Poll: Do you believe in speciation?

[Thunderhorse31]

If two species are isolated from one another over massive periods of time then post-zygotic barriers can form. These are formed once the genetic differences between the two species are so vast that their reproductive systems are no longer compatible.

I agree with your line of reasoning, and it does seem quite sound, but - isn't this just an assumption of how it could happen, moreso than a scientific "we have observed this happen in cases x y and z" argument?

I mean, even the renown Darwinists Coyne and Orr in their book Speciation admit that while "partial reproductive isolation" can be achieved in a laboratory in about 100 generations, "one does not expect full speciation to occur in so few generations." Aren't they basically saying "if A, then Z," without observing steps B through Y?

 

[Internet Kraken]

I'm skeptical, to me the argument seems to be based on the magical ingredient"time" .
All the theories have such massive holes in them I find it irresponsible to just accept it as "fact"

A theory in science is different from the standard idea of a theory.

In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has large amounts of evidence to support it and little evidence that works against it. The theory of evolution has large amounts of supporting evidence and little evidence working against it.

Also it's not time that causes evolution. It's the slight genetic differences from one generation and another. It's just that you only notice these genetic differences when you compare a species to it's ancient relatives. Then you can see how over time these gradual genetic variations eventually led to massive changes.

But I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for how life started in the first place.

That's because there really isn't one. Right now all we have to go on are hypothesis for how life on earth began. However, these are lacking in supporting evidence as it's hard to trace anything back to billions of years ago.

However, this does not disprove the theory of evolution. We may not know exactly how life began, but we do know that modern life came to be through evolution.

 

[Ridonculous_Ninja]

The Earth is at least a billion years old, the universe, from the microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang puts the universe at around 13.7 billion years old.

Grade 9 educations ftw.

Your grade 9 educations have unfortunately left you a little on the less scientific side - but don't worry, that happens to apparently 90% of the Wikipedia-editing public and half of the scientific community.

The microwave radiation from the Big Bang puts the observable universe at at least 13.7 billion years old. While some people do comprehend that from the original, the general public probably won't. See, it's easy.

I actually just read your post on the other page was about to edit mine for fear of you disemboweling me.

Too late.

 

[Internet Kraken]

If two species are isolated from one another over massive periods of time then post-zygotic barriers can form. These are formed once the genetic differences between the two species are so vast that their reproductive systems are no longer compatible.

I agree with your line of reasoning, and it does seem quite sound, but - isn't this just an assumption of how it could happen, moreso than a scientific "we have observed this happen in cases x y and z" argument?

I mean, even the renown Darwinists Coyne and Orr in their book Speciation admit that while "partial reproductive isolation" can be achieved in a laboratory in about 100 generations, "one does not expect full speciation to occur in so few generations." Aren't they basically saying "if A, then Z," without observing steps B through Y?

The fossil record is the evidence that supports this theory.

 

[insanelich]

If two species are isolated from one another over massive periods of time then post-zygotic barriers can form. These are formed once the genetic differences between the two species are so vast that their reproductive systems are no longer compatible.

I agree with your line of reasoning, and it does seem quite sound, but - isn't this just an assumption of how it could happen, moreso than a scientific "we have observed this happen in cases x y and z" argument?

I mean, even the renown Darwinists Coyne and Orr in their book Speciation admit that while "partial reproductive isolation" can be achieved in a laboratory in about 100 generations, "one does not expect full speciation to occur in so few generations." Aren't they basically saying "if A, then Z," without observing steps B through Y?

No, they're saying "if A, then Z, but we cannot observe certain steps because we do not have thousands or millions of years of lab time".

Why don't you invent a machine that speeds up time so we can actually get real lab results as opposed to using best available data?

 

[insanelich]

The Earth is at least a billion years old, the universe, from the microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang puts the universe at around 13.7 billion years old.

Grade 9 educations ftw.

Your grade 9 educations have unfortunately left you a little on the less scientific side - but don't worry, that happens to apparently 90% of the Wikipedia-editing public and half of the scientific community.

The microwave radiation from the Big Bang puts the observable universe at at least 13.7 billion years old. While some people do comprehend that from the original, the general public probably won't. See, it's easy.

I actually just read your post on the other page was about to edit mine for fear of you disemboweling me.

Too late.

Don't worry, if I'm not outright calling you a moron, you probably didn't flub up too badly. ;p

 

[Thunderhorse31]

If you really want to see how evolution is not just a viable theory, but in all probability is the best solution for why we have different species, you should read Dawkins on the issue. I'm not saying you have to read "The God Delusion" (although it is an excelent book), but if you want to get the argument for evolution, without the conversation about religion, read one of his earlier books, "Mount Improbable" for instance. Dawkins is a man who really understands evolution, he's excited to speak about it, interesting to read, and really quite eloquent.

Dawkins is a first-rate zoologist but a second-rate philosopher, and a third-rate sociologist. He's a brilliant man whose books I enjoy tremendously, but his arguments against religion are average at best. He truly is the master of the straw-man.

But yes, in the interest of researching all points of the argument (especially on Darwinism), you can't go wrong with Dawkins.

On another note, has anyone read Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson? It provides an interesting take on this whole discussion that shouldn't be ignored...

 

[Haydyn]

I'm going to choose my words very carefully.

Micro evolution and Macro evolution are different, imo. Imo, only mico evolution is real, because it is basically survival of the fittest (or whoever meets a certain need to survive in a certain enviroment.) Imo, I do not think fossils can prove certain lifeforms have the same ancestors.

In my school, evolution was never "taught". It was assumed that every student accepted it as fact, and rarely mentioned it at all. However, whenever it was brought up, teachers would- nevermind, I'm minding my P's and Q's.

P.S.: I respect the OP's decision to keep creationism out of this thread, and I would also like to thank him for not dragging it through the dirt on the 1st post, like so many people on my old forums would do.

 

[twistedshadows]

Simple answer: Yes, I do.

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?

One mutation doesn't make an organism an entirely different species. A human with a mutated gene can still mate with another human. Their offspring has a 50/50 chance of inheriting that mutated gene. And it takes a very, very long time for an entirely new species to originate through many, many mutations. One of the real-life examples of an observed, documented "changing species" is the English peppered moth. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

EDIT: Since there seems to be some confusion, the peppered moth demonstrates natural selection, which is a key step in the process of evolution.

 

[Internet Kraken]

I'm going to choose my words very carefully.

Micro evolution and Macro evolution are different, imo. Imo, only mico evolution is real, because it is basically survival of the fittest (or whoever meets a certain need to survive in a certain enviroment.) Imo, I do not think fossils can prove certain lifeforms have the same ancestors.

What about homologous DNA structures?

 

[Ancientgamer]

I'm skeptical, to me the argument seems to be based on the magical ingredient"time" .
All the theories have such massive holes in them I find it irresponsible to just accept it as "fact"

A theory in science is different from the standard idea of a theory.

In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has large amounts of evidence to support it and little evidence that works against it. The theory of evolution has large amounts of supporting evidence and little evidence working against it.

Also it's not time that causes evolution. It's the slight genetic differences from one generation and another. It's just that you only notice these genetic differences when you compare a species to it's ancient relatives. Then you can see how over time these gradual genetic variations eventually led to massive changes.

But I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for how life started in the first place.

That's because there really isn't one. Right now all we have to go on are hypothesis for how life on earth began. However, these are lacking in supporting evidence as it's hard to trace anything back to billions of years ago.

However, this does not disprove the theory of evolution. We may not know exactly how life began, but we do know that modern life came to be through evolution.

I definitely could believe that differentiation in species could be caused by evolution, even drastic change to the point we consider it a whole different species. But a single common ancestor? That somehow arose from a pool of mud? I consider that improbable at best.

Also, something you could perhaps clear up for me, I always see darwinists defending the plausibility and possibility of evolution, but they never how we know it was evolution. Just because something (In an astronomically unlikely event)could happen, doesn't mean did happen. What evidence is currently out there of how modern life came from evolution.

I think I basically agree with you, just for the record, I just want to clear some things up.

 

[Ridonculous_Ninja]

If two species are isolated from one another over massive periods of time then post-zygotic barriers can form. These are formed once the genetic differences between the two species are so vast that their reproductive systems are no longer compatible.

I agree with your line of reasoning, and it does seem quite sound, but - isn't this just an assumption of how it could happen, moreso than a scientific "we have observed this happen in cases x y and z" argument?

I mean, even the renown Darwinists Coyne and Orr in their book Speciation admit that while "partial reproductive isolation" can be achieved in a laboratory in about 100 generations, "one does not expect full speciation to occur in so few generations." Aren't they basically saying "if A, then Z," without observing steps B through Y?

No, they're saying "if A, then Z, but we cannot observe certain steps because we do not have thousands or millions of years of lab time".

Why don't you invent a machine that speeds up time so we can actually get real lab results as opposed to using best available data?

Except for requiring negative spacial motion, I would totally do that.

Ya I think about time travel a lot...

If anyone has an idea how to move negatively (not backwards), enlighten me please!

 

[Dando Dangerslice]

I feel a little in the dark here, can someone fill me in on the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution? Is it, as I think someone already said, just a question of size? As in, small things evolve and big ones don't?

 

[m_jim]

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?

If, through various mutations, one or more chromosomes is lost or gained and those mutations are perpetuated to the offspring, interspecies mating becomes difficult. Since the chromosomes from the mother won't match those of the father, to put it simply, it won't work.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I'm skeptical, to me the argument seems to be based on the magical ingredient"time" .
All the theories have such massive holes in them I find it irresponsible to just accept it as "fact"

It's not a "magical" ingredient, it's an essential ingredient in amounts most humans find it an incomprehensible concept.

It happens a lot with very large concepts - doubly so with infinity. Untrained/inept people cannot face the scale required and instead block it out.

Mutation + selection + time = evolution. Simple and unavoidable.

Mutations usually don't get passed on to offspring IIRC, so they only last one generation. Mutations are just a scrambling of DNA and are generally non beneficial.

The amount in which everything has to work just defies my reasoning. Random chance for a genetic mutation+ random chance that this mutation can be passed on+ random chance that this mutation is beneficial somehow..... I mean randomly typing "evolution" the odds would be 26 raised to the 9ths power wouldn't it? thats 1 in 5,429,503,678,976 if i did it right on the cell typing 400 characters per minute that would take 226,229,319 minutes or 150,000(or so days) or 430 years. Just to type out a 9 letter word.

So to me the probability of random chance leading from single celled organisms to us is even greater. I mean how in the hell do you go from a single celled organism to something like humans? Yes it's possible but nowhere near probable.

It's not science it's speculation, and to accept it as a fact is insane to me.

 

[Ridonculous_Ninja]

I'm skeptical, to me the argument seems to be based on the magical ingredient"time" .
All the theories have such massive holes in them I find it irresponsible to just accept it as "fact"

A theory in science is different from the standard idea of a theory.

In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has large amounts of evidence to support it and little evidence that works against it. The theory of evolution has large amounts of supporting evidence and little evidence working against it.

Also it's not time that causes evolution. It's the slight genetic differences from one generation and another. It's just that you only notice these genetic differences when you compare a species to it's ancient relatives. Then you can see how over time these gradual genetic variations eventually led to massive changes.

But I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for how life started in the first place.

That's because there really isn't one. Right now all we have to go on are hypothesis for how life on earth began. However, these are lacking in supporting evidence as it's hard to trace anything back to billions of years ago.

However, this does not disprove the theory of evolution. We may not know exactly how life began, but we do know that modern life came to be through evolution.

I definitely could believe that differentiation in species could be caused by evolution, even drastic change to the point we consider it a whole different species. But a single common ancestor? That somehow arose from a pool of mud? I consider that improbable at best.

Also, something you could perhaps clear up for me, I always see darwinists defending the plausibility and possibility of evolution, but they never how we know it was evolution. Just because something (In an astronomically unlikely event)could happen, doesn't mean did happen. What evidence is currently out there of how modern life came from evolution.

I think I basically agree with you, just for the record, I just want to clear some things up.

There is actual evidence that the organelles of a cell can self combine in the right conditions, so maybe numerous ameoba species started everything?

 

[Internet Kraken]

I'm skeptical, to me the argument seems to be based on the magical ingredient"time" .
All the theories have such massive holes in them I find it irresponsible to just accept it as "fact"

A theory in science is different from the standard idea of a theory.

In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has large amounts of evidence to support it and little evidence that works against it. The theory of evolution has large amounts of supporting evidence and little evidence working against it.

Also it's not time that causes evolution. It's the slight genetic differences from one generation and another. It's just that you only notice these genetic differences when you compare a species to it's ancient relatives. Then you can see how over time these gradual genetic variations eventually led to massive changes.

But I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for how life started in the first place.

That's because there really isn't one. Right now all we have to go on are hypothesis for how life on earth began. However, these are lacking in supporting evidence as it's hard to trace anything back to billions of years ago.

However, this does not disprove the theory of evolution. We may not know exactly how life began, but we do know that modern life came to be through evolution.

I definitely could believe that differentiation in species could be caused by evolution, even drastic change to the point we consider it a whole different species. But a single common ancestor? That somehow arose from a pool of mud? I consider that improbable at best.

Also, something you could perhaps clear up for me, I always see darwinists defending the plausibility and possibility of evolution, but they never how we know it was evolution. Just because something (In an astronomically unlikely event)could happen, doesn't mean did happen. What evidence is currently out there of how modern life came from evolution.

I think I basically agree with you, just for the record, I just want to clear some things up.

Well a good piece of evidence that supports the idea that we all came from a common ancestor is DNA structure. All living organisms, from turtles to viruses, have homologous DNA structures. The fact that all life uses DNA supports the idea that we descended from a common ancestor.

Also I don't quite understand what you are asking in the last paragraph.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

But I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for how life started in the first place.

there was one on the first page of this thread

Was it my bit on self-replicating proteins?

 

[Internet Kraken]

I'm skeptical, to me the argument seems to be based on the magical ingredient"time" .
All the theories have such massive holes in them I find it irresponsible to just accept it as "fact"

A theory in science is different from the standard idea of a theory.

In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has large amounts of evidence to support it and little evidence that works against it. The theory of evolution has large amounts of supporting evidence and little evidence working against it.

Also it's not time that causes evolution. It's the slight genetic differences from one generation and another. It's just that you only notice these genetic differences when you compare a species to it's ancient relatives. Then you can see how over time these gradual genetic variations eventually led to massive changes.

But I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for how life started in the first place.

That's because there really isn't one. Right now all we have to go on are hypothesis for how life on earth began. However, these are lacking in supporting evidence as it's hard to trace anything back to billions of years ago.

However, this does not disprove the theory of evolution. We may not know exactly how life began, but we do know that modern life came to be through evolution.

I definitely could believe that differentiation in species could be caused by evolution, even drastic change to the point we consider it a whole different species. But a single common ancestor? That somehow arose from a pool of mud? I consider that improbable at best.

Also, something you could perhaps clear up for me, I always see darwinists defending the plausibility and possibility of evolution, but they never how we know it was evolution. Just because something (In an astronomically unlikely event)could happen, doesn't mean did happen. What evidence is currently out there of how modern life came from evolution.

I think I basically agree with you, just for the record, I just want to clear some things up.

There is actual evidence that the organelles of a cell can self combine in the right conditions, so maybe numerous ameoba species started everything?

I think they are asking how we somehow went from a pool of amino acids to a living organism. However I don't know the answer to that.

 

[JodaSFU]

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.

The theory of evolution is much more than just some guys deciding that this makes sense. It's 150 years of constant research put together under a unifying explanation. Not only do these researchers have fossils, during the last 50 years an explosion of new discoveries have been made, all of which back up this theory. Anatomic similarities, which just so happen to match the genetic similarities, and the development we see in these. Sedimentary rock obviously showing that the farther back we go, the less complex living items are. Not to mention that several attempts have succeeded at creating basic amino acids (I think even RNA) in conditions close to those of Earth 3-4 bya.
Furthermore, if you accept "micro" evolution as you YECs so readily call it, you must, logically, accept "macro" evolution, as these are one and the same thing. If moths, for instance, can evolve a new wing colour within 50 years, it isn't hard to imagine that earlier primates could evolve into the greater apes (which DOES include humans) in a matter of millions of years. Besides, the fossil records clearly documents that this DID happen, and there are several "intermediate" species to prove this. Btw. Intermediate is a misleading term, as all species are intermediate. Evolution doesn't "suddenly" go from one species to another, there are no pauses. Everything living on this planet are intermediate species. Though, a sudden and radical change in environment will "speed things up", due to natural selection.

Evolution isn't being "shoved" down people's throats. It's the most commonly accepted theory on biological diversity, and has survived the scrutiny of some of the sharpest minds in the world, for over 150 years. Any such critique towards the theory of evolution, would require a similar critique to, say, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity or any other widely accepted scientific theory, that's taught in schools in the industrialized world.