Observed instances of speciation...

Whenever the question of evolution comes up people (creationists) often state one simple thing "We have never seen a species turning into another species". This invariably forces me to post two links from TalkOrigins. Frankly, I got sick of having to set out the two links separately, so now I'm making a single thread that I'll be able to link to in the future.

Of course, my other motive is to demonstrate that there is clear evidence of one species turning into another. Hopefully this thread will put the question of whether speciation has been observed or not to rest, but I'm not holding my breath.


This is the first link.

Here is an excerpt from the (quite lengthy) article:

5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow
Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:

Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.

Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.

And here's the second link, with excerpt following:

This excerpt specifically references scientific studies that have produced speciation:

A List of Speciation References

Weiberg, James R.. Starczak, Victoria R.. Jorg, Daniele. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. V46. P1214(7) August, 1992.
Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. (rapid fish speciation in African lakes). Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event? (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357. P26(1) May 7, 1992.
Abstract:
Analysis of contact between two chromosomal races of house mice in northern Italy show that natural selection will produce alleles that bar interracial matings if the resulting offspring are unfit hybrids. This is an important exception to the general rule that intermixing races will not tend to become separate species because the constant sharing of genes minimizes the genetic diversity requisite for speciation.
Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992.
Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.
Nores, Manuel. Bird speciation in subtropical South America in relation to forest expansion and retraction. The Auk. V109. P346(12) April, 1992.
Abstract:
The climatic and geographic history of the Pleistocene and Holocene periods modified the distribution of the bird population in the South American forests. Forest birds are found dispersed in the Yungas and Paranese areas with only minimal infiltration of the Chaco woodland, indicating an atmospheric change during the interglacial periods. In the Chaco lowlands, the interactions between non-forest birds reveal the existence of presence of a forest belt along the Bermejo and Pilcomayo rivers.
Kondrashov, Alexey S.. Jablonka, Eva. Lamb, Marion J.. Species and speciation. (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V356. P752(1) April 30, 1992.
Abstract:
J.A. Coyne wrongly asserted that neodarwinism includes allopatric evolution but not sympatric evolution. Allopatric evolution occurs among geographically isolated populations, whereas sympatric evolution occurs within one species' entire population. Both are neodarwinian since each results from natural selection of genetic variation. Also, Coyne failed to recognize that the molecular models used to illustrate how genetic changes bring on speciation are most useful when researchers acknowledge that both inherited epigenetic and genetic changes affect speciation.
Spooner, David M.. Sytsma, Kenneth J.. Smith, James F.. A molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium. Evolution. V45. P757(8) May, 1991.
Orr, H. Allen. Is single-gene speciation possible?. Evolution. V45. P764(6) May, 1991.
Miller, Julie Ann. Pathogens and speciation. (Research Update). BioScience. V40. P714(1) Nov, 1990.
Barton, N.H. Hewitt, G.M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones; many species are divided into a mosaic of genetically distinct populations, separated by narrow zones of hybridization. Studies of hybrid zones allow us to quantify the genetic differences responsible for speciation, to measure the diffusion of genes between diverging taxa, and to understand the spread of alternative adaptations. (includes related information) Nature. V341. P497(7) Oct 12, 1989.
Wright, Karen. A breed apart; finicky flies lend credence to a theory of speciation. Scientific American. V260. P22(2) Feb, 1989.
Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
Feder, Jeffrey L. Bush, Guy L. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution. V43. P1813(7) Dec, 1989.
Soltis, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: insights from chloroplast DNA. The American Journal of Botany. V76. P1119(6) August, 1989.
Coyne, J.A. Barton, N.H. What do we know about speciation?. Nature. V331. P485(2) Feb 11, 1988.
Barton, N.H. Jones, J.S. Mallet, J. No barriers to speciation. (morphological evolution). Nature. V336. P13(2) Nov 3, 1988.
Kaneshiro, Kenneth Y. Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual selection appears to play an important role. BioScience. V38. P258(6) April, 1988.

Well, I hope that clears things up.

Great thread! One, in which, the creations can not dispute. Well, they can but it will be a bunch of nonscientific nonsense.

S&F



Oh, and there is this one I read a few days ago:

Flowering Plant Study 'Catches Evolution in the Act'

Creationists claim that no observed instances of speciation exist...I provide evidence that they do and I hear nothing but the overwhelming sound of evolved crickets.

this shouldn't just be left to sink to the bottom without any other input. i've noticed the creationists tend to be very selectively blind when it comes to these threads that are backed with science and are virtually disprovable if you have any ounce of logic.

anyways, awesome thread, very interesting stuff

I love how you're only getting 3 replies to this, and that all the board creationists seem to ignore the thread

Well done!

If any do reply, it will likely be some variation of the stock answer of, "This is just microevolution, show me a crocodile giving birth to a duck."

Great thread, OP. Very informative post (as usual). I would also very much like to hear the counter-argument to the OP but so far... silence.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


It seems as though animals evolve to gain an advantage to their environment, and this is a continuous process. But now you have to think could there be a force somewhere that changes the animals DNA for the better? That question is an essential one for evolution and religion.

How do animals adapt so quick to changes to their environment? What manipulates affects their DNA so their children are born with the traits?

Honestly madness there is a lot of things humans don't know or understand but think it to be true. We could stumble on a new finding tomorrow that will render all of our science today useless! Over the years I have learned anything is possible in this world. Evidence can be manipulated and faked by scientists to gain funding for to their programs.

I am not a creationist but I truly believe we live in a weirder world than what we see.

So is this like saying that a species similar to a human mated with an ape and created humanity via evolution / speciation?

Analysis of contact between two chromosomal races of house mice in northern Italy show that natural selection will produce alleles that bar interracial matings if the resulting offspring are unfit hybrids. This is an important exception to the general rule that intermixing races will not tend to become separate species because the constant sharing of genes minimizes the genetic diversity requisite for speciation.

That is what I'm drawing from this statement about the mice.

..and all of these examples are showing a generalized relation in DNA that is required before this "speciation" can take place between two different organisms' compositions of DNA.

I'm starting to wonder if these examples provided are more about hybridization than speciation.


So are we a completely new species? From my past understanding we are either neanderthal or not.. our species has been around for so long, we've just advanced faster than any other species.

Evolution obviously happens when species adapt to certain conditions.. hell it even happens through technology for us humans. There's no denying that some sort of evolution actually exists. The main argument between creationism and evolution is whether evolution actually solves the issue of the universe or not... which evolution cannot solve... just as creationism cannot currently solve the diverse instances of life created through evolution.

Why are we picking the fight with creationists in this loaded way? There is no proof for the beginning of this existence via evolution just as there is no proof for evolution via creationism... at least I'm speaking about SOLID proof. 100% proof... not 99.9%.

Have you ever fancied an idea that a creator could have fabricated the motion for evolution to make the universe diverse? Or can it only happen with no creator?

Regards

reply to post by Myollinir

So is this like saying that a species similar to a human mated with an ape and created humanity

That's not how evolution works...

Evolution isn't 2 different species mating. To give you an example: The crocodile from a few hundred thousand years ago looked almost like today's crocodile, but those 2 couldn't create offspring if they mated.

You might wanna read up on the theory: LINK

reply to post by MrXYZ


Yes I know that's not how evolution works... but this source shows this is how speciation works.

I'm trying to clarify what is being stated.

reply to post by Equinox99


...no, it's just natural selection. If your mutations are beneficial, you survive in the environment based on environmental pressures...and then you reproduce and pass those benefits on. If you lack a beneficial mutation or you have a detrimental mutation, you get selected out and don't reproduce.

Natural selection, Darwin's great idea, already answered this. We don't need to posit an outside source directly giving beneficial mutations.

reply to post by Myollinir


...no, it's evidence of speciation. It's seeing "Will these two populations mate?", no? Well, previously these two populations could mate perfectly well...narrowing of gene transfer between populations = speciation.

reply to post by MrXYZ


And calling Darwin an idiot got 37 flags, yet this only has 7 flags...and nowhere near as many responses. Granted, most of the creationists on ATS don't bother posting because I've yet to see 37 different people who claim that Darwin is an idiot actually post.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Ignorance at its best

Originally posted by Equinox99
It seems as though animals evolve to gain an advantage to their environment, and this is a continuous process. But now you have to think could there be a force somewhere that changes the animals DNA for the better? That question is an essential one for evolution and religion.

How do animals adapt so quick to changes to their environment? What manipulates affects their DNA so their children are born with the traits?

Replication errors, radiation, insertion by viruses, etc. are ways that DNA can be changed. Whether or not it's for the "better" (Better in what way? Give us something that can be measured.) is irrelevant to how it's changed.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


So this proves how humans came to being?

I don't understand how this thread relates to creationism still. I posed a final question on my first posting here and until that question is ultimately answered, these facts about evolution and speciation only prove their existence and do not dispute creationism in any way.

"This Just In: Genetic funnels of flies prove God doesn't exist!!! Score one for science!"

..more or less

If you would care to elaborate more, I definitely wouldn't mind listening.

reply to post by Myollinir

Originally posted by Myollinir
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

So this proves how humans came to being?

Humans, chipmunks, wolves, geckos, aardvarks, jellyfish, etc.

I don't understand how this thread relates to creationism still.

Creationists repeatedly state that there isn't any evidence for evolution, I decided to provide direct observations of it. People say there's no evidence of one species turning into another, I provided some.

I posed a final question on my first posting here and until that question is ultimately answered, these facts about evolution and speciation only prove their existence and do not dispute creationism in any way.

You're referring to this:

Have you ever fancied an idea that a creator could have fabricated the motion for evolution to make the universe diverse? Or can it only happen with no creator?

Occam's razor...why are you adding the unnecessary complication without providing a particular reason? There is no reason to add god to the equation, even if s/he fits. You can also say that a giant invisible unicorn created evolution, but there's no point to it.

"This Just In: Genetic funnels of flies prove God doesn't exist!!! Score one for science!"

..more or less

I'm not talking about god or not god...I'm talking about the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

This is just microevolution. I mean its still a fly, just a better version of the same fly. When it gets to the point where the fly has changed a little too much, god will step in and make sure it remains a fly.

This does not prove macroevolution.

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

This is just microevolution. I mean its still a fly, just a better version of the same fly. When it gets to the point where the fly has changed a little too much, god will step in and make sure it remains a fly.

This does not prove macroevolution.

The whole macro vs micro evolution thing has been debated hundreds of times, even in threads you've participated in.

Why you are WRONG: