited.

Pwned N00b

Well well well... you're so desperate to get me to respond to you that you came back here. Such obsession deserves a crumb or two I guess.
Then again, why bother? It's a matter of time before you do what daddy ordered, and start your own call-out blog about me. See you then- maybe. ;)

(who on Earth still says 'n00b' btw?)

[Faid]

Magellan's demand that I produce evidence that mutations "accumulate" means he suspects they do not. Imagine taking an article in a newspaper, and then copying it on a photocopier. Then copying the copy, and copying that copy, again and again, a hundred thousand times. Magellan wants us to accept the possibility that a 80,000th-generation photocopy will be more like the original than a 10,000th-generation copy.

Does he have any takers?And if you provide evidence that mutations accumulate, he'll just say that it's "wrong". Why? Because the evidence shows how mutations acumulate, and therefore assumes that mutations accumulate, and that's like, question the begging or something.

[Theostudent]

Well well well... you're so desperate to get me to respond to you that you came back here. Such obsession deserves a crumb or two I guess.
Then again, why bother? It's a matter of time before you do what daddy ordered, and start your own call-out blog about me. See you then- maybe. ;)

(who on Earth still says 'n00b' btw?)

This is my house you pathetic braindead moron, and I was banned for two weeks so maybe you should rear down that ego of yours, even though everyone knows that's not possible cause you are a halfwitted n00b, a pwned n00b.

Remember what happend at TR that horse crapped right on yer head after you seaid PEEEEKAABOOO! hahaha

Too bad poor Faid can not lurk in the Commander Shepard thread of extreme Pwnage if he is not logged in and then I might see him, so, here is the rules, stay the hell out of my threads n00b.

-Pwner of N00bs

[Theostudent]

You nerds have a good day wasting away at yer computers!

-Commander Shepard

[Faid]

This is my house you pathetic braindead moron, and I was banned for two weeks so maybe you should rear down that ego of yours, even though everyone knows that's not possible cause you are a halfwitted n00b, a pwned n00b.

Remember what happend at TR that horse crapped right on yer head after you seaid PEEEEKAABOOO! Yeah I remember what happened, you immediately stopped calling me out. No more "where's Faid", no "apologize" demands, nada. It was a pretty pathetic display of cowardice on your part, being the brave little troll that you supposedly are... :hehe:


hahaha

Too bad poor Faid can not lurk in the Commander Shepard thread of extreme Pwnage if he is not logged in and then I might see him, so, here is the rules, stay the hell out of my threads n00b.
Tell you what, I'll top my previous offer. Start your own call-out blog about me and I'll stay away from your threads at TR. Deal?

Come on, it's not like you won't do it eventually... You know you can't resist. See you then!

[magellan004]

Magellan's demand that I produce evidence that mutations "accumulate" means he suspects they do not. Imagine taking an article in a newspaper, and then copying it on a photocopier. Then copying the copy, and copying that copy, again and again, a hundred thousand times. Magellan wants us to accept the possibility that a 80,000th-generation photocopy will be more like the original than a 10,000th-generation copy.

Does he have any takers?

On the one hand you have no idea how many differences it takes to cause inability to breed with an animal , on the other hand you somehow know 'it takes longer than that'.

What I did show was that mathematically, the differences between members of the same generation of a group can far outweigh any differences between ancestors and descendants. That's undeniable.

If differences do accumulate then in any group there will be zillions of differences between members.

And this gets back to THE PROBLEM -
Even if you say 'selective pressures will wipe out x , y and z' that still means that x, y and z were alive and now there is a new x, y and z in our midst.

According to evolution we should expect to see (in the phylogenetic tree of life) - not species, not definable groups, but a continuous spectrum of organisms - horses with one leg, horses with two legs, horses with three legs etc. Every conceivable combination.

There would be no logical basis for grouping anything.

If in doubt - group the things in this diagram -

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

On the one hand you have no idea how many differences it takes to cause inability to breed with an animal , on the other hand you somehow know 'it takes longer than that'.

I do have some idea, Magellan, but for the purposes of my model it doesn't matter. Remember: we're not talking right now about evidence my model corresponds to reality. We're just trying to get you to the point where you even understand the model. So far you have yet to make a valid criticism of it.


What I did show was that mathematically, the differences between members of the same generation of a group can far outweigh any differences between ancestors and descendants. That's undeniable.

Of course it's deniable, because you've done no such thing. You have no idea what the differences between members of the same generation are. I, actually, do have some idea, but for now it doesn't matter anyway.


If differences do accumulate then in any group there will be zillions of differences between members.

Nope. All humans are 99% or better identical.


And this gets back to THE PROBLEM -
What problem? You haven't even identified a problem yet. Everything you've claimed was a problem I've shown is not a problem.


Even if you say 'selective pressures will wipe out x , y and z' that still means that x, y and z were alive and now there is a new x, y and z in our midst.

Nothing is getting "wiped out," Magellan. Less fertile individuals are simply outcompeted by more fertile individuals. That's how selection pressures work.


According to evolution we should expect to see (in the phylogenetic tree of life) - not species, not definable groups, but a continuous spectrum of organisms - horses with one leg, horses with two legs, horses with three legs etc. Every conceivable combination.

There would be no logical basis for grouping anything.


Nope. We've explained over and over and over again why this isn't true: selection pressure. Unviable organisms simply do not propagate themselves, and are outcompeted by viable organisms.

If in doubt - group the things in this diagram -

That diagram shows anagenesis, not cladogenesis. There's nothing to group.

[ericmurphy]

By the way, Magellan: your estimate of the number of mutations necessary to prevent interbreeding—266,666—is laughably low. It amounts to .008% difference. If you think two organisms that are 99.992% identical genetically would be unable to interbreed, you're nuts.

And before you object: my (made-up) figure of 10,000 "differences" cannot be directly compared to your 266,666 mutations. 1 "difference" ≠ 1 mutation.

[Sparko]

This is my house you pathetic braindead moron, and I was banned for two weeks so maybe you should rear down that ego of yours, even though everyone knows that's not possible cause you are a halfwitted n00b, a pwned n00b.

Remember what happend at TR that horse crapped right on yer head after you seaid PEEEEKAABOOO! hahaha

Too bad poor Faid can not lurk in the Commander Shepard thread of extreme Pwnage if he is not logged in and then I might see him, so, here is the rules, stay the hell out of my threads n00b.

-Pwner of N00bs

so theo, are you saying that Magellan004 and you are the same person? Cuz as far as I can tell, this is Magellan's thread.

[magellan004]

I do have some idea, Magellan, but for the purposes of my model it doesn't matter. Remember: we're not talking right now about evidence my model corresponds to reality. We're just trying to get you to the point where you even understand the model. So far you have yet to make a valid criticism of it.



Of course it's deniable, because you've done no such thing. You have no idea what the differences between members of the same generation are. I, actually, do have some idea, but for now it doesn't matter anyway.



Nope. All humans are 99% or better identical.


What problem? You haven't even identified a problem yet. Everything you've claimed was a problem I've shown is not a problem.



Nothing is getting "wiped out," Magellan. Less fertile individuals are simply outcompeted by more fertile individuals. That's how selection pressures work.



Nope. We've explained over and over and over again why this isn't true: selection pressure. Unviable organisms simply do not propagate themselves, and are outcompeted by viable organisms.


That diagram shows anagenesis, not cladogenesis. There's nothing to group.

How did you derive your 'model'?
It looks like a graph. Does it have data?

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

How did you derive your 'model'?
It looks like a graph. Does it have data?

I "derived" it by knowing how speciation happens, Magellan. I understand evolutionary theory. You don't.

I told you, we're not discussing evidence that my model is correct. I know you well enough to know that you don't care about "data," and aren't concerned about it. You pay no attention to published data in the literature, preferring instead to make up your own data out of thing air (but when someone else does it for illustrative purposes, you're the first to complain).

That's not my aim here. I frankly don't care whether you believe my model reflects reality or not. I know you're never going to accept evolutionary theory.

My aim here was to refute your claim that no one can give you an explanation for how speciation might happen—to explain how you get from all brown beetles to a mixture of green and brown beetles. But I have given you an explanation, an explanation that has been consistent from the very beginning. It's never changed.

If you could find a reason why my model cannot work, that would be one thing. But you can't. And I'm frankly not going to waste a tremendous amount of time chasing down a ton of data and statistics—most of which have already been provided to you, but which you have ignored—in order to make a point I've already made.

Your only objection to my model that doesn't ignore major parts of my model is my claim that mutations accumulate and eventually lead to sufficient genetic incompatibility preventing interbreeding and hence resulting in speciation. But your objection is pretty weak tea, for two reasons 1) we already know mutations occur, and we know the rate at which they occur. You expect us to believe that despite there being many, many, many more ways two genomes can be different than they can be the same, that it's somehow more likely mutations will bring two populations closer together genetically rather than further apart; and 2) if you don't believe mutations can eventually result in a lack of interfertility, then you have to explain why all of the organisms which cannot interbreed are more different genetically than all the organisms which can.

And lest it be forgotten, I'll point out one more time that whatever you might think of my model for how biodiversity arises, you have no model for how it happens at all.

[magellan004]

I "derived" it by knowing how speciation happens, Magellan. I understand evolutionary theory. You don't.

I told you, we're not discussing evidence that my model is correct. I know you well enough to know that you don't care about "data," and aren't concerned about it. You pay no attention to published data in the literature, preferring instead to make up your own data out of thing air (but when someone else does it for illustrative purposes, you're the first to complain).

That's not my aim here. I frankly don't care whether you believe my model reflects reality or not. I know you're never going to accept evolutionary theory.

My aim here was to refute your claim that no one can give you an explanation for how speciation might happen—to explain how you get from all brown beetles to a mixture of green and brown beetles. But I have given you an explanation, an explanation that has been consistent from the very beginning. It's never changed.

If you could find a reason why my model cannot work, that would be one thing. But you can't. And I'm frankly not going to waste a tremendous amount of time chasing down a ton of data and statistics—most of which have already been provided to you, but which you have ignored—in order to make a point I've already made.

Your only objection to my model that doesn't ignore major parts of my model is my claim that mutations accumulate and eventually lead to sufficient genetic incompatibility preventing interbreeding and hence resulting in speciation. But your objection is pretty weak tea, for two reasons 1) we already know mutations occur, and we know the rate at which they occur. You expect us to believe that despite there being many, many, many more ways two genomes can be different than they can be the same, that it's somehow more likely mutations will bring two populations closer together genetically rather than further apart; and 2) if you don't believe mutations can eventually result in a lack of interfertility, then you have to explain why all of the organisms which cannot interbreed are more different genetically than all the organisms which can.

And lest it be forgotten, I'll point out one more time that whatever you might think of my model for how biodiversity arises, you have no model for how it happens at all.

Ok , so your starting group is a group of Brown Beetles that can all interbreed and are interbreeding with one another. What happens next? Do any of those Beetles have children that are different to the parents? If so , how are they different?

If there are too many difference to mention, can we have a few examples of how some children are different from their parents?

That will help me get oriented. When you say 'Everything changes over time ' I get dizzy imagining all the possibilities amidst the vagueness.

Magellan

[Theostudent]

Yeah I remember what happened, you immediately stopped calling me out. No more "where's Faid", no "apologize" demands, nada. It was a pretty pathetic display of cowardice on your part, being the brave little troll that you supposedly are... :hehe:

Tell you what, I'll top my previous offer. Start your own call-out blog about me and I'll stay away from your threads at TR. Deal?

Come on, it's not like you won't do it eventually... You know you can't resist. See you then!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0

[Theostudent]

Hey Magellan my good sir, do you mind me calling this MY HOUSE, since it is your thread, we brothers right?

Sparko needs to just shut up I would say, hes an embarrassment.

-Pwner of N00bs

[ericmurphy]

Ok , so your starting group is a group of Brown Beetles that can all interbreed and are interbreeding with one another. What happens next? Do any of those Beetles have children that are different to the parents? If so , how are they different?

This is exactly why there's no point in going out and citing to a bunch of data, Magellan. You can't even seem to keep my model straight in your head for more than a single post.

We've already gone through this exhaustively. Barrier to interbreeding:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Isolation.png

Interbreeding only within groups, not between groups:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Interbreeding.png

As the number of differences increases, interfertility decreases:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/InterfertilityVsDifferences.png

Mutations accumulating through genetic drift, differences between populations increasing until interbreeding is no longer possible:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDriftV2.png


If there are too many difference to mention, can we have a few examples of how some children are different from their parents?

All children are different from their parents. Anyone with eyes can see this: have you ever seen a child identical to either one of its parents? And I've already given you figures for the actual number of mutations accumulating in each generation.


That will help me get oriented. When you say 'Everything changes over time ' I get dizzy imagining all the possibilities amidst the vagueness.

That's the problem, Magellan. My model is simple and straightforward, but you cannot seem to figure it out, no matter how many times I explain it, no matter how many diagrams I draw to illustrate it.

It is impossible to get a man to understand something when his worldview depends on his not understanding it.

[Theostudent]

This is exactly why there's no point in going out and citing to a bunch of data, Magellan. You can't even seem to keep my model straight in your head for more than a single post.

We've already gone through this exhaustively. Barrier to interbreeding:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Isolation.png

Interbreeding only within groups, not between groups:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Interbreeding.png

As the number of differences increases, interfertility decreases:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/InterfertilityVsDifferences.png

Mutations accumulating through genetic drift, differences between populations increasing until interbreeding is no longer possible:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDriftV2.png



All children are different from their parents. Anyone with eyes can see this: have you ever seen a child identical to either one of its parents? And I've already given you figures for the actual number of mutations accumulating in each generation.



That's the problem, Magellan. My model is simple and straightforward, but you cannot seem to figure it out, no matter how many times I explain it, no matter how many diagrams I draw to illustrate it.

It is impossible to get a man to understand something when his worldview depends on his not understanding it.

hahaha rinse and reapeat ya damn N00b

[ericmurphy]

If there's one person on this thread more clueless than Magellan, it's you, TS.

[Theostudent]

If there's one person on this thread more clueless than Magellan, it's you, TS.

Well thats rude, you should be ashamed of yerself n00b, trust me all this time spent on theology web has made people respect you as an intelligent and rational individual, but to bad yer just a loser ass n00b with no life who lets magellen rinse and repeat you on a daily bassis hahahhahahaha N00b!

Theo, watch your language.

[magellan004]

Hey Magellan my good sir, do you mind me calling this MY HOUSE, since it is your thread, we brothers right?

Sparko needs to just shut up I would say, hes an embarrassment.

-Pwner of N00bs

Consider this thread yours. You are always welcome.

Everyone is actually.


Magellan

[magellan004]

This is exactly why there's no point in going out and citing to a bunch of data, Magellan. You can't even seem to keep my model straight in your head for more than a single post.

We've already gone through this exhaustively. Barrier to interbreeding:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Isolation.png

Interbreeding only within groups, not between groups:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/Interbreeding.png

As the number of differences increases, interfertility decreases:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/InterfertilityVsDifferences.png

Mutations accumulating through genetic drift, differences between populations increasing until interbreeding is no longer possible:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GeneticDriftV2.png



All children are different from their parents. Anyone with eyes can see this: have you ever seen a child identical to either one of its parents? And I've already given you figures for the actual number of mutations accumulating in each generation.



That's the problem, Magellan. My model is simple and straightforward, but you cannot seem to figure it out, no matter how many times I explain it, no matter how many diagrams I draw to illustrate it.

It is impossible to get a man to understand something when his worldview depends on his not understanding it.

Your model -
1. There is an original group of Brown Beetles that can interbreed.
2. Their children are all different in all sorts of ways.
3. So now we have a group (the next generation ) where every individual is different to their parents and different to every other individual. I assume we can still say that each individual has the capacity to interbreed with all other individuals in the group.

I'll call the children of the original group the 'Second generation'.

A question about this second generation -
Can we say they are any closer to splitting, dividing into two non-interbreeding groups?
Have the differences in the second generation made any difference as far as speciating goes?


(You mightn't have realised it - but in reality this is how reproduction works - individual by individual, couple by couple, generation by generation. So it's central to any model. )

Magellan

[Faid]

WHICH generation is more likely to "split" into two different groups? We already HAVE two different groups, two reproductively isolated ones. The question is when those two groups will be unable to interbreed, even without being isolated.

genetic changes accumulate in subsequent generations of both groups. But those changes are not shared between the reproductively isolated groups, and they constantly diverge.

I'm pretty sure I explained that around page 10, Mags.

[magellan004]

WHICH generation is more likely to "split" into two different groups? We already HAVE two different groups, two reproductively isolated ones.

No.
That would be assuming things.
Eric wants me to consider his model. That's what I am doing.
I understand there is a group of Brown Beetles.
If there is a split - there must be a cause.

Magellan

[Faid]

No.Yes.

That would be assuming things.What "things"? A reproductive barrier? Well, duh.

Eric wants me to consider his model. That's what I am doing.His model has two groups separated by a reproductive barrier. If you "consider his model", tht is what you have to consider.

I understand there is a group of Brown Beetles.You understand wrong. There are two groups of beetles, separated by a reproductive barrier.


And just in case you try to confuse things, this barrier simply PREVENTS the two groups from interbreeding. It doesn't mean the two groups are too different to interbreed already.

If there is a split - there must be a cause.It's the barrier, silly.

[Faid]

Until now, Mags, you were perfectly fine with having two different groups of beetles from the beginning, before speciation took place. In fact, you used that in your own scenarios repeatedly. Remember those beetles that moved to the mainland etc?

Why the sudden change?

Are you running out of obfuscations and diversions?

[Theostudent]

Consider this thread yours. You are always welcome.

Everyone is actually.


Magellan

I like your style Magellen, you roll like a Commander, in fact I christen you a Pwner of N00bs, especially n00b Eric Murphy and n00b Faid.

See that Sparko ya big dumb bacon eating pirate! This is MY HOUSE so shut yer trap!

-Commander Shepard