Login

Join for Free!
119291 members


New species since humans?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby gamila » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:52 pm

The population evolves by changing the frequency of those traits.


facts is
if a trait appears in population which is not present in its parents population then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on


definition of NS -from this site
It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re:

Postby robsabba » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:42 pm

gamila wrote:
The population evolves by changing the frequency of those traits.


facts is
if a trait appears in population which is not present in its parents population then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on


definition of NS -from this site
It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

I really need to take my own advice. We're done here.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Postby gamila » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:23 pm

I really need to take my own advice. We're done here.


it is logically impossible for natural selection to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before
in your language
if a population has new traits never seen before these traits could not have come from a parent population-as the parent population did not have them- there fore natural selection can not account for their presence as natural selection is all about the passing on of traits [b]already present[b]

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm


Re:

Postby MichaelXY » Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:59 am

gamila wrote:
I really need to take my own advice. We're done here.


it is logically impossible for natural selection to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before
in your language
if a population has new traits never seen before these traits could not have come from a parent population-as the parent population did not have them- there fore natural selection can not account for their presence as natural selection is all about the passing on of traits [b]already present[b]

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism


What about genetic mutations? If the mutation is favorable, then it might pass on to next gen.
User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby gamila » Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:50 pm

What about genetic mutations? If the mutation is favorable, then it might pass on to next gen.


the fact that the mutant gene is present in the parent which passes it on to the the next generation

means that the mutant gene in the off spring is not a new gene as it is allready present in the parent

natural selection is all about the passing on of traits already present


if you are implying that the mutant gene leads to a new species off spring
then the parent that passed on the gene would be a new species as it has the gene as well

thus once again

natural selection is all about the passing on of traits already present


it is logically impossible for natural selection to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before if a population has new traits never seen before these traits could not have come from a parent population-as the parent population did not have them- there fore natural selection can not account for their presence as natural selection is all about the passing on of traits [b]already present[b]

as they both have the same gene that makes them a new species
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby MichaelXY » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:01 am

Who ever said the parent had the mutant gene? The offspring could have created the mutant gene which then gets passed on to it's offspring, several generations later the mutation may become dominant, thus altering the phylogeny of the species, but since the species can still mate, they are considered the same species. I am not really sure where your argument is going.
User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby gamila » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:52 am

Who ever said the parent had the mutant gene


The offspring could have created the mutant gene which then gets passed on to it's offspring


if the off spring that created the gene- passes it onto its off spring that sure looks like to me as a parent passeing it on to its offspring

natural selection is all about the passing on of traits already present



I am not really sure where your argument is going.


dean is saying

it is logically impossible for natural selection to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before if a population has new traits never seen before these traits could not have come from a parent population-as the parent population did not have them- there fore natural selection can not account for their presence as natural selection is all about the passing on of traits already present


the gene being generated in the off spring as you say and then this off spring passing it onto its offs spring

is just an example of natural selection the last offspring has no new gene never seen before as this gene is present in its parent- the off spring that generated the gene

if you are implying that the mutant gene leads to a new species off spring
then the parent - the off spring that generated the gene- would be a new species -the same as its off spring-as it has the gene as well

in other words if this mutant gene creates a new species then the off spring that generated the gene would be a new species and all it does is then pass it onto its offspring which makes it the same species as its parent

this is just an example of NS
but not an example of NS producing a new species with traits never seen before
as
it is logically impossible for natural selection to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before if a population has new traits never seen before these traits could not have come from a parent population-as the parent population did not have them- there fore natural selection can not account for their presence as natural selection is all about the passing on of traits [b]already present[b]
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby MichaelXY » Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:52 am

Again I fail to see your point. An example: Polydactyly or the six finger person, this is an obvious sign of a mutation, yet the mutated indivdual can still inter-breed with its original species.

Mutation does not imply a speciation , only an alteration in the same species. Only after much time and other environmental factors will a new species be possible to emerge.

So what exactly is your argument? Are you saying Darwin is wrong? I only ask because I have not been able grasp the paradigm of your point as it now seems somewhat circular and convoluted.
User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby gamila » Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:05 am

Are you saying Darwin is wrong?

n dean is correct


Mutation does not imply a speciation , only an alteration in the same species. Only after much time and other environmental factors will a new species be possible to emerge.


the new species - with new traits never seen before-that appears has not been generated by natural selection as natural selection is all about passing on traits already present
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby MichaelXY » Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:20 am

Clearly you are misinformed.
User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Re:

Postby robsabba » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:12 pm

MichaelXY wrote:
So what exactly is your argument? Are you saying Darwin is wrong? I only ask because I have not been able grasp the paradigm of your point as it now seems somewhat circular and convoluted.

Bingo! You now understand gamila (ie Colin Leslie Dean) . He will do nothing but quote himself as an "authority" in the third person over and over while repeating that a new trait cannot be present already since it is a new trait. Ignore him.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Re: New species since humans?

Postby idek » Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:03 pm

gamila, since I'm not familiar with colin dean, may I ask where you think new species come/came from if not by way of NS? I'm not asking to try and start an argument. Just curious.
idek
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest