How Speciation Happens (yes it does)

[Polymath257]

There is no such thing as "objective evidence" in evolution. Science is tied up with evolution on a very emotional level, which is demonstrated very clearly when anyone dares to question the validity of what they hold sacred.

You would probably find the same level of emotion if there was a movement to have flat-Earth views presented in public schools.

Since emotion is tied up inextricably with faith and worship, you are correct....there is no 'scientific' way to prove that God exists or that he is the Creative Designer of all things. But he did leave us his written word.....just one book, not many....just one Christ, as the last prophet, who told us about the creation of the first humans.

It is your claim that this is a book from a creator deity. Now prove this. Give objective evidence that this one book, as opposed to say the Quran, is the correctly translated book from a deity.

Who told you that Genesis was based on Babylonian myths? Either God authored his own word and we can believe all of it, or he didn't and we need to reject the whole thing. What kind of a God would fail to give his intelligent creation instructions? I will take God's word over the musings of fallible humans any day.

A simple comparison of the Biblical stories and the previously existing Babylonian myths are quite sufficient to show the connection between the two. Especially since we already know of the Babylonian captivity and some of the views before that captivity. We also know when many of the Old Testament texts were written and it is far later than your traditions place them.

I don't know or care what sort of deity could exist or whether such a deity would give an instruction book. But I would suspect that a deity that cares about how humans interact would give much less ambiguous 'answers' than what are found in the Bible.

Again, ignoring evidence that shows your beliefs wrong is your choice. But don't expect others to take you seriously if you do.

 

[james bond]

"Accident" is one of those terms creationists keep close at hand when they have nothing of significance to add to a discussion. It's like "missing link" and "only a theory."


Boy, it's just as if you knew what you're talking about. Take a breath and reread what you just wrote---slowly. . . . . . . . . . . . see how silly it is?


Maybe not. ........................................................... Oh well.

.

Accident means evos can't explain how complex mechanisms happened.

Missing means that there is no link, but evos think we just haven't found it yet.

It's only a theory means we are talking about evolution. Weak arse theory at that. Should be hypothesis of evolution, but racist scientists wanted to make it a theory for their own purposes -- making money or to build a white utopia.

You keep getting pw3nd, Skwim. Need to take some science and biology courses.

 

[Polymath257]

Accident means evos can't explain how complex mechanisms happened.

Actually, yes they can. Mutation and natural selection promote increasing complexity.

Missing means that there is no link, but evos think we just haven't found it yet.

Isn't it funny how whenever biologists find a link, creationists claim there are two more missing?

Species A.................Species B
then
Spacies A........Link......Species B
..................^..............^............... new missing links.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Interestingly, former atheist Antony Flew came to that same conclusion! Based on integrated complexity needing an Intelligent Source!

Who said all atheists or ex-atheists where logical?

 

[james bond]

The battle between creationists and evolutionists isn't about what the OP states. It's not over speciation, but over the number of different species. The OP insults creationists by assuming they do not understand speciation when they do, even more than the OP poster. Maybe his PhD stands for piled higher and deeper.

Speciation has produced a wide variety and number of species that scientists have been trying to count and classify for at least 200 years. Some estimate there may be as many as 30 million species today. My point is this number touted by touted by evolutionists is evidence against Noah's Ark and the global flood. They argue that if there are 30 million species today, then through extrapolation into the past, the ark of Noah could not of possibly held so many species, allowing re-population of Earth as the Bible states.

The reproduction of Noah's Ark at Ark Encounter in Kentucky is huge, but even it could not hold that many species even accounting for speciation.

Life-size Noah’s Ark

Thus, if we follow the evolutionists logic if the known number of species that populate Earth today decreases, then the credibility increases as well for the probability of the Ark housing all necessary representative species. The number 30 million was arrived at by Terry Erwin of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC during the early 1980's, concluded in part by counting the amount of beetles living in the canopy of a single tree in Panama. The number relative to beetles on that single tree in Panama was then extrapolated with various assumptions underlying it attempting to prove grander hypotheses to include all of the worlds species. Evolutionists usually believe anything that supports their theory, but the assumptions by Erwin tainted the extrapolation methodology producing a number that was too high according to recent findings in 2010. However, at the same time the number reached by Erwin was too low showing inconsistent application of his own methodology. The number should have been much higher, around 100 million if Erwin's initial numbers were correct. The revised figures posited in 2010 by Andrew Hamilton at the University of Melbourne, Australia shows that the amount of species populating Earth today is now considered, by most scientists, as a much lower number estimated around 8 million.

Rewriting the textbooks: Noah's shrinking ark By Kate Douglas. 23 May 2011, Magazine issue 2813

Subscription required
Rewriting the textbooks: Noah’s shrinking ark

With that lower number, do the plants and animals fit in Noah's Ark? Yes, it can.

How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? - creation.com

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Well, I could say the same thing about you, only in reverse. Its sad that you think that the whole universe just 'accidentally' came into existence at some point in the dim, dark past, and this one tiny speck in one small portion of one mighty galaxy, just happened to be the "Goldilocks" planet and life somehow just popped into existence one day, all by itself....?

This argument that has been debunked 100+ times?

Who said that the universe "accidentally" came into being?

Also this "Goldilocks planet" is not even that uncommon in our own galaxy let along the universe.

Perhaps you should not be so arrogant as to think that this vast universe was created just for one species on one small speck of it.

 

[james bond]

Actually, yes they can. Mutation and natural selection promote increasing complexity.


Isn't it funny how whenever biologists find a link, creationists claim there are two more missing?

Species A.................Species B
then
Spacies A........Link......Species B
..................^..............^............... new missing links.

It was intended for Skwim because he can never provide any answers. I'm still waiting for to explain what is the benefit of bipedalism for apes. However, the mechanisms which you claim is what exactly? I've said mutation is:

1. Cellular accidents during processes like replication, recombination or transposition.
2. Exposure to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.

And natural selection only explains the mechanism by which traits are selected and organisms adapt to their environment. It doesn't explain macroevolution or one species changing to another kind. If you disagree, then provide some examples of creatures of macroevolution.

And just where are you getting these links? Bones? Fossils? Rocks? Layers? Plant remnants?

 

[Polymath257]

It was intended for Skwim because he can never provide any answers. I'm still waiting for to explain what is the benefit of bipedalism for apes. However, the mechanisms which you claim is what exactly? I've said mutation is:

1. Cellular accidents during processes like replication, recombination or transposition.
2. Exposure to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.

OK, these are at least a good start.

And natural selection only explains the mechanism by which traits are selected and organisms adapt to their environment.

Good so far.

It doesn't explain macroevolution or one species changing to another kind. If you disagree, then provide some examples of creatures of macroevolution.

Your very question suggests you are expecting something that no scientist expects. At every stage, the animal or plant population is adapted to its environment. We don't expect to see, for example, a crocoduck. We don't expect to see a 'half-horse, half-cow'. But what we *do* expect to see is previous animals that have characteristics of those that appear later, but are specialized (adapted) in different ways.

So, for example, the carnivorous miacids of the Paleocene adapted and split to form the felids, canids, and other carnivorous mammals of the Oligocene. But none of the felids, for example, were the same as any of the cats alive today. The same is true of the canids of the Oligocene. But all were carnivorous mammals like their ancestors, the miacids. Later, the individual lines split and adapted to give rise to the cats, dogs, and other carnivorous mammals we see today. But the miacids were NOT 'half-cat, half-dog'. They were fully miacids. But they had characteristics that were elaborated differently in different subsequent lines.

And just where are you getting these links? Bones? Fossils? Rocks? Layers? Plant remnants?

Mostly fossils. But fossils tend to occur in rocks. And rocks tend to appear in layers. Some fossils are of bones and some are of plant remnants.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm still waiting for to explain what is the benefit of bipedalism for apes.

The apes that became bipedal were forced to come out of the trees as the African jungles began thinning into relatively treeless savannas following the formation of the Isthmus of Panama when North and South America came together. This caused a rerouting of ocean currents, and with them, local climate, especially in western Africa and Europe.

Apes had what were essentially four hands when living in the trees. Each extremity had five flexible and articulate fingers. Bipedalism freed two up for tool using, hands previously occupied swinging from branch to branch.

Bipedalism along with relative hairlessness and sweat glands also made persistence hunting possible for early man. Persistence hunting - Wikipedia

 

[Sapiens]

Interestingly, former atheist Antony Flew came to that same conclusion! Based on integrated complexity needing an Intelligent Source!

This is, to say the least, controversial. There is serious question concerning Flew's contribution to the book in which he announces his conversion as well as his apparently diminished cognition.

 

[neologist]

It has been claimed by some evolution deniers here that the science of genetics provides no known mechanism for speciation. Here I will refute this claim by providing one out of many many genetic mechanisms by which speciation happens. . .


Questions.?

I can think of dozens. But just one:
Unlike land mammals, ocean dwellers give birth breach first. Since dolphins and whales, etc. evolved from land mammals, kindly explain how dolphin ancestors gave birth head first without drowning their offspring. Or did a special class of land mammal evolve with the trait of breach first birth and what advantage would that trait provide?

Go ahead. I have a good sense of humor. . .

 

[Sapiens]

I can think of dozens. But just one:
Unlike land mammals, ocean dwellers give birth breach first. Since dolphins and whales, etc. evolved from land mammals, kindly explain how dolphin ancestors gave birth head first without drowning their offspring. Or did a special class of land mammal evolve with the trait of breach first birth and what advantage would that trait provide?

Go ahead. I have a good sense of humor. . .

Quite obviously breach births combined with radically different hemoglobin raised the fitness of the genotype once it moved to wholly aquatic life.

 

[gnostic]

Laws require some elements.....

What do you mean by "elements"?

Are you talking about "atomic element" like in chemistry?

I am assuming that you are talking about that.

But if you are not, then please clarify what you mean, because there are many different meanings and usages of the word "element".

 

[gnostic]

I am confident of my beliefs and I know the God I worship. I believe that soon all humans will have a personal encounter with the son of God. In his capacity as God's appointed judge, those who have relegated the Creator to either mythological status or who claim to believe in him whilst disobeying all that he taught through his Christ, are not going to find the encounter pleasant.

Proselytising much?

 

[David M]

I can think of dozens. But just one:
Unlike land mammals, ocean dwellers give birth breach first. Since dolphins and whales, etc. evolved from land mammals, kindly explain how dolphin ancestors gave birth head first without drowning their offspring. Or did a special class of land mammal evolve with the trait of breach first birth and what advantage would that trait provide?

Go ahead. I have a good sense of humor. . .

Please provide evidence that a non-breach birth would necessarily result in drowning. Remember that successful head-first births have been observed with Dolphins and whether its born flukes or head first the animal still can't breathe until its fully emerged and also reaches the surface.

In other words.. you don't know what you are talking about. But at least you have a sense of humour.

 

[gnostic]

Well, I could say the same thing about you, only in reverse. Its sad that you think that the whole universe just 'accidentally' came into existence at some point in the dim, dark past, and this one tiny speck in one small portion of one mighty galaxy, just happened to be the "Goldilocks" planet and life somehow just popped into existence one day, all by itself....?

If you were out hiking in the woods and you came upon a well constructed house that had a welcome sign on the door that said "Come on in, make yourself at home....help yourself to what is in the fridge and the pantry. No charge".....what would you do? You'd go inside and check it out wouldn't you?

Once inside you see a clean, tastefully decorated home with solar electricity, heating, plumbing and lighting, along with comfortable furniture and plush carpet. The pantry and the fridge are fully stocked with food and drink, and there is another small sign on the fridge door that says "please leave the house as you found it"...which I assume you would gladly do in appreciation?

Now tell me if you would assume that the house just appeared the way you found it? Would you think it had no architect, no builder, no plumber or electrician, and no one to thank for being so generous with the food supply?

That "house" is planet Earth....with all the things necessary to not only sustain life with an abundance of food and water, but with many things that were designed to make your stay really enjoyable. It was gifted to mankind in exchange for being its caretaker and zoo keeper. But we haven't exactly left the place as we found it....have we?

People can choose to believe that all things just "happened" without any intelligent direction, but I believe that they would have to be blind or stupid to do that. Just my opinion.

Now you are being absurd, Deeje?

You talk of your God as the Creator, and have been comparing them to those who work as designers, engineers, architects.

But your comparisons with real engineers, real architects and real builders - are faulty in logic and possibly even downright delusional.

Engineers and architects don't simply design things for construction, whether it be houses, office buildings, roads, bridges, pipelines, etc, and they don't built or construct these themselves.

I have worked as civil engineer. We don't design things for ourselves. Our works (designs, eg drawings, models) are based on the specifications of our clients. Our clients could be governments, companies or corporations; they are the ones who commissions our works, or accept our tenders, in another word, they are financing our works.

And we (engineers) are not the ones doing all the construction works. We help the clients find contractors and subcontractors to the works, to do

If you were my client, you could meet me, talk to me, tell me what you want design (eg a house), you can watch me design your house, you can watch me work. You can watch the builders work too, doing the digging, laying out foundation, putting up the frameworks, windows and doors, do the bricklaying, plumbing and electrical, etc, etc. And lastly, you would be paying for our work.

Like me, none of the builders, plumbers and electricians are invisible entities. You can meet them or talk to them.

We are not some invisible beings working magic, like this creator deity of yours. We get pay for our works.

You have been making comparisons of the creation of Earth with building a house, but you don't understand how homes are built, and the network of number people doing the design and labour.

You cannot meet god, and if he did exist, he cannot or do not want to manifest, and that doesn't sound like engineer, architect or builder at all.

 

[sayak83]

I can think of dozens. But just one:
Unlike land mammals, ocean dwellers give birth breach first. Since dolphins and whales, etc. evolved from land mammals, kindly explain how dolphin ancestors gave birth head first without drowning their offspring. Or did a special class of land mammal evolve with the trait of breach first birth and what advantage would that trait provide?

Go ahead. I have a good sense of humor. . .

Umm no. Whales went through a seal like phase when they came to land to give birth and mate. The problem is not a rotation of the fetus which is elementary once fully aquatic births occurred, the problem is for pups to be able to swim right from the first which seals can't do and dolphins can.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2009/02/03/the-backward-whale/
Since whales and dolphins are bigger, their pups are bigger too at birth, making them more easier to float. That's the key difference. For Hippos also give birth under water as they too are blubber, cylindrical and big.

 

[Polymath257]

I can think of dozens. But just one:
Unlike land mammals, ocean dwellers give birth breach first. Since dolphins and whales, etc. evolved from land mammals, kindly explain how dolphin ancestors gave birth head first without drowning their offspring. Or did a special class of land mammal evolve with the trait of breach first birth and what advantage would that trait provide?

Go ahead. I have a good sense of humor. . .

Yes. Nobody has ever heard of a breech birth other than in ocean dwellers.

 

[David T]

It has been claimed by some evolution deniers here that the science of genetics provides no known mechanism for speciation. Here I will refute this claim by providing one out of many many genetic mechanisms by which speciation happens.
For living sexually reproducing species, reproductive barriers that prevent males and females from mating and producing viable offspring is a good measure for distinguishing species. Two groups of organisms retain their distinctive biological traits if hybrid sex has low rates of fertilization and/or hybrids have low fitness and die off.

In oceans many fish and invertebrates mate by external fertilization. That means that during breeding season they converge in certain places and discharge their eggs and seen in the water where they freely mix and fertilize. In coral reefs, many similar kinds of mollusc, sea urchins etc live together and retain their distinctiveness despite the fact that various group's semen and eggs are all floating in the same medium. So the scientific question is, how does this happen.

So here is a general mechanism.

The egg cells have surface that have receptor proteins. The set of proteins that are found in one species is different from those found in similar but different species. The male gamete of the compatible species has detector proteins on their surfaces that selective identify a certain set of egg receptor proteins, and when detected, the male gamete swim towards the egg cells. If the male and female receptors are compatible enough, the two cells are able to bind on the surface. Afterwards, the male sex cell releases a chemical that dissolves a small section of the female egg cell wall so that it's contents can enter. Then fertilization can occur.

It is found that for very similar species of sea urchins or molluscs, it's the receptor proteins that are most different making it more difficult for the male gamete of one species to lock onto the female gamete of another. The rest of the DNA is sufficiently compatible that if such a locking on were to occur, successful fertilization would have occurred (verified in lab). Thus the divergence of receptor proteins, or specifically the divergence of genes coding for these proteins in males and females, is an isolation mechanism for speciation in these groups of marine invertebrates.

Now, let's first look at evidence that the genes that code for these surface protein do indeed diverge by selection. Consider the females of two closely related species of mollusc. Both have genes that code for slightly different variations of receptor proteins on their surface, coming from the same protein family but having somewhat different structure. Because these genes are doing the same thing for these two species and making similar types of proteins being expressed in the same way, these genes are called homologous to one another. Each of these similar proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and since the proteins are similar, many of the amino acids are the same, but a few key ones are different.... and these stretches of different amino acids are caused by DNA letter triplets that differ from each other in the females of the species. Since the genes are few, scientists have looked at these genes and quantified the amount of such divergent codons (a DNA letter triplet) in the females of these related species.

So we know that these proteins diverge and we know that the codons that cause them to diverge. But why would we think that this is caused by natural selection. After all, changes due to mutations that flip DNA letters happen all the time and such changes would naturally accumulate causing these proteins to alter over the generations without any selection. Why would we think that due to the impact of natural environment, some of these variations are being preferentially selected for and other variants selected against as some have greater reproductive success than others?

Well, it turns out that there is an easy way to check this. 4 dna letters in pairs of three make 64 possible combinations. But life has only 24 amino acids to code. Thus many of the amino acids are coded by 2 or more different codons triplets. So those mutations that change a codons to one of its synonyms do not change the amino acid, has no impact on the protein and makes no difference to the cell whatsoever. They are called synonymous mutations. The others that do change the amino acid are called non_synonymous mutations.


Now in a DNA, A can shift to G and C to T and vice versa. Of the codons in a gene, one can therefore calculate what fraction of possible letter changes will be synonymous and what fraction nonsynonymous. Then one can calculate what fraction of the actual observed changes are synonymous or nonsynonymous.

The ratio of the actual number of non_synonymous mutations per nonsynonymous site vs the actual no of synonymous mutations per synonymous site is called the dN/Ds ratio. For homologous genes for two species
If dN/Ds = 1 then redundant mutations have occurred at the same rate as divergent mutations and the gene or its protein are not under selection pressure.

If dN/Ds > 1 then divergent mutations that change protein sequence are being actively selected for. New protein structures are arising that improve fitness and these are being favored by natural selection. This is called directional selection.

If dN/dS <1 then divergent mutations are being actively selected against. The gene and its protein has near maximal fitness and any change reduces fitness and being selected against. This is called purifying selection.

When this ratio is calculated for the genes that code for these surface proteins of closely related species, scientists see that they have dN/dS ratios quite higher than 1. This shows that selection is indeed operating and it is driving these protein sequences further apart by directional selection. The effect of this is the growth of barriers for gene flow, increasing reproductive isolation and speciation.

Thus scientists have demonstrated the mechanism of speciation for these invertebrate groups
In the next post I will post research links and also the reason why selection is diversifying these protein receptors causing species to split.

Questions.?

Your scientific g

 

[Skwim]

Accident means evos can't explain how complex mechanisms happened.

Missing means that there is no link, .

Weak arse theory at that

Yup, that's what creationists mean. Problem is, they think they're meaningful and impress evolutionists. They don't. For all their ability to convince, creationists may just as well stick out their tongues and go

......Neener-neener.

.​

,