Poll: Do you believe in speciation?

[Thunderhorse31]

Quote mining, excellent discipline!

The sad thing is here, that they don't just pretend that that's the right order. They make a number of radiometric dating tests, to assert the subject's age, where after they compare it to other fossils, and what do you know? They happen to find, that the age of the specimen not only fits the layer of sedimentary rock in which they found it, they also fit it to the species, which they suspected it was a predecessor/successor to.

Every single piece in the fossil record, has been put to this test. Two types of dating methods, of which one offers several backup methods: Sedimentary rock dating, and radiometric dating. So.. you tell me. How is this not scientific?

Are you sarcastically ripping on me for choosing another person's words that are more eloquent than my own? Especially if it's coming from someone who supports evolution but admits that fossils aren't the best way to prove it? I'm hurt, I may not come back to this topic... *sniff*

Anyway, I completely agree that good science has been done to identify species and dates and appropriate comparisons are made - but you said it yourself - the best you can do with this scientific evidence is "suspect" that one fossil is linked to another. By the very nature of the fossil record itself, proving age and similarities can never equal proof of succession. You can make the leap (of faith?) that this supports the idea of succession, but it is not hard evidence. That is why the quote refers to it as instructive, but not hard science.

p.s. This in no way proves "ZOMG evolushion is wrong!!1!," but it does seek to weather the notion that there is "hard evidence" in the fossil record for its validity. I mean, what about the Cambrian Explosion? Didn't Darwin himself admit in the Origin of Species that its existence "may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained?" <-- more quote mining for ya

 

[Skeleon]

First, let me say that I didn't read through the whole thread, I will do so later, so maybe my post is conflicting or overlapping with some of the others'.

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

Well, it is a big step from bacteria to humans, true.
But there are a lot of signs that this is still the way it went.
For example, single celled organisms such as bacteria and yeast live in colonies.
This not only is because they reproduce locally but also because it grants a certain amount of safety. For example, there is a thing called biofilm, which bacteria secrete. It's basically a layer of goo that protects the bacteria from harmful influences, both physical (pressure, heat) and chemical (acids, antibiotics, whatever).
It goes to show that living in a group was beneficial even for bacteria, because mostly bacteria that lived in colonies survived (though of course they aren't the only ones, others rely on protective capsules etc. instead).
Now imagine the following: A colony of single-celled organisms beginning to "stick" to each other more strongly, forming a "lump" of cells that stays together, protected through its mass like a swarm of fish today.
I daresay this is how poly-celled organisms started and developed from there.

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?

Well, no, I don't think so.
Evolution is a very slow, very steady progress. It's not like there's one big amount of mutation that changes an animal from one species to another. It's a lot of individual, smaller things that change a species as a whole over time. Incompatibility doesn't arise so quickly.
It's never an individual animal that "evolutes" into another species, it's always a very large number over many, many generations.

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.

Well, it still is happening but very slowly. Too slow for us humans to really see the effects, at least in the macrocosm.
Also, we kill animal species far too quickly off for them to adapt to the new enviroment.
There are a few exceptions where mankind had its hands in it, though, think of dogs, pigs, cows and all the other household animals (we made them what they are through selective breeding, basically an accelerated, man-made evolution), as well as rats and doves (who surprisingly fast adapted at living among us, in our villages and cities).
As for the microcosm, well, evolution isn't any more evident than here.
Go to a hospital and ask about MRSA or VRE.
These are resistant bacteria strains we "created" through pressure we created with antibiotics.
Those bacteria that didn't have the necessary resistance, that weren't "fit" in the Darwinian sense, died off and the others remained within the patient, spreading to other patients (for example via the doctors'/nurses' hands) and still bother patients and staff of hospitals alike.
This evolution, this adaption of bacteria, keeps the pharmaceutical industries worried because it's basically an arms-race between doctors using new antibiotics and bacteria adapting to them.

Well, I hope my post was helpful.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Observed Instances of Speciation [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html]

The very idea that Anyone still clings to Creationism is shameful.

There are tons of scientists (including many evolutionary biologists, such as Antonis Rokas, Dirk Kruger, Sean Carroll, W. Ford Doolittle, Carl R. Woese, Lynn Margulis, Dorian Sagan, etc.) who have published works showing the flaws in the above "proofs" for observed speciation.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (mentioned in the link) only reported a "new race or incipient species," not a new species itself. A new race can hardly be used as evidence of speciation.

Paternaini (misspelled "Pasternaini" in this link, for whatever reason) only reported "an almost complete reproductive isolation between two maize populations," again, not a new species itself.

Rice and Salt (also mentioned here) managed to sort flies into two populations and claimed only "incipient speciation," which again, is not a new species itself. Two populations = observed formation of a new species?

Aside from polyploidy (increase in chromosomes) in plants (which according to Douglas Futuyma, a flaming Darwinist, "does not cause the evolution of new genera"), there hasn't been an "observation of speciation" that hasn't been completely overstated or put under harsh criticism, even from evolutionary biologists.

And we're not discussing Creationism here, but if we were, people would have the right to believe it if they wanted.

edit: Looking over this link again, it even admits that: 1) speciation is considered a settled question and "assumed" true; and, 2) most of the people who assumed it true couldn't provide examples of evidence for their conclusion. Have we gotten to the point where people assert that Darwinism is true, even without knowing why? (Sounds like some "Creationists" we all surely know, eh?)

 

[Kagetatsu]

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.

Okay, you're a young guy, and you've got the wrong end of at least a couple of sticks here. As other posters have pointed out, once you accept that species change over time, the process of speciation becomes inevitable. Maybe I can illustrate that with an example or two.

Let's look at dogs. We can breed dogs with captive wolves - people do it on a commercial basis. The offspring are generally fertile and viable, and as a result it appears that dogs are a subspecies of wolves, rather than a distinct species (this is debatable, because the definition of "species" isn't cast in iron, but bear with me here). We can also breed dogs with coyotes and jackals, but the offspring are less satisfactory: they're less fertile than the parents, and they tend to display genetic defects in later generations. From this evidence, it's clear that dogs are not the same species as jackals or coyotes. But does anyone doubt that dogs, wolves, jackals and coyotes share a common ancestor?

Still with dogs, let's conduct a thought experiment. We'll dump a hundred dogs of mixed type onto each of two islands, and let them fend for themselves. Island A has lots of large, powerful prey animals: pigs, caribou, zebras, whatever. Island B has tens of thousands of small, burrowing rodents.

On Island A, the dogs form packs, and bring down their prey. Every dog gets to eat, but the smaller, punier dogs get the scraps, while the Dobermanns and wolfhounds get the pick of the kill. Large, strong dogs become alpha males, and have many more offspring than their weaker competitors. In a very short time, the average size of dog will rise as a result, and this trend will probably continue, as the arrival of these predators would likely lead to the prey species getting bigger and tougher, leading to an evolutionary "arms race").

Over on island B, the big dogs have starved to death, while the terriers have thrived. There might be many more dogs on island B, but their average weight is a fraction of that on island A. They hunt alone or in smaller groups than on Island A.

Now let's combine the islands, by means of a land bridge, and consider what would happen. The large prey animals would migrate to the new pastures on Island B, while the rodents would spread the other way. Their respective predators would follow, but as they pursue different prey, using different hunting techniques, there would be little or no competition between the two predator groups. Crossbreeding would be negligible: a terrier cannot mate with a wolfhound ***** unless she permits it, and her instinct is to seek a strong mating partner. Breeding in the other direction would in most cases lead to birth complications, and the death of the female.

In no (evolutionary) time at all, we have established two distinct subspecies of wolf, living side by side. They are distinct in mass, appearance, prey preference and hunting strategy. Give these dogs ten thousand generations or so, and mutations in both populations will render cross-breeding as unproductive as that between dogs and jackals. In other words, speciation will have occured.

 

[Skeleon]

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.

Yep, think of Australia.
In other parts of the world these animals died out because they weren't as well adapted as the "newer" rivals, whereas Australia was isolated, so kangaroos and koalas and so on were able to survive.

 

[Zand88]

wtf, speciation?

let's talk about "climate change." ;D

 

[Trivun]

I believe in evolution in that it's an act of God. I've always believed in a combination of religion and science, a la 'Angels and Demons' (if anyone's read the book they'll know what I mean, but I stress I believed this long before Dan Brown got his greasy mitts on the idea). Basically, I think that God exists. I believe in Him. Jesus existed, and wasn't the son of God but merely a very extraordinary man who had a grasp of science far greater than we have today, allowing some of the 'miracles'. Obviously some miracles were created by the gospel writers as metaphors for his teachings too. However, with the Old Testament, I reckon pretty much all of that, or at least the miraculous things that God can apprently do, were metaphors for science. The world wasn't created in seven days. Seven stages of the universe creation, maybe, each one lasting for millions and billions of years, starting with the Big Bang and ending with evolution of humanity, maybe. All an act of God in its own way, but science and nature ultimately.

Basically there's much evidence to suggest and prove science has the right idea, but I feel there's something more, i.e. God. As for evolution, or speciation, I feel that this is a much better way of describing the creation of humanity, rather than God 'magically creating us in a puff of smoke'. Or from Adam's rib, whatever floats your boat. Creationism is a pretty silly idea, to me, as a Christian I believe personally that evolution is the right way to go, but like everything else i nature this itself is still an act of God. Feel free to disagree, I'm merely stating my own beliefs and opinions.

 

[JodaSFU]

Quote mining, excellent discipline!

The sad thing is here, that they don't just pretend that that's the right order. They make a number of radiometric dating tests, to assert the subject's age, where after they compare it to other fossils, and what do you know? They happen to find, that the age of the specimen not only fits the layer of sedimentary rock in which they found it, they also fit it to the species, which they suspected it was a predecessor/successor to.

Every single piece in the fossil record, has been put to this test. Two types of dating methods, of which one offers several backup methods: Sedimentary rock dating, and radiometric dating. So.. you tell me. How is this not scientific?

Are you sarcastically ripping on me for choosing another person's words that are more eloquent than my own? Especially if it's coming from someone who supports evolution but admits that fossils aren't the best way to prove it? I'm hurt, I may not come back to this topic... *sniff*

Anyway, I completely agree that good science has been done to identify species and dates and appropriate comparisons are made - but you said it yourself - the best you can do with this scientific evidence is "suspect" that one fossil is linked to another. By the very nature of the fossil record itself, proving age and similarities can never equal proof of succession. You can make the leap (of faith?) that this supports the idea of succession, but it is not hard evidence. That is why the quote refers to it as instructive, but not hard science.

p.s. This in no way proves "ZOMG evolushion is wrong!!1!," but it does seek to weather the notion that there is "hard evidence" in the fossil record for its validity. I mean, what about the Cambrian Explosion? Didn't Darwin himself admit in the Origin of Species that its existence "may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained?" <-- more quote mining for ya

No, but it adds to the pile of evidence already mounted in favour of evolution. A pile of evidence no one has been able to contradict in the peer reviewed literature for over 150 years. Either one of these pieces of evidence, by themselves, don't prove evolution, but if you put it together, you have a case much stronger than any other scientific theory in existence today.

Besides, their assertion as to where the given specimen belongs in the taxonomy of evolution is based on anatomic taxonomy, along with the aforementioned dating methods, which is a very steady way of determining that. In some cases they are even able to extract DNA, which further builds to the probability that their assertion is correct.

And as for the cambrian explosion. I find it interesting how creationists can make a several hundred million year time period into two minutes on a figurative clock to distort science. The fact that evolution sped up during that period of time, going from single celled to multicellular organisms, doesn't necessarily speak against evolution.

 

[Bruiser80]

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".

And I think creationists and skeptics are treated by pro-evolutionists as "it's in the {science} book, it must have happened"

I think you judge science too harshly. Science is a humble process in which scientists admit their mistakes and constantly correct what others got wrong. Science books are constantly being rewritten as new evidence is discovered and tested. This willingness to self correct and to see that we are fallible is really what makes science a logical process.

I don't think I'm judging science harsh. I'm judging some people harshly. Specifically people that consider people with a legitimate point of contention as religious nuts, backwards, and uneducated. I am all for the logical process of science and have been saying that the scientific progress will improve evolutionary theory to something that fills in some of the gaps.

Specifically, some teachers when teaching evolution, deliver it as an absolute, quash debate and dissent in the name of keeping classroom order. If somebody learns evolutionary theory is absolute, where is the scientific process then?

 

[Magical Hans]

Of course i do!
We didnt just magically poof onto the planet

 

[Jupsto]

sorry but theres no way it cannot be true. theres too much undeniable evidence. I agree the very early stages are a hazy, no-one really knows exactly what happened (I don't think). doubt we will ever know for sure because it was such a extremely long time ago. but once you get to the stage where you have self replicating genes, those could literally become anything given enough time and chance. evolution happened its fact no more a theory.

PS: I decided recently I'm going to do a biology degree next year, got on a course already

 

[Aardvark Soup]

Of course I do. The concept of evolution has been completely proven scientifically. It might be hard to grasp at first (although it's nothing compared to quantum physics) but if you look at viruses for example you can clearly see how evolution works. Of course viruses aren't as complex as a human being for example but you have to remember it took millions of years for us to become what we are now, and we're still full of flaws.

 

[Flunk]

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it unlikely. I think this is the crux of the problem in the US, people don't understand the scientific explanation so they try to paint it as a religious argument of Creationists vs "Evolutionists" (which do not exist by the way. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion).

Anyone who is truly interested in this topic should do research into it themselves, just watch your sources. The internet is full of undocumented dreck. Peer-reviewed articles are best but not everyone has access to them.

 

[Fbuh]

I have spent a good deal of time contemplating the origins of humanity, and Creationism/Evolutionism in general. AS of right now, here are my thoughts:

What we identify as 'God' or a creator in general is actually some sort of enormous biological entity composes the universe itself. I is possible that it is sentient, or was at one time, but is so on a level that is completely misunderstood by human beings. However, it may also not be sentient, as some of the most efficient life forms have little to no brain activity (amoebas, jellyfish, bacteria).

Human beings are really only a part of this, and the work of the Bible we call Genesis is a metaphorical work imposed to try to fit this into human understanding. Genesis tells us that humans started with Adam and Eve, Adam having been created from the Earth, and Eve from Adam's rib. However, if we take this into a metaphorical light, Adam coming from the earth could mean evolving from the Earth's life forms. In that case, we next look at the mitochondria prevalent within human cells. Mitochondria were originally a foreign bacteria that synthesized with cell tissue to become it's own organelle within a cell. It functions separately, though it does create energy for the cell. Mitochondria has its own DNA that does not change form mother to child. That is to say, one can trace their mitochondria through the maternal line, as it does not change from mother to child. IT does mutate slightly every few generations, and these mutations are used as chronological landmarks, becoming place holders for certain points in human past. If we were to think of a new species of human being evolving from mitochondria synthesizing itself with the Adam species, we could call this Eve, so that Eve (mitochondria) plus Adam (original human species) unite to create the basics of modern humans.

Personally, I believe that all of this was guided by some sort of higher intelligence, as it is extremely unlikely that such a complex system could engineer itself. Certainly, I do not believe that evolutionism and Creationism should be separate, as who is to say that God (or whatever it is called) did not use evolution as a means to an end. It would even justify the presence of God.

Take this as you will, it is my response to the original question, in which case I do believe that evolution is real. However, I do not believe that it, or any science for that matter, needs to be separate from God, since if God created the universe, then he surely made a set of rules for it to run on.

 

[insanelich]

I don't think I'm judging science harsh. I'm judging some people harshly. Specifically people that consider people with a legitimate point of contention as religious nuts, backwards, and uneducated. I am all for the logical process of science and have been saying that the scientific progress will improve evolutionary theory to something that fills in some of the gaps.

Frankly, I've seen very little in the way of legitimate points of contention. What I've seen are people who accept the current knowledge and theories, people that go "OMG A WIZARD DID IT", people who go "BUT LONG TIMESPANS ARE HARD TO COMPREHEND" and people that go "I CANNOT COMPREHEND THE THEORY SO I'LL JUST DISBELIEVE IT".

And a few really delusional people who think that evolution works but a faith is a *necessary* part of it.

Having faith and evolution coexist is easy - just ask the question "How long is a God's day?" - but faith is decidedly not necessary for evolution.

 

[TheMatt]

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.

Just a minor point but one your main talking points isn't true. Species can interbreed -

Horse humps donkey = mule

Lion humps Tiger = Liger

tiger humps lion = Tion (these last 2 may be the other way around, I forget which makes which, but they are seperate animals.

Anyway, good talk.

 

[Johnmw]

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?

OK heres a thought experiment that should help (Stolen from a book) If you took a human in a time machineand every thousand years into the past you stopped and let them mate. they evidently would be able to (humans from now could easily mate with someone from 0BC).Now take someone from that period into your time machine and repeate the process each time the ancestor from 100years forward could mate with the decendant. You, the original time pilot, after about 400.000 (I THINK) could not mate with the ancestor as they would be too geneticly different to bear children but you would be able to trace a decending, necessarily unbroken line of breeders the generations and the epocs. The idea that you are one species or the other is a fallacy there is no black and white only shades of grey.

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.

Im not trying to sound rude but you obviously havent studied evolution or totally missed its point. It takes too long and is far too a gradual process to be observed in such easy ways...youve watched too much x-men. Think bacteria, much more reproduction(hence mutation) and shorter lifespan. You can see them evolve into new strains in real time. Similarly think of darwins finches; they found variations, over a few famine years, in the beak sizes so again i you can see evolution. The reason people assume your a creationist is because your attempting to dismiss it without knowing the facts.
sorry if i sounded pretentious but just as it grinds your gears that your teachers couldnt be bother to explain this, misunderstanding and misinformation on evolution .. really grinds my balls.

 

[Johnmw]

Personally, I believe that all of this was guided by some sort of higher intelligence, as it is extremely unlikely that such a complex system could engineer itself. Certainly, I do not believe that evolutionism and Creationism should be separate, as who is to say that God (or whatever it is called) did not use evolution as a means to an end.

sorry for the double post --- this assumes that we were a directed end. that somehow the universe is waiting for us and got everythg ready. Its not miraculously attuned FOR it mearly looks that way as we are the ones observing it. Its kinda crucial to the human ego to fancy the universe was made for them, thats why Galileo was imprisoned for shockingly suggesting that eath wasnt the center of the universe. in the words of douglas adams we live; "on the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm" the galaxy is huge and we a tiny speck in it... but a speck with potential.

Are we actually seeing a non-religious victim of the Wedge Strategy here?

yes yes we are..and sad it is too. The whole process of science is attacked and made to look disreputable by people clinging onto notions that were proven wrong long ago. The difference between science and religion and the reason science is the one i implictly trust is that religion can't admit its wrong, and cant change. Whereas science celebrates change. Dont get me wrong i know that without medieval monks and such science would have never got started but since its inception, more or less every discipline of science has had to fight religion with facts just to survive.

 

[Lullabye]

I believe in evolution in that it's an act of God. I've always believed in a combination of religion and science, a la 'Angels and Demons' (if anyone's read the book they'll know what I mean, but I stress I believed this long before Dan Brown got his greasy mitts on the idea). Basically, I think that God exists. I believe in Him. Jesus existed, and wasn't the son of God but merely a very extraordinary man who had a grasp of science far greater than we have today, allowing some of the 'miracles'. Obviously some miracles were created by the gospel writers as metaphors for his teachings too. However, with the Old Testament, I reckon pretty much all of that, or at least the miraculous things that God can apprently do, were metaphors for science. The world wasn't created in seven days. Seven stages of the universe creation, maybe, each one lasting for millions and billions of years, starting with the Big Bang and ending with evolution of humanity, maybe. All an act of God in its own way, but science and nature ultimately.

Basically there's much evidence to suggest and prove science has the right idea, but I feel there's something more, i.e. God. As for evolution, or speciation, I feel that this is a much better way of describing the creation of humanity, rather than God 'magically creating us in a puff of smoke'. Or from Adam's rib, whatever floats your boat. Creationism is a pretty silly idea, to me, as a Christian I believe personally that evolution is the right way to go, but like everything else i nature this itself is still an act of God. Feel free to disagree, I'm merely stating my own beliefs and opinions.

Now, I'm glad your a christian cause they tend to be more....accepting. Your right that people who believe in creationism are about as right as a rock is alive, because people forget that religion was created a long time ago, before we could tell what was and why it was, so they basically made up stories as to why things were the way they were. Religion was and still sorta is, a science. But realize that belief is only a subjective concept. Every one has there own individual beliefs, what's to make yours more true than say, some buddhist monk in tibet?(if you give the classic, I just know/feel/believe, thats not good enough) That being said, it's possible your belief is right and his is wrong, but you have no way of knowing because existance is an objective reality, so whether or not god exist should have no bearing on our life unless god chooses to directly intervene. In which case it becomes our business. But since "god" has according to many has a tendency to be choosy as to who it "reveals" itself to then I think it prudent that god fuck off or actually do something('god works in mysterious ways' my ass). The greeks had the right idea with there gods, I sincerly hope they exist because who doesn't want to be able to say "I was blessed by the God of War". I think it highly likely however that god(s) doesn't/don't exist and yes we are and accident overall.We've had millions of years to evolve so our complicated bodies and minds are a result of basic evolutionary principles, survival of the fittest. And I refuse to vote on this stupid subject because belief is what made religion. Why should I believe that speciation happened? Why should I not? I say we actually find out and if we can't then think no more of it as it will only serve to be a source of conflict in society and hinder us from furthering our scientific (and as a result technological) understanding and advancement.
ps, I read angels and demons and thopught it was a good novel but as far as religious and scientific understanding goes, it failed. miserably. And the Da vinci code was worse since it actually convinced idiots that jesusu had offspring.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Two words that science has evidenced all their theories on the roll of a dice of truth:
Behavioral Modernity [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity].
That's the lynchpin of Evolution where Man magically becomes awesome by a mutation or something random like that.