reproductive barriers

[JohnR7]

A while ago, the question was asked: "What is a kind". I said it is simply something that can reproduce itself. I just ran across a definition for a species and it is pretty much the same definition. Notice we are told that a species "are separated from each other by reproductive barriers".

The biological meaning of species is thus quite apparent: "The segregation of the total genetic variability of nature into discrete packages, so called species, which are separated from each other by reproductive barriers, prevents the production of too great a number of disharmonious incompatible gene combinations. This is the basic biological meaning of species and this is the reason why there are discontinuities between sympatric species. http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm

 

[revolutio]

Look into Ring Species, particularly the Herring Gull. If what you said was true then Ring Species could not exist at all.

 

[JohnR7]

If what you said was true then Ring Species could not exist at all.

Actually Ernst Mayr said it, but if you want to falsify his definition of species, that is fine with me.
Do you think we should tell Harvard University they made a mistake when they named a library after him?

I warned you guys, that I was going to start to put evolutionary theory out here
and you were going to knock it down left and right and disprove it for me. Thanks

 

[notto]

So John, it looks like you accept that new 'kinds' can evolve. Is this your postion?

If so, then you accept evolution.

 

[Aron-Ra]

A while ago, the question was asked: "What is a kind". I said it is simply something that can reproduce itself. I just ran across a definition for a species and it is pretty much the same definition. Notice we are told that a species "are separated from each other by reproductive barriers".

[/font]

Now do you know what those reproductive barriers are? I tried to tell you when I provided my definitions for evolution, in a debate attempt which you have still ignored. If you will ever participate in that, you would learn an awful lot real fast.

"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two."
--John Wilkins, Talk.Origins FAQ

Reproductive organisms are in a constant state of evolutionary variance due to the fact that genetic copies are never perfect; and this is especially true in sexual reproducers. When a single population is divided as usually happens due to geographic isolation, both groups begin to accumulate genetic variance that are no longer shared among the whole group. Thus they begin to "grow apart". The primary difference between microevolution and macroevolution is that genes tend to combine in a single population but diverge from separated populations, and this leads to a point where there is such an accumulation of genetic differences that the two groups can no longer interbreed. This is how "reproductive barriers" come to be. Once speciation occurs, if the two populations can no longer produce viable hybrids, then they will remain forever separated, and will only continue to diverge further and further apart.

Now if you have any point of contention with this, I suggest you go back and answer the questions I asked you before, which you continue to ignore.

Have we agreed on the terms yet? What will it take to get you to accept my challenge?

 

[JohnR7]

So John, it looks like you accept that new 'kinds' can evolve. Is this your postion?

Nope, I just accept evolutions definition that a species is something with "reproductive barriers". I will allow evolutionists to argue among themselves as to how all the details work out on that one. So, when you figure it out, you let us know.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Look into Ring Species, particularly the Herring Gull. If what you said was true then Ring Species could not exist at all.

Yes they can. For example, imagine a geographic area divided like the face of a clock. The creature at 3:00 might be able to interbreed with the 2:00 creature or the 4:00 creature, but could only produce inviable hybrids with the 6:00 creature. As the variations accumulate, and the species migration closes the circle, the 12:00 creature could still interbreed with its ancestors in the 11:00 position, but couldn't interbreed with the original 1:00 creature at all, due to the accumulation of "reproductive barriers".

 

[Mistermystery]

A while ago, the question was asked: "What is a kind". I said it is simply something that can reproduce itself.

So anything with working genitalia is a kind? Every human being is a diffrent kind then. Every animal is a diffrent kind then, because they all can reproduce themself.

 

[JohnR7]

The primary difference between microevolution and macroevolution is that genes tend to combine in a single population but diverge from separated populations, and this leads to a point where there is such an accumulation of genetic differences that the two groups can no longer interbreed. This is how "reproductive barriers" come to be. Once speciation occurs, if the two populations can no longer produce viable hybrids, then they will remain forever separated, and will only continue to diverge further and further apart.

Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just a theory?

What is the difference between breeding and microevolution?

 

[JohnR7]

So anything with working genitalia is a kind? Every human being is a diffrent kind then. Every animal is a diffrent kind then, because they all can reproduce themself.

Sense according to Ernst Mayr definition kind and species is the same thing. Let me ask you the same questions.

"So anything with working genitalia is a species? Every human being is a diffrent species then. Every animal is a diffrent species then, because they all can reproduce themself".

 

[revolutio]

Actually Ernst Mayr said it, but if you want to falsify his definition of species, that is fine with me.
Do you think we should tell Harvard University they made a mistake when they named a library after him?

Sorry I thought you said you found a definition that agreed with yours. I don't agree with his and your definition of species because Ring species make the line ambiguous.

What on Earth does Harvard naming a library after him have to do with anything? The people at Harvard are idiots anyway so that can't speak highly of him.

I warned you guys, that I was going to start to put evolutionary theory out here

and you were going to knock it down left and right and disprove it for me. Thanks

What does Ernst Mayr's definition of species have to do with the evolutionary theory? And how is disagreeing with it "knocking it down"?

I am sensing a major logical disconnect because I haven't a bloody clue what you hoped to accomplish by this.

 

[revolutio]

Yes they can. For example, imagine a geographic area divided like the face of a clock. The creature at 3:00 might be able to interbreed with the 2:00 creature or the 4:00 creature, but could only produce inviable hybrids with the 6:00 creature. As the variations accumulate, and the species migration closes the circle, the 12:00 creature could still interbreed with its ancestors in the 11:00 position, but couldn't interbreed with the original 1:00 creature at all, due to the accumulation of "reproductive barriers".

Yes but at what point around that clock face does it become a new species?

By that definition you could only use the term "species" when relating two animals and not as any sort of absolute term. That definition makes "species" seem more like a relationship between two animals.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just a theory?

Both. These processes have been directly observed and studied for many years. In science, the protracted study of observed facts is called "Theory". Ever hear of atomic Theory? Are atoms "just" a theory? Or do nuclear submarines and atomic bombs really work? You see, the same thing applies here. Yes I have extensive evidence for everything I say here, and have already tried to show you that before.

What is the difference between breeding and microevolution?

There isn't one. Didn't you read any of the definitions I sent you before? Here is this one again:

"Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

 

[JohnR7]

[/b]What does them naming a library after him have to do with it?

Nothing I guess.
I thought that maybe it was because he was a well known evolutionists, but maybe his family just had a million dollar to contribute or something like that.

I don't agree with his definition of species because Ring species make the line ambiguous.

That is fine with me, this is just another example of where evolutionists can not agree amomg themselves.
Even to the point that you call a evolutionists definition "ambiguous".

I am glad you know more about it than a Harvard Professor and a winner of the National Medal of Science.

 

[JohnR7]

There isn't one. Didn't you read any of the definitions I sent you before? Here is this one again:

Yes, I read what you write, because I am learning something.
That does not happen very often here on this board.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Yes but at what point around that clock face does it become a new species?

At the point where the two will not or cannot interbreed to produce viable offspring anymore. Sorry, but I didn't mean to put "inviable" species where I did. I see that I put that analogy together too hastily. The creature at the 3:00 position would be able to interbreed with the 4:00 creature, but would less and less probability of producing viable offspring with any creature after (further away) than that.

The same thing applies in anagenesis too. Homo habilis likely could have interbred with either Australopithecus africanus or with Homo erectus, but not with Ardipithecus or Neandertals. In this case, it wouldn't a geographic barrier but a chronological one.

By that definition you could only use the term "species" when relating two animals and not as any sort of absolute term. That definition makes "species" seem more like a relationship between two animals.

It is. In order for two (evidnetly closely-related) populations to be considered separate species there are two criteria:
(1) they do not interbreed to produce viable offspring. (mind you, I said do not, not can not, although "cannot" also applies eventually.
(2) each population must share a consistent trait common to every member of that population, but which is not present in any member of the other population. Look at the subtle character differences between lions and tigers for example, or rock-hopper penguins vs any other penguin species.

 

[JohnR7]

[/b]The people at Harvard are idiots anyway so that can't speak highly of him.

"The people at Harvard are idiots"? Does that include people like Ernst Mayr who was a Harvard professor and an expert on evolution?

So according to what your saying at least one leading expert on evolutionary theory is an "idiot".

 

[DJ_Ghost]

"The people at Harvard are idiots"? Does that include people like Ernst Mayr who was a Harvard professor and an expert on evolution?

So according to what your saying at least one leading expert on evolutionary theory is an "idiot".

Well to be quite frank, at least one “leading expert” on anything is an idiot, its the nature of man. At least one astrophysicist is an idiot, at least one expert engineer is an idiot, at least one expert on criminology is an idiot (but I make up for him ).

Although in this instance I disagree with the “people at Harvard are idiots” quote, I suspect it was only semi serious and/or related to the university administration (a field in which there are typically an awful lot of idiots if experience is anything to go by. Stick a man behind a desk and give him an administrative title and it seems to cut his IQ in half overnight )

However I did want to point something else out to you, scientists do not believe themselves to be inerrant (despite the creationist fibs that repeatedly say scientists think just that). A university naming something after a man is intended to show that person made a great contribution to the body of knowledge, not that everything they said was infallible*. A number of universities have lecture halls named after Karl Marx for example.

*I am not a big enough expert on evolution to be able to say if this particular definition by Ernst Mayr is correct or not, although it seems like a sound point to me.

Ghost

 

[Mistermystery]

Sense according to Ernst Mayr definition kind and species is the same thing. Let me ask you the same questions.

"So anything with working genitalia is a species? Every human being is a diffrent species then. Every animal is a diffrent species then, because they all can reproduce themself".

Since I don't subscribe to your source I don't nessecairy agree with it.

 

[revolutio]

[/size] That is fine with me, this is just another example of where evolutionists can not agree amomg themselves.
Even to the point that you call a evolutionists definition "ambiguous".

Like I said I dont know where you want to go with this. Pointing out that evolutionists don't agree with one another is hardly "knocking down evolution". That is how real science works. No two people agree on everything.

I have my own views on evolution, but they are admitedly not as much researched as many other people's. In regards to this issue I don't see how that defintion of species can account for Ring Species.

And about that guy being an idiot, yes everyone that goes to Harvard is an idiot. MIT on the other hand...

I am glad you know more about it than a Harvard Professor and a winner of the National Medal of Science.

For a while John you actually had me going that you didn't appreciate the people insulting you here. Now you are doing your best to incite conflict and arguments.

You have some problems John and I hope you can sort them out.