How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe (Humans)

by dhw, Monday, November 14, 2016, 12:07 (2930 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Just think about the logic here. We see huge gaps in phenotype in new species. Think of the thousands of mutations that must be present. Does the new animal only breed with other new animals, or breed with old animals forming hybrids. We don't see hybrid forms in the gap fossils! Therefore new animals breed with new animals, therefore new species start with a large population as the gaps suggest.

dhw: There are two distinct points here: 1) that any innovation requires the cooperation of all the cell communities (= large families of cooperating genes) within the individual organism. Absolutely no disagreement; 2) that a large population of the new species is required right from the beginning in order for it to survive. How can gaps suggest a large population? Gaps suggest saltation, and that’s all.
DAVID: And I know how saltation occurs. God. I've told you logically there must be new numbers of a new species all of whom need multiple similar new organized mutations. And you think cells can conjure that up. Totally unreasonable to me.

There is no disagreement between us on the fact that a new species requires multiple new organized mutations. “New numbers” is the point at issue, since you insist the numbers must be large. I don’t see why.

dhw: Every innovation must take place in individuals, and even allowing for convergent evolution, each one will take place in a particular location. It is self-evident that there must be enough of these individuals to guarantee reproduction.
DAVID: Yes it is self evident. How do all the different individual chose the same DNA changes?

Because the cell communities are coping with or exploiting the same environment.

dhw: Does Haldane tell us how many? According to the Bible, two were enough, but we are not great believers in that story, so give us a clue. What do the mathematicians regard as a viable number to start a new species?
DAVID: Haldane didn't tell us. He calculated not enough time.

Of course he didn’t tell us. Nobody knows how many individuals are needed to start a new species, and your claim that large numbers are required is pure speculation. Haldane presumably calculated not enough time for random mutations to create new species – a different issue altogether.

dhw: And while on the subject of maths, according to you God provided the first living cells with programmes for every single innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution (apart from those he dabbled). Mathematically, how many cells do you reckon he would have needed at the very beginning to “guarantee” the survival of all these millions of programmes through the three point something billion years till they ended up (so far) with the weaverbird’s nest, the duckbilled platypus and us human beings?
DAVID: It just takes a few dividing every 20 minutes with all the survival mechanisms on board. That is obvious math to the power of two.

Good to hear that just a few cells are needed to pass on millions and millions of programmes. May I suggest that just a few organisms might be needed to pass on ONE programme, as individuals come up with the innovations that lead to new species? With these “just a few” reproducing, within “just a few” generations numbers will increase exponentially until you have lots and lots of them. Obvious math.