Observed instances of speciation...

reply to post by MrXYZ


Shh...it's sarcasm.



Where are all the creationists by the way? I mean, I know these same links get ignored on a weekly basis around here when they're posted within threads, but come on, there's a whole thread now!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


My brain's on standby still, long night yesterday, still didn't have my first coffee of the day

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


So you are targeting only the creationists who don't believe in evolution? Well not targeting but defending against...

I think anyone who would claim it is not real to be ignorant, and they would most likely claim a lot of other facts are fiction in the world as well.

I consider myself to be a creationist in essence, and yet I respond to your thread with an open mind all while thoroughly enjoying science myself. I'm not sure what I can bring to the table to debate with you about because I don't deny that evolution exists, even to the smallest or largest extent.

reply to post by Myollinir


Well, this thread is just about evolution, nothing more or less. Evolution and its specific observed instances of speciation within what we have recorded with modern science to be more exact.

...and the silence of the evolution deniers is deafening in here. I wonder where they all are? Where are all the people who flagged the 'Darwin is an idiot' thread?

Since tinfoilman brought this up in another thread, I'll just post these here.

Finch speciationin the last couple of years.
Nylon eating bacteria
Bacterial 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.

This is by no means speciation. It could very well be a mutated alleles. And then the word "IF" the offspring are unfit hybrids. That would fall into the category of not meant to be.

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.

Now we have the word "Indicating" which is speculating. And still no proof of speciation. Actually This doesn't have anything to do with speciation.

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 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. and genetic changes affect speciation.

Hmm. This is just one scientists who failed to realize that the molecular models are most useful if the scientist agree with each other. lol. She just didn't see the environmental effect on genes. Still this is not proof of speciation.

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.

This is not showing one species changing into another. They are trying to "quantify the genetic differences. What makes them different? The hybridization can be explained because we all live on the same planet so our genetic makeup is similar so we can survive. No proof here.

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.

This is still no change. It is about the consequences for speciation.

Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual selection appears to play an important role.

Hmm. Another speculative word. "Appears" to play an important role, but still no proof.



Now am I saying that we do not change. Oh no. We change not just physically but mentally.

The Max Plank Institute did a study on the rate of evolution.
They bred a plant (the article did not specify type) for 30 generations.
The plants had 120 million base pair DNA.
The difference from first gen and last gen was 8 to 12 base pair.
So change is proven.
Now the time it would take to change, at that rate (.0000001% - .00000006%), from a single cell organism to a full fledged diversity of the life we see around us is astronomical. You do the math.

reply to post by Conclusion1


Well, it DID take a very long time...around 3.5bil years

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Conclusion1

 

Well, it DID take a very long time...around 3.5bil years

That is still not long enough.

reply to post by Conclusion1


Well, still doesn't change the fact that DNA and the fossil record backes up the theory's claim that we have a common ancestor with today's apes. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. We know the first homo evolved around 2.4mil years ago and further evolved into what we call homo sapiens today.

Also, keep in mind that the findings of the theory of evolution (which obviously includes speciation) is actively used in modern medicine.

Just because we don't exactly know how multicellular life evolved, doesn't mean the rest of the theory is invalid. On the contrary, everything fits the theory perfectly when it comes to humans, animals, and plants...which is why it's classified as a scientific theory.

You might wanna read this.

reply to post by Conclusion1


The researchers at the Max Planck Institute would seem to disagree with your interpretations of their findings:

The number of new mutations in each individual plant might appear very small. But if one starts to consider that they occur in the genomes of every member of a species, it becomes clear how fluid the genome is: In a collection of only 60 million Arabidopsis plants, each letter in the genome is changed, on average, once. For an organism that produces thousands of seeds in each generation, 60 million is not such a big number at all.

On a rather positive note, the results of the US-German team show that in sufficiently large populations, every possible mutation in the genome should be present.

But, hey, what do they know about their own research? Right?

Seriously, these attempts at "statistically disproving" evolution are about as effective as trying to do it thermodynamically. Which is to say, not at all.

reply to post by iterationzero


That's what happens if you get your information from the Creation Institute, or such crap pseudo-scientific websites like layevangelism.com

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Conclusion1

 

The researchers at the Max Planck Institute would seem to disagree with your interpretations of their findings:

The number of new mutations in each individual plant might appear very small. But if one starts to consider that they occur in the genomes of every member of a species, it becomes clear how fluid the genome is: In a collection of only 60 million Arabidopsis plants, each letter in the genome is changed, on average, once. For an organism that produces thousands of seeds in each generation, 60 million is not such a big number at all.

On a rather positive note, the results of the US-German team show that in sufficiently large populations, every possible mutation in the genome should be present.

But, hey, what do they know about their own research? Right?

Seriously, these attempts at "statistically disproving" evolution are about as effective as trying to do it thermodynamically. Which is to say, not at all.

And this relates to 8-12 changes in 120 million base pair how? This is talking about seeds that r produced. This has nothing to do with what I said. So....seriously these attempts to thwart a mathematical fact, not statistics, is about as effective as saying something came from nothing. Which is to say, not at all. If that is what you are saying.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by iterationzero

 

That's what happens if you get your information from the Creation Institute, or such crap pseudo-scientific websites like layevangelism.com

I read information that is presented to me, analyze it, then make up my own mind. You can live by their rules. I will live by my own.

reply to post by Conclusion1


As long as you realize your opinion is based on faulty information and pure belief, not objective information or facts

So whatever makes you happy...

Originally posted by Conclusion1

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Conclusion1

 

The researchers at the Max Planck Institute would seem to disagree with your interpretations of their findings:

The number of new mutations in each individual plant might appear very small. But if one starts to consider that they occur in the genomes of every member of a species, it becomes clear how fluid the genome is: In a collection of only 60 million Arabidopsis plants, each letter in the genome is changed, on average, once. For an organism that produces thousands of seeds in each generation, 60 million is not such a big number at all.

On a rather positive note, the results of the US-German team show that in sufficiently large populations, every possible mutation in the genome should be present.

But, hey, what do they know about their own research? Right?

Seriously, these attempts at "statistically disproving" evolution are about as effective as trying to do it thermodynamically. Which is to say, not at all.

And this relates to 8-12 changes in 120 million base pair how? This is talking about seeds that r produced. This has nothing to do with what I said. So....seriously these attempts to thwart a mathematical fact, not statistics, is about as effective as saying something came from nothing. Which is to say, not at all. If that is what you are saying.

Not sure what you're talking about...it was you who claimed some conclusion to be true when the Max Planck institute obviously came to a completely different conclusion. I'll rather trust them than you when it comes to scientific information

reply to post by MrXYZ

true multicellular organisms must solve the problem of regenerating a whole organism from germ cells (i.e. sperm and egg cells), an issue that is studied in developmental biology.

From your link.

Hmm. Wow. Those multicellular organisms must be pretty intelligent to solve that problem. That would put them billions of years ahead of us in the understanding of biology. Okay listen. They are encoded with a program. I mean look at it. It is a superbly designed instrument to figure things out. You believe that it was caused by accident. I believe it was cause with intention. To seek out new life. To find new civilizations. To boldly go where no multicellular organism has gone before.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Exactly. I came to a different conclusion. Yes I know you will believe them. Sheep follow their Sheppard.

Originally posted by Conclusion1
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

true multicellular organisms must solve the problem of regenerating a whole organism from germ cells (i.e. sperm and egg cells), an issue that is studied in developmental biology.

From your link.

Hmm. Wow. Those multicellular organisms must be pretty intelligent to solve that problem. That would put them billions of years ahead of us in the understanding of biology. Okay listen. They are encoded with a program. I mean look at it. It is a superbly designed instrument to figure things out. You believe that it was caused by accident. I believe it was cause with intention. To seek out new life. To find new civilizations. To boldly go where no multicellular organism has gone before.

edit on 30-3-2011 by Conclusion1 because: (no reason given)

First of all, you guys have to stop claiming we say it was an "accident"...no one's saying that. And why do you talk about multicellular organisms as if they're "intelligent", that's lunatic. It's not as if a single celled organism one day woke up and said "mhhhh, I'm gonna turn into multicellular life now"

You make it sound as if those organisms have some spirit of discovery like Neil Armstrong...that's nuts, sorry, no other way of saying it.

You claim they're encoded with a program, that program's called DNA...and we already know about it. No magic (aka god) required or evident.

Originally posted by Conclusion1
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Exactly. I came to a different conclusion. Yes I know you will believe them. Sheep follow their Sheppard.

That's the difference...I don't follow a "shepherd" like religious people. I don't care who says something, as long as they back up their claims with OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. The creationist pseudo-scientific sites demonstrably lie and misinterpret facts, all in an effort to still support their faith even though science debunked a ton of their religious claims like the global flood.