It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
On Feb 22, 5:38 pm, Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
> It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm > not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require > it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist > at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
Yeah - you're a friggin' moron.
Quit buying into creationist LIES and get an education.
On Feb 22, 5:43 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 5:38 pm, Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
> > It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > > newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm > > not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require > > it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist > > at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
> Yeah - you're a friggin' moron.
> Quit buying into creationist LIES and get an education.
> Budikka
That doesn't answer a question anyone was asking. It does however, avoid the question which may mean you can't answer it or, more likely, your answer will prove you're a fool so you limit yourself to prattle.
> On Feb 22, 5:43 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 5:38 pm, Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
> > > It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > > > newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm > > > not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require > > > it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist > > > at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
> > Yeah - you're a friggin' moron.
> > Quit buying into creationist LIES and get an education.
> > Budikka
> That doesn't answer a question anyone was asking. It does however, > avoid the question which may mean you can't answer it or, more likely, > your answer will prove you're a fool so you limit yourself to prattle.
I'll have to agree here. It was a legitimate question and deserves a legitimate answer.
I will say that the only limit on the number of species is the number of ecological niches available to be filled (correct me if I'm wrong).
As for the extinction of parent species, it would depend on the conditions of the speciation. If conditions changed in place, it's likely that the parent species would tend to go extinct as the new species would be better suited to the new environment and therefore would survive to procreate more efficiently. However, if the speciation came from part of a population moving to a new location, the original species in its original location would stay alive. The Galapagos Islands are the perfect example of this--different conditions on each island led to speciation of the finches on each island without killing off the finches on other islands.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Pill <b...@billconner.com> wrote: >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
If that's often said, it's often said by fuckwits who haven't studied any biology.
> I'm >not sure why that's so
It isn't.
>or the logic of Darwinianism that would require >it.
There's one of your problems: you believe in the superstition that there's something called "Darwinism". Biologists don't collectively worship Darwin, or any other figure, and the field of evolution study has progressed well beyond anything Darwin knew or guessed when he proposed natural selection as the mechanism driving the already-accepted fact that species evolve from precursor species. Neither Darwin nor any biologist I've heard of ever suggested that the evolution of species B from species A entails the extinction of species A.
>Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist >at the same time?
Is there some fixed limit on how far beyond learning to tie their shoes anti-science anti-intellectuals can extend themselves?
>Can someone explain this to me?
Judging from experience, and substituting anything that isn't a strawman for "this", not bloody likely.
>Pill
-- Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it! BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e' EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid, Department of Redundancy Department
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell
"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will." -- Doc Smartass
"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly one of the things it laughs at." -- Rinaldo of Capadoccia
e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Pill <b...@billconner.com> wrote: > >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
> If that's often said, it's often said by fuckwits who haven't studied any biology.
> > I'm > >not sure why that's so
> It isn't.
> >or the logic of Darwinianism that would require > >it.
> There's one of your problems: you believe in the superstition that there's something > called "Darwinism". Biologists don't collectively worship Darwin, or any other figure, > and the field of evolution study has progressed well beyond anything Darwin knew or > guessed when he proposed natural selection as the mechanism driving the already-accepted > fact that species evolve from precursor species. Neither Darwin nor any biologist I've > heard of ever suggested that the evolution of species B from species A entails the > extinction of species A.
Since there are few (if any) biologists posting here, your observations about them are irrelevant. There are lots of posters here who do worship Darwin which makes them Darwinists and their doctrine, Darwinism. Since speciation doesn't include extinction, what evolutionary mechanism does?
> It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm > not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require > it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist > at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
What S Kauffman is rejected by some biologists as somone that "rejects whole areas of knowlege", his "At Home in the Universe" has some interesting derivations of e.g. number of cell types as a function of number of genes. I also keep reading from time-to-time there is similar work on determining bounds for number of species.
...---... [Some n00b can't tell the diff between HTML and binary:] Why have you posted binaries to a text-only newsgroup, fuck wit? -- Gillard Lies <oyrooloutacarbon...@gmail.com>, 18 Feb 2011 22:57 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 22, 7:54 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com> > scrawled in blood:
> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
> Who says that?
From Wikipedia: "Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge."
On Feb 22, 7:54 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com> > scrawled in blood:
> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
> Who says that?
From Wikipedia: "Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge."
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:30:15 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com> scrawled in blood:
>On Feb 22, 7:54 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com> >> scrawled in blood:
>> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the >> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>> Who says that?
>From Wikipedia: "Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter >species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of >Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge."
Now reconcile that with your question. Hint: you can't. What you asked and what you quoted from wikipedia are two different things.
Don aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.
Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote in news:8c5d4990-d033-4db8-90f2- 69771e65a...@8g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
Bullshit. It's a well-known fact that the left-behind parent species of Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Creatius) still exists, and has evolved the unique ability to post pseudo-science to usenet without first learning something about science.
> I'm > not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require > it.
> On Feb 22, 5:43 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 5:38 pm, Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
> > > It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > > > newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm > > > not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require > > > it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist > > > at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
> > Yeah - you're a friggin' moron.
> > Quit buying into creationist LIES and get an education.
> > Budikka
> That doesn't answer a question anyone was asking. It does however, > avoid the question which may mean you can't answer it or, more likely, > your answer will prove you're a fool so you limit yourself to prattle.
Yes, it doesn't explain a drummed up invalid question or a topic you can easily learn from biological text. Being a creationist, you are just nasty and refuse to accept scientific facts.
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:30:15 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com> > scrawled in blood:
> >On Feb 22, 7:54 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com> > >> scrawled in blood:
> >> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > >> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
> >> Who says that?
> >From Wikipedia: "Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter > >species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of > >Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge."
> Now reconcile that with your question. Hint: you can't. What > you asked and what you quoted from wikipedia are two different things.
My reply was to the question, "Who says that?". Why do creatures become extinct? the popular view that we're all cursed with is that evolution is like a wave front with the current generation of every species on the crest. It's as if there is some biological zero-sum formula where extinction is evidence of less well adapted species in the past and more highly evolved possibilities in the future.
This gives evolution the appearance of direction and purpose. It's all part of the same package and there's really no other way to explain it. Granted some scientists may know better but most people here are not scientists so they perpetuate the myth. So, "Who says that?", well just about everyone whether they know it or not.
On Feb 22, 8:49 pm, Uncle Vic <urkiddingri...@nonono.com> wrote:
> Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote in news:8c5d4990-d033-4db8-90f2- > 69771e65a...@8g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> > It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > > newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
> Bullshit. It's a well-known fact that the left-behind parent species of > Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Creatius) still exists, and has evolved the > unique ability to post pseudo-science to usenet without first learning > something about science.
To which the even less evolved inevitably respond.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:47:59 -0800, Bill wrote: > here are lots of posters here > who do worship Darwin which makes them Darwinists and their doctrine, > Darwinism.
I've been here for years, and I've yet to see anyone show even the slightest signs of worshipping Darwin. Oddly, I hear this kind of accusation from the god-addled twits in the group fairly regularly, but those folks just aren't bright enough to tell the difference between accepting evidence-backed claims of science and some form of worship.
So, assuming you're discounting that particular group of stupendous bloody morons, exactly where do you get this notion there's anyone here, let alone "lots of posters", who "worship Darwin"?
-- Information vanishes by magic. -- Michael Gray (paraphrased)
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:30:15 -0800, Bill wrote: > On Feb 22, 7:54 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com> >> scrawled in blood:
>> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the >> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>> Who says that?
> From Wikipedia: "Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter > species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of > Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge."
That extinction plays a role does not mean it is the only player involved, nor the only role being played, nor even that it plays a part in every instance. And the whole "consequence of speciation" bit is all arse-backwards anyhow.
Consider a species on its own merit. It survives or goes extinct on its own ability to adapt to the environment; if it can adapt, it carries on, if it can't, it dies out. This is true whether it has produced daughter species or not, so the notion that extinction is somehow a "consequence of speciation" is just plain silly.
Indeed, about the only case where extinction even arguably _could_ be a consequence of speciation would be where the daughter species out- competed the parent, in the same environment, presumably for the same resources, using the very features which define them as a new species to simply take over the landscape, leaving the parent with insufficient resources to survive in the long run.
On the other hand, if they're in the same environment, competing for the same resources, one would tend to expect them not to be diverging into separate species in the first place.
-- Information vanishes by magic. -- Michael Gray (paraphrased)
On Feb 22, 6:38 pm, Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
> It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm > not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require > it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist > at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
> Bill
No, that is not correct. And there's no such thing as "Darwinism".
There are two forms on speciation (in one sense of the word). There is anagenic speciation, in which one species evolves into another. Do not mistake this for the new species driving the parent species into extinction. It's just that there is a gradual change that eventually results in something different enough that humans call it a new species.
More commonly, though, we see cladogenic speciation. In this case, often due to genetic drift, we see a _portion_ of the parent population evolving into a new species. This results in two species- the parent species and the daughter species.
On Feb 22, 5:38 pm, Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
> It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm > not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require > it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist > at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
> Bill
Darwinianism? lol Most speciation occurs from genetic drift, when a population is split into two geographically isolated regions such that the gene flow between them is significantly or completely reduced. In this case the two populations speciate with regard to each other, no extinction necessarily occurs.
Now with simply phyletic gradualism there is no real extinction of a parent species. The population speciates gradually over generations, each of them always the same species as their parents. But not necessarily the same species as their much older ancestors.
The limit on the number of species is not static as far as we can tell. The only definite limit seems to be resources. The rain forest for example has magnitudes more species than a desert ecosystem, and in fact the rain forest is one of the most efficient ecosystems.
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:55:25 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com> > wrote:
> >On Feb 22, 5:43 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote: > >> On Feb 22, 5:38 pm, Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
> >> > It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > >> > newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm > >> > not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require > >> > it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist > >> > at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
> >> Yeah - you're a friggin' moron.
> >> Quit buying into creationist LIES and get an education.
> >> Budikka
> >That doesn't answer a question anyone was asking. It does however, > >avoid the question which may mean you can't answer it or, more likely, > >your answer will prove you're a fool so you limit yourself to prattle.
> >Bill
> I'm trying to answer it, dude. But also I cross-posted to talk.origins > and for some reason their moderators haven't yet approved it. Sorry.
> Holy Bretts > Mother Fucker of God > Pray for us assholes > Now and at the hour we post > Amen
> aa atheist #2262
If you cross post to more than 4 groups, the mod-bot at talk.origins rejects it.
Thank Jabriol (and others, to be honest) for that.
Jeanne Douglas wrote: > I'll have to agree here. It was a legitimate question and deserves a > legitimate answer.
Have to disagree.
> I will say that the only limit on the number of species is the number > of ecological niches available to be filled (correct me if I'm wrong).
We see that the question made so little sense that you think the issue is a "limit on the number of species".
> As for the extinction of parent species, it would depend on the > conditions of the speciation. If conditions changed in place, it's > likely that the parent species would tend to go extinct as the new > species would be better suited to the new environment and therefore > would survive to procreate more efficiently.
What a mess. The question was simply dumbed-down too far, probably deliberately. Jeanne's answer, like the question, conflates the phenomena of speciation and adaptation. Speciation is genetic divergence when a single interbreeding population divides into multiple populations that do not interbreed and thus lose the ability. Adaptation is a change in form over generations of a population that is advantageous in their environment. Natural selection plays at all levels; it can drive to extinction a species poorly suited to its environment, and it can improve the gene pool of a species by favoring the reproduction of better-suited individuals.
On Feb 22, 7:19 pm, Apostate <Apost...@yeehaw.org.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Pill <b...@billconner.com> wrote: > >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the > >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
> If that's often said, it's often said by fuckwits who haven't studied any biology.
Now *that's a respponse!
Did you note his very revealing reply? "Since there are few (if any) biologists posting here, your observations about them are irrelevant."
Since that's obviously the case and he knows it, why is he posting his biology question to alt.atheism and only to a.a.? Quite obviously he's a LYING troll who gets the responses he desrves - at least from me and you!
