Poll: Do you believe in speciation?

[Scarecrow38]

I believe in Evolution but that shouldn't mean that I immediately not believe in Creation. I don't think they're opposites.

 

[dnnydllr]

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

Good question. What happens over those years that makes those two a completely different species?

 

[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?

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.

Clear and compelling evidence that it was caused by an explosion 15 billion years ago? Where is this evidence and where do we get 15 billion years which is pretty much an infinite amount of time?

 

[insanelich]

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?

There is no need to have an advantage for a flightless wing!

All it needs is little enough negative consequence as to not significantly interfere with breeding and survival until breeding.

The flight motions then again come when a species that learns to fly survives better than the rest of the species. In theory there's no reason why species that is unable to fly and never has had an ancestor able to fly wouldn't have perfect flight reflexes coded into them.

It's just unlikely given it'd provide no advantage.

 

[iJosh]

Yes. Yes I do.

 

[insanelich]

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.

The OBSERVABLE universe you bloody heretic!

You start mixing those things up and soon you're in bloody lalaland without any regard for causality, observability, demonstrability and other such fundamental concepts of science!

 

[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.

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?

There is no need to have an advantage for a flightless wing!

All it needs is little enough negative consequence as to not significantly interfere with breeding and survival until breeding.

The flight motions then again come when a species that learns to fly survives better than the rest of the species. In theory there's no reason why species that is unable to fly and never has had an ancestor able to fly wouldn't have perfect flight reflexes coded into them.

It's just unlikely given it'd provide no advantage.

Wouldn't a flightless wing be more of a disadvantage and more or less just get in the way? Isn't that just a weakness?

 

[Thunderhorse31]

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.

How exactly would this be speciation/cause the two groups to be incompatible?

I'm pretty sure that even though I've had zero contact with the Aborigines, I'd be able to mate with them

 

[insanelich]

Wouldn't a flightless wing be more of a disadvantage and more or less just get in the way? Isn't that just a weakness?

Not necessarily, and it could be paired off with a beneficial mutation.

How exactly would this be speciation/cause the two groups to be incompatible?

I'm pretty sure that even though I've had zero contact with the Aborigines, I'd be able to mate with them

You've had zero contact with the Aborigines. Has your bloody SPECIES had zero contact with the Aborigines for, say, a hundred million years?

 

[joystickjunki3]

I think you (the OP) are looking at things w/ a far too narrow mind regarding the span of time these events would have supposedly taken place in.

 

[dnnydllr]

Wouldn't a flightless wing be more of a disadvantage and more or less just get in the way? Isn't that just a weakness?

Not necessarily, and it could be paired off with a beneficial mutation.

How exactly would this be speciation/cause the two groups to be incompatible?

I'm pretty sure that even though I've had zero contact with the Aborigines, I'd be able to mate with them

You've had zero contact with the Aborigines. Has your bloody SPECIES had zero contact with the Aborigines for, say, a hundred million years?

So if it takes a hundred million years for new species to form and there are probably a hundred million species on the planet...well that's a rather large number isn't it? I see speciation as something that would take beyond infinity to occur.

 

[Bruiser80]

@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!

Funny that you are showing much more rage than the OP and have resorted to name-calling.

I don't think anybody is saying the theory of evolution explaining the origin of species is wrong. They're merely stating that it isn't proven, and as thus, is open to conjecture.

I agree that it's the best working theory we have, but that doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught.

Just don't be surprised in 50 years when some new theory, or an add-on to the existing theory is discovered and the current theory is tabled. And how is scientific understanding expanded? Through research and testing. Taking a theory and assuming it as infallible sets you up to become the next generation's flat-earthers.

As I've said in previous posts, current accepted theory is just that - an accepted theory. It's accepted as true because a better theory doesn't exist yet.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Don't worry, I'm not part of any teacher boards or anything ;-)

 

[dnnydllr]

@OP:

This is not rocket science.

It's theoretical science that can't be proven.....

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Clear and compelling evidence that it was caused by an explosion 15 billion years ago? Where is this evidence and where do we get 15 billion years which is pretty much an infinite amount of time?

Estimates range from 13 billion to over 20, I figured 15 to be a nice round median.

Universal expansion is the evidence, observed trajectories for galaxies suggest a common origin.

I'm no cosmologist though, if you want to know how people found this I suggest you look it up in Wikipedia.

And the Big Bang has very little correlation to the evolution of life on Earth. Dating on the continental crust puts the Earth at at least 2 billion years old which is probably a little longer than life has existed here so let's accept that and move on.

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.

The OBSERVABLE universe you bloody heretic!

You start mixing those things up and soon you're in bloody lalaland without any regard for causality, observability, demonstrability and other such fundamental concepts of science!

Please! Pardon my transgressions, I'm no infidel!

 

[dnnydllr]

Clear and compelling evidence that it was caused by an explosion 15 billion years ago? Where is this evidence and where do we get 15 billion years which is pretty much an infinite amount of time?

Estimates range from 13 billion to over 20, I figured 15 to be a nice round median.

Universal expansion is the evidence, observed trajectories for galaxies suggest a common origin.

I'm no cosmologist though, if you want to know how people found this I suggest you look it up in Wikipedia.

And the Big Bang has very little correlation to the evolution of life on Earth. Dating on the continental crust puts the Earth at at least 2 billion years old which is probably a little longer than life has existed here so let's accept that and move on.

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.

The OBSERVABLE universe you bloody heretic!

You start mixing those things up and soon you're in bloody lalaland without any regard for causality, observability, demonstrability and other such fundamental concepts of science!

Please! Pardon my transgressions, I'm no infidel!

I didn't mean to mix the big bang and evolution. I do know that they are more or less irrelevant to each other, but i think someone mentioned it before somewhere and I brought it up as more of a side point. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

So if it takes a hundred million years for new species to form and there are probably a hundred million species on the planet...well that's a rather large number isn't it? I see speciation as something that would take beyond infinity to occur.

It doesn't take that long. Ever heard about goats and sheep? They used to be the same species until humans started breeding them for huge fleece or higher milk production.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

To be clear, we're discussing speciation right? Not local adaptation, not differentiation of population (which MAY lead to speciation, but there's no way to assume in advance, and to date it has not been observed outside of plant life), but the actual splitting of one species into two distinct ones, yes?

 

[insanelich]

Funny that you are showing much more rage than the OP and have resorted to name-calling.

I don't think anybody is saying the theory of evolution explaining the origin of species is wrong. They're merely stating that it isn't proven, and as thus, is open to conjecture.

I agree that it's the best working theory we have, but that doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught.

Just don't be surprised in 50 years when some new theory, or an add-on to the existing theory is discovered and the current theory is tabled. And how is scientific understanding expanded? Through research and testing. Taking a theory and assuming it as infallible sets you up to become the next generation's flat-earthers.

As I've said in previous posts, current accepted theory is just that - an accepted theory. It's accepted as true because a better theory doesn't exist yet.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Don't worry, I'm not part of any teacher boards or anything ;-)

I'm not resorting to name-calling, because those are the only circumstances I can see that can result in the post we saw.

Also I'm all for healthy skepticism of the divine mandate of Science!, but there's also the thing called doubting too much. We have plenty of data that supports evolution, unlike, say, string theory or big bang. Data that should be considered rather than outright dismissing it in a fashion very reminiscent of "it's not in the book, it never happened".

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

To be clear, we're discussing speciation right? Not local adaptation, not differentiation of population (which MAY lead to speciation, but there's no way to assume in advance, and to date it has not been observed outside of plant life), but the actual splitting of one species into two distinct ones, yes?

Yes, and there's evidence of it in human history. Dogs and wolves for instance.

 

[insanelich]

So if it takes a hundred million years for new species to form and there are probably a hundred million species on the planet...well that's a rather large number isn't it? I see speciation as something that would take beyond infinity to occur.

It doesn't take that long. Ever heard about goats and sheep? They used to be the same species until humans started breeding them for huge fleece or higher milk production.

However, it might very well take that long in something as complex as humans without significant selective breeding pressure.

When a designer steps in the usual rules of evolution are considered null and void. I personally say we should stop the use of the word evolution then to keep ourselves from muddying the issue.