Poll: Do you believe in speciation?

[dnnydllr]

I'd like to start off by saying several things.
First, if this has been done before, from this same perspective, I'm truly sorry and will let it die.
Secondly, don't look at it from a religious standpoint, but rather from a scientific one
Third, be scientific in your responses if possible, and no douchebaggery, please.

So since the beginning of my High School career, the great(terrible) educational system of the United States of America has been trying to ram this concept down my throat, that being evolution. I don't mean the part where a species changes over time, as that is quite evidently true, but rather that all species came from a common ancestor through the process of speciation. I quite frankly don't see how this could possibly make any sense. Even through billions of random mutations, I don't think bacteria could turn into something as complex as a human. Also, is it not true that because species can only reproduce with members of the same species that whenever a new species did arise through a mutation it would immediately die off as it had no other organisms to reproduce with, because no other organisms would have that exact mutation turning it into that species? And why don't we see any animals changing species today? You'd think that at least one or two should be crossing over around now. I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me, and the fact that scientists blindly accept this as fact really grinds my gears. Every time i say something against it people immediately assume I'm looking at it from a creationist standpoint, when I really am not. I don't know if anyone else has opinions about this, but input would be very nice.

 

[dnnydllr]

Well you have to keep in mind the enormous amount of time this all took place in. it is such a long time thats its hard for us to really conceptualize 5 million years or longer, what do you think about when thinking that 100 million years have passed? That doesnt mean anything to most of us. So what exactly are you looking for? There really isnt many other theories, youre free to go with creationism but that involves believing an all powerful mad scientist created everything with a snap of the fingers.

I don't believe in Creationism actually, but I also don't believe that just because evolution is practically the only other option should mean that I have to accept it as fact. I think scientists just can't accept that they really don't know. Also, I really don't think the earth is that old.

 

[dnnydllr]

yes. i think it is appalling how over half of america believes in creationism

Keep creationism out of this please. That was not the intention of this topic.

 

[Ridonculous_Ninja]

The organisms that mutated would mutate with others of the species it originated from, because a single gene mutation isn't going to change the species of anything more complex than a single cell, and even then it is still generally the same. It's why you end up with strains of diseases and not a new disease every 5 minutes.
The number of mutations neccessary to render an indivudal different from its origin species would take generations to accomplish.

 

[dnnydllr]

The organisms that mutated would mutate with others of the species it originated from, because a single gene mutation isn't going to change the species of anything more complex than a single cell, and even then it is still generally the same. It's why you end up with strains of diseases and not a new disease every 5 minutes.
The number of mutations neccessary to render an indivudal different from its origin species would take generations to accomplish.

Exactly, so at what point in those mutations does it become a new species? Assume we're talking about humans, with a single organism per offspring. Once that mutation happens in the new species, how does another mutation occur to create that same species, as it is in fact a mutation and therefore happens quite rarely.

 

[Nmil-ek]

I'd like to start off by saying several things.
First, if this has been done before, from this same perspective, I'm truly sorry and will let it die.
Secondly, don't look at it from a religious standpoint, but rather from a scientific one
Third, be scientific in your responses if possible, and no douchebaggery, please.

So since the beginning of my High School career, the great(terrible) educational system of the United States of America has been trying to ram this concept down my throat, that being evolution. I don't mean the part where a species changes over time, as that is quite evidently true, but rather that all species came from a common ancestor through the process of speciation. I quite frankly don't see how this could possibly make any sense. Even through billions of random mutations, I don't think bacteria could turn into something as complex as a human. Also, is it not true that because species can only reproduce with members of the same species that whenever a new species did arise through a mutation it would immediately die off as it had no other organisms to reproduce with, because no other organisms would have that exact mutation turning it into that species? And why don't we see any animals changing species today? You'd think that at least one or two should be crossing over around now. I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me, and the fact that scientists blindly accept this as fact really grinds my gears. Every time i say something against it people immediately assume I'm looking at it from a creationist standpoint, when I really am not. I don't know if anyone else has opinions about this, but input would be very nice.

Your talking about abiogenesis here not the same ballpark as evolution, they tie in as a whole picture but abiogenesis is still contested in some circles evolution is pretty much as iron clad as its going to get.

 

[Lord Kofun]

Microevolution: Yes. It's been completely proven. No one doubts it.

Macroevolution: No. Call me cynical.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Well you have to keep in mind the enormous amount of time this all took place in. it is such a long time thats its hard for us to really conceptualize 5 million years or longer, what do you think about when thinking that 100 million years have passed? That doesnt mean anything to most of us. So what exactly are you looking for? There really isnt many other theories, youre free to go with creationism but that involves believing an all powerful mad scientist created everything with a snap of the fingers.

I don't believe in Creationism actually, but I also don't believe that just because evolution is practically the only other option should mean that I have to accept it as fact. I think scientists just can't accept that they really don't know. Also, I really don't think the earth is that old.

Now this is a common misconception, scientists do not think they know everything, they think they know nothing and are TRYING to know all. So they don't think its a fact, they just think its the mot likely option. (Sorry if I got the wrong message from your post but I was looking for someone to say something like this so I could post my response).

 

[ix_tab]

Yes. There is no doubt about it.

 

[dnnydllr]

Well you have to keep in mind the enormous amount of time this all took place in. it is such a long time thats its hard for us to really conceptualize 5 million years or longer, what do you think about when thinking that 100 million years have passed? That doesnt mean anything to most of us. So what exactly are you looking for? There really isnt many other theories, youre free to go with creationism but that involves believing an all powerful mad scientist created everything with a snap of the fingers.

I don't believe in Creationism actually, but I also don't believe that just because evolution is practically the only other option should mean that I have to accept it as fact. I think scientists just can't accept that they really don't know. Also, I really don't think the earth is that old.

Well it is possible that they are wrong, but until proven wrong it is perfectly safe to go with the current theory. Im not sure exactly what your beliefs are and im not here to ridicule you out of them, but how old do you believe the earth to be?

Well you have to keep in mind the enormous amount of time this all took place in. it is such a long time thats its hard for us to really conceptualize 5 million years or longer, what do you think about when thinking that 100 million years have passed? That doesnt mean anything to most of us. So what exactly are you looking for? There really isnt many other theories, youre free to go with creationism but that involves believing an all powerful mad scientist created everything with a snap of the fingers.

I don't believe in Creationism actually, but I also don't believe that just because evolution is practically the only other option should mean that I have to accept it as fact. I think scientists just can't accept that they really don't know. Also, I really don't think the earth is that old.

Well it is possible that they are wrong, but until proven wrong it is perfectly safe to go with the current theory. Im not sure exactly what your beliefs are and im not here to ridicule you out of them, but how old do you believe the earth to be?

That's just another problem. We don't know how the earth was formed, as the big bang makes more or less no sense, and therefore we cannot age the earth. So I'd say maybe in the tens of millions at most, but certainly not billions. I don't have many theories to be believe in, as you may have noticed.

 

[APPCRASH]

I'll believe anything someone tells me if it will get them to shut the hell up.

 

[Mookie_Magnus]

The thing is, though, that one mutation a new species does not make. It takes tens of thousands of years for something to become a new distinct species. Also, it happens throughout entire populations of animals. The mutations are based on the mutated animal's ability to mate and survive. Let's provide an example.

Let's say that a male coyote(they're common where I live) is born with a genetic trait that gives it an advantage over other coyotes... let's say... a different color fur. Providing that mankind does not get involved, this coyote will have an edge over the others, thus resulting in it being able to get more food. Because it is healthier, it will more easily mate with a female, passing down its genetic information for that special trait. Now, let's say that something happens and 80% of the coyotes who do not have this fur color are killed off somehow. Because it survived, a greater percentage of the population share its trait. Now repeat that process with other traits such as teeth, bones, muscles, etc. and in a few thousand years what once was a coyote is now a new type of canid, Canis novus, if you will.

It is, however, that all life on the planet evolved from one type of single-celled organism. Quite likely, the mystery that created life occurred all over the planet, resulting in different types of single-celled organisms, each unique to its environment. Use the same method of evolution that we used with the coyotes and you have speciation of bacteria, which eventually, according to this theory, changed into Eukaryotes(cells with nuclei, i.e. Protists) which began working together into masses of single-celled entities which eventually evolved into a single cohesive primitive life-form. Repeat evolutionary process until you get to the Cambrian Explosion, and continue from there until you have modern earth.

All it took was little bits over time, but with this you have proof that evolution does exist.

Science... it works, bitches.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Well, it's not exactly a common ancestor. Theories suggest (with much supporting evidence) that life evolved from simple self-replicating and amalgamating proteins that eventually became DNA/RNA. DNA became ever more complex and had begun to, in it's self-replicating processes, building non-protein structures around itself. These eventually became cells; capable of movement, reacting to stimuli, and even sexual reproduction.

Sexual reproduction is the real key to evolution. What good is a beneficial mutation if it doesn't spread?

And consider the progression of complexity, sure your ancestor back quadrillions of generations was some single celled organism floating around in primordial seas but that is a lot of grandparents ago.

 

[dnnydllr]

Down syndrome is a mutation, but they can still have children (and human ones I might add). A mutation is more of a variation of a species. I think the idea (and I'm likely wrong) is that an asexual amoeba mutated as it was dividing so that there were the previous, normal ones as well as the new, mutated ones being produced. And when getting into sexual reproduction, mutated animals breeding and passing the mutation along to their offspring eventually diversified them into different species. Keep in mind the vast, vast, vast amount of time this all is supposed to have taken place in.

I'm not saying every mutation forms a new species. I'm saying that two members of the same new species couldn't possibly be formed, as it is a mutation and doesn't occur very frequently in the same generation, let alone the exact same mutation.

 

[Pseudonym2]

I'd like to start off by saying several things.
First, if this has been done before, from this same perspective, I'm truly sorry and will let it die.
Secondly, don't look at it from a religious standpoint, but rather from a scientific one
Third, be scientific in your responses if possible, and no douchebaggery, please.

So since the beginning of my High School career, the great(terrible) educational system of the United States of America has been trying to ram this concept down my throat, that being evolution. I don't mean the part where a species changes over time, as that is quite evidently true, but rather that all species came from a common ancestor through the process of speciation. I quite frankly don't see how this could possibly make any sense.

Even through billions of random mutations, I don't think bacteria could turn into something as complex as a human.

It made a few stops among the away

Also, is it not true that because species can only reproduce with members of the same species that whenever a new species did arise through a mutation it would immediately die off as it had no other organisms to reproduce with, because no other organisms would have that exact mutation turning it into that species?

Species means and entities that can reproduce as sexually to produce fertile offspring. Not every breed of the same species can breed. For instance a female from a small breed of dog can't mate with a male from a large breed.

And why don't we see any animals changing species today?

We do. That's why you need a flue shot every year. Also some moths end up grayer to blend end when there's more pollution but are whiter when the factory shot down. Some one can breed flies to change colors withing months.

You'd think that at least one or two should be crossing over around now.

What do you mean "crossing over"?

I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me, and the fact that scientists blindly accept this as fact really grinds my gears. Every time i say something against it people immediately assume I'm looking at it from a creationist standpoint, when I really am not. I don't know if anyone else has opinions about this, but input would be very nice.

I'd try looking up epigenetics and more cutting edge work a evolution if you want to learn more about scientists working kinks out. It's been a while since I read about this so I don't know how up to date I am.

 

[dnnydllr]

Thought I should mention that I'm studying Darwin's finches for a massive Biology II test tomorrow as we discuss this...joy.