"The origin of species"

a reply to: Tempter

You've got it backwards. If an organism ever gave birth to an entirely new species, the scenario would actually negate Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, not support it.

Like so many of the sciences, I am neither sufficiently educated nor adequately equipped to determine for myself what the ultimate truth of our ancestry is as a species. I can only say that the preponderance of evidence as I understand it - which may not mean much - strongly suggests something like the currently accepted model.

That said, I also suspect that model will change many times and continue to be refined over time, like all scientific theories do. There exists a continual tension between empirical science's refusal to make 100% assertions but instead merely to apply probabilities and models, and the more mainstream popularized readings of science which then take those models and probabilities as absolute fact and articulate them as though they are taken for granted. Research is ongoing. Discoveries are ongoing. Science, like us, evolves.

So are we related to fish? At the moment I would say it seems that way. But that could always change, and the truth is, as with so many things... I simply don't know.

On a lighter note, the thread's title reminded me of this somewhat tongue in cheek song by Chris Smither.



Peace.

A human doesn't just pop out of a fish. The main ingredient is time. Look how how much the average height of humans has changed over the last century. Its hard to comprehend but as the age of the universe is 13 billion plus years a century is a extremely small fraction.

Different species can share elements of skeletal structures and you can see it. Neanderthals and homoerectus are different species to homosapien yet it is not hard to imagine we evolved from such a species. Homoerectus is closer in time to us then fish.

Fish came to land just like far later, apes came out from trees and descended on the flat plains and became bi pedal in nature. It didn't happen over 100 years it took millions or billions but yes it is possible fish are one of our ancestors.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Thanks for this sensible answer.

DNA is life's hereditary material plain and simple. It is the instructions for life/species development.

I'm still not sure why DNA is what makes you think the origin of species is other species, your statements about it apply whether or they are.

That is your problem, there was no "first". We can not look at the time line and say here is when the first human popped on the scene, or here is the first grape vine.

That's why I love rational people, thanks for pinpointing this.

The thing is there actually is a first, no matter how long millions of years are, and here's why:

If beings procreate through spacetime as they do, they are born at one point and die some time later, and their offspring, while they may be albino or shorter or have a sixth finger, do the same.

Therefore if DNA drifts slowly through sixth fingers and albinos until fish become birds, the first creature that you personally, or even the president of the national institute of biology if you prefer, considers to be a bird is the first bird. Of course this raises all the red flags in your mind and mine alike because it's preposterous, yet it's the only logical way that fish would become birds slowly over time: generation 1 is a fish, generation 2 is an albino fish, generation 56987552 is both a bird and the first bird. This allows for the subjectivity of who is human and who isn't, despite the notion of species clearly being logically defined by the reproductive ability of its members. And think about all the stages between fish and bird that would be so completely not adapted to living, seriously.

The reason this looks preposterous is that we instinctively know there's something wrong with that model and there is: although Englishmen and Australians could breed together, some were "not as evolved", guess which, and were replaced because they were closer to their monkey ancestors. Well there weren't too many monkeys in Australia but like kangaroo ancestors, as newspapers of that time suggest.

The Darwinian argument that the buffer zone between monkey and man is far greater than recorded history in terms of time served his purpose well, and was proven to be bunk even during his lifetime.

Man is man, cousins are cousins, and monkeys are monkeys.

There is no magic in DNA/RNA, and there is no "first" either, there is only continuous change, and if we want to call that change species then so be it, just like we call that pile of carbon with complex chemical reaction life...lol

Does this continuous change include species becoming other species? I don't see how, because species is defined as & c.

If we go back to the donkey and horse when did the first donkey appear?

To get back to this horse and donkey thing: does it make sense to you that all hybrids are sterile? They are.
If horses and donkeys or lions and tigers can mix, but not have lineage, which has been demonstrated, there's a serious thing going on about not mixing species going on.

See it this way: horse had 64 diploid chromosomes, which is more than the donkey has, and they can mix. But just that one generation. Why? And most interestingly, why can't a frog and a bird make eggs together at all?
They're both coded in DNA.

Species being incompatible isn't the only thing that I find invalidates the idea of the origin of species being other species, but the conjunction of this fact with there being an absolute first bacterium, frog, bird, man, and every species does.

Imagine the world the day before life. Did these unicellulars appear seventeen at a time?
If not, there's a first of the first species, which means there's a first of the second species.

Which means there's a first of every species, obviously.

a reply to: vjr1113

you dont understand why the dinosaurs died off and other animals did not.

I have my opinion on this but since you said that, go for it: tell me why the dinosaurs died off and other animals did not, please.

a reply to: rnaa

Only there isn't really a 'first B'. There is only A', A'', A''', ...,A'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' (oh to heck with counting the primes, lets just start calling it B).

Naming is fine, but species actually are defined as & c.

There absolutely is a first B, as your quote says, except it's not about counting primes, it's about not being able to breed with A.

a reply to: rnaa

Animals that don't have to bother with processing the signal from their eyes can 'spend' that saved energy on improving other senses that can actually help them locate food and mates in the dark. That little bit of advantage means their 'kind' will eventually dominate the population. That is one of the simplest examples of natural selection.

Fair enough, thanks for correcting me on this. Blindness in the dark can be an advantage through rerouteing computing power to other senses.
Transparent blind fish from deep caves do recover colouring and vision in the right circumstance though, so ly question to you, who seem to know what you're talking about, is:

What makes you think the origin of species is other species?


You seem to know

a reply to: Tempter

Personally, I find evolution to be garbage science. Fossils of transitional animals should be everywhere, but we don't have a single example that I'm aware of. And don't tell me all beings are in transition because we are clearly able to set demarcation points between species today. And these demarcation points should be EASILY identifiable between transitional fossils.

I know right

a reply to: rnaa

Look at all the Finch species on the Galapagos - different species that would be nigh on impossible to tell apart if all we had to go on was a fossilized skeleton.

Classic example, but thing is finches interbreed so are not different species.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Tempter
I didn't make any supernatural claims. And it must be nice, conducting this "science" without proof or methods to actually test. Neverending the fact you can't show me ONE EXAMPLE, lab-created or not, of a species giving birth to another species. Ever.

Observed Instances of Speciation

This is a lot to go over. I'll get back to you. Skimming through it does seem there are rare occurrences but I'd need to check the references. There might be other factors that resulted in the shifts in those plant examples.

That said, I'm always ready to hear the truth, should it be undeniable.

a reply to: rnaa

I said that, I think and not the guy you responded to.

You're right. I was stuck between two lines of thinking. Absolutely

a reply to: rnaa

Here is the fact: EVERY FOSSIL IS A TRANSITION FOSSIL - ALL BEINGS ARE IN TRANSITION ALL THE TIME.

No. Because from context you mean transition of species, which just doesn't seem to happen.

Everything evolves constantly yes.
Children aren't exact copies of their parents yes.
Children aren't from a different species than their parents.

Unless of course the origin of species is another species, as Darwin says. But saying that's science?
It's not even scientology.

a reply to: Tempter

4.0 Telling Whether a Speciation Event Has Occurred

What evidence is necessary to show that a change produced in a population of organisms constitutes a speciation event? The answer to this question will depend on which species definition applies to the organisms involved.

From the website link you quote.

If money is defined as happiness, then money is happiness.

Species are defined by the same website on the same page as an interfertile community.
Then he admits that's not the right definition for his click and bait title to follow though.

To resort to such tactics, in defence of a valid theory? Why?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Tempter

4.0 Telling Whether a Speciation Event Has Occurred

What evidence is necessary to show that a change produced in a population of organisms constitutes a speciation event? The answer to this question will depend on which species definition applies to the organisms involved.

From the website link you quote.

If money is defined as happiness, then money is happiness.

Species are defined by the same website on the same page as an interfertile community.
Then he admits that's not the right definition for his click and bait title to follow though.

To resort to such tactics, in defence of a valid theory? Why?

That's why I said I need time to read it thoroughly. This was someone else's source, not mine.

a reply to: Tempter

Skimming through it does seem there are rare occurrences

This is why I went ahead and clicked, I don't read what the original poster of the link says to save time, and was hoping I could extend the favour to you by pinpointing where the long click & bait article turned ridiculous.

edit to add:

and by "turned ridiculous" I mean invalidates its own title.

a reply to: Tempter

Cool links, thanks. Look, I'm not an idiot. I look for empirical evidence and until you can give me an example of a species giving birth to another species your THEORY is baseless and just as ridiculous as a skylord.

How many times does it have to be said before you absorb it?

Evolution DOES NOT claim that "a species gives birth to another species" from one generation to the next as you mean it and if an example of such a thing is ever found it will PROVE that the theory is false.

Get it? ONE Species does NOT give birth to another!

One population DIVIDES into two (or more) populations and proceed to evolve differently.

At some point the two separate populations can no longer interbreed and are said to be two different species.

Individuals do NOT 'suddenly' give birth to a new species. Separated populations diverge from one another, become more and more unlike each other, with each generation. Generation after generation. With in a given population individuals can ALWAYS breed with other individuals of the same population, ALWAYS (assuming their 'personal' mutations don't make them 'non-viable' of course - that's natural selection at work).

Over time, two different populations of the same organism that are not in physical contact, become not just different populations, but different organisms - different species.

What I detect is that you are continually confusing cause for effect and effect for cause.

Populations don't split because some individuals give birth to a new species. New species arise out of ancestor populations because the ancestor population split into separate non-communicating populations.

Populations split because of environmental changes; earthquakes, floods, tectonic plate movements, whatever.

a reply to: Tempter

Neverending the fact you can't show me ONE EXAMPLE, lab-created or not, of a species giving birth to another species. Ever.

Because it doesn't happen, and that is not what the theory claims.

a reply to: wisvol

Classic example, but thing is finches interbreed so are not different species.

Different finch species DO NOT interbreed. That is why they ARE considered different species.

In some cases different species CAN interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but they DON'T - even when the actually live in the same locale. They are still considered different species.

As more and more examples of organisms that really must be considered different species are found able to produce fertile offspring, the very concept of 'species' becomes fuzzier and fuzzier. Many biologists are finding the term less and less useful and are beginning to avoid the term altogether, especially when discussing organism that are obviously closely related.

a reply to: rnaa

Jumping in just a moment

not what the theory claims.

Actually, the theory claims fish become people over a zillion tiny baby genetic steps.

Therefore the theory, to be correct, needs that however many step species there are between fish and man were given birth to by the previous on the list.

Long periods of time do not change this. Or species.

a reply to: rnaa

In some cases different species CAN interbreed and produce fertile offspring

This isn't what species mean.

the very concept of 'species' becomes fuzzier and fuzzier.

To some, obviously. But since we're writing in words, and words have meaning, species means species.