3 ms·

>My objection is just that: genetic drift != speciation. What time-scales are we talking about here? If it's on the order of hundreds or thousands of years, th

>My objection is just that: genetic drift != speciation. What time-scales are we talking about here? If it's on the order of hundreds or thousands of years, then yeah, you don't necessarily expect speciation to occur. If your time-scales are on the order of hundreds of thousands or millions of years that's different - and hundreds of thousands of years may be too small. Are you trying to claim that genetic drift over geological time spans does not make speciation highly likely? >They are still completely interfertile with Europeans after 1000 generstions! A thousand generation is nothing.

EGreg 9y ago
Are you trying to claim that genetic drift over geological time spans does not make speciation highly likely? Correct! Because in every generation it is far more likely that the mutant strains would be brought "back into the fold" through interbreeding, and you need the precise opposite effect to happen over many generations to produce a separate species or morphology. So the probability decreases exponentially with generations, not increases. This very article shows that the male finch was not a different species since it's interfertile with viable offspring. You are ignoring the need for the mutants to reproduce and outcompete the nonmutants eventually, while somehow simultaneously making a clean break with the other species. The process has not been understood at all.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  >Correct! Because in every generation it is far more likely that the mutant strains would be brought "back into the fold" through interbreeding Is that something you came up with yourself or is it something that mainstream biology acknowledges? And if random-mutation+selective pressure (i.e. natural selection) is not the primary mechanism for speciation, then what is?
  - EGreg 9y ago
    That's an argument from authority and argument from ignorance. I am happy to say it's pretty evident we don't know. If we do know, I want to hear the actual substance. What do we know, HOW do we come to know it and where's the proof that mathematically it makes any sense?
    - Retric 9y ago
      Mathematically, beneficial mutation X spreads to the population A. Beneficial mutation Y that depends on Y spreads to population A. However without 2 copies of X, Y becomes harmful. So, it only spreads when the population A already has 2 copies of A. Now, population B does not have any copies of X and pairs can only get one copy of X from a parent, but will also get 1 copy of Y from a parent resulting in offspring that have issues. Critically, dependency between mutations is extremely common for example the shape of the bones in your foot are related causing an ever increasing number of incompatible issues. Thus, mathematically independent populations will become less compatible over time. PS: Mules start to show up when only one copy of X is required so getting one X and one Y is enough. However, offspring are not going to always get a copy of X.
    - macspoofing 9y ago
      >That's an argument from authority and argument from ignorance. It's neither. I just asked you where you got your ideas from. And it sounds like you are dismissing an entire field of scholarship because you thought about this really really hard.

EGreg 9y ago

Are you trying to claim that genetic drift over geological time spans does not make speciation highly likely? Correct! Because in every generation it is far more likely that the mutant strains would be brought "back into the fold" through interbreeding, and you need the precise opposite effect to happen over many generations to produce a separate species or morphology. So the probability decreases exponentially with generations, not increases. This very article shows that the male finch was not a different species since it's interfertile with viable offspring. You are ignoring the need for the mutants to reproduce and outcompete the nonmutants eventually, while somehow simultaneously making a clean break with the other species. The process has not been understood at all.

macspoofing 9y ago
>Correct! Because in every generation it is far more likely that the mutant strains would be brought "back into the fold" through interbreeding Is that something you came up with yourself or is it something that mainstream biology acknowledges? And if random-mutation+selective pressure (i.e. natural selection) is not the primary mechanism for speciation, then what is?
- EGreg 9y ago
  That's an argument from authority and argument from ignorance. I am happy to say it's pretty evident we don't know. If we do know, I want to hear the actual substance. What do we know, HOW do we come to know it and where's the proof that mathematically it makes any sense?
  - Retric 9y ago
    Mathematically, beneficial mutation X spreads to the population A. Beneficial mutation Y that depends on Y spreads to population A. However without 2 copies of X, Y becomes harmful. So, it only spreads when the population A already has 2 copies of A. Now, population B does not have any copies of X and pairs can only get one copy of X from a parent, but will also get 1 copy of Y from a parent resulting in offspring that have issues. Critically, dependency between mutations is extremely common for example the shape of the bones in your foot are related causing an ever increasing number of incompatible issues. Thus, mathematically independent populations will become less compatible over time. PS: Mules start to show up when only one copy of X is required so getting one X and one Y is enough. However, offspring are not going to always get a copy of X.
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    >That's an argument from authority and argument from ignorance. It's neither. I just asked you where you got your ideas from. And it sounds like you are dismissing an entire field of scholarship because you thought about this really really hard.