Does Natural Selection Evolution Explain Speciation?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now think real hard- if we do not have characteristics in our DNA from the species we are supposed to have evolved from all the way back that would be evidence that speciation does not occur.

What you are claiming is evidence for an ID theory not against.

 

[sayak83]

"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.

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.

 

[Ouroboros]

That again is an assumption. You are assuming that because a banana has 50% of the same DNA as a human they must be an ancestor.

I'm not talking about just the same gene, but identical in composition, and also damaged genes that are unique and shared. Some genes have analogous mutations, which means that the produce the same proteins, but there's a marker in the codon that's different. This happens all the time, but to share these markers shows shared genetic material.

DNA is common to all living organisms but is also specific to that organism. There is no evidence those come from the same source unless you are convinced abiogenesis produced only one organism and all others came from that source.

Let's say you have a code 11110000. And the code 11110001 produces the exact same protein.

Now, all 99.9999% of species have 11110000, except two. Two species have 11110001. The only ways this could happen is that either the exact same mutation happened in both species, or they share ancestry.

Now, there there are some genes that have been ruined by virus. ERVs. All species in the world can produce C-vitamins on their own, except for about 5 species I think it is. They all have different damages on the gene that is responsible for the C-vitamin production. However, two of those species share identical damage, humans and chimps. Now, perhaps this was by random chance? That the same virus ruined the exact same gene the exact same way for two species that we know would be closely related according to evolution. But how about more than 20 of these? And on top of that, over hundred transposon that are also unique between us. It's beyond random chance. Either a creator intentionally gave us identical damaged genes, or... we share ancestry as evolution predicts.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Actually, there are enough facts in the theory of evolution to support it from here and to the moon."

No- that is the direction science leans because funding and pressures by Universities wants conclusions and that is what the masses will accept if you keep saying it loud and long enough.

I actually have measured and compared bones of fossils... So I've seen some of the evidence and had to make my own judgment if it was enough. It was. My favorite was the suborbital constriction. That and the tool making in conjunction with it. I was sold.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You have claimed you could prove through "rates" that it is human's slow reproduction that speciations is not seen.

You have not shown your MATH that I said you must have for that claim.

You will be ignored until you back up your math claims or admit you are just guessing and making unverified statements in this forum.

I have already (twice) provided you with videos that explain population dynamics, population genetics and genetic algorithms. It's really as simple as "Humans take longer to reproduce, which means it takes longer for significant changes to occur". Do you honestly think that claim is unverified?

 

[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.

Well, I would speculate. If I were an intelligent designer, I would not reinvent the wheel. I would design something on the basis of what I know it works. Something like myself.

I think it would be pretty safe to think that it has also the shape and form of an ape, Don't you think?
That would also provide a solid analogy with Genesis: we are in his image, because he is in the image of an ape.

Do you, at least, admit that it is a viable possibility?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dante Writer]

I actually have measured and compared bones of fossils... So I've seen some of the evidence and had to make my own judgment if it was enough. It was. My favorite was the suborbital constriction. That and the tool making in conjunction with it. I was sold.


Which I have. We were given the tools, and could draw our own conclusion from what we saw.

"and had to make my own judgment if it was enough."

And there in lays the problem. Not science just guessing based on our limited understanding.

 

[Dante Writer]

I'm not talking about just the same gene, but identical in composition, and also damaged genes that are unique and shared. Some genes have analogous mutations, which means that the produce the same proteins, but there's a marker in the codon that's different. This happens all the time, but to share these markers shows shared genetic material.


Let's say you have a code 11110000. And the code 11110001 produces the exact same protein.

Now, all 99.9999% of species have 11110000, except two. Two species have 11110001. The only ways this could happen is that either the exact same mutation happened in both species, or they share ancestry.

Now, there there are some genes that have been ruined by virus. ERVs. All species in the world can produce C-vitamins on their own, except for about 5 species I think it is. They all have different damages on the gene that is responsible for the C-vitamin production. However, two of those species share identical damage, humans and chimps. Now, perhaps this was by random chance? That the same virus ruined the exact same gene the exact same way for two species that we know would be closely related according to evolution. But how about more than 20 of these? And on top of that, over hundred transposon that are also unique between us. It's beyond random chance. Either a creator intentionally gave us identical damaged genes, or... we share ancestry as evolution predicts.

"Now, all 99.9999% of species have 11110000, except two."

You have examined the millions of species that existed and died in mass extinctions before man ever existed to know this?

"Either a creator intentionally gave us identical damaged genes"

Are you sure they are damaged or just your perception? Maybe they have a very useful function just not yet identified.

Your assumption is that because two species have similar gene characteristics they must be related. That is a narrow view of abiogenesis that at some point all organisms came from the same one parent.

That has never been proven and seems unlikely as an avenue for generation of many distinct species.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You need to read that study closer. The produced offspring from a male with DS was ended by abortion and would have most likely ended by spontaneous miscarriage or resulted in a severely disabled organism incapable of reproduction or survival as the genetic material was not sufficient for survival.

That seems to be built into the mother's DNA to naturally abort though miscarriage any severely mutated genetics.

That is more evidence that speciation through natural selection and mutation is not likely to occur.

From the second one:

"The wife conceived within 3 months and opted for prenatal chromosomal analysis. Amniocentesis was done at 15 weeks of gestation, and it showed a normal chromosomal complement in the fetus. Antenatal ultrasound and fetal echocardiography were normal. She delivered a healthy male child weighing 3 kg at term.

To prove paternity, DNA was extracted from the venous blood of the patient, his wife, and the putative son. Microsatellite analysis was carried out for a panel of 10 autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) loci, namely, vWA, vWF-1, Tho-1, TPO, D16, DHFRP2, F13, and Apo B3’HVR. Polymerase chain reaction amplification was carried out for individual loci, amplicons were size fractionated on 10% polyacrylamide gel, and alleles were genotyped using silver staining."

And,

"A literature search for pregnancies fathered by Down syndrome patients revealed reports of three pregnancies fathered by two Down syndrome patients In the first report, the patient fathered twice. On both occasions the fetal chromosomal complement was normal, but one pregnancy resulted in spontaneous abortion at 16–17 weeks; the other was a normal baby born at term In the second report, the patient had normal external genitalia with normal semen analysis and fathered a normal female child."

 

[Dante Writer]

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. ?

 

[Dante Writer]

From the second one"
"The wife conceived within 3 months and opted for prenatal chromosomal analysis. Amniocentesis was done at 15 weeks of gestation, and it showed a normal chromosomal complement in the fetus. Antenatal ultrasound and fetal echocardiography were normal. She delivered a healthy male child weighing 3 kg at term.

To prove paternity, DNA was extracted from the venous blood of the patient, his wife, and the putative son. Microsatellite analysis was carried out for a panel of 10 autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) loci, namely, vWA, vWF-1, Tho-1, TPO, D16, DHFRP2, F13, and Apo B3’HVR. Polymerase chain reaction amplification was carried out for individual loci, amplicons were size fractionated on 10% polyacrylamide gel, and alleles were genotyped using silver staining."

And,

"A literature search for pregnancies fathered by Down syndrome patients revealed reports of three pregnancies fathered by two Down syndrome patients In the first report, the patient fathered twice. On both occasions the fetal chromosomal complement was normal, but one pregnancy resulted in spontaneous abortion at 16–17 weeks; the other was a normal baby born at term In the second report, the patient had normal external genitalia with normal semen analysis and fathered a normal female child."

" and it showed a normal chromosomal complement in the fetus."

This substantiates what I said in my OP that these are not a new species and the genetic anomaly is reabsorbed back into the original gene pool and the characteristic is either eliminated or the off spring dies. Maintaining the gene pool purity seems to be a natural function of our DNA that would prevent speciation.

 

[Dante Writer]

I have already (twice) provided you with videos that explain population dynamics, population genetics and genetic algorithms. It's really as simple as "Humans take longer to reproduce, which means it takes longer for significant changes to occur". Do you honestly think that claim is unverified?

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

To put it point blank- you have zero credibility!

 

[sayak83]

"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. ?

I was presenting you with a few of the many many examples both in domestic environment and the wild where species interbreed quite frequently to produce viable and fertile hybrids and yet are clearly distinguished as different species. This clearly falsifies your idea that species is defined as reproductive isolated organisms. This definition of species was proposed quite recently by Ernst Mayer in 1950, and while it's good way to introduce the species concept intro school level evolution, it's very rarely used to identify species in biology, taxonomy or paleontology. There morphological, ecological or phylogenetic species definitions are far more widely used as most think these are more accurate and testable ideas for the actual biological world.
Your links did not address any points I have made.
I am not a layman. I have contact with biologists who work in evolution and have attended research colloquia on the topic ( evolutionary principles are imp. in engineering and optimization so there is a lot of cross fertilization).

 

[Dante Writer]

I was presenting you with a few of the many many examples both in domestic environment and the wild where species interbreed quite frequently to produce viable and fertile hybrids and yet are clearly distinguished as different species. This clearly falsifies your idea that species is defined as reproductive isolated organisms. This definition of species was proposed quite recently by Ernst Mayer in 1950, and while it's good way to introduce the species concept intro school level evolution, it's very rarely used to identify species in biology, taxonomy or paleontology. There morphological, ecological or phylogenetic species definitions are far more widely used as most think these are more accurate and testable ideas for the actual biological world.
Your links did not address any points I have made.
I am not a layman. I have contact with biologists who work in evolution and have attended research colloquia on the topic ( evolutionary principles are imp. in engineering and optimization so there is a lot of cross fertilization).

". This clearly falsifies your idea that species is defined as reproductive isolated organisms."

No- hybridization is NOT speciation.

I provided you the links showing that distinction.

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.

" that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other."

Did you get that?

" That prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other."

That is the key in the definition of a NEW species.

 

[sayak83]

". This clearly falsifies your idea that species is defined as reproductive isolated organisms."

No- hybridization is NOT speciation.

I provided you the links showing that distinction.

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.

" that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other."

Did you get that?

" That prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other."

That is the key in the definition of a NEW species.

No it's not. Two distinct species may interbreed often and yet retain sufficient distinction over long spans of time to be called two distinct species. Brown bears and Polar bears are a good example.

 

[Dante Writer]

No it's not. Two distinct species may interbreed often and yet retain sufficient distinction over long spans of time to be called two distinct species. Brown bears and Polar bears are a good example.

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.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Are grizzly and polar bears diff species or not?

 

[Dante Writer]

Are grizzly and polar bears diff species or not?

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

I explained that in the finch and Iguana re-absorption in my OP.

 

[Ouroboros]

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!

So they're fed only one theory and can't think for themselves.

"and had to make my own judgment if it was enough."

And there in lays the problem. Not science just guessing based on our limited understanding.

Or, science is wrong because they're guessing based on limited understanding?

When you learn how to analyze the data, you can draw your own conclusions. There's no feeding. And there's no guessing.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Now, all 99.9999% of species have 11110000, except two."

You have examined the millions of species that existed and died in mass extinctions before man ever existed to know this?

Actually, what we're talking about here is to trace hereditary links based on living species, not dead ones. You can see traces of relationships based on the DNA.

"Either a creator intentionally gave us identical damaged genes"

Are you sure they are damaged or just your perception? Maybe they have a very useful function just not yet identified.

The gene to produce C-vitamin, yes. It's not producing a "vitamin" that we can use. And why would only chimps and humans need this broken C-vitamin? Why not all other animals? We have to get C or we get scurvy.

Your assumption is that because two species have similar gene characteristics they must be related. That is a narrow view of abiogenesis that at some point all organisms came from the same one parent.

Not similar. Identical. Like two identical misspellings in a book copy.

That has never been proven and seems unlikely as an avenue for generation of many distinct species.

Actually, I don't think it's said that we all come from the same one parent, but the same families of parents. In the "primordial soup" of life, there was not necessarily just a single cell that kept on dividing, but it's possible that a lot of similar life forms came about over some time (abiogenesis) and some of them integrated. mtDNA might suggest this. I think the newer "network of life" model instead of "tree of life" is based on this. It's not a single line, but multiple lines that intersect.