What is the primal benefit of genomes and speciation for living
organisms? Why not reproducing themselves without those constraints
creating a milliard of individual variations?

---

Clarification of Question by tak123-ga on 21 Dec 2005 03:44 PST

If there is no genetic constraint in reproductive system it could be
possible to generate permutations between the species which are
equally successful under the same environment conditions if not
random. Random permutation and Natural Selection seems to be the
result of the constraints imposed by genome and speciation rather than
the cause of the latter. My question is about a reason of this initial
choice of constraints. It seems that I could not find any viable
answer as far as my knowledge is concerned.

I am interested in this question because man-made forms (artefacts)
seems to be free from these constraints in its "evolution". The
permutation through our "creativity" allows the artefacts to permutate
freely beyond the contraints and improve its fitness so quickly
compared to that of biological forms.

Our language and value system seems (market for instance) to function
in similar way as genome and speciation do in biological domain. Yet
level of the restrictions are much lower since they are subject of our
choice.

Because certain collections of traits may be better suited to a
certain environment in combination (ie. in a species) than they are
apart in random permutations (ie. in individual variations).

Whenever that's the case, any parental animal whose offspring retains
a set of beneficial characters will have invested less effort in more
successful reproduction.

This selection pressure for 'keeping the good genes together' can
result in any number of barriers to hybridisation; behavioural,
genetic incompatibility etc.

Hope this helps,
K

If there is no genetic constraint in reproductive system it could be
possible to generate permutations between the species which are
equally successful under the same environment conditions if not
random. Random permutation and Natural Selection seems to be the
result of the constraints imposed by genome and speciation rather than
the cause of the latter. My question is about a reason of this initial
choice of constraints. It seems that I could not find any viable
answer as far as my knowledge is concerned.

I am interested in this question because man-made forms (artefacts)
seems to be free from these constraints in its "evolution". The
permutation through our "creativity" allows the artefacts to permutate
freely beyond the contraints and improve its fitness so quickly
compared to that of biological forms.

Our language and value system seems (market for instance) to function
in similar way as genome and speciation do in biological domain. Yet
level of the restrictions are much lower since they are subject of our
choice.

I'll need a bit more clarification before I attempt an answer
(hopefully as a comment, so you'll save your $2)

>If there is no genetic constraint in reproductive system it could be
>possible to generate permutations between the species which are
>equally successful under the same environment conditions if not
>random.

True. These permutations are called hybrids. Some groups of organisms
hybridize fairly freely, for example willows; the reason many willow
hybrids are not selected against & do not die out quickly, is probably
that the mix of genes/traits they possess is sufficiently suited to
their environment. Some groups of organisms, for example orchids,
hybridize easily in experiments (or in greenhouses), but rarely in
nature. The reason the hybrids of this *particular* group don't
usually survive, and that hybrids don't often occur in the first
place, is that insect pollinators of orchids are highly specific. An
orchid hybrid may therefore be adapted to neither parent-pollinator,
and no insect will end up cross-pollinating the two different parent
species anyway.
Look up 'pre-zygotic barrier'.

>Random permutation and Natural Selection seems to be the result 
>of the constraints imposed by genome and speciation rather than 
>the cause of the latter. 

Please explain what you mean by this in a bit more detail.
Hybridisation in nature can be constrained by pre-zygotic barriers
(typically behavioural adaptations), or post-zygotic (typically
biochemical or sometimes anatomical incompatibilities). Both of these
types of barriers are genetic in origin, at least in some form, and
they have come into place as a result of natural selection *against*
hybrids with reduced viability.

>My question is about a reason of this initial choice of 
>constraints.

Well, the constraints aren't chosen, as such, rather evolved over time.

Man-made forms are indeed free from many evolutionary pressures. Many
breeds of dogs, duck, pigeons, horse, cattle etc. would have severe
difficulties surviving in the wild. We choose the traits we want in
our domestic animals, and allow hybrids or freak mutations to survive.

I am very reluctant to infer anything from our perception of biology
to the sphere of sociology. To decribe market/language/etc phenomena,
I would choose tools from the relevant sciences, even if things become
more difficult to understand. But maybe that's not what you're trying
to do - I may have misunderstood you.