New species formed by merging two species.

[ChristineM]

What the article tells us is what is relevant. Articles like this are notorious for giving the wrong impression about what the real science is.
The article says "Scientists have caught a once-in-a-billion-years evolutionary event in progress, as two lifeforms have merged into one organism that boasts abilities its peers would envy." in the first sentence and goes on to say, close to the end, "Altogether, the team says this indicates UCYN-A is a full organelle, which is given the name of nitroplast. It appears that this began to evolve around 100 million years ago, which sounds like an incredibly long time but is a blink of an eye compared to mitochondria and chloroplasts."
The question is, "What has been observed?"
There is nothing in the article about scientists seeing the 2 species merge.
The scientists say they have identified 2 species in the one, and that the functioning of the 2 species have been altered to reflect the 2 becoming one species, that divides and functions as one species instead of as 2 species in a symbiotic relationship.

Sheesh...
You said and i quote "Scientists have caught a once-in-a-billion-years evolutionary event in progress,"
Then you say
"There is nothing in the article about scientists seeing the 2 species merge."

I know you are desperate to disprove science but make up your mind before trying fruitlessly to dis it.

 

[shunyadragon]

The article says that it began to evolve about 100 million years ago. That is hardly being observed.
But yes, that sort of symbiotic relationship may be seen to have developed many more times in nature.

To add: evolution began over 3.7 billion years ago. Tracing the genetics and fossil evidence this happened 2.2 billion years and 1;6 billion years ago The evidence and research demonstrates it is being observed in progress today.

I am not sure what you combative efforts to demand there is "no evidence" involving this discovery when you in a matter of fact preemptively reject all the sciences of evolution with pejorative accusation of "no evidence," without explanation of what you consider "evidence."

 

[Brian2]

I do not consider dialogue as fruitful with you. That is why I will hold off on any further discussion.

The underlying problem is your hostility toward the sciences of evolution. Your antagonistic of one recently documented evidence reflects your ancient tribal agenda, and your lack of knowledge of science. The current direct observation demonstrate the merging of two distinct species over time. There is far more evidence for this involving the origins of organelles in cells, and other evidence of the origin of eyes from light sensitive cells that evolve to eyes not even considered in this thread..

The article reported it happening. primary endosymbiosis, multiple times. This third time scientists can see it happening today as distinct generics are in the process of merging.

In one recent study, a team found that the size ratio between the algae and UCYN-A stays similar across different related species of the algae. Their growth appears to be controlled by the exchange of nutrients, leading to linked metabolisms.

“That’s exactly what happens with organelles,” said Jonathan Zehr, an author of the studies. “If you look at the mitochondria and the chloroplast, it’s the same thing: they scale with the cell.”

In a follow-up study, the team and other collaborators used a powerful X-ray imaging technique to view the interior of the living algae cells. This revealed that the replication and cell division was synchronized between the host and symbiote – more evidence of primary endosymbiosis at work.
Two lifeforms merge in once-in-a-billion-years evolutionary event

Again . . . discussion remain eternally fruitless with, because of your attitude towards science.

All you needed to say is that you agree that the article says that this process of merging has taken 100 million years so far.
That is not hostility towards the science of evolution, it is clearing up what the article was saying.

 

[Brian2]

To add: evolution began over 3.7 billion years ago. Tracing the genetics and fossil evidence this happened 2.2 billion years and 1;6 billion years ago The evidence and research demonstrates it is being observed in progress today.

I am not sure what you combative efforts to demand there is "no evidence" involving this discovery when you in a matter of fact preemptively reject all the sciences of evolution with pejorative accusation of "no evidence," without explanation of what you consider "evidence."

I don't in a matter of fact preemptively reject all the sciences of evolution with pejorative accusation of "no evidence,". You must have me mistaken for someone else. That sort of thing happens as we get older. I have noticed it in myself also.

 

[Brian2]

Sheesh...
You said and i quote "Scientists have caught a once-in-a-billion-years evolutionary event in progress,"
Then you say
"There is nothing in the article about scientists seeing the 2 species merge."

I know you are desperate to disprove science but make up your mind before trying fruitlessly to dis it.

I said: The article says, "Scientists have caught a once-in-a-billion-years evolutionary event in progress,
Then I say: and goes on to say, close to the end, "Altogether, the team says this indicates UCYN-A is a full organelle, which is given the name of nitroplast. It appears that this began to evolve around 100 million years ago, which sounds like an incredibly long time but is a blink of an eye compared to mitochondria and chloroplasts."

So is this direct observation? I would think not. But if you think it is then so be it.
I thought I was just clarifying what the article said,,,,,,,,,,,, for my own understanding as well as that of others,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and I think I have clarified it for me at least.
If you want to call that "seeing the 2 species merge" that is up to you.
I would call it "making an educated guess that 2 species are merging". But that is just me being probably more pedantic than others.

 

[Brian2]

Discovery of an Endosymbiotic Nitrogen-Fixing ...​

Link to the actual paper from 2013

Well that cleared things up. From the bottom of the "Abstract" we have:
From these results, we suggest that; 1) C. parkeae is the alternate life cycle stage of B. bigelowii sensu stricto or that of a sibling species of B. bigelowii, and 2) the spheroid body of B. bigelowii originated from endosymbiosis of the nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterium UCYN-A.
So the science article does as lay science articles do, and exaggerates what science has shown.

 

[ChristineM]

So is this direct observation? I would think not

You are entitled to think whatever you want to protect your dreams.

Consider the meaning of "Caught"

 

[shunyadragon]

All you needed to say is that you agree that the article says that this process of merging has taken 100 million years so far.
That is not hostility towards the science of evolution, it is clearing up what the article was saying.

No, the article does not say that. You do not remotely understand the article and are unable to cite it properly.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well that cleared things up. From the bottom of the "Abstract" we have:
From these results, we suggest that; 1) C. parkeae is the alternate life cycle stage of B. bigelowii sensu stricto or that of a sibling species of B. bigelowii, and 2) the spheroid body of B. bigelowii originated from endosymbiosis of the nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterium UCYN-A.
So the science article does as lay science articles do, and exaggerates what science has shown.

Nothing cleared up. I do not believe you actually understand what you cited and wrote.

 

[John53]

That seems to be what scientists guess may have happened.

In the same way a jury guesses if you're innocent or guilty. No examining evidence or anything silly like that.

 

[John53]

I said: The article says, "Scientists have caught a once-in-a-billion-years evolutionary event in progress,
Then I say: and goes on to say, close to the end, "Altogether, the team says this indicates UCYN-A is a full organelle, which is given the name of nitroplast. It appears that this began to evolve around 100 million years ago, which sounds like an incredibly long time but is a blink of an eye compared to mitochondria and chloroplasts."

So is this direct observation? I would think not. But if you think it is then so be it.
I thought I was just clarifying what the article said,,,,,,,,,,,, for my own understanding as well as that of others,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and I think I have clarified it for me at least.
If you want to call that "seeing the 2 species merge" that is up to you.
I would call it "making an educated guess that 2 species are merging". But that is just me being probably more pedantic than others.

Oops I responded to soon, you've promoted it from guess to educated guess.