|
Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 9:48:00 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
"Evolution" doesn't have to account for this as it is a principle and requirement that only exists in your mind. Biology and 'evolution' work differently. A single gene mutation in either parent is passed to an offspring if that half of the particular gene ends up part of the descendent's genes (50/50 chance, one from male, one from female parent, thus SEXUAL reproduction). That generation passes the altered gene to it's descendents (again 50/50 chance) and so on. If the new coding alters individual chances of reproduction and viable offspring who reproduce (+ or -) it affects the chance it increases or decreases in the population. MOST mutations don't offer advantages, in fact most result in still births. Of the very few that convey a phenotype advantage, random death before reproduction probably 'disappears' most. The few that survive long enough to be tested for competitive advantage (Multiple offspring who, in the case of recessives, breed with similar gene partners) are selected FOR and their descendents have a better chance of survival to reproduction. NO male and female at the same generation required, only that the gene stay in the game and multiple descendents eventuate to compete against the previous coding of the species without the mutation.
Conventional theory points out that in most cases small populations geographically or otherwise reproductively isolated from larger numbers of the species select for novel genetic advantages faster. Large groups interbreeding may suppress new recessive mutations which then have little chance of either being expressed and thus conveying reproductive advantage. Or the species genetic variation increases with out a new species emerging. (But with potential for doing so if small numbers find themself isolated in different environments that select for it.) And altered environments offer altered chances a novel phenotype may be more competitive. Better adaptions do better, poorer ones are selected OUT, independently of which variation arose most recently.
What do YOU call it when accounting for ALL genetic populations displaying drift (Change in gene frequency and exact genes in the group) over time? Every single trial or longitudinal study (such as examination of historical population remains compared to later populations) of either asexual (Bacteria undergoing Mitosis or budding higher organisms) or sexual reproduction (Meiosis I and II) shows random drift, much from mutation. Evolution just takes that fact and looks at it's consequences of competition for resources, predator avoidance, mate selection, successful parenting and everything else affecting individual survival through it's reproductive success to the next generation. If you maintain populations Don't drift, we are done here, you aren't conversant with observed reality.
Really? Okay let's talk about "observed reality". How much cross species reproduction do you see in the world around you? Tell me how the world got that way through Evolution? All this mumbo jumbo you have spouted here does not address that. You can talk about inner-species variation over millions of years all you want, that does not make for a new species. What really makes a new species is it's inability to mate with another species and according to Evolution that would have to have happened millions of times if not billions of times to get where we are today. Each time a new species, over your "billions" of years, came into existence, there was a requirement of at least two, male and female of that new species, for that species to survive and you can call it a "requirement that only exists in your mind" all you want but just take your head out of your textbooks for a moment and take a look around at "observed reality" and you will see that is the way it works in reality and not in your fictionalized world of Evolution.
;-)
|
|
|
|
