Re: Reproductive Selection
- From: Treus <treusdrie@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:55:54 -0800 (PST)
John Harshman wrote:
<snip>
So, what could account for the RC present in a new species, given that
it's not the selection that acts on the post-mating capacity to
generate offspring?
Beats me.
Let me know when you think of something, because until then you got
evolution without natural selection. Maybe it happens by magic.
Why, even if you were correct about all this, would that make evolution
without natural selection? And isn't evolution without natural selection
just drift, whose existence is well-attested?
Are you suggesting drift is enough to account for the new reproductive
compatibility (RC) of any S2 given that S2 can become S3, then S4 and
S5? When the RC of S5, namely R(S5,x) where x is any species, is that
of some radically new species, is the entire difference between
R(S1,x) and R(S5,x), which represents an significantly novel
reproduction scheme, to be accounted for by drift?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Reproductive Selection
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Reproductive Selection
- From: Treus
- Re: Reproductive Selection
- References:
- Reproductive Selection
- From: Treus
- Re: Reproductive Selection
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Reproductive Selection
- From: Treus
- Re: Reproductive Selection
- From: _Arthur
- Re: Reproductive Selection
- From: Treus
- Re: Reproductive Selection
- From: _Arthur
- Re: Reproductive Selection
- From: Treus
- Re: Reproductive Selection
- From: John Harshman
- Reproductive Selection
- Prev by Date: Re: The Reasonable Minority
- Next by Date: Re: Reproductive Selection
- Previous by thread: Re: Reproductive Selection
- Next by thread: Re: Reproductive Selection
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|