Does Natural Selection Evolution Explain Speciation?

[Dante Writer]

Except we know for a fact that it does, such as in the observed examples of ring species:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

The reason we don't see this kind of spciation in humans is quite simple: humans reproduce much slower (in terms of physical sexual development and the average age of each generation prior to producing offspring), and we are not subjected to a similar level of environmental attrition. This means it takes a much longer time to produce significant genetic or biological changes in isolated populations of humans, and it would take far, far longer for those changes to lead to genetic/reproductive incompatibility.


The problem is that the category of "kind" is meaningless unless you can define the specific perameters of what constitutes the same or different "kind". In all my years posting on these (and other) evolution vs. creationism forums, whenever the "kind" category is brough up by creationists they have never succeeded in providing the precise parameters that define it.


Sure, but that doesn't explain shared DNA or the fossil record. In fact, it would be in direct contradiction to both.

First you need to read and understand your own links before responding:

"Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem for those seeking to divide the living world into discrete species. All that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations; if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection then the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.

The problem is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Therefore, it is not a fact and only creates another set of problem that speciation through natural selection has not addressed.

"The reason we don't see this kind of spciation in humans is quite simple: humans reproduce much slower (in terms of physical sexual development and the average age of each generation prior to producing offspring), and we are not subjected to a similar level of environmental attrition. This means it takes a much longer time to produce significant genetic or biological changes in isolated populations of humans, and it would take far, far longer for those changes to lead to genetic/reproductive incompatibility."

Typical answer of the evolutionists "This means it takes a much longer time"

Evidence for that time theory?

" In all my years posting on these (and other) evolution vs. creationism forums"

Interpretation "I have been here longer so you should listen to me!!!"

""kind" category is brough up by creationists they have never succeeded in providing the precise parameters that define it."

Why should they define specific parameters to your satisfaction when "kind" is already defined:

kind

1. group of people or things having similar characteristics.

Keep trying!

 

[Dante Writer]

Thousands of years is nothing. We could even interbreed with Neadenthalers, who were not strictly homo sapiens.

But we cannot interbreed with gorillas, despite having a common ancestor.

Ciao

- viole

Where is your evidence that humans and apes have a common ancestor?

Where is your evidence that modern humans and neanderthals can and did breed?

You seem to be accepting the speculations of some scientists as fact.

 

[sayak83]

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.

False, since all dog, wolf, fox and the jackal species of the same genus Canis can still interbreed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid
Inability to interbreed is a sufficient, but not a necessary condition for identifying distinct species. Usually recently diverged species can interbreed. Monkeys of different species routinely produce fertile hybrid offsprings in the wild.
http://www.ns.umich.edu/new/multime...-the-role-of-interbreeding-in-human-evolution

In captivity, one can even naturally create sheep goat hybrids that belong to separate genera and are widely divergent.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26870598

Thus for most species, reproductive isolation is only a gradual event and close sister species can and do mate with each other.

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.

Since a speciation event of the finches has just been observed in the wild, by researchers who were studying a particular population continuously for 40 years, I would say that the mechanism has been directly verified in the best way possible.
http://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

If you are actually interested in speciation and how it was observed and what insights were gained on evolution through studying evolving populations of finches, consider reading this book.
https://books.google.com/books?id=h5urQiWUB7AC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Dante Writer]

And what theory is the right one then to replace evolution?

Replace evolution?

We know natural selection occurs but no solid evidence it results in speciation.

I thought I mad it clear that through a process of abiogenesis or front loaded evolution that species may have the ability to mate and pass on characteristics but are prevented by DNA from creating a new species.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't know if this has been asked before, @Dante Writer, but could you describe your background in biological sciences, and in particular, evolutionary sciences?

 

[viole]

Where is your evidence that humans and apes have a common ancestor?

I did not say ape, obviously, since we are still apes. I said gorillas.

Where is your evidence that modern humans and neanderthals can and did breed?

My DNA, I guess.

You seem to be accepting the speculations of some scientists as fact.

Nope. Take a close look at gorillas, chimps or bonobos. I think it is pretty plausible that we are related.

And if we are not, then your intelligent designer likes them very much, if he designed something that has his power ("intelligence") looking like a hairless orangoutang.

You made recently a comparison between Genesis and Natural Laws. Do you think there is a similar analogy between "in his image" and "being an ape"?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dante Writer]

False, since all dog, wolf, fox and the jackal species of the same genus Canis can still interbreed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid
Inability to interbreed is a sufficient, but not a necessary condition for identifying distinct species. Usually recently diverged species can interbreed. Monkeys of different species routinely produce fertile hybrid offsprings in the wild.
http://www.ns.umich.edu/new/multime...-the-role-of-interbreeding-in-human-evolution

In captivity, one can even naturally create sheep goat hybrids that belong to separate genera and are widely divergent.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26870598

Thus for most species, reproductive isolation is only a gradual event and close sister species can and do mate with each other.



Since a speciation event of the finches has just been observed in the wild, by researchers who were studying a particular population continuously for 40 years, I would say that the mechanism has been directly verified in the best way possible.
http://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

If you are actually interested in speciation and how it was observed and what insights were gained on evolution through studying evolving populations of finches, consider reading this book.
https://books.google.com/books?id=h5urQiWUB7AC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

"False, since all dog, wolf, fox and the jackal species of the same genus Canis can still interbreed."

No it is not false. In order to be considered a new species and not just a hybrid the inability to cross breed is the main factor.

Your statement only verifies what I said that even with natural selection and isolation those species can still interbreed and produce off spring.

"Inability to interbreed is a sufficient, but not a necessary condition for identifying distinct species."

That is false statement as a new species would by definition not have reproduction characteristics of a different species.

spe·cies: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

A new genera is just a hybrid which is not speciation.

You need to go research the actual studies that have refuted what Darwin and other geneticists have claimed was speciation on the Galapogos.

 

[Ouroboros]

Replace evolution?

We know natural selection occurs but no solid evidence it results in speciation.

I thought I mad it clear that through a process of abiogenesis or front loaded evolution that species may have the ability to mate and pass on characteristics but are prevented by DNA from creating a new species.

So when you said, "Yes or if you isolate scientists and feed them only one theory and tell them they must eat that theory or lose their funding you will breed narrow minded evolutionists!" You didn't mean the theory of evolution?

 

[Dante Writer]

I did not say ape, obviously, since we are still apes. I said gorillas.



My DNA, I guess.



Nope. Take a close look at gorillas, chimps or bonobos. I think it is pretty plausible that we are related.

And if we are not, then your intelligent designer likes them very much, if he designed something that has his power ("intelligence") looking like a hairless orangoutang.

You made recently a comparison between Genesis and Natural Laws. Do you think there is a similar analogy between "in his image" and "being an ape"?

Ciao

- viole

"I think it is pretty plausible that we are related."

That is just an assumption. If a process of abiogenesis or front loaded evolution did happen it could have produced an organism that has a DNA that will only evolve into an organism with ape like characteristics and other organisms with human characteristics with no actual genetic connection.

We share 50% of our DNA with a banana. By your assumption we must have also come from bananas.

 

[Dante Writer]

So when you said, "Yes or if you isolate scientists and feed them only one theory and tell them they must eat that theory or lose their funding you will breed narrow minded evolutionists!" You didn't mean the theory of evolution?

Which theory of evolution? There are several at this time and more will probably be developed as man's understanding grows.

 

[viole]

"I think it is pretty plausible that we are related."

That is just an assumption. If a process of abiogenesis or front loaded evolution did happen it could have produced an organism that has a DNA that will only evolve into an organism with ape like characteristics and other organisms with human characteristics with no actual genetic connection.

We share 50% of our DNA with a banana. By your assumption we must have also come from bananas.

What? I share a lot of DNA with my sister, that does not entail I come from my sister. It just entails we come from a common source of that DNA. I think you have a strange view of what evolution is.

It is not an assumption. Just go to a zoo and have a look in the great apes section (the side where great apes do not carry cameras). You will see evolution asking for your banana. You do not need any biology to see that.

So, is it possible that this designer of yours look like an ape too? He seems to like them a lot, if it implanted intelligence in a hairless version thereof.

iao

- viole

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First you need to read and understand your own links before responding:

"Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem for those seeking to divide the living world into discrete species. All that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations; if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection then the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.

The problem is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Therefore, it is not a fact and only creates another set of problem that speciation through natural selection has not addressed.

You don't seem to have understood what the above is saying. Do you or do you not understand that ring species are examples of a single population of organisms diversifying into two separate populations that are incapable of interbreeding, and that the ability to interbreed is one of the characteristics which defines barriers between species?

"The reason we don't see this kind of spciation in humans is quite simple: humans reproduce much slower (in terms of physical sexual development and the average age of each generation prior to producing offspring), and we are not subjected to a similar level of environmental attrition. This means it takes a much longer time to produce significant genetic or biological changes in isolated populations of humans, and it would take far, far longer for those changes to lead to genetic/reproductive incompatibility."

Typical answer of the evolutionists "This means it takes a much longer time"

Because it does. Do you think human populations reproduce at a similar rate to moths, finches or fruit flies?

Evidence for that time theory?

Genetics and the entire geological column, and the observable and demonstrable fact that humans reproduce at a very slow rate compared with most of the rest of the animal kingdom.

" In all my years posting on these (and other) evolution vs. creationism forums"

Interpretation "I have been here longer so you should listen to me!!!"

No ad hominems please.

""kind" category is brough up by creationists they have never succeeded in providing the precise parameters that define it."

Why should they define specific parameters to your satisfaction when "kind" is already defined:

kind

1. group of people or things having similar characteristics.

Keep trying!

You do understand what the word "precise" mean, right? "Two eyes" are a similar characteristic, so are humans and every other animal that has two eyes the same kind?

 

[Dante Writer]

Stating that isolation is a mechanism for bringing itself about is tautology. Easier just to recognize it as itself.

I stated that GEOGRAPHIC isolation is a mechanism that can create those conditions. Geographic isolation is a known mechanism of geographic drift also called continental drift.

I don't know what else to tell you. Tectonic plates moving over each other is a mechanism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We share 50% of our DNA with a banana. By your assumption we must have also come from bananas.

It's statements like this that definitively prove that you don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory or common descent. Humans are not descended from bananas, but humans and bananas are the result of descent with modification from a common ancestry and no other theory sufficiently explains this genetic similarity.

Why do you feel you can debate this subject accurately when you know so little about what evolutionary theory actually says?

 

[Ouroboros]

Which theory of evolution? There are several at this time and more will probably be developed as man's understanding grows.

Evolution is about how species evolve. So, which theory of evolution do you propose, instead of the current theory of evolution?

 

[Dante Writer]

You don't seem to have understood what the above is saying. Do you or do you not understand that ring species are examples of a single population of organisms diversifying into two separate populations that are incapable of interbreeding, and that the ability to interbreed is one of the characteristics which defines barriers between species?


Because it does. Do you think human populations reproduce at a similar rate to moths, finches or fruit flies?


Genetics and the entire geological column, and the observable and demonstrable fact that humans reproduce at a very slow rate compared with most of the rest of the animal kingdom.


No ad hominems please.


You do understand what the word "precise" mean, right? "Two eyes" are a similar characteristic, so are humans and every other animal that has two eyes the same kind?

". Do you or do you not understand that ring species are examples of a single population of organisms diversifying into two separate populations that are incapable of interbreeding"

No that is not what your link says. It makes it clear:

""Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem for those seeking to divide the living world into discrete species. All that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations; if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection then the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.

The problem is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

You are making assumptions that are not concluded by that process.

"Because it does. Do you think human populations reproduce at a similar rate to moths, finches or fruit flies?"

Where is your MATH proving reproduction "rates" influence natural selection and therefore result in speciation?

"Genetics and the entire geological column, and the observable and demonstrable fact that humans reproduce at a very slow rate compared with most of the rest of the animal kingdom."

Again just another assumption since most organisms died off and we have no clue their rate of reproduction.

By your own explanation the slow rate of human reproduction would put us much farther back on the evolution scale in stead of where we are.

 

[Dante Writer]

It's statements like this that definitively prove that you don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory or common descent. Humans are not descended from bananas, but humans and bananas are the result of descent with modification from a common ancestry and no other theory sufficiently explains this genetic similarity.

Why do you feel you can debate this subject accurately when you know so little about what evolutionary theory actually says?

Once again you are ignoring that speciation must occur for your theory to hold water and so far not proven and does not appear to happen. not recreated in a lab and not observable in populations like humans that have been isolated.

 

[Ouroboros]

List of observations of speciation (with introduction to explain what it means and how to identify it): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Sample from the page (hybridization): "While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas."

 

[Dante Writer]

Evolution is about how species evolve. So, which theory of evolution do you propose, instead of the current theory of evolution?

I thought I made that clear that if speciation does not occur then it could be a result of an abiogenesis process or front loaded evolution that produced a multitude of organisms all with distinct DNA that prevented interbreeding.

 

[Ouroboros]

I thought I made that clear that if speciation does not occur then it could be a result of an abiogenesis process or front loaded evolution that produced a multitude of organisms all with distinct DNA that prevented interbreeding.

How does it get front loaded? What's the process? What's the mechanics? And what or who is doing the front loading? You're proposing an alternative without any details. It's nothing but a hypotheses until you have something you can test. So how would you test this front loading? Would you see the evidence in the DNA?