Hank49:
If I'm correct in thinking I understand this, literally at an instant when a mother gave birth, (with different species throughout time) she gave birth to a different species. Because at some point, the DNA compatibility went from, "can breed" to "no can breed" (to original parent stocks which hadn't mutated or changed). There would be no "maybe". Correct? This is what I see being questioned. At some point this had to have happened.
I'm thinking along these lines initially...
Let's say that the genetic code is the "blueprint "by which life forms, and that this "blueprint" can be altered or "influenced" by environmental means, like radiation, cellular integrity (the older sperm/eggs get the less likely they are to produce a viable organism), and that each organism has it's own specific "genetic" code defining the species, that is translated into it's reproductive system.
If for instance, gamma rays (which are like microscopic bullets punching holes through things they hit) which are produced via the sun, and aren't entirely filtered by the earth's atmosphere strike the genetic code in such a way as to damage or alter it, or if by a chemical (earth going through a "balancing" act over the eons) and producing many toxic intermediate "concoctions" causing the genetic code to become "altered" (not all, but part), or even environmental changes such as heat or cold tolerences beyond that which the parent could reasonable tolerate; let's say they these factors could damage (not rearrage, by any means, into a new species) the genetic code.
Now we have a genetic sequence that isn't quite the norm for an exact replication of the species (interesting enough though, all the possibilities for variety is also encoded - a sibling grouping unless a form of "twins" will never look exactly alike - differentation must be built into the propagation equation some how, or change - a way to give the most variety perhaps? increasing the chances for overall survival?). Most of the time, these genetic "damages" are non-viable - the organism cannot survive, even in the very early stages of division. Some actually do survive: we see this in fruit fly studies (Drosopholia are chosen because they produce many generations quickly in a short timespan), where irradiation can produce all kinds of mutations, which are passed down to their offspring ... from different eye shapes to wingless varieties. Mutations can also be chemically induced, as many pharmacutical companies have sadly found out ... in birth defects (i'm not sure if the defect is handed down. It seems likely that it would depend on when the "damage" occured during development. Before conception, i'd have to say yes, but then again, since "differentiation" occurs, it's possbile to assume that the damaged gene might not show itself in the next generation - it could be passed along the lines in a recessive form - only to surface when combined with another carrier of the recessive gene (the partially damaged section of the code).
Now, when we have mutations in the wild, the term Natural Selection comes into play. Is this "different" organism so equipped to survive in it's new enviorment? Has all the functioning body parts, isnt easily predatorized (a white moth in a forest of dark trees for example is easily seen by predators and eaten). If it survives all this, it's possible to produce an "alternate" organism within the species. I think it's when the "alternate" gene becomes stable (continues to show itself 100% of the time over the generations, that it potentially could be called a new species by scientists - but it would depend on the differences between the parent line (or strain) and itself.
If we now have a "mutated" characteristic, that's different from that of it's parent, in a totally viable organism then would could suppose that...
Over millions of years, these "little" changes all add up to some big ones. I think these are the lines scientists are thinking on. It's becomes difficult when evolution becomes evolving, which becomes mutations, which becomes distinquisable characteristics.
I think sometimes in an overly passionate post, the lines can become obscured, by saying that evolving encompasses the sudden appearance (evolution) of new and completely different animals: a pigeon and tiger for example.
In thinking of primordial soup ... by adding high voltage electricity (homemade lightning), which they assumed (not an absolute know) was present when the earth was trying to find it's "balance" in the form or natural lightning, that the combination of "assumed" elements with the addition of voltage, produced basic amino acids - the buiding block of life. Now, as to whether these amino acids began to suddenly come together, as they were "created" individually by chance to produce the first organism is entirely hypothesis or speculation - it's just part of the total Evolutionary Theory. Many of these "proofs" are tested in the laboratory, and not in the wild; so again, just because something makes sense, doesn't necessarily mean that's all there is to it ... how were the actual properties of matter defined? and where did it first come from? These things take faith, not science to encompass.
I'm not going pro or con evolution in the thread (not due to personal beliefs, but the nature of the postings) ... just tossing a few ideas on the already massive pile.
-----
Mike.
