quote:You are not following my reasoning as you claimed, you are as usual just insisting on the view of the ToE over anything I say.
I think that the problem is that you don’t understand the concept of “following your reasoning”. We can certainly recognise and understand your “reasoning” - what little you present - without agreeing with it’s conclusions.
The Peppered Moth is not the Standard for all species. Sheesh.
Correct, there are several mechanisms for evolution. But the thing that you deny - mutation - is proven to have happened. And the second mechanism of evolution - natural selection - was proven to be the cause of the fixation of the mutation in the population.
What's more it did it twice. Sheesh indeed.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
What "natural selection" is "concerned with" is just evolutionist theory. In actual fact most selection is nothing more than the separation of a portion of a population that becomes geographically isolated, and that produces a new identifiable "composite phenotyps" or subpopulation. ...
NO NO NO
You do NOT get to redefine science terms to suit your delusions. This is the basics of evolution (once again):
The first box is breeding, including mutations in the population,
The second box is natural selection survival, some do, some don't,
Arrows from the first box are the results of breeding, including individuals with new mutations and
The Arrow from the second box is that portion of the population that survived to breed.
That is ALL natural selection is -- the survival and breeding of individuals in the population.
It is NOT population isolation and speciation, that is a different process.
... Nature doesn't "care" about anything, so what? ...
Nature and natural selection are not the same thing. Natural selection occurs within nature, but nature does not occur within natural selection.
... the fact is that this is probably the way new varieite sor subspecies develop in the wild, it's how you get a new populaton of a different color of bear from the parent population's color, a new type of wildebeest from ththat of the main population, new raccoom markings from those of the parent population, new markings on the salamanders of each new subpopu;aton in a ring species.
Mutation and natural selection within isolated populations will cause genetic divergence as new mutations in one population cannot be transmitted to the other population, because gene flow has ceased.
And it seems it takes at least two mutations for form genetic incompatibility:
The central assumption of the DOBZHANSKY-MULLER model of speciation is that alleles cause no sterility or inviability on their normal "pure species" genetic background. Instead, an allele can lower fitness only when brought together with genes from another species. Any particular hybrid incompatibility might cause partial or complete hybrid sterility or inviability. For most of this paper, I assume that hybrid incompatibilties involve interactions between pairs of genes, as in DOBZHANSKY and MULLER'S verbal models. Later, I consider three-locus and higher interactions. I also assume that multiple substitutions do not occur at the same locus, an assumption that is reasonable during the early divergence of taxa. I assume nothing about the evolutionary causes of substitutions. The DOBZHANSKY-MULLER model of speciation requires only that substitutions occur and assumes nothing about whether they are brought about by natural selection or genetic drift.
Because I consider the cumulative effects of interactions between many loci -- which quickly gets complicated -- it is useful to picture this process diagramatically. Figure 1 offers a simple way to picture the accumulation of complementary genes between two haploid populations. Each of the two heavy lines represents a lineage descended from a common ancestor. The two allopatric populations begin with identical "ancestral" lowercase genotypes at all loci (a b c . . .). Time runs upward, with the first substitution occurring at the a locus, the second at the b locus and so on.
The first substitution involves the replacement of the a allele by the A allele in population 1 (uppercase letters indicate only that an allele is "derived"; no dominance is implied). The A allele cannot cause any hybrid sterility or inviability: because A is obviously compatible with the genetic background of population 1, it must be compatible with the identical background of population 2. The second substitution, at the B locus (in population 2), could be incompatible with only one locus: A, as the B allele has not been "tested" for compatibility with A. The third substitution, at C, could be incompatible with the B or a alleles. As we continue this process, it is clear that we can identify all possible (i.e., evolutionarily allowed) incompatibilities by drawing an arrow from each derived allele to each "earlier" (lower) allele carried by the other species. Thus D can be incompatible with c, B, and a. This arrow-drawing device will repeatedly prove useful.
Note that the possibility of two ancestral alleles being involved in incompatibility is
... because they were the same allele in the parent population.
And it should be readily apparent that speciation -- defined as sexual incompatibility -- depends on mutations occurring in the sub-populations.
You are not following my reasoning as you claimed, you are as usual just insisting on the view of the ToE over anything I say..
Nope. I followed your "reasoning" into the garbage can of failed concepts because it was faulty. That failure of your "reasoning" has nothing to do with the ToE, rather it has everything to do with bad logic and failure on your part to include ALL the evidence.
What "natural selection" is "concerned with" is just evolutionist theory. ...
Nope. It is an observed biological process, a FACT, not theory.
The ToE is that natural selection (an observed process, FACT) and mutation (also an observed process, FACT) are enough to explain the diversity of life on earth. Theories build on facts, faith.
Maybe you should actually read Message 559 slowly and attempt to understand your errors detailed in paragraph after paragraph, and not cherry pick one you think is somehow wrong, but actually show it is wrong.
I could be sad I guess that you didn't do what I asked, but by now I know it's just standard operating procedure.
But I did, you just don't like the result. Sad? You should be glad that you just got some free education so that you can improve your arguments ... if you wanted to learn instead of just preach.