|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Aug 8, 2011 0:34:49 GMT -5
Well, it's not perfect, but the comparison that I'm trying to make is that in both cases it's a first version of something that has undergone changes that have improved upon the original by such a degree that the original isn't really relevant to the idea anymore.
About the merging species thing - several types of closely related mammals are capable of breeding and producing viable, healthy offspring - like wolves and coyotes - which at one point had totally separate ranges and hunting behaviours, but are now interbreeding because human encroachment and climate change has pushed them into the same territories.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Aug 8, 2011 3:58:40 GMT -5
Sharing the same patch of dirt isn't what made them able to fuck and make babies. That's something that never ended up going away because they didn't diverge enough genetically to render them incapable of interbreeding. And their interbreeding is highly unlikely to result in an animal that is like the ancestors of lupines as we know them today.
Now, there is convergent evolution, where two separate species will end up becoming remarkably similar in many ways. Not necessarily genetically, though. And even if they can produce offspring that reach adulthood (unlikely, to say the least) the offspring won't be fertile.
To give you an idea of just how "picky" genetics can be about interbreeding, check out ring species. Bird A can breed with Bird B and Bird B can breed with Bird C successfully, but Bird C and Bird A cannot.
Genetics and biology are pretty fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Aug 8, 2011 12:52:11 GMT -5
Well yeah, I never assumed they interbred for any reason other than that they never diverged enough to not to (But that the reason they hadn't been interbreeding commonly before is that they had divided ranges and habits.) But they ARE considered separate species, aren't they? But here's the thing, if all coyotes and wolves somehow became Coywolves that look more like wolves because the conditions favor the wolf genes, that would make coyotes appear to vanish, wouldn't it? But those coyote genes would still be bouncing around in the background of the Coywolves' genetic static... if somehow those got filtered back into an animal that was more or less identical to a pure Coyote, would it be the same species as the original Coyotes?
|
|
|
Post by goonerboy on Aug 9, 2011 7:02:05 GMT -5
If they have the same genes, then yeah, I guess. Are there any examples of that ever happening?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 9, 2011 9:01:51 GMT -5
Well yeah, I never assumed they interbred for any reason other than that they never diverged enough to not to (But that the reason they hadn't been interbreeding commonly before is that they had divided ranges and habits.) But they ARE considered separate species, aren't they? But here's the thing, if all coyotes and wolves somehow became Coywolves that look more like wolves because the conditions favor the wolf genes, that would make coyotes appear to vanish, wouldn't it? But those coyote genes would still be bouncing around in the background of the Coywolves' genetic static... if somehow those got filtered back into an animal that was more or less identical to a pure Coyote, would it be the same species as the original Coyotes? Genetic static? I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here. And if the genes are gone, then the genes are just gone. It is possible for not fully diverged species to rejoin each other, but seriously, once two species are split, they are split. They don't converge back into one. The questions you are asking here are pure fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Aug 9, 2011 11:14:59 GMT -5
Genes that are not expressed are not gone. Humans alone are host to a slew of genes that came out of our primate ancestors and were merely turned off rather than gotten rid of. Genetic static would be the collective unexpressed genetic material over an entire species, switched-off or recessive genes.
I don't know if it's ever happened, but I'm wondering if it might have, over the millions of years of animals interacting and changing. It seems to me though that 'fully diverged' is a degree of measure.
It's not possible for two species to rejoin once they've diverged past the point of being able to interbreed viably. Agreed. ... But lots of species haven't diverged that much. Or are they not really separate species until they can no longer interbreed?
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Aug 9, 2011 12:48:04 GMT -5
Or are they not really separate species until they can no longer interbreed? Bingo.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 9, 2011 14:29:13 GMT -5
Or are they not really separate species until they can no longer interbreed? Bingo. Only if you want to gloss over the reality of life. Species is much, much more complex than that. There are discrete species who are very much able to interbreed, but never will because of different courtship behaviors. It's also incredibly limiting as the vast majority of life is not sexual. It's an okay starting place, but very lacking. Also, Rat, with the expression of genes, these are the result of regulatory sequences that have changed and, like any changed gene, are not going to mutate back to their previous state. Either that or you have pseudogenes, which are completely broken and, again, are not going to mutate back to their original state. If for some reason reason you're able to blend two interbreeding species together, you really will create an entirely new one. It's called hybridization and it is very common in plants. For example, grapefruit is a result of pomelo and an orange. Most wheats are the result of this. But, this is due to how much hardier plant genomes are than animal (as another example, we have two sets of chromosomes and more or less is fatal, with plants they can easily shift from 2 to 3 or even 4 without issue).
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Aug 10, 2011 22:01:13 GMT -5
Well then I got nothin. I always figured re-emergence was possible.
|
|
kzn02
Full Member
The Master of Tediousness
Posts: 140
|
Post by kzn02 on Aug 29, 2011 15:32:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 31, 2011 4:50:19 GMT -5
Oh FFS. The only difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution is time scale. If small changes can take place, what's to stop them from accumulating until a new species emerges?
/headdesk
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Aug 31, 2011 11:58:28 GMT -5
Oh FFS. The only difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution is time scale. If small changes can take place, what's to stop them from accumulating until a new species emerges? GAWWWWD! I suppose I can accept the use of two different terms for Evolution, depending on the scale of time involved. I liken it to the difference between 'cells' and 'an organism', or 'bricks' and 'a wall'. It's not a fantastic analogy, but it helps the simple-minded wrap their heads around larger spans of time than they're used to.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 4, 2011 19:25:45 GMT -5
That slightly redeemed that idiotic thread.
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Sept 11, 2011 3:47:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Sept 11, 2011 15:21:14 GMT -5
|
|