Poll: Do you believe in speciation?

[Internet Kraken]

The reason you don't understand how speciation could work is due to your own lack of knowledge.

For example you say that if a new species is born it should die off because it has no one to mate with. This assumes that one species suddenly gave birth to a completely different species. This is not the case. New species are the result of gradual changes over massive periods of time. These changes occur gradually, so there is not a reproductive barrier set up between this individual and the rest of the species because there are not enough genetic differences between it and the rest of the population for it to qualify as a new species. Over time these differences will increase and eventually reproductive barriers will form. However, by this point there will be many other individuals within the new species, so reproduction can still occur.

Sorry if this isn't the best explanation, but this can be hard to explain.

 

[Bobkat1252]

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.

I was going to type something up but your explanation sums it up perfectly. The xkcd quote only made me like your post even more.

 

[Pseudonym2]

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.

It counts as a new species when it can longer breed with old species. Once a mutation happens it stays in the genetic code and the trait is passed down. A new species is occurres when members who have the trait stop breeding with those that don't have usually due to isolation. It helps if the new trait is dominant. I just gave away the book that explains this better than I can. If you don't understand message me back and hopefully I will found the information again.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

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.

No, the Big Bang makes perfect sense. Well, maybe not the Bang itself but certainly its effects.

It's like if I were to chop your arm off. How I did it really doesn't matter because I just chopped your fracking arm off! The effects off my action are more important than the process.

 

[dnnydllr]

The reason you don't understand how speciation could work is due to your own lack of knowledge.

For example you say that if a new species is born it should die off because it has no one to mate with. This assumes that one species suddenly gave birth to a completely different species. This is not the case. New species are the result of gradual changes over massive periods of time. These changes occur gradually, so there is not a reproductive barrier set up between this individual and the rest of the species because there are not enough genetic differences between it and the rest of the population for it to qualify as a new species. Over time these differences will increase and eventually reproductive barriers will form. However, by this point there will be many other individuals within the new species, so reproduction can still occur.

Yes, I do lack a great amount of knowledge on this topic. But how is it exactly that a reproductive barrier suddenly pops up between two species?

 

[Good morning blues]

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.

Speciation takes place over the course of tens of thousands of years - many, many generations. Yes, there is a pretty severe difference between a human and the first eukaroyote; that difference is the mutations that were introduced and preserved over the course of trillions upon trillions of generations. If you don't believe that the Earth has been around for long enough to facilitate this, you're discounting a number of different geological dating techniques that operate on different principles, so basically we're never going to agree upon it.

Speciation, it should be clear, is a gradual process that occurs in populations, not individuals. The first organism to have a mutation is going to be able to reproduce with its parent species, because it still is one of those. If one population is somehow prevented from interbreeding with another of the same species, however - usually geographically, although 'herd' behavior also works - it's quite easy for one of the populations to mutate sufficiently to be unable to reproduce with the parent species over a few thousand years.

We do see animals changing species today. Since the process takes thousands of years and humans are very, very lucky to live to be 100 years old, it's kind of hard to know it when we see it.

 

[dnnydllr]

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.

No, the Big Bang makes perfect sense. Well, maybe not the Bang itself but certainly its effects.

It's like if I were to chop your arm off. How I did it really doesn't matter because I just chopped your fracking arm off! The effects off my action are more important than the process.

What doesn't make sense about the big bang is...well where exactly the hell did it come from? An infinitely dense particle(that came from nowhere) explodes...who thought of that and how does it even make sense?

 

[Bruiser80]

I think at this point it's a big question mark. I think evolution being the answer to everything is a bit lacking. Sure, there's scientific principle making the basis, but, as you say, there doesn't seem to be a lot of scientific proof (requiring evidence) that mutations alone lead to new species.

The first step you have to make is Bacteria evolving into a multi-cell organism, then those multi-cell organisms evolving into larger organisms, and so on. Granted, there is LOTS of time for these mutations to occur, and I can even see where mutation can eventually lead to different species, but how does an animal jump from larger categories? How does an early dinosaur (lizard-type walk) evolve into a late dinosaur (up-right walk)? That change requires a completely different skeletal and muscle structure.

Then you have faith-based answers that species were created. Admittedly, that answers lots of questions, but it's a hollow victory. You haven't won the argument - you've just punted. The way I see it, people who side with evolution haven't won the argument either as their theories are unproven, as there isn't enough evidence to say for certain that evolution is the way it went down.

As for your issue in HighSchool, I found that the time spent on "Macro" Evolution in Biology was so minuscule compared to the time spent on widely accepted science to make it a big deal. When it comes to tests, they're asking what theories have been taught, not what you personally think. That mentality got me through any rough spots. Who knows? They might be right!

I consider myself a religious person with doubts. I try to question the world around me. Consider a time before Newton. Physics was in its infancy. If you asked somebody to sketch a ballistic trajectory, they could do a decent (although inaccurate) job of it without knowing that it's a constant pull of gravity that shapes the curve. If the accepted theory was that aether pushes down on everything to keep in on the planet, they would think somebody with a knowledge of Newtonian physics was crazy. The same is true with evolution. There's an accepted theory, but that doesn't make it right. Time might prove there was another reason species evolved the way they did.

So I try to keep an open mind. I acknowledge the THEORY of macro evolution and use it as a working practice in my life, as it gets the job done. When a new theory can disprove the current, I'll go with that. There will always be something that humankind doesn't know about, and that's where science crosses over into faith.

 

[dnnydllr]

I think at this point it's a big question mark. I think evolution being the answer to everything is a bit lacking. Sure, there's scientific principle making the basis, but, as you say, there doesn't seem to be a lot of scientific proof (requiring evidence) that mutations alone lead to new species.

The first step you have to make is Bacteria evolving into a multi-cell organism, then those multi-cell organisms evolving into larger organisms, and so on. Granted, there is LOTS of time for these mutations to occur, and I can even see where mutation can eventually lead to different species, but how does an animal jump from larger categories? How does an early dinosaur (lizard-type walk) evolve into a late dinosaur (up-right walk)? That change requires a completely different skeletal and muscle structure.

Then you have faith-based answers that species were created. Admittedly, that answers lots of questions, but it's a hollow victory. You haven't won the argument - you've just punted. The way I see it, people who side with evolution haven't won the argument either as their theories are unproven, as there isn't enough evidence to say for certain that evolution is the way it went down.

As for your issue in HighSchool, I found that the time spent on "Macro" Evolution in Biology was so minuscule compared to the time spent on widely accepted science to make it a big deal. When it comes to tests, they're asking what theories have been taught, not what you personally think. That mentality got me through any rough spots. Who knows? They might be right!

I consider myself a religious person with doubts. I try to question the world around me. Consider a time before Newton. Physics was in its infancy. If you asked somebody to sketch a ballistic trajectory, they could do a decent (although inaccurate) job of it without knowing that it's a constant pull of gravity that shapes the curve. If the accepted theory was that aether pushes down on everything to keep in on the planet, they would think somebody with a knowledge of Newtonian physics was crazy. The same is true with evolution. There's an accepted theory, but that doesn't make it right. Time might prove there was another reason species evolved the way they did.

So I try to keep an open mind. I acknowledge the THEORY of macro evolution and use it as a working practice in my life, as it gets the job done. When a new theory can disprove the current, I'll go with that. There will always be something that humankind doesn't know about, and that's where science crosses over into faith.

Very very well put, thank you.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Yes, I do lack a great amount of knowledge on this topic. But how is it exactly that a reproductive barrier suddenly pops up between two species?

There's many reasons, maybe a river starts flowing in between a populated area. Two populations of the same species become sundered and perhaps eventually genetically incompatible.

Maybe there's a strong wind that year and seeds blow to the other side of a mountain range.

Maybe a band decides to walk "over there" and doesn't come back.

 

[Internet Kraken]

The reason you don't understand how speciation could work is due to your own lack of knowledge.

For example you say that if a new species is born it should die off because it has no one to mate with. This assumes that one species suddenly gave birth to a completely different species. This is not the case. New species are the result of gradual changes over massive periods of time. These changes occur gradually, so there is not a reproductive barrier set up between this individual and the rest of the species because there are not enough genetic differences between it and the rest of the population for it to qualify as a new species. Over time these differences will increase and eventually reproductive barriers will form. However, by this point there will be many other individuals within the new species, so reproduction can still occur.

Yes, I do lack a great amount of knowledge on this topic. But how is it exactly that a reproductive barrier suddenly pops up between two species?

I'm not sure how a post-zygotic barrier comes to be. I believe that the gradual changes eventually modify the reproductive organs of the species to the point that they are no longer compatible.

However I do know that sexual barriers can be pre-zygotic. These occur due to changes in a populations environment or behavior. For example, there could be a species of flies that mate on a red flower. Some of the flies can't find a red flower to mate on, so they mate on a white flower. Eventually more members of the fly population mate on the white flowers while the other mate on the red flowers. Eventually sexual reproduction between the two species ends because they are separated by the environments in which they mate. This would be an example of the pre-zygotic reproductive barrier of habitat isolation.

 

[ChainsawEnima]

It doesn't matter if you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, you will still be judged.

 

[dnnydllr]

Yes, I do lack a great amount of knowledge on this topic. But how is it exactly that a reproductive barrier suddenly pops up between two species?

There's many reasons, maybe a river starts flowing in between a populated area. Two populations of the same species become sundered and perhaps eventually genetically incompatible.

Maybe there's a strong wind that year and seeds blow to the other side of a mountain range.

Maybe a band decides to walk "over there" and doesn't come back.

That still doesn't explain why those species can't get back together at a later point and still reproduce despite their different appearances.

 

[Bruiser80]

The reason you don't understand how speciation could work is due to your own lack of knowledge.

For example you say that if a new species is born it should die off because it has no one to mate with. This assumes that one species suddenly gave birth to a completely different species. This is not the case. New species are the result of gradual changes over massive periods of time. These changes occur gradually, so there is not a reproductive barrier set up between this individual and the rest of the species because there are not enough genetic differences between it and the rest of the population for it to qualify as a new species. Over time these differences will increase and eventually reproductive barriers will form. However, by this point there will be many other individuals within the new species, so reproduction can still occur.

Sorry if this isn't the best explanation, but this can be hard to explain.

If a series of Microevolutions results in Macroevolution, where is the evidence of this procedure? This is where the logic breaks for him. Where is the advantage of an flightless wing? How, over millenia, does that wing develop into something useful, and where do the flight motions come from, if the previous generations couldn't fly?

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes. The fossil record presents some very convincing evidence and I'm inclined to agree with the assertion that it proves evolution.

 

[dnnydllr]

The reason you don't understand how speciation could work is due to your own lack of knowledge.

For example you say that if a new species is born it should die off because it has no one to mate with. This assumes that one species suddenly gave birth to a completely different species. This is not the case. New species are the result of gradual changes over massive periods of time. These changes occur gradually, so there is not a reproductive barrier set up between this individual and the rest of the species because there are not enough genetic differences between it and the rest of the population for it to qualify as a new species. Over time these differences will increase and eventually reproductive barriers will form. However, by this point there will be many other individuals within the new species, so reproduction can still occur.

Yes, I do lack a great amount of knowledge on this topic. But how is it exactly that a reproductive barrier suddenly pops up between two species?

I'm not sure how a post-zygotic barrier comes to be. I believe that the gradual changes eventually modify the reproductive organs of the species to the point that they are no longer compatible.

However I do know that sexual barriers can be pre-zygotic. These occur due to changes in a populations environment or behavior. For example, there could be a species of flies that mate on a red flower. Some of the flies can't find a red flower to mate on, so they mate on a white flower. Eventually more members of the fly population mate on the white flowers while the other mate on the red flowers. Eventually sexual reproduction between the two species ends because they are separated by the environments in which they mate. This would be an example of the pre-zygotic reproductive barrier of habitat isolation.

Again, those species could still get back together at some point, maybe even by accident, and mate, still making them the same species. I don't understand how a species can mutate so much that it becomes incompatible with it's own species, and yet still compatible with another.
I'd also like to say that i may be making myself to look like a complete idiot, which I quite frankly am in this field. But i think that we will never know where we nor the earth came from, and it's okay to have theories but when something that can't be proven is more or less forced to be true, it really bothers me.

 

[insanelich]

@OP:

You're the most rage-inducing person I've ever seen post on these forums.

You either trolling, lack in intelligence to comprehend what you're talking about it or lack the most basic knowledge of the subject and the wisdom to understand that you understand very little.

Speciation is very simple and is a logical, INEVITABLE consequence of microevolution. There's no cutoff point between microevolution and macroevolution, as the names should hint you. The difference is in the scale.

Once reproduction starts happening, mutations start kicking in and evolution begins. Once/if these mutations render separated groups of organisms incapable of interbreeding, speciation starts to happen. Very simple.

Also, no way to date the earth, and your argument is the bloody *Big Bang*?!?

It has NOTHING to do with the formation of earth nor dating it. Dating the planet is most reliably done with radiometric dating. Dating the solar system is a bit trickier, but it can be assumed that the Sun formed before the Earth, with what the matter of the protoplanetary cloud and all. This is not rocket science.

Disregarding the Big Bang as the start of it all, however - you're right, it makes no sense, and anyone who actually does science as opposed to teaching it sees this. It's actually a part of a multitude of more complex theories - you should never use the butchered remains of a scientific theory after the media has cut choice parts off for anything but laughing at people.

Nevermind the age of the universe and associated bullshit, which is made a wee bit tricky by the fact that we can perceive only so much. Once teachers/wikiexperts get a hold of that, however, expect hypotheses to be handled as absolute fact and lack of data as evidence.

Which has nothing to do with speciation and planetary age, both simple and easy to grasp concepts there is little reason to doubt! All you are is superstitious!

 

[Alex_P]

Again, those species could still get back together at some point, maybe even by accident, and mate, still making them the same species.

Ah, but what happens if they don't?

What happens if a hundred thousand years pass and they still haven't? One million? Ten million?

-- Alex

 

[dnnydllr]

@OP:

You're the most rage-inducing person I've ever seen post on these forums.

You either trolling, lack in intelligence to comprehend what you're talking about it or lack the most basic knowledge of the subject and the wisdom to understand that you understand very little.

Speciation is very simple and is a logical, INEVITABLE consequence of microevolution. There's no cutoff point between microevolution and macroevolution, as the names should hint you. The difference is in the scale.

Once reproduction starts happening, mutations start kicking in and evolution begins. Once/if these mutations render separated groups of organisms incapable of interbreeding, speciation starts to happen. Very simple.

Also, no way to date the earth, and your argument is the bloody *Big Bang*?!?

It has NOTHING to do with the formation of earth nor dating it. Dating the planet is most reliably done with radiometric dating. Dating the solar system is a bit trickier, but it can be assumed that the Sun formed before the Earth, with what the matter of the protoplanetary cloud and all. This is not rocket science.

Disregarding the Big Bang as the start of it all, however - you're right, it makes no sense, and anyone who actually does science as opposed to teaching it sees this. It's actually a part of a multitude of more complex theories - you should never use the butchered remains of a scientific theory after the media has cut choice parts off for anything but laughing at people.

Nevermind the age of the universe and associated bullshit, which is made a wee bit tricky by the fact that we can perceive only so much. Once teachers/wikiexperts get a hold of that, however, expect hypotheses to be handled as absolute fact and lack of data as evidence.

Which has nothing to do with speciation and planetary age, both simple and easy to grasp concepts there is little reason to doubt! All you are is superstitious!

Was this post directed to me?

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

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.

No, the Big Bang makes perfect sense. Well, maybe not the Bang itself but certainly its effects.

It's like if I were to chop your arm off. How I did it really doesn't matter because I just chopped your fracking arm off! The effects off my action are more important than the process.

What doesn't make sense about the big bang is...well where exactly the hell did it come from? An infinitely dense particle(that came from nowhere) explodes...who thought of that and how does it even make sense?

I just said that it's relatively irrelevant what caused the Big Bang. The Universe shows clear and compelling evidence that it was created in an explosion about 15 billion years ago.

Though if you want an answer M-theory suggests that the Big Bang was caused by an 11[sup]th[/sup] dimensional collision.