Perhaps I did not express my point well.
The quirky trait is only considered "quirky" if it exist in the one. If the trait is beneficial and comes to exist in the many then we dismiss the "quirky" adjective and replace it with "ordinary". But the point is that the group cannot achieve that trait unless an individual introduces the trait to the group. So, "speciation" begins at the individual level.
?
Yea that's a fine way to put it. Every species begins with an individual. But they aren't technically a new species until the trait of an individual reaches normalcy in a sub population. As an individual, it's just an individual.
I don't think so. Mutations are independent events. That is, subsequent mutations in the same sample space occur independently from prior ones with the same probability of being beneficial or harmful or neutral.
Rolling dice are independent events too. But that doesn't mean that the odds of reversing course and rolling precisely the same rolls in reverse is probable.
I can roll a 1, and I'll have a daily decent chance of rolling a 1 again. But to rewind the clock and to roll 1s two more times, would be less likely.
I guess we can do a math lesson.
The chance of rolling a 1 once =
1/6 ≈ 16.7%.
The chance of rolling a 1 twice in a row =
1/6 * 1/6 or 1/36. Or 2.8%
The chance of rolling a 1 three times in a row =
1/6 * 1/6*1/6 or 1/216 or ≈ 0.46%.
So:
Each individual roll always has the same chance (about 16.7%).
But when you require a sequence of multiple 1s in a row, the probability gets smaller each time you add another requirement.
The same goes for evolution. If it's just one mutation, you'll have a higher probability of a back mutation. But if you're talking about billions of years of countless mutations, for practical purposes, the probabilities are so incredibly low, that there is no going back.
Or not. Evolution theory denies that mutations are directed.
Dice are random too, but the sequences you roll, don't go backwards. As noted above.
The imposition occurs when the evolutionists use their invented labels as if those inventions are real and use fallacious reasoning from that error.
For example, I invent this label as a new species -- "NewWeed".
New weed? I don't see anything problematic about identifying a horse and donkey as separate species on the basis that they don't interbreed.
Then I form the argument:
"If macro-evolution is true then new species will be identified."
"I identified the NewWeed species."
"Therefore, macro-evolution is true."
Scientists don't use the term "macro" evolution. There is only evolution. But if there ever was a way to classify such a thing taxonomically, it could only be evolution of one species to another because that's the only way evolution occurs.
But it is fair to say, if evolution is true, then we should see new species arising, not merely being identified. And so it is, objectively, with respect to reproductively isolated populations as a product of mutation.
I don't think your consequent follows from your conditional.
The truth value of a conditional statement is the same as its contrapositive.
"If they are reproductively isolated then they cannnot reproduce through artificial insemination."
Artificial is not natural. A third agent is, therefore, involved and can transport the sperm to the egg.
I agree that artificial means supplants natural means. However, if the potential to successfully reproduce naturally exists in the two groups spatially and temporarily separated then I do not see the logical consistency of identifying a new species under your definition. It would seem your definition of "reproductively isolated" must also imply "forever". And, we cannot observe the future.
The requirement isn’t to prove reproductive isolation “forever,” but to recognize when, in practice, the barrier is real and irreversible. For example, chromosome duplication in plants creates instant genetic incompatibility: even when the two forms live in the same place at the same time, they cannot interbreed. That’s not about geographic separation but about a biological barrier that prevents gene flow.
Species concepts are practical tools, not prophecies about the infinite future. Of course, in theory, one might imagine a one-in-a-gazillion chance of elephants and giraffes producing offspring someday, but biology works with observable reality and realistic probabilities. When two populations cannot reproduce now, and all evidence suggests the barrier is stable, we treat them as separate species.
