Observed instances of speciation...

reply to post by addygrace


It's not a religious leap. There are lots of studies on the issue of crocodile evolution.

I wish I could link some other resources, but they're papers I only have access to through my University and I'm unable to share the links properly due to the protocols to prevent abuse of accounts.

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH


Sub-species. C.Lupus Lupus and C. Lupus Familiaris are the same species, they're just subspeciations. I'm sure you can even find a nice study comparing their genomes soon enough, as I know that the Dog genome was sequenced back in '05. Don't know if they got around to the wolf yet. Will have to delve into the literature.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

People say there's no evidence of one species turning into another, I provided some.

So ....help me understand something please.

If a spider mates with another species of spider and make yet another species of spider thats evolution? In the end it's a spider no? just asking.

And where did the first living cell come from?

And as far as creationists go, don't they cover the idea of all things e.g the sun moon earth bugs humans and so on? But evolution only centers on life right? So how could it ever be used to disprove a God?

I'm only asking your opinions on this.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by addygrace

 

It's not a religious leap. There are lots of studies on the issue of crocodile evolution.

I wish I could link some other resources, but they're papers I only have access to through my University and I'm unable to share the links properly due to the protocols to prevent abuse of accounts.

What I was referring to was, his belief those two crocs couldn't mate. No scientist would make a claim like that.

reply to post by addygrace


They could. If we managed to scrape some DNA from it or simply compare the reproductive anatomy...but I'm not a crocodile morphology expert, so I'm not sure whether or not they could mate.

Of course...200,000 years isn't necessarily a big distance. We could probably mate and produce fertile offspring with our ancestors from that far back...we probably wouldn't because they'd have awful hygiene and they'd age horribly, but we could if we were so inclined.

reply to post by GunzCoty

Originally posted by GunzCoty
So ....help me understand something please.

I'll do my best.

If a spider mates with another species of spider and make yet another species of spider thats evolution? In the end it's a spider no? just asking.

Well, it's hybridization. And yes, it's just another spider. Species level change isn't going to produce something strikingly different, but it will be reproductively isolated. We can tell from the genetic evidence that life is a result of this process happening over a long period of time leading to far greater diversity.

And where did the first living cell come from?

Not really an evolution question, it's more of an abiogenesis question...though it does encroach on the evolution question a bit.

The question you should be asking is "What constitutes the first life form?" because there is disagreement about where to draw the line between living and not living. Some biologists do not consider viruses to be proper living things, mainly because they cannot independently reproduce. There are various schools of thought on the order in which pre-life self-replicating molecules originated and eventually arose to a cell, but I'm not an expert on that and that has nothing to do with speciation.

And as far as creationists go, don't they cover the idea of all things e.g the sun moon earth bugs humans and so on?

Depends on the type of creationist. But essentially, yes.

But evolution only centers on life right?

Even more specific. Evolution only centers on the diversification of life.

So how could it ever be used to disprove a God?

I never said it could. It is also not up to the skeptic to disprove the claim that has yet to be proven.

I'm only asking your opinions on this.

I hope they were sufficient.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Interesting read OP - I wouldn't discount 'creation' altogether as we are still trying to get a grasp of the most basic of concepts (we may have been amino protiens seeded via a higher being billions of years ago ... or just a passing comet) however.... evolution/speciation/mutation is real and does occur - so thank you for the read.

A few link's that may aid;

Pale Deer Mouse Evolves
The Peppered Moth
Turtle Shell Evolution
Climate Effecting Evolution

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Read, and go crazy....


The Urzeit Code

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Define what a kind is.

If a "dog" is a kind, then "kind" is defined as a subspecies, as Canis Lupus Familiaris is a subspecies of Canis Lupus...wolves.

Cats? That's a whole family.

Creationists have no reason to use the word 'kind' until they can get it straight. Nobody has even provided anything but a shifting definition that suits the argument.

I'm saying when a house cat turns into a dog.

Speciation under controlled circumstances shows that it's possible. They are new species because they are reproductively isolate. That's as close to a biological definition of speciation for gendered animals as you'll get.

It doesn't show that it's happening.
There are no creationists claiming, "You can't take a housefly, diverge it in an experiment, and make these flies reproduce with their own diverged race.". Your claiming these flies became 4 different species because they didn't reproduce with each other. If that happened, which they didn't show, they are still houseflies. They never claimed those same flies would, or could never reproduce with each other. They just claimed in that experiment, they didn't.

My problems with this example are, as follows;
1.They are all still houseflies.
2.They designed and intelligently picked their controls. The irony in this one is incredible.
3.They never claimed those same flies would, or could never reproduce with each other, after the experiment. If they did, I didn't see it.

Also, I find it funny how you mention creationists shifting definition of kind, when evolutionists can't even agree on species. The reason for the differing definitions in evolution theory, is based on the expertise of the scientist.

reply to post by addygrace

Originally posted by addygrace
I'm saying when a house cat turns into a dog.

This is one of the reasons I started this thread....

If that happened it would entirely disprove evolution. In fact, a lot of things creationists claim are evolution are actually things that would fundamentally disprove it.

It doesn't show that it's happening.
There are no creationists claiming, "You can't take a housefly, diverge it in an experiment, and make these flies reproduce with their own diverged race.".

Well...it's not a race issue. If they were races they'd still be interfertile.

Your claiming these flies became 4 different species because they didn't reproduce with each other. If that happened, which they didn't show, they are still houseflies.

You don't know what a species is, do you?
And there are dozens of examples provided, yet you're harping one the one about houseflies?

They never claimed those same flies would, or could never reproduce with each other. They just claimed in that experiment, they didn't.

I'm sorry, but show me where they claimed that they simply chose not to.

My problems with this example are, as follows;
1.They are all still houseflies.

Well, it would take a lot more time to break from speciation to further diversification on the genus level.

2.They designed and intelligently picked their controls. The irony in this one is incredible.

They simply separated them out...which is something that actually happens in the wild. Population groups diverge.

3.They never claimed those same flies would, or could never reproduce with each other, after the experiment. If they did, I didn't see it.

Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

That refers to reproduction. It's right there. You know, you clearly didn't even bother to look at the links as you keep harping on what I quoted.

Also, I find it funny how you mention creationists shifting definition of kind, when evolutionists can't even agree on species.

They at the very least have a working definition of it. They don't switch from species to genus to family to phylum. Evolutionary biologists are sort of splitting hairs, it's what scientists do.

The reason for the differing definitions in evolution theory, is based on the expertise of the scientist.

It also has to do with the difference between reproductive practices. Some slime molds are really difficult to pick the speciation of because they have hundreds of genders....

Quote From Madnessinmysoul

You don't know what a species is, do you?
And there are dozens of examples provided, yet you're harping one the one about houseflies?

Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists. But I think we're using this definiton; "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".

I'm harping on that one because, it was your first example. Obviously you thought it was important. Here's a thought, why don't you break down your first example(the houseflies), so maybe this thread you made, to teach creationists about speciation, will actually have your desired effect. Show us how it shows speciation.


Quote From Madnessinmysoul

I'm sorry, but show me where they claimed that they simply chose not to.

It's your teaching thread. Break it down, and maybe we could learn something.


Quote From Madnessinmysoul

Well, it would take a lot more time to break from speciation to further diversification on the genus level.

Ok.


Quote From Madnessinmysoul

They simply separated them out...which is something that actually happens in the wild. Population groups diverge.

No my point is, using a conscious mind to control an environment, for something that happens naturally, is ironic because your using the example to show creationists there is no creator needed.


Quote From Madnessinmysoul

Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

That refers to reproduction. It's right there. You know, you clearly didn't even bother to look at the links as you keep harping on what I quoted.

This actually has me laughing. Why would I not harp on what you quoted. You quoted it. As far as the links go, I spent an hour looking through them. They were pretty informative. I will have to come back to every example, I guess. Choosing one seems to be the most efficient thing to do, as talking about everything in those links would take us at least 100 hours to get through. Surely that's not what you're implying, right.


Quote From Madnessinmysoul

They at the very least have a working definition of it. They don't switch from species to genus to family to phylum. Evolutionary biologists are sort of splitting hairs, it's what scientists do.

This I will concede. I have serious question, though. Let's say there are three distinct populations of an organism. We will call each one A, B, and C. A can breed with B, B can breed with C, but A can't breed with C. Would this be one species or two? Under the definition we are using for species, It can't be one or two.


Quote From Madnessinmysoul

It also has to do with the difference between reproductive practices. Some slime molds are really difficult to pick the speciation of because they have hundreds of genders....

Along with bacteria just being one giant gene pool. The example I used above is another. The point I'm making here is, if you can keep adding definitions that fit every scenario, then we can never know when speciation is happening.

reply to post by addygrace

Originally posted by addygrace
Quote From Madnessinmysoul

 

You don't know what a species is, do you?
And there are dozens of examples provided, yet you're harping one the one about houseflies?

Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists. But I think we're using this definiton; "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".

You're making it seem like those dozens of definitions are completely different. If there are that many (and I doubt that there are) then I'm guessing part of that has to do with different reproductive practices.

I'm harping on that one because, it was your first example. Obviously you thought it was important. Here's a thought, why don't you break down your first example(the houseflies), so maybe this thread you made, to teach creationists about speciation, will actually have your desired effect. Show us how it shows speciation.

It shows that the gene flow between population groups declined. How much clearer can it get?

Quote From Madnessinmysoul

 

They simply separated them out...which is something that actually happens in the wild. Population groups diverge.

No my point is, using a conscious mind to control an environment, for something that happens naturally, is ironic because your using the example to show creationists there is no creator needed.

...it's one of the examples. There are several others. Now, the only way to actually make sure you're controlling things properly is to do it in a lab. There was very little intelligence put into the design. Separate two populations.

Quote From Madnessinmysoul

 

Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

That refers to reproduction. It's right there. You know, you clearly didn't even bother to look at the links as you keep harping on what I quoted.

This actually has me laughing. Why would I not harp on what you quoted. You quoted it. As far as the links go, I spent an hour looking through them. They were pretty informative. I will have to come back to every example, I guess. Choosing one seems to be the most efficient thing to do, as talking about everything in those links would take us at least 100 hours to get through. Surely that's not what you're implying, right.

So you're ignoring that I actually showed that you were entirely wrong? I mean, you said that it didn't refer to the populations reproducing, but there were measurements of gene flow...

Quote From Madnessinmysoul

 

They at the very least have a working definition of it. They don't switch from species to genus to family to phylum. Evolutionary biologists are sort of splitting hairs, it's what scientists do.

This I will concede. I have serious question, though. Let's say there are three distinct populations of an organism. We will call each one A, B, and C. A can breed with B, B can breed with C, but A can't breed with C. Would this be one species or two? Under the definition we are using for species, It can't be one or two.

I'm not actually sure if that's a physical possibility...and I'm not really 100% qualified to answer that question. I'll look into it.

Quote From Madnessinmysoul

 

It also has to do with the difference between reproductive practices. Some slime molds are really difficult to pick the speciation of because they have hundreds of genders....

Along with bacteria just being one giant gene pool. The example I used above is another. The point I'm making here is, if you can keep adding definitions that fit every scenario, then we can never know when speciation is happening.

The difference in scenario would be the difference in reproduction. The problem with defining speciation is that we've realized that the transitions aren't as distinct. We're not going to see the transition in a handful of generations so it won't be as stark.

Listen. I think we are arguing 2 different things on the flies. If we are not, then I'm just not understanding. I will concede the whole quote, because it's derailing.

The quote below I did want to comment on.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by addygrace

 

The difference in scenario would be the difference in reproduction. The problem with defining speciation is that we've realized that the transitions aren't as distinct. We're not going to see the transition in a handful of generations so it won't be as stark.

I realized the speciation claims were minimal changes. I think this is what most people who don't agree with the evolution model have a problem with. These small changes don't seem sustainable over all the animals on earth.
Let me assume speciation was part of the cause of all the animals on earth. Where do bacteria and viruses come in?
Where is the first common ancestor of a human and bacteria? Was bacteria an ancestor of humans?
Are viruses even alive? If so, how are they related to all other life? If not, what exactly is going on with viruses. What caused human's to be self-reflective?
These questions are not all on topic, but hopefully you feel up to discussing it. If you would prefer, I could make a seperate thread.

reply to post by addygrace

Originally posted by addygrace]
I realized the speciation claims were minimal changes.

Maybe superficially, but genetically they are far from minimal.

I think this is what most people who don't agree with the evolution model have a problem with. These small changes don't seem sustainable over all the animals on earth.

Argument from personal incredulity.

Let me assume speciation was part of the cause of all the animals on earth. Where do bacteria and viruses come in?

Well, viruses are debatable, but bacteria are a domain/kingdom unto themselves...

Where is the first common ancestor of a human and bacteria?

We don't know, but I'm going to guess that it's a single celled organism. Remember, the higher up the classification chart you have to go, the less related they'll be (well, at least if we have the genetic data on those organisms, which is an ongoing sequencing process). That's a very, very distant relationship.

Was bacteria an ancestor of humans?

Modern bacteria? Definitely not. Was a form of bacteria or other single celled life an ancestor for humans? Probably.

Are viruses even alive?

That's a hotly debated issue. There are actually a lot of things that are in this little grey area. There are some who even think that we might be able to classify it as gradients of life.

If so, how are they related to all other life? If not, what exactly is going on with viruses.

Well, I'm not an epidemiologist or an evolutionary biologist, but I'm sure if you contacted a good one they might be able to answer your questions.

What caused human's to be self-reflective?

Ah, this is one that I'm familiar with. There is an idea that human consciousness is merely an emergent property rather than something with a singular cause. It's very similar to placing things in just the right way to get an effect. The brain is a tough egg to crack though, and neuroscientists are working on it quite thoroughly.

These questions are not all on topic, but hopefully you feel up to discussing it. If you would prefer, I could make a seperate thread.

It's up to you and the mods.