0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mutations in birthrates occur all the time.When breeding hogs, we would routinely select for larger litter sizes. Even the number of nipples would vary, and for pigs, the survival rate of litters with more babies than nipples falls off quickly, so we would select for both large litters and lots of nipples.Obviously selective pressures in nature are different than in a controlled environment in a barn. And, hardiness may be more important than total numbers. I think we had at least one litter out in the pasture, and it fared poorly. In the wild, perhaps pigs with litter sizes of 5 or so would have a higher overall survival rate than litters of 16.Many mammals that typically have one baby a year will occasionally have twins, and the probability of twins may have a genetic basis. In cattle, however, fraternal, different sex twins usually leads to female sterility. [nofollow] Infant survival rate, of course, is important to every species, no matter whether they have one baby, or thousands per year.Deer in the USA often have twins. Was that always the case, or is it due to selective pressure from human hunters?Anyway, we know that "life" has existed on Earth for about 4 billion years. And Earth is now shared by billions of species of bacteria, amoebas, protozoa, algae, plants, trees, insects, herbivores, and carnivores. Other than saying that it can't happen, what is your theory for the species diversity on Earth, and general stability of the ecosystems (including adapting to environmental changes and natural disasters). Of course, a disaster to one species may be a benefit to another.If you have a specific model that you wish for us to evaluate, please provide a copy of the model. Documented source code with clear parameters may be best. Otherwise, at least a model that can be run on different systems, and that clearly shows the parameters being evaluated. And, it should be clear how each parameter interacts with the others, or what calculations and assumptions are being used.
I never claimed that the biodiversity on Earth could not happen. It obviously happened. I am saying that gene-centered evolution models cannot explain it. The model I propose is that all organisms learn from their mistakes, and those associations lead to emergent planning which dramatically decreases the risk of mass extinctions from ecological instability. Since catalytic closure creates pathways analogous to synapses, learning from mistakes is probably exactly as old as reproduction.
You need some kind of a mechanism.It is difficult to anthropomorphize a blade of grass or an amoeba.
Humans have difficulties enough with planning for the number of offspring for the population as a whole. China has imposed a "one child" law with some success, but it has had some severe criticism and difficulties enforcing it.One can not expect animals, insects, or simpler organisms to have such great planning, or that they would actually share the "planning" between species.
Many animals species have 1 or 2 offspring a year. Sometimes with the dominant offspring killing or out-competing the other. In cases such as endangered species, one might want to encourage more offspring, but it can be difficult.Fish, of course, may have hundreds of offspring per adult fish. However, a high mortality rate is built into the equation for a large number of eggs.
The reproduction of a species is also dependent on the fertility period and lifespan of the members. Few choose when menopause will occur, or their own death.
Anyway, you need a better mechanism for these long-term characteristics to be passed down from generation to generation, affect all plants an animals, and great similarities to be found in a species no matter where it is around the globe.