How Speciation Happens (yes it does)

[gnostic]

Your scientific g

The "g" what?

The g-spot?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Science has gone far beyond any problem of complexity, and all the examples proposed by ID advocates for unexplainable complexity have been explained,

Really?!

Then you explain it. Let's start with something simple, not even complex.... how something -- like silica -- can come from nothing.

How do atoms come from....nothing?

 

[shunyadragon]

Really?!

Then you explain it. Let's start with something simple, not even complex.... how something -- like silica -- can come from nothing.

How do atoms come from....nothing?

Well, there is no objective evidence that anything including atoms come from nothing. The objective evidence is based on Quantum Mechanics, which demonstrates that the basic elements we know in the macro-world originated from the basic particles of of the Quantum World in the heart of exploding stars as we can see taking place now in the cosmos.

The concept of something from nothing exists only in the philosophy of Theistic claims and not in science. In science our existence is the eternal of the timeless Quantum World beyond the space/time of our own universe.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Complexity can and does arise without human intervention.

I'd appreciate an example, please.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

A simple comparison of the Biblical stories and the previously existing Babylonian myths are quite sufficient to show the connection between the two.

The link they share only exists, not because one copied from the other, but because they were explaining the same events from the ancient past. Roman and Greek mythologies do the same.

We also know when many of the Old Testament texts were written and it is far later than your traditions place them.

No, they aren't. Google "silver scrolls".

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.

"Ambiguous"? In how to treat others? Examples, please.

Here are some that aren't at all:

The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, But the wise one accepts advice. -- Proverbs 12:15

Better is a dish of vegetables where there is love, Than a fattened bull where there is hatred. -- Proverbs 15:17

A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, But one who is slow to anger calms a quarrel. -- Proverbs 15:18

Plans fail when there is no consultation, But there is accomplishment through many advisers. -- Proverbs 12:22

The heart of the righteous one meditates before answering, But the mouth of the wicked blurts out bad things. -- Proverbs 12:28

How much better to acquire wisdom than gold! To gain understanding is to be chosen over silver. -- Proverbs 13:16

Better is a piece of dry bread where there is peace, Than a house full of feasting along with quarreling. -- Proverbs 17:1

A mild answer turns away rage, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
-- Proverbs 15:1

The scoffer does not love the one correcting him. He will not consult the wise.
A joyful heart makes for a cheerful countenance, But heartache crushes the spirit.
The understanding heart seeks knowledge, But the mouth of the stupid feeds on foolishness. -- Proverbs 15:12-14

Do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility considering others as superior to you, as you look out not only for your own interests, but also for the interests of others. -- Philippians 2:3-4

Accordingly, as God’s chosen ones, holy and loved, clothe yourselves with the tender affections of compassion, kindness, humility, mildness, and patience. Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely even if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Just as Jehovah freely forgave you, you must also do the same. But besides all these things, clothe yourselves with love, for it is a perfect bond of union. -- Colossians 3:12-14

This is not ambiguous.

I'm looking forward to reading about the ambiguous counsel given, regarding actions that Christians should take.

 

[David T]

After reading all that, you know the most amazing thing of all, is that you believe such complex mechanisms just accidentally came together with no intelligent direction at all. To assume that no intelligence was necessary to pu

does natural selection

The next question is, why does natural selection act in a way that gamete recognition and binding proteins diversify as the high dN/dS ratio shows?
Most of the mollusc and sea urchin species live in relatively shallow waters. Thus when they collectively release sperm and egg in the water we have a situation where:-
1) there is a high density of sperms and eggs per unit volume of water

2) Males release far more smaller sperm cells than females release bigger egg cells. Sperm to egg count may be 1000:1 or even 10000:1.

3)Thus individual sperm cells are under intense competition with other sperm of other individuals to detect, bind and unite with an egg cell before others do. On average only 0.1% to 0.01% of sperms are successful. So any Mutation in sperm's detection and binding proteins that improves these odds will be selected for through greater fertilization success and spread.

4) The egg cells however have different concerns. They can bump into hundreds or thousands of compatible sperms and hence for them, quick detection and binding has no selective advantage. In fact their main danger is POLYSPERMY, when two or more sperms bind with the same egg and enter inside simultaneously. POLYSPERMY is invariably lethal to an egg. So for an egg it is vital to slow down the rates of binding and dissolution of cell walls with sperms, so that despite hundreds of collisions one and only sperm on average can gain access and fertilize an egg cell. These facts have been demonstrated in the lab, with egg cells with high sperm affinity surviving and fertilizing only at one-fifth the rates of female egg cells with low sperm affinity.

5) Thus for these externally fertilized species, we have a self perpetuating arms race (technically called frequency dependant selection) where new mutations in female egg receptors that decrease sperm affinity are selected for and spread. But this decreases the fitness of sperms who then are under adverse selection pressure. Then, if a mutation arises that increases the sperm's ability to fertilize, this rapidly spreads through the population. But now the ball is back on the female egg's court and the cycle repeats. Thus continuous self-reinforcing directional selection causes both the sperm and egg receptors to relentlessly diversify.

7)This leads populations that have been geologically or ecologically isolated (separate coral reefs around neighboring but different islands) to quickly separate out into different clusters of egg-sperm receptors that have their own protein groups responding to each other in an iterative loop and no longer compatible with members of the other group. This is how speciation occurs for these groups of organism.

8) A look at the genes responsible for surface proteins of both sperm and egg show scores and scores of duplicated codons and the genes themselves have multiple copies. I have already shown in a separate thread how duplication and variations between the duplicates is the prime mechanism by which new genes arise. The structure of the genes and binding proteins show this to be happening frequently for these, consistent with high levels of diversifying evolution predicted above.

The paper quoted in the earlier post provides all the observations and experiments necessary for making the above eight points. I hope this provides a complete, evidence based and rational picture of how speciation occurs, why speciation occurs and the mechanisms underlying the how and the why.... at least for marine invertebrates. Of course coral reefs are critically endangered global biodiversity hotspots, and these kinds of studies provide insights regarding how such diversity arose and how to minimize their rapid degradation through conservation and recovery efforts.

Questions? Objections?
Meandering rants about how none of this refutes God will be ignored as not relevant to thread topic.

People are given unrestricted license to

The next question is, why does natural selection act in a way that gamete recognition and binding proteins diversify as the high dN/dS ratio shows?
Most of the mollusc and sea urchin species live in relatively shallow waters. Thus when they collectively release sperm and egg in the water we have a situation where:-
1) there is a high density of sperms and eggs per unit volume of water

2) Males release far more smaller sperm cells than females release bigger egg cells. Sperm to egg count may be 1000:1 or even 10000:1.

3)Thus individual sperm cells are under intense competition with other sperm of other individuals to detect, bind and unite with an egg cell before others do. On average only 0.1% to 0.01% of sperms are successful. So any Mutation in sperm's detection and binding proteins that improves these odds will be selected for through greater fertilization success and spread.

4) The egg cells however have different concerns. They can bump into hundreds or thousands of compatible sperms and hence for them, quick detection and binding has no selective advantage. In fact their main danger is POLYSPERMY, when two or more sperms bind with the same egg and enter inside simultaneously. POLYSPERMY is invariably lethal to an egg. So for an egg it is vital to slow down the rates of binding and dissolution of cell walls with sperms, so that despite hundreds of collisions one and only sperm on average can gain access and fertilize an egg cell. These facts have been demonstrated in the lab, with egg cells with high sperm affinity surviving and fertilizing only at one-fifth the rates of female egg cells with low sperm affinity.

5) Thus for these externally fertilized species, we have a self perpetuating arms race (technically called frequency dependant selection) where new mutations in female egg receptors that decrease sperm affinity are selected for and spread. But this decreases the fitness of sperms who then are under adverse selection pressure. Then, if a mutation arises that increases the sperm's ability to fertilize, this rapidly spreads through the population. But now the ball is back on the female egg's court and the cycle repeats. Thus continuous self-reinforcing directional selection causes both the sperm and egg receptors to relentlessly diversify.

7)This leads populations that have been geologically or ecologically isolated (separate coral reefs around neighboring but different islands) to quickly separate out into different clusters of egg-sperm receptors that have their own protein groups responding to each other in an iterative loop and no longer compatible with members of the other group. This is how speciation occurs for these groups of organism.

8) A look at the genes responsible for surface proteins of both sperm and egg show scores and scores of duplicated codons and the genes themselves have multiple copies. I have already shown in a separate thread how duplication and variations between the duplicates is the prime mechanism by which new genes arise. The structure of the genes and binding proteins show this to be happening frequently for these, consistent with high levels of diversifying evolution predicted above.

The paper quoted in the earlier post provides all the observations and experiments necessary for making the above eight points. I hope this provides a complete, evidence based and rational picture of how speciation occurs, why speciation occurs and the mechanisms underlying the how and the why.... at least for marine invertebrates. Of course coral reefs are critically endangered global biodiversity hotspots, and these kinds of studies provide insights regarding how such diversity arose and how to minimize their rapid degradation through conservation and recovery efforts.

Questions? Objections?
Meandering rants about how none of this refutes God will be ignored as not relevant to thread topic.

People are given unrestricted license to copy paste any of my posts here in this thread everytime a certain individual who refuses to click links asks for copy paste evidence.

Njoy.

Natural selection is non term it's telelogical. I have a species in my duffle bag that's by a best guess about 2 million years old. Since zero of your narrative has anything to do with the species I carry, is your narrative accurate if it's not inclusive of the species I have? Btw the species I have is of the branch called guitars and is rooted in evolutionary history dating back to a simian hitting a stick on log of some self awareness of its heartbeat.

 

[sayak83]

I'd appreciate an example, please.

Ice crystals, tornado, fire.....

 

[Deeje]

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

Fascinating......and said with such confidence....but whose eye witness account do we have for this scenario?

 

[Deeje]

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.

​

​

Are you under the impression that those who believe in an Intelligent Designer are actually trying to convince or impress evolutionists?

Well that explains the problem.....we don't need to impress you guys because you are already very impressed by one another apparently.

The arguments we present are more for those who may be undecided. Its good to expose evolution for the weak and unsubstantiated argument that it actually is. It has a very flimsy foundation, built on nothing but the suggestion that if a little change over time is possible within a species, (with adaptive changes producing different varieties of the same species) then that little change over a very, very, very long period of time can account for dinosaurs becoming chickens.

So, we aren't holding our breath.....OK?

 

[Deeje]

I think we should take a moment to commend Deeje for their ability to state very strong opinions about things while still cleaving to RF rules regarding proselytising. Bravo, Deeje

Taken in the context of the statement I was responding to, it was appropriate I think. It was a statement of confidence in my beliefs, just as the poster was expressing confidence in his beliefs.

 

[Polymath257]

Really?!

Then you explain it. Let's start with something simple, not even complex.... how something -- like silica -- can come from nothing.

How do atoms come from....nothing?

Well, what exactly do you mean by the word 'nothing'? We understand how the vacuum state that has no matter in it is unstable and can decay into a different state that has matter in it. The balance of energy is maintained because gravitational energy is negative.

But if you mean 'absolutely nothing', then nobody claims that. For that matter, not even the *theists* claim that. Even the theists claim that something exists first. The difference is that scientists already know that matter exists, that vacuum states exist, and that quantum mechanics works. What we don't have is a valid theory of quantum gravity.

The theists, on the other hand, claim an invisible deity that has no definitive evidence. They give no mechanism for the 'creation', no 'laws of creation', no detailed explanation of the processes involved.

Now, which is more reasonable?

 

[Polymath257]

The link they share only exists, not because one copied from the other, but because they were explaining the same events from the ancient past. Roman and Greek mythologies do the same.

No. The Babylonian myths come much earlier. And the stories are NOT of actual events, but more like 'Washington chopping down the cherry tree'. Legends that grew out of hand and became myths.

No, they aren't. Google "silver scrolls".

OK, some scrolls from the 7th century BC. Sounds like exactly what I would expect from a tradition going back to about 900BC. But the Babylonian traditions go back a thousand years earlier. The code of Hammurrabi was from 1792 BC. So, yes, the Babylonian myths predate the Biblical myths.

"Ambiguous"? In how to treat others? Examples, please.

Here are some that aren't at all:

The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, But the wise one accepts advice. -- Proverbs 12:15

Better is a dish of vegetables where there is love, Than a fattened bull where there is hatred. -- Proverbs 15:17

A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, But one who is slow to anger calms a quarrel. -- Proverbs 15:18

Plans fail when there is no consultation, But there is accomplishment through many advisers. -- Proverbs 12:22

The heart of the righteous one meditates before answering, But the mouth of the wicked blurts out bad things. -- Proverbs 12:28

How much better to acquire wisdom than gold! To gain understanding is to be chosen over silver. -- Proverbs 13:16

Better is a piece of dry bread where there is peace, Than a house full of feasting along with quarreling. -- Proverbs 17:1

A mild answer turns away rage, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
-- Proverbs 15:1

The scoffer does not love the one correcting him. He will not consult the wise.
A joyful heart makes for a cheerful countenance, But heartache crushes the spirit.
The understanding heart seeks knowledge, But the mouth of the stupid feeds on foolishness. -- Proverbs 15:12-14

Do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility considering others as superior to you, as you look out not only for your own interests, but also for the interests of others. -- Philippians 2:3-4

Accordingly, as God’s chosen ones, holy and loved, clothe yourselves with the tender affections of compassion, kindness, humility, mildness, and patience. Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely even if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Just as Jehovah freely forgave you, you must also do the same. But besides all these things, clothe yourselves with love, for it is a perfect bond of union. -- Colossians 3:12-14

This is not ambiguous.

Sure it is. It gives some general rules for living in a society with others. EVERY culture has such. And yes, they are quite ambiguous and directed to a primarily agricultural society.

But, I would agree with a couple:

How much better to acquire wisdom than gold. Now, go study some science. Go study hisotry the Biblical myths) and learn a bit about the universe and how people have been. That might be the beginning of wisdom for you.

The understanding heart seeks knowledge. I like that one also. So, go learn some physics, some biology, some geology. Go learn how science actually works rather than drinking the koolaid of those feeding you garbage in place of truth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Some observations:

[1] Creationists have no valid argument for creationism, and so spend their energy attacking its only alternative in the hope of making a place for their god. They tell us what evolutionary theory has not accomplished yet - what has not been observed or explained - but nothing positive or constructive about creationism.

[2] Analogously, Christians have no argument for Christianity, and so must attack atheists and atheism.

I just saw this typical example from the byline of a Christian on another thread: "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." - Isaac Newton.

Actually, it did occur by chance. Isaac's universe was tiny, and he was unqualified to discuss what was likely for planets to do given that he only knew about five of them, all in our solar system. Uranus and Neptune were discovered after his death. What might be unlikely for five planets is overwhelmingly likely for trillions. Even so, what is unlikely about the earth's orbit?

Newton was likely also unaware that the oceans on moons can be kept liquid by the tidal forces exerted on them by their gas giant planets far outside the habitable zone.

Nevertheless, that Christian thought that that quote was a nail in the atheist coffin, and so offered it rather than a reason to want to be Christian.

Other people promoting products tell us how great their knives cut, or how much money you'll make flipping real estate using their proprietary technique, or how enchanting their CD collection love songs is for just five easy payments of $29.95. Do you think carping at the competition instead would be an effective way to promote those products?

So where are the arguments for Christianity? Somebody please make one. Where's the appeal to Christianity? Why should anybody want to add it to his life?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

You seriously need to educate yourself in science. Its sad really that you have not put in any real effort to at least study and observe the processes by which things come about involving inorganic and organic matter. You clearly had some pretty bad teachers here. I would suggest molecular and biological chemistry for starters to see and understand how things randomly interact and react in getting what you see and experience.

That house analogy was just atrocious givin the first "designed" house itself was little more than caves and natural outcrops in the real world. Not the romanticized abstracts that bounce around in the noggin. I haven't seen God design a house like that either. Just mankind did.

What a terrible waste of intellect whenever actuality gets exchanged for rose colored ideology and people live in stained glass houses without ever noticing the real way things work during this brief time that we are alive.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'd appreciate an example, please.

Which is more complex, a water molecule or a collection of unassociated hydrogen and oxygen atoms?

 

[Jose Fly]

You seriously need to educate yourself in science.

I wonder how many times Deeje has been told that. Just in the short time I've seen her here it has to have been hundreds.

The sad thing is, she can't. She's simply not allowed to educate herself in science, because her religion won't allow it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Fascinating......and said with such confidence....but whose eye witness account do we have for this scenario?

Would it help if I said Norbert's or Lewis' instead of Matthew or Luke's? I think it might be recorded in the rarely celebrated and often overlooked Gospel of Wilbur.

Eye witness accounts are overrated and often unnecessary. Do you need an eye witness to know that a man shot in the back of the head twice and left dangling from a rope was once killed,and before that, was one born, and unless born abnormal, learned to walk and speak?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The arguments we present are more for those who may be undecided. Its good to expose evolution for the weak and unsubstantiated argument that it actually is. It has a very flimsy foundation, built on nothing but the suggestion that if a little change over time is possible within a species

How's that working out? Is evolutionary theory evaporating away under the force of those arguments?

 

[Sapiens]

The arguments we present are more for those who may be undecided. Its good to expose evolution for the weak and unsubstantiated argument that it actually is. It has a very flimsy foundation, built on nothing but the suggestion that if a little change over time is possible within a species, (with adaptive changes producing different varieties of the same species) then that little change over a very, very, very long period of time can account for dinosaurs becoming chickens.

So, we aren't holding our breath.....OK?

You are one of the best recruiting tools that the evolutionists have ... I do thank you for that.

 

[james bond]

OK, these are at least a good start.


Good so far.


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.



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.

The fossil record isn't enough. Fossilization rarely occurs. Decomposition rules. The classic example is the herd of buffaloes that were piled high during the 1800s. If we were on a train and headed west and bored from the long trip, I could stick out my rifle out the window and pick off twenty bison for entertainment by paying a fee -- American Buffalo: Spirit of a Nation | About | Nature | PBS . They left the poor animals lay where they died. None of those became fossilized. As I have been saying, fossils tell us what kind of creature and how they lived. They're not made to fit a theory. If you want an alternative theory, what do we see from much of the fossils? We see the remains of plants and creatures that died in a global flood. The ended up becoming fossilized where their remains settled. This includes polystrate fossils that lie vertical and cross sedimentary lines. There are marine fossils that cross these lines, too. It points to a global flood. Interestingly, we find almost every plant and creature living today in fossils. Then there are the living fossils such as the coelacanth which isn't found unless the layers are more than "70 million years" old.

Fossil layers also reflect the period before the flood, too. We see plants and creatures that flourished and then abated. We see creatures that suddenly popped into existence like the new phyla during the Cambrian period -- Y-Origins.com - Science and the Origin of Life .

Where the biggest divergence in the theories based on fossils lie is with fossil sorting. I won't go over the evolutionary model since you already know. The creation model explains the layers of fossils that evolutionists use to back their theory due to:
Ecological zonation and Biogeographic zonation - remains fossilized where the plants or creature lived and died
Hydrological sorting - moving water tends to scatter the remains horizontally that verticallty; also the buoyancy, size and shape become a factor
Differential escape - the more mobile and swift would be able to escape destructive flooding waters; thus humans would have the advantage over trilobites, amphibians and slower moving animals
Volcanic activity - Guy Berthault sedimentation activity
Tectonic activity - affects position of bones

++++++++

I won't get into the environment being a frequent or rare driver of adaptation -- Adaptation to environmental stress: a rare or frequent driver of speciation? -- since evos do not agree.

I do agree that negative environmental stressors could wipe out a species. I think most of the creation scientists and I would agree with you that it is a frequent driver of speciation. However, the creation scientists say there are a great number of missing links in adaptation due to the environmental stressors to the plant or creature having the adaptation trait to deal with the stressor.

As for crocoduck or horse-cow, these are hybrids you are referring to. I doubt a crocodile and duck can mate. That said, it's difficult to say whether they can be produced naturally or by artificial selection and be sustainable. Baraminology states that these kind of hybrid matings reflect they belong to the same baramin or created kind (family). The driver is their natural ability to mate.

What the creation scientist doesn't believe is the amoeba to human hypothesis. Nor that humans came from fish. Nor humans from apes. Nor birds from dinosaurs. Nor the common ancestor theory unless the species are actually related like the hybrids defined by baraminology.