How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[TagliatelliMonster]

If that is what we observe, why have we not found a "missing link?"

"missing links" are sensational article things and not actually a scientific thing.
Furthermore "missing links" are about evolutionary history.

Third, there will ALWAYS be "missing links" because fossilization is rare. We would have to have fossils of every population of every single generation of every single branch of the tree of life, for no "links" to be "missing".

Fourth, like Dawkins once explained, people who complain about "missing links" notoriously don't have a clue what they are talking about. It's actually rather funny....
Consider we have ancestral species A and extant species C. There is a "missing link" between A and C.
Then supposed we find fossil of species B which neatly fits between A and C.
Did you now find the "missing link"? Nope. Instead, you created 2 new missing links... one between A and B and an additional one between B and C.


But most important of all, "missing links" are about evolutionary history. About the fossil record. While the fossil record neatly supports evolution theory, they are by far not the strongest evidence.

We could forget about all fossils and evolution theory would be as supported as ever by the genetic evidence alone.

Perhaps there is no missing link, but the transition from ape to man was rapid and a vast change?

No. Evolution is a slow gradual process.
Yes, there are periods of "rapid" change but don't be fooled... it's "rapid" in terms of geological time.

We are still talking millions of years.

Having said all that....

How many are needed before one stops yapping about "missing links"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

DNA is not a language. It's a molecule.

The "language" part is a metaphor.

@Subduction Zone 's recipe thingy is an analogy.

Do you understand how metaphors and analogies work?
It sounds like you don't.

Some people do not seem to understand that concept. One can see it by their understanding of the Bible. Literalists tend not to literalists only when dealing with the Bible. Which is odd because so many of Jesus's teachings use various literary tools like that. Instead they believe that the parables are literal when they were never meant to be. The Bible is a rather horrid book if one reads it literally and that does appear to warp those that believe in this fashion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that is what we observe, why have we not found a "missing link?"

Perhaps there is no missing link, but the transition from ape to man was rapid and a vast change?

This has probably already been explained to you. Your phrasing is rather wrong. You are still an ape. People never transitioned away from being an ape. That is not possible. Every fossil find is a "missing link". If you want to know of t a species that is very close to being the one that was the ancestral species to both of us Lucy or the Australopithecus afarensis was a major find. We have found fossils older than her, but the amount of her skeleton that we have makes her more notable. She is such a perfect example that creationists have to lie about her all of the time.

And of course it would not matter if we never found any of those fossils. Amateurs are always impressed by fossils nd they are strong evidence for evolution, but they are not the only evidence, or are they the strongest evidence. They are merely the most obvious evidence to those without an education in the sciences. One can see various species change over the years by the fossils that they left behind.

And that gets us to the reason that we will probably never have the exact fossil species that was our shared ancestor with chimps. We have quite a few hominid fossils of different species. We have almost none for chimps. That is because chimps still live in the forests and our ancestors left for the open plains and savannahs. The wet environment of forests is a terrible one for fossilization. Fossilization of land animals is already very rare. In some areas there are almost no fossils, like the sort of forests that chimps and gorillas live in. When they die their bones and everything decay away to nothing. So that ancestor is gone.

Then you might ask how do we know that man and chimp are related. Well besides such obvious structural similarities that even the creationist Linnaeus could see that man is a primate just like the other Great Apes. we have DNA and its associated evidence. The DNA of man and chimps is very very close. And it is not just the fact that we are close, but how we are close. We can see that all species have DNA very very similar to their closest relatives and as the degree of relatedness drops so does the genetic similarity.

And then there are ERV's. Endogenous Retro Viruses. A retro virus is a virus that invades our cells and takes them over by putting its DNA into ours. sometimes putting their DNA into ours does not work and it just sits there. Eve n more rarely that happens in a gamete. A gamete gets invaded by a virus but it does not quite work. That gamete then become a fertilized egg and the virus becomes part of their genome. This is extraordinarily rare, but over the aeons those changes add up. About 8% of our genome consists of old dead viruses. There are a few new ERV's , just a handful, since we broke with chimps, they still accumulate. But of the ones that are not new our ERV's are the same ERV's as theirs and in the exact same place. The odds against that of happening if we were not related is astronomical. Creationists always love "odds arguments" but since all of theirs tend to be based upon strawman arguments they are very easy to refute. Creationists hate ERV's if they understand them, because they have no answer. They are an incredible slam dunk for evolution and the fact that man is closely related to chimps.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In spite of, sigh, a serious digression, the question is interesting because we keep discovering new species at a reasonable rate but presume they've been around for quite some time.

Another point is inbreeding. A species is contrasted with another species because they can't produce fully viable offspring. And that takes geological time to happen. We do have cases such as mules where offspring can be produced but they can't in turn have offspring.



But noncoding DNA still serves purposes so mutations in those areas could have negative (or positive) consequences. What is noncoding DNA?: MedlinePlus Genetics

Estimates for the number of species extant on this planet range from 3 million to as much as 100 million based on the methodology used to determine those estimates. Realistically, it probably falls somewhere around 10 million extant species. Of which we have identified and described between 10 and 20 percent. A scientists has to be fairly specialized in knowledge of the existing species and their taxonomy to even recognize that a species is undescribed. I doubt, under the circumstances, that a recently evolved species would be recognized as such on the face of discovering it. That would require information far beyond what is usually available for new discoveries.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm curious to know, why would you assume gradual and continuous evolutionary change as a foundation?

Gradual evolution is a mode of evolution based on the evidence. It is the common mode most people are aware of. I do not have any reason to think that determining a species is recently evolved would be any easier with punctuated equilibrium.

What other scientific foundation would you propose?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Shared genetics just says there is common language used for living organisms.
There also seems to be a different meaning used for “species”. For example there are many species of viruses but still viruses. What term would you use instead? For example there may be many species of viruses but has that virus ever become something other than a virus? What term would you use?

I am not sure I understand. I am not proposing a new term to label species. Species is sufficient for now, though the concept behind it clearly needs continued study.

The theory of evolution does not explain or propose that one group of organisms suddenly become an entirely different group of organisms. No crocodiles turning into ducks or the like. If that were to happen, it would falsify the theory, since the theory cannot explain such an observation.

The basic species concept that I adhere to is a population that is reproductively isolated from other populations. There are exceptions and two populations may not be sufficiently divergent to fully prevent gene flow between them. Hybridization can occur and we see that with mules as the most common example. They are usually sterile, however, hybridization is a recognized mechanism of speciation as well. Especially among plants and involving ploidy. Polyploid species capable of reproducing with other members of the polyploid species, but not with the two progenitor species that gave rise to the new species through hybridization.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course evolution is a mystery, recipes don’t write themselves and someone had to write the language of DNA, this is obviously intelligence and understanding. Not sure how you’re going to reconcile that?

The problem for those that want to share this belief is that they do not have the evidence to support the claim of an intelligent designer. You don't have it. I don't have it. No one has that evidence. The only thing left is to find natural means that has evidence to support the conclusions and explanations. None of that means that a designer doesn't exist and none of that has anything to say about the means of a designer either. In science, if you claim something, you have to provide the evidence and arguments to support that claim. A claim of designer does not rise to that level and remains a belief, no matter how strongly someone believes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Would be helpful if you’d answer the question, you’re fearful projection and incoherent comments tell on you.
Even a computer programmer uses a universal language, yet for evolution this concept seems to evade you for a concocted evolutionary faith stance.

There are a number of programming languages and none that is universal that I know of. A programmer could tell us more about this, but even if there were a universal programming language, it does not follow as evidence to say anything about the origin of DNA and its functions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am familiar to some extent on the processes used to determine and describe a new species, but is anyone else here familiar with the process in general?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Several years ago, I came up with an estimate for the number of species evolving annually. I based this estimate on assumptions for time, that 99.9% of all species that have existed on this planet have gone extinct and an estimate for the number of existing species. So, it is a very fuzzy estimate and I am not claiming it is correct. My estimate following that is that on average about 4 new species evolve annually. This may not even be close, but it is something to work with for rough discussion and shows that speciation is a rare event. For those claiming that no one has seen such evolutionary changes and this falsifies the ToE is problematic as I have mentioned before. Not seeing this is not evidence it does not occur. That is your basic gap argument. In the OP, I mentioned reasons that speciation is likely missed, even by the experts. By comparison, describing a species new to science, while not simple, is a much easier prospect. To discover a species at the cusp of forming would be by blind luck or from certain instances like those where a mechanism like hybridization is involved. Finding observable speciation would be a massive stoke of luck more than anything else at our current understanding. However, there are examples in the literature where sometimes scientists have been that lucky.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am familiar to some extent on the processes used to determine and describe a new species, but is anyone else here familiar with the process in general?

My knowledge may be similar to yours. I am far from an expert here. Sadly your thread appears to be too much of a challenge for creationists. It raises very uncomfortable questions for them. Just as they refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence, a very easy lesson that seems to scare them, none of them want to describe what they know happens in the real world.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The problem for those that want to share this belief is that they do not have the evidence to support the claim of an intelligent designer. You don't have it. I don't have it. No one has that evidence. The only thing left is to find natural means that has evidence to support the conclusions and explanations. None of that means that a designer doesn't exist and none of that has anything to say about the means of a designer either. In science, if you claim something, you have to provide the evidence and arguments to support that claim. A claim of designer does not rise to that level and remains a belief, no matter how strongly someone believes.

This is the problem with evolution, where is the starting point? What I see is that the starting point is Creation in Genesis 1 by God. Then evolutionist see this Creation and begin to work backwards to try to disprove God and have a hypothesis of natural selection. Problem with that is where is your starting point without God? This is what takes faith and cannot be proven.
What I believe by faith was that there was a God who created everything, this is obvious to me when I look and consider all of Creation. That belief caused me to seek and pray to God and that is when He answered and revealed Himself to me and I was born again, God gave me His Spirit so I could communicate with Him and by the Holy Spirit God reveals Himself and Truth to me through prayer and confirmed by His Word.
Every person needs to get their own proof by hearing God for themselves.
The Bible says that every person will come before God and give an account for their lives and be judged accordingly. At this point there will be no question and everyone will have their proof. I have avoided this Day by receiving Jesus Christ and I got my proof in the process. That’s what God has revealed to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is the problem with evolution, where is the starting point? What I see is that the starting point is Creation in Genesis 1 by God. Then evolutionist see this Creation and begin to work backwards to try to disprove God and have a hypothesis of natural selection. Problem with that is where is your starting point without God? This is what takes faith and cannot be proven.
What I believe by faith was that there was a God who created everything, this is obvious to me when I look and consider all of Creation. That belief caused me to seek and pray to God and that is when He answered and revealed Himself to me and I was born again, God gave me His Spirit so I could communicate with Him and by the Holy Spirit God reveals Himself and Truth to me through prayer and confirmed by His Word.
Every person needs to get their own proof by hearing God for themselves.
The Bible says that every person will come before God and give an account for their lives and be judged accordingly. At this point there will be no question and everyone will have their proof. I have avoided this Day by receiving Jesus Christ and I got my proof in the process. That’s what God has revealed to me.

The starting point would be with life possessing heritable variation and environments that favor some variation over others.

Scientists are not about proving the existence or non-existence of God. What you claim to see is not there to be seen. You are probably mistaking some atheists accepting science as scientists doing this. It is not a paradigm of science.

Proof is not a standard of science. Nothing is proven in science, though some theories are so robust, it would take extraordinary evidence to falsify them. No faith is required in the sense of religious faith.

Your witness may be true, but I have only your word on that and you have no way to show me that it is what happened. That is the reality of things no matter what you claim to the contrary.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My knowledge may be similar to yours. I am far from an expert here. Sadly your thread appears to be too much of a challenge for creationists. It raises very uncomfortable questions for them. Just as they refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence, a very easy lesson that seems to scare them, none of them want to describe what they know happens in the real world.

Certainly, it drifted away from the OP much more rapidly than I had hoped. I have found that there are those for which no amount of evidence and reason is acceptable to prompt steps to better understand. There are those that seem satisfied with straw man versions of science that they can easily swallow and do battle with. Fish are still fish and the like.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The starting point would be with life possessing heritable variation and environments that favor some variation over others.

Scientists are not about proving the existence or non-existence of God. What you claim to see is not there to be seen. You are probably mistaking some atheists accepting science as scientists doing this. It is not a paradigm of science.

Proof is not a standard of science. Nothing is proven in science, though some theories are so robust, it would take extraordinary evidence to falsify them. No faith is required in the sense of religious faith.

Your witness may be true, but I have only your word on that and you have no way to show me that it is what happened. That is the reality of things no matter what you claim to the contrary.

Thanks for your honest answer and comment. Does anyone have a concrete starting point for evolution? My starting point is Genesis 1, In the beginning God created.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for your honest answer and comment. Does anyone have a concrete starting point for evolution? My starting point is Genesis 1, In the beginning God created.

What do you mean by a "concrete starting point"? It seems to be a nonsensical question. You appear to be working under a misconception. We do not need to know how or exactly when life started to understand that we are the product of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is the scenario that has played out in the gap challenge. There are no missing links between A and Z, therefore the ToE is wrong. What about M. We found M. Well, sure, but it is still wrong, because you don't have missing links between A and M and M and Z. We found D and H and later these other guys found N, R, T, V, and W. Maybe. But what about the links between A and D, D and H, H and M, M and N, N and R, R and T, T and V and V and W? If the theory was true, you would have those links. And it continues with each new finding.

Personally, I do not think God exists in these gaps. It is dogmatic belief that has to find a home in smaller and smaller gaps. But the science continues on in the search for understanding and evidence that might support but potentially could refine theories through revision or replacement.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks for your honest answer and comment. Does anyone have a concrete starting point for evolution? My starting point is Genesis 1, In the beginning God created.

We do not know how life started, but there is no reason to think that evolution could not take place with life arising from a divine origin equally as well as life from a natural origin. There is just no evidence to support a divine origin outside of belief and within science. But science is not a means to determine the supernatural. Science is a means for both believer and non-believer to explore and understand the world around us. It is not a replacement for religion. A theist and an atheist can both accept the same science for the same reasons and both maintain their personal views of deity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the scenario that has played out in the gap challenge. There are no missing links between A and Z, therefore the ToE is wrong. What about M. We found M. Well, sure, but it is still wrong, because you don't have missing links between A and M and M and Z. We found D and H and later these other guys found N, R, T, V, and W. Maybe. But what about the links between A and D, D and H, H and M, M and N, N and R, R and T, T and V and V and W? If the theory was true, you would have those links. And it continues with each new finding.

Personally, I do not think God exists in these gaps. It is dogmatic belief that has to find a home in smaller and smaller gaps. But the science continues on in the search for understanding and evidence that might support but potentially could refine theories through revision or replacement.

What else did you expect? After all each fossil find creates two new missing links

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What else did you expect? After all each fossil find creates two new missing links

It is a truly amazing feature of acquired knowledge that new knowledge opens up more gaps for us to explore or for someone else to use as a reason to deny in smaller and more numerous gaps. It does appear that some world views demand a sort of baseline state of ignorance to the very world that those views claim was created for us to live in and by a species whose own curiosity is almost diagnostic.