Evolution & Reproductive Organ Mutations
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:06 pm
I don't find evolution hard to accept as in it is clearly true that species evolve, and some of these mutations are more helpful than others, so more likely to live. I am having trouble with the inference part that describes how a new species happens.
The part I'm fuzzy on is- a new species is by definition not able to reproduce with viable offspring with individuals from its parents' species. This new individual must then (here's where I'm fuzzy) - try to find a compatible partner, mate and produce reproducible offspring. I'm assuming this means, there needs to be a mutation maybe with the reproductive organ somehow.
This doesn't seem likely to happen though- given the complexity of reproduction. If you change one thing- even a slight thing, so that the individual seems "infertile" to its parents' species, it seems far more likely the offspring would be inviable. Probably a Darwinist would say- yes but this happens over such a long period of time, that eventually you get a hit and it happens. This I even accept, but then how can it keep happening over and over without something unknown acting on it so that it's successful.
I guess I'm saying that with reproduction specifically, the changes so dramatically affect mortality, that it seems unlikely to happen slowly at all. Should be big jumps- or else you get no infant individuals at all.
Thanks for your help. I hope my question makes sense.
The part I'm fuzzy on is- a new species is by definition not able to reproduce with viable offspring with individuals from its parents' species. This new individual must then (here's where I'm fuzzy) - try to find a compatible partner, mate and produce reproducible offspring. I'm assuming this means, there needs to be a mutation maybe with the reproductive organ somehow.
This doesn't seem likely to happen though- given the complexity of reproduction. If you change one thing- even a slight thing, so that the individual seems "infertile" to its parents' species, it seems far more likely the offspring would be inviable. Probably a Darwinist would say- yes but this happens over such a long period of time, that eventually you get a hit and it happens. This I even accept, but then how can it keep happening over and over without something unknown acting on it so that it's successful.
I guess I'm saying that with reproduction specifically, the changes so dramatically affect mortality, that it seems unlikely to happen slowly at all. Should be big jumps- or else you get no infant individuals at all.
Thanks for your help. I hope my question makes sense.