Does Natural Selection Evolution Explain Speciation?

[sayak83]

Not according to the definition and the fact that they can breed with other bears makes them a different breed of the bear species.

That is a hybrid as I already explained. Not a new species and is a subspecies of the bear species.

Grizzly–polar bear hybrid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly–polar_bear_hybrid

Hybridization in not speciation and usually results in off spring that are infertile or a genetic variant ofthat will be reabsorbed back into the original gene pool through additional breeding.

Since all biologists and taxonomists agree that polar and grizzly bears are different species, either
1) They are collectively delusional in not realizing how hybridization directly falsifies their designation of them as two species. And this applies to hundreds of species who are known to produce fertile hybrids.
In which case I give you the task of pointing out their mistakes and come up with the 'true' taxonomy of the world's biodiversity. Hurry! The global biodiversity census is ongoing and mistakes are piling up. You are the only one to have realized the truth!

OR
2) Biologists use a much different and sophisticated body of science to identify species, of which only the simplest back of the envelope type abstract, reproductive isolation==species, is taught at schools and to non-technical audience for pedagogic reasons.

What option you choose depends upon whether you are here to learn things or to pass time in meaningless one upmanship. Your choice.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So far you have claimed a link that did not support what you said

Yes it did. Ring species are a clear example of speciation. You clearly failed to understand the contents of the link, since you referred the ring species as "hybridization" - which is almost completely the opposite of what it is. Do you know what ring species are?

and then tried to claim "rates" for human reproduction proved why speciation was not observed while completely ignoring the millions of organisms that preceded man that we do not know their reproduction rates and you have refused to show your math for that claim and now you point at videos you can not even explain in your own words.

I HAVE already explained it in my own words. You completely ignored the explanation. Here it is again:

Do you understand how natural selection and mutation work? Do you understand that every living thing reproduces with variation? Do you understand that an average human takes 16 years to reach sexual maturity and a further 9 months to produce children (usually in numbers no greater than 2 at a time)? Do you understand that fruit fly larvae take less than 24 hours to hatch and less than two weeks to grow to maturity and produce larvae using several partners (SOURCE: http://www.orkin.com/flies/fruit-fly/fruit-fly-reproduction-rates-data/ )? Finches on the Galapagos take 12 days to hatch and can produce eggs up to around 6 times a year (SOURCE: http://animals.mom.me/reproduction-rate-sharpbeaked-ground-finch-8553.html).

It's extremely simple: things which reproduce at a faster rate will show greater change (subject to environmental attrition) over a short period of time than organisms that reproduce at a slower rate. If you understand evolutionary theory, you understand why this should be the case.

Once again, what do the reproduction rates of extinct species have to do with anything? We're discussing why speciation is not as easily observable in humans as it is in some other species. Obviously, we can't observe the speciation of extinct species, so what on earth do they have to do with anything?

To put it point blank- you have zero credibility!

You're not informed enough on this subject to be an accurate judge of anyone's credibility. You have confused ring species with hybridization, you don't understand why humans share genetic information with other organisms and how evolution explains it, you're convinced that natural selection is some special "form" of the evolutionary theory rather than just one of the mechanisms that drives evolution, you don't understand the general definition of evolution, and you don't understand the scientific definition of theory.

And you have done this whilst claiming to be an educator. Shame on you.

 

[viole]

"do think it is possible for the intelligent designer to have the form and shape of an ape?"

I would not even speculate on the form of an intelligent designer as that is personification. Our ideas of an Intelligent Designer is based on our barely developed intelligence that tries to relate everything to our own existence.

Your consistent refusal to give exact answers, makes me suspect you have a sort of respect to address our designer as possibly being an ape. But how can it be, if you declared that us being designed does not entail the designer being a god? After all, we also like to design robots that look like us. Sci-fi is full of them and Japanese engineers are working hard towards that.

And, since you mentioned Genesis, as if Genesis were authoritative at all, it comes natural to ask whether what in Genesis is identified as being in the image of the designer, allows us to infer that the designer is, in fact, an ape too.

So, again, what I asked is very simple: is it possible that our designer is anthropomorphic (i.e. ape-like)? [yes/no].

Another related question. You correctly said that if a designer exists, then it does not follow necessarily that it is a god. But what do you think about the property "being itself designed"? Do you think the designer could have been itself designed by another intelligent designer?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

spe·ci·a·tion: the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

Generally speciation is only said to occur when species from the same genus have evolved to the point they can no longer interbreed.

The mechanism thought to create the conditions for speciation to occur is geographic isolation. When a group of organisms from the same species are separated by geography those living together will have different food sources and natural pressures and through natural selection within that group will mate for characteristics necessary for survival and reach a point where they can no longer breed with other organism from the same species in a different geographic location.

Darwin claimed finches on the Galapagos Islands had become isolated and through mating selection had become different species however other scientists (Peter and Rosemarry Grant) have observed that not only do these finches interbeed but that the offspring hybrids seem to do better than the parents.The same is true for marine and land iguana found on the islands that can and do interbreed. Further studies show as these isolated organisms are introduced and interbreed characteristics thought to be evolutions may revert back to the characteristcs before the two groups were separated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galapagos_land_iguana
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/nature_galapago083531.html

Scientists have tried to recreate the conditions of speciation by isolating fruit flies and feeding them different diets and while the groups have shown a preference for mating with their own group (speculation) they were still very capable of breeding with the other group.

If speciation occurred through geographic isolation then we would probably see that among humans that had many humans separated geographically with different diets and natural pressures.

Australian aborigine, native American Indians, pacific Islanders, Asians, white Europeans and African tribe people were for thousands of years separated geographically and had different diets and natural pressures and have some different physical characteristics and can be identified by their DNA.

However, all of these humans can and do interbreed and no speciation has occurred.

Does Natural Selection Evolution Explain Speciation?

If not then what other explanation do you have for speciation if any?

If humans are simply a product of evolution, and our activities a continuation of evolution, how might those existing in the future describe the act of direct and intentional creation of new species by humans in evolutionary terms?

Would intelligent design be accepted as a product of evolution -or evolution the product of intelligent design -or might we see them as parts of the same whole?

 

[Ouroboros]

No- hybridization is NOT speciation.

Hybrid speciation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation

Speciation by hybridization: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html#Speciation_by_Hybridization

Just search for it. There are many discussions about this. Not every hybridization is necessarily a new species, but when it can't mate with the old species, it is, which was the example I gave. A hybrid that could not mate with the two old species.

edit

The crazy thing here is that the new model, net or network of life instead of tree of life, is all based on hybridization and similar phenomenon. It's cross breeding that's the most important change from Darwinism.

 

[sayak83]

They crossbreed as well, which you would have seen if you had read the wiki article. Any organism that do not interbreed are certainly distinct species, but even if certain species produce fertile offsprings that crossbreed, they could be considered seperate species if they purr forms continue to remain separate and distinct in terms of morphology and behavior. Indeed in actual biological practice the morphological species concept, where species are distinguished by their difference in characteristics and behavior dominates. After that comes species concept based on genetics and interbreeding potential is simply one distinguishing character within this. It is you who needs to do research. Any good graduate level textbook on evolution or ecology will lay down these ideas adequately. You really need to stop getting your ideas from web pages and non-technical dictionaries. These tell you what lay people believe about scientific ideas and not what scientists themselves believe. Current methods of identifying species rely on statistical methods like cluster analysis to identify stable and sufficiently distinct living organisms as species , alive or extinct.

I would like to see a refutation you claim. Not Web page opinions, actual academic studies in journals.

"If they purr forms continue to remain separate and distinct in terms of morphology and behavior"

No- that is a description of hybridization not speciation.

The links are in my OP had you bothered to read them before posting.

Are you claiming to not be a Lay person because so far your ideas do not coincide with what scientists have said is speciation. ?

You are ignoring the definition and making up your own:

spe·ci·a·tion: the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological,anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

We have many breeds of dogs all the same species that look different.


Calling them two different species does NOT make them different species- fail.

Here is a graduate level class on evolution on Yale. The course lecture I am linking to addresses the species concept and speciation and adequately justify my understanding against your misunderstanding of the idea.

Hear the lecture over a weekend and then ask questions.
Countless instances of observed speciation are here (including lots and lots of fruitfly speciation in the lab),
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

Further discussions on the science of speciation, its theory, its evidence and its predictions are collected in books like these
https://books.google.com/books?id=ctBvmZ6oBAMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[leibowde84]

"All that is saying is that biological classification is rarely clean-cut. Are you claiming that ring species aren't examples of speciation?"

Your own link claims it is not defined as speciation. That is hybridization. GO READ YOUR OWN LINK.

"I'm not talking about extinct species, and that's a complete non sequitur."

Right- let's just ignore that many millions of species existed before man that we can not claim to know their reproduction cycle which blows your assumptions out of the water.

You claimed the rates proved your point: Use your MATH and explain your assumptions or admit you are just guessing please!

If you can not backup your claims with that math for "rates" I will not entertain further discussions with you on this discussion.

"Hybrid speciation is a form of speciation wherein hybridization between two different species leads to a new species, reproductively isolated from the parent species."

This isn't peer reviewed or nothin, but it is from an expert in the field and is very easy to understand. Hope it helps.

 

[leibowde84]

"You will see evolution asking for your banana. You do not need any biology to see that."

That is an assumption. Noticing characteristics and claiming those are evidence is not science it is guessing.

But, what about the many "missing links" we've found showing our decention from a common ancestor with modern apes. It just seems so obvious that it has to be true. Unless, of course, God is playing some elaborate trick on us.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HUsvHwzknSw/ViSs6NWZr3I/AAAAAAABwlU/akk11lmY_So/s1600/HumanStory+board.jpg

 

[metis]

But, what about the many "missing links" we've found showing our decention from a common ancestor with modern apes. It just seems so obvious that it has to be true. Unless, of course, God is playing some elaborate trick on us.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HUsvHwzknSw/ViSs6NWZr3I/AAAAAAABwlU/akk11lmY_So/s1600/HumanStory+board.jpg

Exactly, plus those that talk about God creating new new species seem to forget that, according to the Genesis account, God stopped creation at the end of the 6th day. So, the bottom line is that their position not only defies basic science, it also defies even basic Christian/Jewish theology.

 

[Ouroboros]

Exactly, plus those that talk about God creating new new species seem to forget that, according to the Genesis account, God stopped creation at the end of the 6th day. So, the bottom line is that their position not only defies basic science, it also defies even basic Christian/Jewish theology.

That's what the early Christian geologists/paleontologists found it. All the different destruction events that had new species introduced each time. It wasn't a one time, orchard style creation, but constant destruction and creation, and each time with something new.

 

[metis]

That's what the early Christian geologists/paleontologists found it. All the different destruction events that had new species introduced each time. It wasn't a one time, orchard style creation, but constant destruction and creation, and each time with something new.

But, as you're undoubtedly aware of, scripture doesn't say anything about any additional life forms being created, so it's a theological hypothesis based on nothing found in the scriptures. Thus it defies scriptura sola, which most Christian fundamentalist say they believe in.

 

[Ouroboros]

But, as you're undoubtedly aware of, scripture doesn't say anything about any additional life forms being created, so it's a theological hypothesis based on nothing found in the scriptures. Thus it defies scriptura sola, which most Christian fundamentalist say they believe in.

That's right, and that's why the Genesis story was questioned and rejected as literal a couple of hundred years ago. And hence the schism was born. Those for literalism and those against.

 

[metis]

That's right, and that's why the Genesis story was questioned and rejected as literal a couple of hundred years ago. And hence the schism was born. Those for literalism and those against.

That split not only involved the creation accounts but also involved a split between the literalists that emerged with the "fundamentalist" movement versus mainline Christian groups. Aquinas, for example, was not a literalist, nor did the RCC advocate such an approach because it could all too easily lead to misinterpretations.

 

[David M]

spe·ci·a·tion: the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

Generally speciation is only said to occur when species from the same genus have evolved to the point they can no longer interbreed.

Incorrect, it occurs when populations of the same species can no longer interbreed (for cases when speciation occurs while the ancestor species is extant).

The mechanism thought to create the conditions for speciation to occur is geographic isolation.

Incorrect, its a cause and its only one of the possible causes. Evolution is the mechanism.

When a group of organisms from the same species are separated by geography those living together will have different food sources and natural pressures and through natural selection within that group will mate for characteristics necessary for survival and reach a point where they can no longer breed with other organism from the same species in a different geographic location.

May is more precise than "will", but that is a reasonable, but simplistic description.

Scientists have tried to recreate the conditions of speciation by isolating fruit flies and feeding them different diets and while the groups have shown a preference for mating with their own group (speculation) they were still very capable of breeding with the other group.

Speciation is an observed fact. Ring species are an observed fact.

If speciation occurred through geographic isolation then we would probably see that among humans that had many humans separated geographically with different diets and natural pressures.

Since when have humans been geographically isolated for very large numbers of generations?

Australian aborigine, native American Indians, pacific Islanders, Asians, white Europeans and African tribe people were for thousands of years separated geographically and had different diets and natural pressures and have some different physical characteristics and can be identified by their DNA.

But they haven't been separated for significant periods if time, a few thousand years is nothing. Gene flow between humans has been pretty much continuous by any objective standard.

However, all of these humans can and do interbreed and no speciation has occurred.

Does Natural Selection Evolution Explain Speciation?

It explains some speciation, other known and observed mechanism explain other forms of speciation. Polyploidy is one example.

 

[David M]

If isolation is not the answer then maybe the answer is that speciation from one species to another does not happen.

The problem with this claim is that speciation of this type is an observed fact. It definitely occurs.

 

[David M]

By that example children with down syndrome are a new species. Males with DS generally can not produce off spring.

Males with Downs can produce offspring so they are not a different species, yet another of those observed facts that cause your claims to fall apart.