It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Please explain, with sources (not opinion pieces), why you cannot accept that single step speciation in the observed examples provided (like the Wikipedia article on Saltation) are not sufficient evidence for you to accept that single step speciation occurs.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut
Please explain, with sources (not opinion pieces), why you cannot accept that single step speciation in the observed examples provided (like the Wikipedia article on Saltation) are not sufficient evidence for you to accept that single step speciation occurs.
Wow. Somebody starred that. I hope they went to the page first, and read the indicated section with care.
I did. There were references to various instances of (claimed, but I'm happy to accept the claims) saltational events, like the appearance of centipedes with extra body segments and the like, but as far as I could see only one example of single-event speciations — a whole class of them, I grant you, but they're all the same thing: the appearance of polyploidy in hitherto diploid species, which renders the polyploids unable to mate with their diploid forebears.
However, a lot of polyploid species are asexual, and many are the result of selective breeding by humans, and they are reproduced by artificial cloning and suchlike. Polyploidy does occur in nature, and is poorly understood. As an example of speciation occurring within a single generation, I don't think it really cuts the mustard.
Do I hear a retraction of that, very particular point, then?
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut
Do I hear a retraction of that, very particular point, then?
Certainly not. Are you arguing that a child with Down's Syndrome isn't human?
You are apparently defining a species as a set of organisms able to produce fertile offspring through mating. This is acceptable, roughly, for sexually reproducing species, but how do you define an asexually reproducing species? It is very difficult, and biologists argue about it. There is no agreed definition. However, the existence of such a definition is presupposed in the claim that polyploidy equals speciation. This is wrong. But since that Wikipedia article of yours is bad science about an outdated theory, written by a creationist (as is evident from the talk page), I can't say I'm surprised. Did you write it?
Genuine speciation has never been observed in a single generation — except, as I understand it, at the Institute for Creation Research.
I did not write the Wikipedia article, nor did I edit or contribute to it in any way. Not even slightly.
I am not associated with the Institute for Creation Research (or any other organization that specifically has an agenda to promote Creationism as science). I do not recall reading any of their publications. I am not an American and doubt that I may even unknowingly have met someone associated with that organization.
Your inference then, that there was some connection, is evidentially a red herring.
Your attempt at character assassination by association, doubly so.
If you are suggesting that my concept of speciation is wrong, then please provide a reference.
I clearly defined speciation as new traits becoming dominant within a population that add up over time and change the organism enough so that it can no longer reproduce with the originals.
-10,000 generations.
-structural differences
-variations in fins
-changes in bony plates
- variable jaw structure.
This would clearly be speciation where 4 different traits combined together to cause enough change in the species that they can't reproduce with the originals.
Accumulated mutations lead to the new traits. So saying that something is caused by reproductive isolation but not mutations is absurd because the mutations are the cause of the new traits in the first place.
Macroevolutionary speciation rates are decoupled from the evolution of intrinsic reproductive isolation in Drosophila and birds:
Rates of species diversification vary widely in the natural world, leading to profound differences in species richness among different kinds of organisms. Variation in the rate at which new species arise is frequently assumed to result from factors that influence the rate at which populations become reproductively isolated from each other. We tested this assumption in Drosophila flies and birds. Surprisingly, we find no evidence that the propensity of organisms to evolve reproductive isolation predicts the rate at which they form new species over geological timescales. These results suggest that factors that cause intrinsic reproductive isolation may play less of a role in explaining biological diversity than generally assumed.
[Speciation is] never a single event, just like with the bigger level changes (ie genus). They are accumulations of mutations and traits that cause different enough appearance for scientists to classify them differently. Stop getting hung up on single events, and numbers like "thousands or millions of generations"
According to the descriptions I've read, epicgenetics isn't about traits and genes being inherited.
To truly delve into Modern Evolutionary Synthesis you need to read BOOKS on the topic and research papers. You aren't going to find everything in a single wikipedia link.
I said that this thread is about mutations adding up over time, not the countless other factors that have already been discussed to death. You seem to keep going all or nothing.
Your personal dispute with the terminology of "the gene" vs "the gene sequence" doesn't matter in this regard and is dragging us even further off topic.
But I guess your personal opinion based purely on the shock value of a change that big overrides decades of study.
Natural selection is now guesswork? Really?
LMAO at assigning stories.
Can you explain how a trait can become dominant within a population without natural selection?
So for the 20th time, mutations alone do not create evolutionary changes. Get this notion out of your head. It's about new traits emerging and becoming dominant in a species.
originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.
We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.
But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.
That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
You’re ignoring that in general, the factors leading to all manners of speciation have not been adequately resolved and are still up for debate. Your repeated stance in this thread has been that "evolution (speciation)" happens in one main way- i.e. mutations (adaptations?), sorted by natural selection, adding up in a population enough to cause reproductive isolation through new traits.
This is basically phyletic gradualism, or evolution by anagenesis, which is not thought to be as common (vs cladogenesis). Either way there is clearly not a consensus on this. Or, this.
Phyletic gradualism is a model of evolution which theorizes that most speciation is slow, uniform and gradual.[1] When evolution occurs in this mode, it is usually by the steady transformation of a whole species into a new one (through a process called anagenesis). In this view no clear line of demarcation exists between an ancestral species and a descendant species, unless splitting occurs. The theory is contrasted with punctuated equilibrium.
Anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change", is the evolution of species involving an entire population rather than a branching event, as in cladogenesis. When enough mutations have occurred and become stable in a population so that it is significantly differentiated from an ancestral population, a new species name may be assigned.
You seem to be invoking a version sympatric speciation here, which relates to anagenetic speciation I mentioned above. Essentially it's speciation within a single lineage rather than by branching off from a common ancestor. Researchers aren't too clear on how this type of speciation works, and it's believed to be one of the least likely to occur among animals. More so in plants perhaps.
Is this your conclusion? Please excuse me for not accepting this claim out of context, and without proper citation. Perhaps linking a source to this study so others can do proper due diligence would help here.
Feel free to comment and link to sources that contribute in any meaningful way to this discussion.
No no no. Let's get something clear. You said that evolution (speciation) is about mutations adding up. You've asked why evolution can't happen this way. So it is you who has gone all or nothing on this one aspect.
It's to prove a point, I get it, but in doing so you've inadvertently constructed a straw man. Do you think it's possible to debate evolution by honing in on just one mechanism, and isolating it from all the others, known and unknown? No, Im sorry. Can't be done.
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.
We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.
But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.
That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?
I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution
Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Seems like hand waving to me. Not my personal dispute. You just made that up. Regardless, it's a convenient response considering we're talking about genetic mutations, and a proper understanding of these terms would add some much needed credibility to the topic at hand.
It's not just that. It's that other experts have different opinions on it. I've read the material, have you?
It simply means that piecing together lineages through fossils is a rather speculative science, which leaves room for debate and alternative interpretations. You would be hard pressed to deny this. I posted a link in a previous post highlighting this fact.
Can you explain how a trait can become dominant within a population without natural selection?
Genetic drift? Migration?
What do you think I've been arguing this entire time?
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.
We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.
But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.
That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?
I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution
Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.
But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.
We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.
But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.
That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?
I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution
Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.
But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?
Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ... don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.
We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.
But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.
That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?
I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution
Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.
But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?
Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ... don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?
But what else am I to believe? What's your alternative? Why won't you tell me?
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.
We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.
But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.
That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?
I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution
Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.
But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?
Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ... don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?
But what else am I to believe? What's your alternative? Why won't you tell me?
LOL ... I'm a "real" scientist. I don't just make stuff up. The origin of species isn't my lane. No dog in this fight. Thing is the 'evolutionists' around here have gotten under my skin and I enjoy simply pointing out that their argument is exactly on-par with creation. There simply is no proof of evolution no matter how obvious it may seem to them.
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.
We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.
But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.
That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?
I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution
Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.
But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?
Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ... don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?
But what else am I to believe? What's your alternative? Why won't you tell me?
LOL ... I'm a "real" scientist. I don't just make stuff up. The origin of species isn't my lane. No dog in this fight. Thing is the 'evolutionists' around here have gotten under my skin and I enjoy simply pointing out that their argument is exactly on-par with creation. There simply is no proof of evolution no matter how obvious it may seem to them.
But isn't that the best theory we have?
I'm trying to keep things simple here, but all you are doing is bringing all kinds of other things into the conversation to make it more confusing to folks that might not understand it on that level.
^Those are from the wiki you linked on anagenesis plus the one on phyletic gradualism.
Please explain how that is ANY different than what I described specification as?
No, I'm not invoking sympatric speciation. Allopatric speciation is precisely what I am describing.
It is exactly what you're talking about, and is the same as anagenetic evolution, which you, just above, acknowledged is no different than what you've been saying.
Sympatric speciation is the process through which new species evolve from a single ancestral species while inhabiting the same geographic region.
www.sciencedirect.com...
This discussion is 75% red herrings and semantics. After all that, you have the nerve to suggest I am not contributing in any meaningful way to the discussion? You still haven't answered my question, nor have you shown anything to counter anything related to the topic of the thread.
It (epigentics) adds on to our understanding and shows a different way it can potentially happen, without genetic mutations.
Suggesting that it automatically overrides genetic mutations, natural selection, or speciation means nothing
It's disputable that it can even happen in mammals and it seems to be based on genetic markers rather than genetic mutations. Just because this can happen, doesn't mean the mutations do not. Another red herring to add to the pile.
You have given me alternative ways that speciation can happen, but you haven't disputed allopatric speciation, or addressed the question at hand
I made that up? You are the one that nitpicked whether it's a single gene or group of genes, and the terminology involved.
ocean.si.edu...
^ This one has a nice video to compare the anatomy and features
Migration? What exactly do you think causes animals to migrate? Change in the environment (seasonal change, temperature, food source change, new competition, natural disasters, etc). Migration is a prime example of natural selection's influence.Migration is a prime example of natural selection's influence.
Genetic drift is still influenced by the environment and if a new trait emerges in that fashion it would indeed be influenced by natural selection because it gives them an advantage which leads to it becoming dominant.
from here on out I'd prefer that we focused on the premise, which is the artificial limitation on mutations / traits adding up proposed by evolution deniers.
originally posted by: Snarl
LOL ... I'm a "real" scientist. I don't just make stuff up. The origin of species isn't my lane. No dog in this fight. Thing is the 'evolutionists' around here have gotten under my skin and I enjoy simply pointing out that their argument is exactly on-par with creation. There simply is no proof of evolution no matter how obvious it may seem to them.
Depends on who you want to offend. The argument for creation is just as valid ... right up until the moment evolutionary 'science' provides proof. So far, no act of science has created life and no scientific endeavor has produced speciation. And remember ... 'Science' is repeatable.