Speciation

[newhope101]

When creationists say something like "No one has seen one species evolve into a completely different species", in their head they're imagining something like a dog giving birth to a cat.

All that shows is just how ignorant they are.

All you have done is confirmed how ignorant some evolutionists are.

Do you really think creationist researchers such as John Sanford, a prior evolutionist, thinks evos believe a dog will give birth to a cat? Who here is really the queen of cheap shots and idiot statements?

 

[Jose Fly]

All you have done is confirmed how ignorant some evolutionists are.

Do you really think creationist researchers such as John Sanford, a prior evolutionist, thinks evos believe a dog will give birth to a cat? Who here is really the queen of cheap shots and idiot statements?

Shall I provide examples of creationists making very similar arguments in this forum? And if I do so, will you do your usual, i.e. ignore everything inconvenient to your beliefs?

 

[newhope101]

Here you go... some of these papers are not available on the internets unfortunately. Where possible I'll link you to pages that discuss the work.

Primrose:
de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation. (not online)
History of Horticulture - De Vries, Hugo 1848-1935
Species and Varieties, Their Origin by Mutation by Hugo de Vries - Project Gutenberg
http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/v/hdv-00.pdf#search=%27Hugo%20de%20Vries
Hugo de Vries on heredity, 1889-1903. Statistics, ... [Isis. 1999] - PubMed result

Golden and Plains Viscacha Rats
Whole-genome duplications in South American desert rodents (Octodontidae) - GALLARDO - 2004 - Biological Journal of the Linnean Society - Wiley Online Library
You can find the pdf. here: http://lem.dm.cl/publicaciones/pdf/2004/Whole genome duplication Biol J Linn Soc 2004.pdf
Desert dreams: seeking the secret mammals of the salt pans | Natural History | Find Articles at BNET

Kew Primrose
The Cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula Hybrids
SpringerLink - Journal of Genetics, Volume 20, Number 3
SpringerLink - Molecular and General Genetics MGG, Volume 13, Number 1
What Is Primula Kewensis? | eHow.com

Experimental Evidence for the Appearance of New Species - Softpedia

Hope these help.

wa:do

Oh I can't wait to hear your black and white discussions and inability to discern a somatic change from not.

Not one of these links provides any evidence of one kind evolving into another kind. They are in kind variations that you call different species.

I've already had a laugh this morning when I realised a great deal of what you use as ancestral connections relates to likenesses because of ancient exposure to diseases.

So you have proved that a mosquito bit a few organisms and you've provided proof that a flower can adapt and give it a new name or how an animal can adapt but you have never shown anything more. You assume and extrapolate from this that one kind eg common ancestor of whale & hippo or man and chimp will evolve over time. The truth is lovey that what you have is this.....

These results show that slight changes in the control regions of genes lead to slight changes in the organism, and accumulation of such small differences may result in the creation of a new species. While this is widely accepted by evolutionary biologists, actual examples directly linking small changes in regulatory parts of genes to morphological differences have been scarce. While it may not be possible to swap regulatory sequences to turn a man into a banana, or even into a mouse, examination of these sequences may tell us how different organisms evolved.
What's The Difference Between Mice And Men?


Here is one refute to your horticultural links. Below is an extract that illustrates 3 species of orchids having what you believe is highly similar genetic heritage yet differ considerably. You call these different species and give them different names yet they remain orchids and will never be an oak tree.
Orchidaceae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This study focused on three recently formed species of delicate purple European marsh-orchids (Dactylorhiza) of hybrid origin, two of them occurring in the UK. Despite having a highly similar genetic heritage, the three orchids differ considerably in ecological requirements, morphology, physical characteristics and distribution.
Common orchid gives scientists hope in face of climate change

All your links will be easily refuted by any creationist bothered to try. Thankfully you didn't use birds. Well done! But these other tries aren't any better. They only show an organism is capable of in kind adaptation and that your researchers give in kind variations different names ad nauseum.

 

[painted wolf]

These are gametic changes... that is what a polyploidy mutation is. A mutation in the gametes that changes the number of chromosomes.

Also, no one is talking about "one kind turning into another kind" whatever that means... this thread is about observed speciation.

If you could bother to keep up and actually pay attention the subject at hand, that would be very helpful for everyone involved. It would also help you from making these repeated and silly mistakes.

wa;do

 

[lunamoth]

They only show an organism is capable of in kind adaptation and that your researchers give in kind variations different names ad nauseum.

This is only because the numerous accumulated changes that it takes to create species as different from each other as orchids and oaks takes millions of years. Until we are able to manipulate time, that kind of controlled experimentation is not possible. However, controlled testing in the lab is not the only valid scientific way to support or refute a hypothesis.

The fossil record, DNA and protein sequence similarities, homologous and analogous structures all support the theory of evolution by descent with modification.

Artificial breeding experiments, rapid evolution of bacteria and viruses observed naturally, and the examples of speciation provided in numerous threads in this forum and places like TalkOrigins support the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Really, the evidence is simply overwhelming.

 

[painted wolf]

Here is one refute to your horticultural links. Below is an extract that illustrates 3 species of orchids having what you believe is highly similar genetic heritage yet differ considerably. You call these different species and give them different names yet they remain orchids and will never be an oak tree.
Orchidaceae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This study focused on three recently formed species of delicate purple European marsh-orchids (Dactylorhiza) of hybrid origin, two of them occurring in the UK. Despite having a highly similar genetic heritage, the three orchids differ considerably in ecological requirements, morphology, physical characteristics and distribution.
Common orchid gives scientists hope in face of climate change

Also... this isn't a refute... this is more evidence in my favor. Thanks for providing more evidence of speciation.

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

Oh I can't wait to hear your black and white discussions and inability to discern a somatic change from not.

These are gametic changes... that is what a polyploidy mutation is. A mutation in the gametes that changes the number of chromosomes.

Who is the ignorant one here?

 

[David M]

All you have done is confirmed how ignorant some evolutionists are.

Do you really think creationist researchers such as John Sanford, a prior evolutionist, thinks evos believe a dog will give birth to a cat? Who here is really the queen of cheap shots and idiot statements?

Do you have any quotes of Sanford saying ""No one has seen one species evolve into a completely different species"

I expect not because he's not ignorant enough of ToE to expect speciation events to produce completely different species but rather to produce similar species.

Howevere there are creationist who do think that ToE says that dogs will give birth to cats or ducks to crocodiles.

 

[lunakilo]

Do you really think creationist researchers such as John Sanford, a prior evolutionist, thinks evos believe a dog will give birth to a cat? Who here is really the queen of cheap shots and idiot statements?

Here is one refute to your horticultural links. Below is an extract that illustrates 3 species of orchids having what you believe is highly similar genetic heritage yet differ considerably. You call these different species and give them different names yet they remain orchids and will never be an oak tree.

Maybe not dogs to cats, but flowers into trees it seems.

 

[painted wolf]

Maybe not dogs to cats, but flowers into trees it seems.

Which is an even bigger jump than the Dog-Cat one!

Some people just can't give up the Dog-Cat fallacy it seems.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

One of the comments most often hear from creationiste on this forum is "Show me an example of one species turning into another"

The word species has more than one definition.
I use the word as meaning a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
This means that for example dogs and wolfs are the same species, but cats and dogs are not.

When I look at nature I see plenty of examples to convience me that the event of a single species splitting into two species has occured many times in the history of the planet earth.
But what I see is not the whole evolutionary tree, but just a moment (or a very short periode) in time.

The world I observe fits well with the theory of evolution, but as it has been pointed out to me, it also fits very well with the theory that God created several kinds of animals (all the species existing today).

We can see genetic changes within a species, but within a timespan of a few human generations it is not possible to see a species like dogs split and become 2 seperate species which cannot interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
I should be possible if you look at species with short lifespans.

I came across this example of the London Underground mosquito: London Underground mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is about a population of mosquito which have been isolated underground for many generations and are now very different from their relatives abouve ground. They don't interbreed, but not because they can't, they just don't.
They are still the same species.

That means this example of the London Underground mosquito is not good enough, do any of you have a good example of speciation?

Couple of thoughts on this. One is that most creationists don't actually know what a species is. So when you give them examples of speciation, they say something like, "But it's still a mosquito," thus effectively moving the goalposts. Or they start arguing that the scientific definition of species is wrong. That, of course, is another sort of cheating, since you started by defining species, and it's supposed to be a scientific discussion.

But at the end of the day, the creationists who even pay attention to science, such as AIG, finally yielded, admitted that speciation happens, and retreated to something called a "kind," which is of course a meaningless term. So the more modern and up-to-date creationist will admit that speciation happens, but stops at an imaginary line called a "kind."

I predict all of these things will happen in this thread.

I did once have a Muslim creationist, Fatihah, just take the position that the scientists who claim to have observed speciation were lying. That was refreshing.

 

[fantome profane]

I did once have a Muslim creationist, Fatihah, just take the position that the scientists who claim to have observed speciation were lying. That was refreshing.

Ah yes, delightful.

 

[lunakilo]

Couple of thoughts on this. One is that most creationists don't actually know what a species is. So when you give them examples of speciation, they say something like, "But it's still a mosquito," thus effectively moving the goalposts. Or they start arguing that the scientific definition of species is wrong. That, of course, is another sort of cheating, since you started by defining species, and it's supposed to be a scientific discussion.

Yes I did, but I also know there are other ways to define the word (one of the reasons I wrote down what I mean by it).
In theory you could argue that in one of the articles which someone linked to a different definition is used. In that case it would be ok to either disregard the article or redefine the meening of the word species.

But at the end of the day, the creationists who even pay attention to science, such as AIG, finally yielded, admitted that speciation happens, and retreated to something called a "kind," which is of course a meaningless term. So the more modern and up-to-date creationist will admit that speciation happens, but stops at an imaginary line called a "kind."

Well 'kind' and 'species' are both rather meaningless since they both lack a clear defination

But havent' the creationists managed to come up with a model which fits the date at this point then?

If you agree that speciation happens, then the simplest interpretation of that data I can come up with is something like this:

But can you really disprove that the following picture is right?

I predict all of these things will happen in this thread.

Yep! I just did it

I did once have a Muslim creationist, Fatihah, just take the position that the scientists who claim to have observed speciation were lying. That was refreshing.

My friends an I have a rule when we discuss things. The first one to call someone else a nazi (that is run out of arguments) has lost the argument.
This rule really sucks if your opponent really is a nazi. Maybe we should change it to the first one to accuse the other of lying

 

[Krok]

If you agree that speciation happens, then the simplest interpretation of that data I can come up with is something like this:

But can you really disprove that the following picture is right?

Yes, done lots of times in lots of ways. One way to do it: arrangement of fossils in stratigraphy.

I don't do this as an attack on anyone, but just to show how creationists keep on using "arguments" proved wrong ages ago!

 

[lunakilo]

Yes, done lots of times in lots of ways. One way to do it: arrangement of fossils in stratigraphy.

I don't do this as an attack on anyone, but just to show how creationists keep on using "arguments" proved wrong ages ago!

Maybe I just dont know what stratigraphy is, but isn't that about dating fossils?

I am not sure I follow you

 

[painted wolf]

Yes I did, but I also know there are other ways to define the word (one of the reasons I wrote down what I mean by it).
In theory you could argue that in one of the articles which someone linked to a different definition is used. In that case it would be ok to either disregard the article or redefine the meening of the word species.

Which is why I provided examples that fit your given definition... and indeed the hardest one for a population to attain (total breeding isolation).

Well 'kind' and 'species' are both rather meaningless since they both lack a clear defination

Not entirely... species has testable definitions while "kind" does not. Species is also not a "fixed value" while "kind" is. That is, species are always in flux while "kinds" are immutable.

But havent' the creationists managed to come up with a model which fits the date at this point then?

Not really... "kind" is still unworkably vague.
For example what is "Dog kind"?

If you agree that speciation happens, then the simplest interpretation of that data I can come up with is something like this:

But can you really disprove that the following picture is right?

Yeah we can do a pretty good job of that... between the fossil record which shows that there isn't a single start line for the "kinds". It also shows that there are plenty of critters that blur the lines between supposed "kinds".

Genetics shows that life fits into a nested hierarchy and not into the independent lines of decent that "kinds" would require.

Molecular evidence shows the same.

Add to those the findings of morphology, developmental biology, ecology, physiology and so on... and the evidence is pretty tight for evolution and antithetical to creationism.

Yep! I just did it

My friends an I have a rule when we discuss things. The first one to call someone else a nazi (that is run out of arguments) has lost the argument.
This rule really sucks if your opponent really is a nazi. Maybe we should change it to the first one to accuse the other of lying

LoL.
Hope you don't mind my adding my 2cents.

wa:do

 

[meogi]

Maybe I just dont know what stratigraphy is, but isn't that about dating fossils?

Not dating, just that older rock is below younger rock. Radiometric dating supports this general idea.

Stratigraphy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] As such, finding a human (or generally any mammal) fossil in a layer below the K-T Extinction Event (it's a layer placed after an asteroid hit ~60 million years ago), would falsify the idea of speciation.

 

[rusra02]

One of the comments most often hear from creationiste on this forum is "Show me an example of one species turning into another"

The word species has more than one definition.
I use the word as meaning a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
This means that for example dogs and wolfs are the same species, but cats and dogs are not.

When I look at nature I see plenty of examples to convience me that the event of a single species splitting into two species has occured many times in the history of the planet earth.
But what I see is not the whole evolutionary tree, but just a moment (or a very short periode) in time.

The world I observe fits well with the theory of evolution, but as it has been pointed out to me, it also fits very well with the theory that God created several kinds of animals (all the species existing today).

We can see genetic changes within a species, but within a timespan of a few human generations it is not possible to see a species like dogs split and become 2 seperate species which cannot interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
I should be possible if you look at species with short lifespans.

I came across this example of the London Underground mosquito: London Underground mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is about a population of mosquito which have been isolated underground for many generations and are now very different from their relatives abouve ground. They don't interbreed, but not because they can't, they just don't.
They are still the same species.

That means this example of the London Underground mosquito is not good enough, do any of you have a good example of speciation?

Your question is a good one. In fact, speciation is a theory without substance. Despite intensive scientific efforts to induce speciation through mutations in laboratories, and some widely publicized 'examples', later debunked, ToE advocates are still groping for evidence. Darwin's finches are a good example. The national academy of sciences pointed to these finches in 1999 as "a particularly compelling example of speciation". The studies of Peter and Rose Mary Grant of these finches debunked this 'example', a fact the NAS failed to mention in it's 1999 brochure.
And the embarassing fact is these finches remain..finches. If scientists, working feverishly for decades, cannot induce speciation, then how can it occur 'naturally' and be responsible for the millions of species we know today? The simple answer is: It can't and it didn't.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Your question is a good one. In fact, speciation is a theory without substance. Despite intensive scientific efforts to induce speciation through mutations in laboratories, and some widely publicized 'examples', later debunked, ToE advocates are still groping for evidence. Darwin's finches are a good example. The national academy of sciences pointed to these finches in 1999 as "a particularly compelling example of speciation". The studies of Peter and Rose Mary Grant of these finches debunked this 'example', a fact the NAS failed to mention in it's 1999 brochure.
And the embarassing fact is these finches remain..finches. If scientists, working feverishly for decades, cannot induce speciation, then how can it occur 'naturally' and be responsible for the millions of species we know today? The simple answer is: It can't and it didn't.

opcorn:

 

[meogi]

If scientists, working feverishly for decades, cannot induce speciation, then how can it occur 'naturally' and be responsible for the millions of species we know today?

How many decades are in 1 million years? 60? 3 billion? You have no understanding of time.