Why is producing fertile offspring a demonstration of common ancestry?
What are the other possibilities?
The hole isnât getting any deeper, because he reached bedrock long ago. But Iâd say it keeps getting wider.
It shows a reasonable chance of a reproductive connection.
Matching chrome counts and gene types are additional evidence of common ancestry. These indicate a possible reproductive connection.
But again, why is this a demonstration of common ancestry specifically?
Are you suggesting that an independent creation event canât involve organisms that are created to be interfertile?
I assume you mean âchromosomeâ not chrome. But why would something like matching chromosome counts indicate a âreproductive connectionâ?
Taking into consideration where you can have individuals in the species (including humans) with different numbers of chromosomes but still able produce offspring. Conversely there are different species with the same numbers of chromosomes that cannot interbreed.
Further, what would prevent an independent creation event involving organisms with the same numbers of chromosomes?
It is evidence of common ancestry.
How would you get a continuous population with infertile animals?
Are there species with the same gene sets and chromosome counts that cannot interbreed. How common is this?
âGene setsâ is gibberish.
How many genes would you predict that you would have, but a mouse would lack?
Vice versa?
I am asking why itâs evidence of common ancestry. Can you explain why?
I wrote âinterfertileâ not infertile.
What I am asking is what would prevent an independent creation event of species that can interbreed with one another (after being created)?
I donât know what you mean by âsame gene setsâ.
What I am pointing out is that there are species with the same chromosome counts that cannot interbreed, and vise-versa there are individuals with different chromosome counts within species that can interbreed.
In other words, it doesnât appear that chromosome counts are a good criteria for determining whether organisms can necessarily interbreed and consequently be evidence for common ancestry.
Further, you still have to deal with the question as to whether an independent creation event can also produce organisms with the same chromosome counts. In other words, what is the restriction on independent creation events that would prevent organisms from being created that the same chromosome counts and are able to interbreed?
If you want to present criteria to distinguish between common ancestry and independent creation events, you need to present things are evidence for the former but cannot happen as part of the latter.
Fertility is a basic requirement of ancestry.
Why is this relevant?
Not sure the point you are trying to make here but here is what I think.
I would say that different gene arrangements and different chromosome counts is evidence for an independently created organism as common ancestry does not explain genetic differences in species.
Itâs relevant because youâre trying to distinguish between two scenarios:
- Organisms arising via reproduction and sharing common ancestry with one another
- Organisms arising via âindependent creation event(s)â and not sharing common ancestry with one another
If youâre claiming that certain observations indicate evidence of the former (common ancestry), my question is what prevents those same observations from also occurring in the latter (independent creation events).
Youâve claimed things like fertility (species being able to interbreed), same chromosome counts, same gene arrangements (whatever that means), as being evidence for common ancestry.
My question to you is what prevents species from being created with those same characteristics: fertility, same chromosome counts, and gene arrangements?
Are you saying that in order for species to be independent created, they must have different genetic arrangements and different chromosome counts?
What would prevent a creator from creating multiple species with the same chromosome counts, for example?
This is how they are created and now new species can be created by reproduction. Those species can share common ancestry as you would with your brother or sister.
Nothing would likely prevent this but different chromosome counts can help with isolation and help keep life diverse.
Iâm not asking why you think a creator might create species with different chromosome counts.
Iâm asking whether there is a restriction that prevents the creation of independent species that can be interfertile (i.e. cross breed with each other) and have the same chromosome counts, gene arrangements, etc.
It sounds like you are saying there is no restriction that would prevent the creation of such species. Is that right?
Itâs not. An organism must be fertile in order to have offspring, but an organism does not need to be able to produce more offspring with their own descendant, nor do the descendants need to be able to produce offspring with their siblings our cousins. Indeed, it is entirely possible for a descendant to be completely infertile and still share a common ancestor with their sibling or cousin.
That is, at least, if we go by actual familial relations, rather than by what ever unspecific thing you mean when you speak of ancestry or reproduction.
Hi E
This a pretty complex question that gets into the definition of an independent species. I donât know if you can get reproductive isolation given species with the same genes snd chromosomes.
This is laughable nonsense but it gives me the opportunity to ask you a question, one that sometimes occupies my mind and one that you seem to believe yourself qualified to answer.
You see, I have an ancient love and affinity for William Shakespeare. This has, of course, led me to wonder how he and I are related. I think the lineage from the man himself to today is known, and I am saddened to know that I am not one of his direct descendants. But as youâa prolific expert on such mattersâwill know, he and I surely share some common ancestors. I would like to know more about these peopleâwhen and where they lived, maybe what they did, maybe what their descendants are like.
How would I go about this? Thanks!
Species concepts are an inherently artificial way of classifying organisms to begin with, so I donât think itâs worth going down that rabbit hole.
Broadly speaking, Iâm asking if there are restrictions to independent creation events whereby criteria used to determine common ancestry would be exclusive to common ancestry.
If the answer is either âwe donât knowâ or ânoâ, then in both cases we canât utilize those criteria to distinguish common ancestry from independent creation events.
I think if two organisms have highly similar genetic make ups and what we know about biological organisms then it is safe to conclude common ancestry between those individuals.
Are you saying that organisms with similar genetic makeups cannot be created individually then? What about the process of independently created organisms gives rise to that restriction?
What do we do for organisms that are not reproductively compatible, i.e. are in direct violation of your interfertility criterion and therefore cannot share ancestry, yet have highly similar genetic makeup, and are therefore safe to conclude to have common ancestry?
Can you show such organisms exist?