[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]That sounds interesting. I'll make sure that I try to watch. Anyway, I have a question that I've never seen a creationist asked and pounded on it as an area of concern for evolution, so if anyone can answer it, please do so.
Okay, let first describe the mechanics of evolution. Evolution occurs at conception with a change in alleles, correct? Let's assume that for one species, an animal of an entirely new species is conceived. However, for this new species to live on, it must find a mate, unless it asexually reproduces. That would be rather difficult though, since evolution is based on chance and for there to be two similar organisms of the same new species to be located close to each other and find each other and be sexually attracted with other and deligent enough to go through with the act of reproduction seems too unlikely. The question is, am I right in assuming this or am I missing something here? I did not take this from Answers in Genesis or any other YEC site. I thought of the problem on my own, although I wouldn't be surprised if it can be found elsewhere.
domatron23
Ray Comfort has asked that same question here and frankly it's no better than the banana argument. That is to say it's a really bad, uneducated, ill conceived argument. (Sorry G_C)
The problem is that your scenario involves speciation occuring in one individual and in one generation. If that's the way that it happened then yeah, the new species in question, confined entirely to this one individual, is kind of screwed when it comes to sexual reproduction. That isn't how speciation occurs though, it occurs in a population of many individuals over many successive generations.
So, like you say, evolution occurs at conception with a change alleles. This doesn't happen all at once though. One generation you'll have an individual born with a small but favourable change to their genetic makeup. This isn't enough to make them a new species but it is enough to give them a selective advantage that allows the new trait to become dominant in their population. Given a large enough number of favourable mutations and a large enough succession of generations you will end up with a population of animals that can breed with each other but which are a different species to the population that we stared off with.
If you want a real world example of that look up ring species.
I think it should also be stated that the question of the exact division between species is one that still has no definitive answer. Variations within a species are just subspecies, but enough variations and you've got a new species. At what point is it a new species? Well, we can't really say for sure. The line that is often drawn as a general rule of thumb is the ability to interbreed, but lion and tigers can interbreed, and they're definitely not the same species. So even the concept itself of a new species arising is nebulous and not really something that can be easily determined. You can't watch two groups of animals accumulate slowly divergent traits, but still being the same species one second, and then the next suddenly exclaim, "Aha! They are now two separate species!" It really doesn't work that way.
Log in to comment