Does Natural Selection Evolution Explain Speciation?

[Dante Writer]

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."

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

Hybrids that result in a lack of reproduction ability seems to follow a scientific or natural law that those species will die out. That would not result in new species from that line of DNA.

 

[Dante Writer]

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?

I am not proposing anything new and front loaded is another theory of evolution. Just not as well studied as natural selection.

If you want to understand possible front loaded evoutionary theories google panspermia and transpermia and Intelligent Design.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

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

"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?

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 year 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 that organisms that reproduce at a slower rate. If you understand evolutionary theory, you understand why this should be the case.

If you really want some maths to support this, try watching these short videos on the basics of population dynamics, population genetics and genetic algorithms:

"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.

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

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.

What does that even mean? What is the "evolution scale", exactly?

Also, I noticed that you still haven't PRECISELY defined "kind"? Tell me, are all species with two eyes the same or different "kind"? Or, I have a broken chair with two legs missing. Am I same "kind" as the chair because we both stand on two legs?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

I've provided you with the example of ring species. If you deny that is an example of speciation, then how exactly do you define "speciation"?

 

[Dante Writer]

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


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 year 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 that organisms that reproduce at a slower rate. If you understand evolutionary theory, you understand why this should be the case.


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


What does that even mean? What is the "evolution scale", exactly?

Also, I noticed that you still haven't PRECISELY defined "kind"? Tell me, are all species with two eyes the same or different "kind"? Or, I have a broken chair with two legs missing. Am I same "kind" as the chair because we both stand on two legs?

"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.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Hybrids that result in a lack of reproduction ability seems to follow a scientific or natural law that those species will die out. That would not result in new species from that line of DNA.

And the rest of the list?

You dismiss all of them? The whole list? Based on what?

 

[Dante Writer]

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

"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.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am not proposing anything new and front loaded is another theory of evolution. Just not as well studied as natural selection.

Doesn't front loading mean that there's some kind of preset code or design in the DNA? Essentially, something suddenly appears through abiogenesis, but it's already "front loaded" to be of a specific kind, and it can never evolve outside its own kind. Am I close?

If I'm somewhat right above in my understanding of what front loaded is, the question still remains, how? What mechanics in the DNA takes care of maintaining this front loaded code?

If you want to understand possible front loaded evoutionary theories google panspermia and transpermia and Intelligent Design.

I don't think pan- or transpermia can explain the huge diversity of species, or the seemingly continuous evolution of species in the fossil record. Neither can it explain shared unique ERVs, transposons (like humans have with chimps), or shared analogous/synonymous codon mutations (like has been used to trace the human migration).

 

[allfoak]

i would like to know where the fossil records are of the intermediate species of all kinds that should be available for study.
Not only do we not have the "missing link" of humanity but we don't seem to have any links.

The reason of course is because all things come from an unseen reality that is the substance behind this one.
While i understand that this view is much less popular than materialism, the idea that nothing else exists other than the material world has been shown by the experience of countless souls to be an illusion.
Plato's Cave is reality not just a nice little story.
.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

Now you're just flat-out lying. Hybridization is a process by which two separate breeds, species or genera produce offspring (SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology) ).

Ring species are examples of a single population of a species branching off into two populations separated geographically and reproducing separately, leading to diversification from the original population such that the two populations can no longer successfully interbreed.

The part of the article you are quoting simply says that biological classification is complex, and in some cases saying that ring species constitute new species isn't clear cut. But if you define a determining characteristic of different species to be the inability to interbreed, then ring species is an example of speciation. If not, then how ARE you defining speciation?

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.

How, exactly?

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

I have now edited the post and listed three videos which explain, mathematically, how evolution works and how reproduction rates influence the accumulation of mutations over time. I really shouldn't have to explain it if you understand how evolution works.

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

Done. Your arbitrary dismissal of my argument in spite of your complete inability to refute a single thing I have said is noted, however.

 

[McBell]

Why? Do you ask that of all people in the forum and if so what is your background?

Is there some rule I did not see that says you must have a certain background to post here or is that just your immature way of trying to dismiss other members as not having your perceived qualifications?

So basically you have nothing?
Though that is no surprise the way you wave your ignorance of evolution like a flag.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

" I ask because some of what you've been saying sounds a bit off, therefore I get the impression that you're a non-scientist/non-expert commenting on specialized topics that are often poorly understood by non-scientists/non-experts."

AND that is exactly your agenda to claim that what I am saying "sounds off" and therefore should be dismissed even though I gave you the links to the scientists that have done that research and have made the same discoveries.

" I have the good fortune of being a university employee " wonderful but does not make you an expert.

I have had the good fortune to have taught University classes where we discussed these theories but that in no way makes me an expert and this forum is for the discussion of theories of evolution and creationism and all things in between so of course you will have to open your mind if you want to participate.

I really don't understand what your issue is. Quintessence was absolutely nothing but polite, affable and cordial in their response to you. They never claimed to be an "expert". The fact that you are being so dismissive and obtuse about what they have said, when absolutely nothing they said was even remotely provocative or accusatory towards you, and even repeatedly gave you the benefit of the doubt.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you are not interested in polite, meaningful or intelligent debate.

 

[McBell]

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

 

[Dante Writer]

Doesn't front loading mean that there's some kind of preset code or design in the DNA? Essentially, something suddenly appears through abiogenesis, but it's already "front loaded" to be of a specific kind, and it can never evolve outside its own kind. Am I close?

If I'm somewhat right above in my understanding of what front loaded is, the question still remains, how? What mechanics in the DNA takes care of maintaining this front loaded code?


I don't think pan- or transpermia can explain the huge diversity of species, or the seemingly continuous evolution of species in the fossil record. Neither can it explain shared unique ERVs, transposons (like humans have with chimps), or shared analogous/synonymous codon mutations (like has been used to trace the human migration).

"Doesn't front loading mean that there's some kind of preset code or design in the DNA?"

Yes that is the general idea or possibly outside forces that determine the direction an organism develops which I have sort of discussed in my discussion on the laws of science as that force.

"What mechanics in the DNA takes care of maintaining this front loaded code?"

I can not answer for sure but looking at down syndrome children and other mutations in genetics it is pretty clear some code in DNA exists that prevents hybrids that would not survive from reproducing. Or is again could be a result of those darn science laws.

"seemingly continuous evolution of species in the fossil record."

There is no seemingly continuous evolution when you factor in the 5 known mass extinctions and sudden bursts of life forms appearing after mass extinctions.

 

[viole]

"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.

It is a very convincing assumption. At least visually.

But you are neglecting my question: do think the intelligent designer has also the form and shape of an ape?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dante Writer]

i would like to know where the fossil records are of the intermediate species of all kinds that should be available for study.
Not only do we not have the "missing link" of humanity but we don't seem to have any links.

The reason of course is because all things come from an unseen reality that is the substance behind this one.
While i understand that this view is much less popular than materialism, the idea that nothing else exists other than the material world has been shown by the experience of countless souls to be an illusion.
Plato's Cave is reality not just a nice little story.
.

"the idea that nothing else exists other than the material world has been shown by the experience of countless souls to be an illusion"

Also shown by various theories of quantum physics and is in line with my discussion of science Laws as being a God entity and force that exists that we as yet do not understand and probably never will.

 

[Dante Writer]

It is a very convincing assumption. At least visually.

But you are neglecting my question: do think it is possible for the intelligent designer to have the form and shape of an ape?

Ciao

- 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.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

I know I pointed that out in another one of these threads.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Doesn't front loading mean that there's some kind of preset code or design in the DNA?"

Yes that is the general idea or possibly outside forces that determine the direction an organism develops which I have sort of discussed in my discussion on the laws of science as that force.

Ok.

"What mechanics in the DNA takes care of maintaining this front loaded code?"

I can not answer for sure but looking at down syndrome children and other mutations in genetics it is pretty clear some code in DNA exists that prevents hybrids that would not survive from reproducing. Or is again could be a result of those darn science laws.

Ok. I see what you're saying.

"seemingly continuous evolution of species in the fossil record."

There is no seemingly continuous evolution when you factor in the 5 know mass extinctions and sudden bursts of life forms appearing after mass extinctions.

You can see the changes of the surviving species. And there are very well filled lines of evolutionary lines for horses, whales, and other species. Also trilobites can be used to date the old strata because of how the changes can be identified. There are 3/4 of a million fossils now on record, many of them haven't even been processed. I heard there were thousands of horse fossils that are just left alone and not investigate because the record that we have is complete enough to see the picture.

When you see a movie, of the old technology, you have a film that has 24 photos rapidly flying through every second. Looking at each photo, you can see the transitions, but you don't have a photo between frame 1 and 2. You don't need it to decide that there was a motion between 1 and 2. Several series of fossil record are like this, you don't need every single individual to deduce the line because each specimen found is close enough to each other.

Put it this way, perhaps we can meet halfway. We do know that some species did evolve from other species (genetic evidence the strongest), and some we don't know. So... perhaps for some species, they started from pan/transpermia, but some did evolve according to the natural process suggested in the common theory.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am more than happy to discuss my background and have in threads but when this question comes up it is almost always a trick to dismiss the poster.

So I asked you:

Do you ask that of all people in the forum and if so what is your background?

Is there some rule I did not see that says you must have a certain background to post here or is that just your immature way of trying to dismiss other members as not having your perceived qualifications?

I think the polite thing to do is tell us your background and ask that of all the people in this forum if you think that is somehow a qualification.

You asked me the very same questions. Was the above your motivation for asking me?