What is the answer to this colin leslie dean species paradox?
The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean notes a paradox in evolutionary theory
similar to the paradox of Cain in the bible
The first humans Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Able
so who did Cain mate with
who did the first bird mate with who did the first dog mate with
an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate with to continue the new species
1)there was no one to mate with- so how did the new species B become common
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together
if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time
the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work
now some say
Now the seagulls;
"All of the seagulls are confined to one portions of the island, mating withing each other. Then a food supply shortens and a flock of seagulls migrate towards a food source. Over time due to environmental conditions and adaption these seagulls that left to find food have a percentage of DNA that differs by at least 3% rendering them a new species. So now you can have two flocks of seagulls at opposite ends of the island which have evolved differently due to the virulence factors."
but that does not answer the question which is
what did the FIRST EVER SEAGULL mate with
what did the FIRST EVER BIRD mate with
"So every individual merely mated with another individual of the same species, which came from the same gene pool. "
so the question still remains
what did the first species bird mate with
if you say other birds from the same gene pool
that means there must have been at the same time a whole lot of the same random mutation happening at the same time
which is an impossibility unless some intelligence was directing it
- travelhunLv 41 decade ago
The answer is that both Colin Leslie Dean and you have a (willfully) twisted and utterly wrong perception about evolution theory.
Two points, which, gazing at this longish and tiresome piece of cut-and-paste nonsense seem to stand out like a sore thumb
1. A lot of species reproduce by cell division, they don't need mates.
2. There was NEVER any 'first of a species' except by human definition. Evolution is a very gradual process from one species into the next, and all these individuals - and this is crucial - are a species as well. There are no 'transitory' individuals. So every individual merely mated with another individual of the same species, which came from the same gene pool.
I repeat, 'species' is a term used by humans to make sense of the complexity of live, and we just define 'species' the way we need it. There are no 'natural' species, esp. not with limits where you can place your finger on and shout 'There's the switch!' It doesn't happen.
The 3% rule quoted at the end, btw, is not only a case of definition, it is completely made up by CLD or some other creationist too. It's a fabrication, a lie, nonsense, what have you.
It's the creationist equivalent of 'when did you stop beating your wive'.
I couldn't make myself read it all the way through because whenever I do I feel my brain cells yell 'noooo' and die one by one. So if I failed to stomp on any other ccreationismidiocy that I missed, forgive me
- Anonymous1 decade ago
That paradox is nothing but Bull Sheep! Evolution is an ANALOG process.. meaning it changes smoothly due time. Also take note that species has some degree of tolerance on which specie or individual it can procreate with. So Species A when mated with another Species A wont result in Species B right away but will result in something like Species A.1 . so overtime this Species A.1 will be prevalent and it will produce another set of Species, lets say Species A.2. Until to such point that Species A.9... If Specie A.9 looks very different now to Species A, we therefore can say that you have another species or a speciation has occurred.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It is only a paradox if you are allowed to define your terms your way. If you would like a simple example of the process, google "Rassenkriess". Here a ring of populations are all able to breed with the adjacent ones until the ring closes and the two ends of the population chain are not inter-fertile with one another.