Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,10:09)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 11 2011,09:08)|
|Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56)|
|Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.|
Am I making any sense?
Define "new bug"!
Okay a bug that due to the cumulative passed down mutations is a different genius or family to the original bug.
Let's say that cumulative mutation transmits 1% of mutated DNA from one generation to the other, after 50 generations you should get an interesting amount of mutated DNA.
The numbers are made up, maybe the mutation rate is smaller but that would just push the number of generations needed higher, eventually whatever the amout of generations you need, genetic mutation alone should create a different genius or family right? Now if we do this with a fruit fly it might take us 1000 (depending on mutation rates) years if we do it with e.coli we might need a couple of years.
What it boils down to is that, in the absense of natural selection, do speices evolve randomly.
Again, this is very, very general.
Some areas of the genome can barely mutate at all or the organism (and therefore that mutation) will die. Other areas can have massive amounts of mutations with little or no affect on the organism at all.
In terms of speciation, I still think you are thinking too narrowly. Go back to the clines (ring species). If you define species in terms of mating, then where do you draw the line?
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.