real life wrote:I didn't make up the definition, Wolf. It's the one that evolutionists use.
No, you left out a key part of the definition...
"Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring."
The horse and donkey are two different species, yet they can mate to produce offspring. Clearly the definition has problems with it, which you fail to recognise.
Quote:Wolf_ODonnell wrote:No. This is another point that Darwin made in Origin of Species. B can interbreed with A and C, but it also competes against A and C. Evolution is about competition as well as reproduction. C only has to compete against B. A, likewise only has to compete against B.
B has to compete against A and C. So it has to work twice as hard to survive. Due to Malthus' (I do believe it is Malthus) theory (which I forgot the name of), which helped inspire Darwin's theory, B is therefore more likely to become extinct and eventually will become extinct if the geological evidence is anything to go by.
B competes with A and C for food, shelter etc
Why do you think A and C do not feel similar competitive pressure from the other two? Of course they do.
Evolution works by gradual changes, RL. C will be much better adapted to its new environment than B would. B would be less adapted to both A's environment and C's environment due to its intermediate nature.
Right, let's give you an example.
A is a horse-like animal. It eats grass.
Let's say for some strange reason, some of its descendents inherit a long neck. These are B. If they stand up against a tree, they eat the bottom-most leaves of a tree. They can also eat grass.
B has descendents. Some of them have even longer necks. These are C. They don't have to stand up against a tree. They can just reach up with their long necks and eat.
C has an advantage over B. C can eat without having to stand up against a tree. They can walk right up and walk away again. In a contest between B and C, C wins.
They are all competing for food. But A's food is on the ground. C's food is on top. A can eat and run. C can eat and run. B can't eat and run, because its neck makes it more difficult to lift its head back up and it has to leap back down from its unnatural position if feeding from the tree.
Predators will hunt A, B and C. A and C can get away quickly. B can't. Hence, competition from both A and C, plus predators will ensure B's extinction.
Quote:The ONLY arena in which they differ is in reproduction. Here B has an advantage, which you are trying to spin to a DISadvantage.
B has MUCH more opportunity to breed, since he can breed with A , B, or C.
You postulate that B gets squeezed out by A and C, when the opposite is much more likely to occur.
No. See parados' post.
real life wrote:Oh yeah Malthus.
I forgot.
Wasn't he the one whose theories led to predictions that by our day there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 billion people and the #1 health problem would be starvation?
Here we are with about half that population and it could be argued that the #1 health problem is obesity.
Not just starvation but gross overuse of resources. Well, guess what? We are grossly overusing our resources.
True, he underestimated our potential to increase our food supply, but I find it absolutely arrogant of you to think that the #1 health problem is obesity. This is only true in America and in developed nations.
You forget that 25,000 people die from hunger or hunger-related causes every day. You forget that 16% of the entire world's population is under-nourished.
Your arrogance is insulting.
) is cute, but lacking in logic.
