Poll: Do you believe in speciation?

[Lullabye]

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.

funny fact here. Science was called alchemy in the medieval ages and was banned because it was thought to be the work of some scary diety/god(s). So because of religion (or a t least the people who practiced it) we wasted hundreds of years not practicing science.(at least not on the scale it should have been practiced)

 

[bmf185]

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

Agreed. Our lives are such a short little blink that there is no possible way for us to imagine the enormous amount of time over which these changes occurred. Some really good proof is the homologous skeletal/organ structure of just about every animal. For example, you have the same basic bone structure in your arm as a bat does. Humerus up top, ulna, radius, carpals, metacarpals, phalanges.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/7901/homologymy6.jpg

Further study of this reveals numerous vestigial structures that were present in ancestors but serve no purpose in the present species. Think of your appendix or the hipbones found in whales when whales have no rear legs.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/ee/v2/whale-vestigial-structure.jpg

(I have no effin' idea why this image comes from a creationist website.)

If you are concerned as to how the complex animals of today came about from little single-celled prokaryotes, well, those things have an incredible rate of mutation. Think of how quickly bacteria can develop resistance to some kind of medication. At some point it became advantageous to eat others instead of make your own food, which then made it advantageous to be multicellular/bigger than your friends. Again, you have to think of this over hundreds of millions of years. They had time, and they used it.

 

[fix-the-spade]

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

In bacteria and Viruses it happens at the rate of several times a day.

Fossil records show the gradual progression, divergence and further progression of species.
There is fairly complete progression from small invertebrate creatures all the way to full size animals. Weasels, Dogs, Cats and Bears all originate from the same (or same small group of) species for instance.

In Macro Organisms you can see it happening (well, sort of). Angel Sharks are gradually changing to what science would define as a Ray, their pectoral fins are moving forward gradually to merge with the head whilst the gills and mouth are moving from a roughly level position to defined top/bottom placings like a Ray's. Sadly we don't live long enough to actually watch it happen, but if you look at the fossils/skeleton of a horse you will see that in the last 50'000 years what a 'horse' is has changed a lot.

So yes, I do believe in Speciation.

The evidence backs it up and no-one has come up with a better way of explaining things.

I think the problem is seeing evolution as a defined set of changes, humans like to compartmentalise everything so the idea that no animals's build up (including ours) is ever totally constant is quite difficult for us.
There is no point at which an animal or group of animals 'change' species, you just have to compare what's around now with what was around then to see that mutation is constant.

 

[Lullabye]

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?

well, lets look at a speedier version of micro to macro shall we? It's called "having children". You start of at a microscopic level and grow and grow and grow. And in only 9 months a child is conceived. So theres proof right there that beings can come from nothing but molecules. As for your second very good question(iv'e wondered alot myself). Say there's a bird. it lives in what is considered the arctic. It has a wing that lets it fly as does all it's species. But then say, a certain food source dies off and all they're left with is fish. Not suddenly but over time(a long time) other foods get harder to find and the fish are becoming harder to catch, the weather is changing making it hard for this species of bird to fly, and get around. Now the evolution into what is now a penguin starts. Now this is what many accept as inevitable but you posed the question, why do they eveolve at all. And "because they had to" isn't good enough cause you're looking for the scientific answer. Well, there are many theories on the subject of cell intelligence. I personnaly think that it has something to do with gravity(the pull between objets of mass). but don't qoute me cause its just my theory. the simple fact is, we don't completly understand why it does that. Why the molecules evolve or change. Its not like we can tell our bodies to make offspring with six arms right? Some speculate its the unconcious but whether or not it exists is still in debate. We really are still quite a primitive species. But give it time. We may not find all the answers in this lifetime, but later down the road. For all I know we have found out why cells do what they do, but it's just caught in the stream of controversy as most things are.

 

[Griff]

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

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

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?

The Earth is many many many hundreds of millions of years old and cells reproducing through mitosis have been around for about 540 million years. The Big Expansion though due to noone being there it is difficult accertain what the exact causes were but the evidence for it having happened is almost irrefuttable

 

[Limos]

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.

A counterpoint for you. Horses and Donkeys are not seperated by very many mutations, they split very recently by evolutionary timeframes. They can still make viable offspring but the reason we consider them seperate species and not simply breeds of the same animal is because

Those offspring are sterile

They have enough mutations seperating them that even though they can make viable offspring they are unable to reproduce themselves. Ligers and Tigons and Mules are all sterile due to a chromosone difference between it's two parents.

 

[Berithil]

Let me ask this. If evolution was real, then wouldn't creatures today still be evolving? As far as I can see, every spieces has remained the same for hundreds of years. Wouldn't apes be evolving to humans as we speak?

 

[beddo]

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.

You're not taking into proper consideration the sheer amount of time that these changes occur over. Partially your view is skewed by human behaviour and technology. We have medicine which allows all types of people to survive. If we hadn't you wouldn't see things like asthma, autism etc. because those who suffer would die out.

In any case shared ancestors are a widely accepted theory by the scientific community. Like it or not it's not something that comes from the schools or the government, it's something that comes from imperial evidence and the greatest minds of our society.

 

[manaman]

Nobody called him on the longer then infinity comment?

Here is a nice qoute: The Isha Upanishad of the Yajurveda (c. 4th to 3rd century BC) states that "if you remove a part from infinity or add a part to infinity, still what remains is infinity".

With all the valid information that has been posted it would lead any normal question asking person to on the trail to even more valid information. It has not, rather increasingly dense comments have been posted, and more and more unbelievable arguments for why perfectly sensible posts are wrong have shown themselves. It forces me to conclude this guy is a troll, or sorry guy: part of the bottom 10%.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

The fact that there are so many amazing coincidences, from Earth being just far enough away from the sun, to the marvelous brains humans have been entrusted with, to the fact that our ecosystem when unpolluted runs like clockwork, and so on, I'm beginning to seriously wonder whether there isn't a divine hand at work, or at least an anthropomorphic force of nature.

Seriously, the fact EXISTENCE, and everything in it exists and works so perfectly is testament to a possible creator behind it all.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

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.

I completely agree that anatomic taxonomy and DNA should be and is indeed considered in determining ancestor/descendant relationships, but what I find amusing is that the two fields frequently disagree.

Look at whales for example. First it was thought that they were descended from a hyena-like mammal known as a mesonychian. Later on, molecular studies showed that whales were actually most closely related to hippos. Yet on morphological grounds, hippos more closely resemble pigs or camels (even-toed hoofed mammals), and this "whippo" hypothesis was considered false. But in 2001, another study was done to show that whales are indeed closer to even-toed hoofed mammals than to mesonychians, but that only caused more morphological/molecular questions (where did the tooth and skull features of the whale come from? It was previously linked to mesonychians...). You see how we're going in a circle?

Morphologically, it has been shown that humans (vertebrates) are more closely related to insects (arthropods) than to roundworms (nematodes). But molecular phylogeny disagrees on this issue, with some studies grouping arthropods and nematodes together with the exclusion of vertebrates, while others seek to affirm the morphological closeness of vertebrates and arthropods with the exclusiion of nematodes.

As you say, anatomic/molecular similarities must be considered and evaluated, but even evolutionary biologists admit that "different phylogenetic analyses can reach contradictory inferences with absolute support," and that evolutionary relationships among phyla "remain unresolved" (Rokas, 2005).

And the issue with the Cambrian Explosion isn't the time frame, but the fact that major phylum-level differences (that Darwin's theory proposed would appear last) actually appeared first. Darwin explained this away by saying that the "innumerable transitional forms" that MUST have existed were probably too small or too delicate to be preserved. An yet moderm paleontology has discovered numerous microfossils (thus refuting the "too small" argument), and has proven that many of the fossils from the Cambrian explosions were soft-bodied (thus refuting the "too delicate" argument. Even if you attempt to postulate that evolution "sped up" and that "jumps" were made in complexity, the evidence here is largely lacking.

And where are you getting the "unquestioned for 150 years" statistic? Contemporaries of Darwin who were geniuses in their field (Gregor Mendel, Karl Ernst von Baer, Richard Owen, Louis Agassiz, etc.) outright rejected Darwin's theory, and Darwinism wasn't even the "scientific consensus" until a few decades into the 20th century (not that scientific consensus means anything - geocentric universe, Haeckels embryos, phlogiston, etc.). Also, counter-arguments have indeed been published in peer-reviewed journals (see Stephen C. Meyer's "Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories"), but the lack of articles doesn't mean there is no opposing voice. It is well documented that journals such as Nature, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Quarterly Review of Biology, etc. routinely publish articles attacking those who oppose Darwinism, but refuse to publish responses from those scientists they attack (Michael Behe is frequently mentioned, but not allowed to publish responses to the journal's objections). It sounds strangely like the Catholic Church's response to Copernicus/Galileo - "You propose a different understanding than the one we hold! You must be silenced!"

 

[fix-the-spade]

Let me ask this. If evolution was real, then wouldn't creatures today still be evolving? As far as I can see, every spieces has remained the same for hundreds of years. Wouldn't apes be evolving to humans as we speak?

Interesting, you've highlighted two very fundemental misunderstandings about evolution.
One is the timescales involved, I refer you to this:

I think the problem is seeing evolution as a defined set of changes, humans like to compartmentalise everything so the idea that no animals's build up (including ours) is ever totally constant is quite difficult for us.
There is no point at which an animal or group of animals 'change' species, you just have to compare what's around now with what was around then to see that mutation is constant.

Trying to define evolution into set points doesn't work, it's a constant process and won't make sense unless you look at it as such.

Also, species have changed measurably in even the last 100 years, particularly if man is involved. Compare a Corgi dog from 100 years ago to a Corgi at a dog show now and the differences should be apparent. It's forced evolution but it is still evolution.

The second misunderstanding is that we are descended from apes.
It's not that we're descended , we are apes, just a particular species that has discovered writing.

Our origin being in central Africa, we stand up straight so we can look big and run fast, the African planes not being great for tree swinging. If Orangutangs discovered writing they would advance very quickly, but they would still look like Orangutans because they have evolved to survive in dense jungle.
So the Apes are not evolving into humans, they're evolving into Apes, just smarter.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Let me ask this. If evolution was real, then wouldn't creatures today still be evolving? As far as I can see, every spieces has remained the same for hundreds of years. Wouldn't apes be evolving to humans as we speak?

I don't think you really understand evolution, it's not a means to an end. Human isn't the ultimate goal of ape evolution because evolution has no goal. Evolution is a process of gradual improvement.

And we do in fact see species changing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples_of_evolution#Evidence_from_speciation]

 

[Steven Kyzburg]

Speciation occours when two seperate groups of the same species are seperated from each other (be it geographically or maybe in term of behaviour so courting rituals ect) and each accumulate different ratios of a certain gene.

In each group, if they can't mix with each other, they'll undergo different pressuresor mabe experience different mutations, it is not guarenteed, but it is possible, that eventually one population will gain enough mutations to be slightly different from another. Now we are talking about something occouring over thousands of years; but eventually, when these two species are too different, the ycannot interbreed. For example.

Horses and ponies have different "characterisitcs" in terms of looks and genetics. BUT they can still interbreed; they belong to the same family of organisms but are different species. (I could be wrong with my terms i'm a bit rusty)

Conversly, if you breed a horse with a mule you get an ass (I think those are the ones that breed together...) Anyway, the ass is infertile, it cannot breed, and that's because the differences between the horse and the mule are great enough to not allow them to produce "perfect" off spring (due to chromosome combinations) but they are sitll similar enough to produce children. Eventually the horse and the ass may be unable to breed at all; but since they aren't really wild animals anymore I doubt this.

In short, a species doesn't turn into another species over night because an entire population has to change not just some random individual.

The exception being bacteria because they can share information the little buggers...

 

[BubbleGumSnareDrum]

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.

The fact that scientists "blindly" accept it? I think you're a little confused here. You're blindly denying it because it isn't in line with your views and "doesn't make sense to you."

Just because you don't have the capacity to understand how something works doesn't mean it isn't true or didn't happen. Evolution has nothing to do with random mutations and the fact that you even mentioned that shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

But of course religious groups and institutions always cling to words and phrases like "random mutations" or "random chance." One of the only things the US educational system does right is not teaching religion or accepting religion as a counterpoint to scientific theories and facts.

 

[Steven Kyzburg]

The fact that scientists "blindly" accept it? I think you're a little confused here. You're blindly denying it because it isn't in line with your views and "doesn't make sense to you."

Just because you don't have the capacity to understand how something works doesn't mean it isn't true or didn't happen. Evolution has nothing to do with random mutations and the fact that you even mentioned that shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

But of course religious groups and institutions always cling to words and phrases like "random mutations" or "random chance." One of the only things the US educational system does right is not teaching religion or accepting religion as a counterpoint to scientific theories and facts.

Although in principel I agree with you as far as i'm aware mutations are integral to the entire concept of evolution and without those mutations it would be impossible to happen.

 

[UncleAsriel]

Teach the Controversy! [http://controversy.wearscience.com/]

 

[dnnydllr]

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

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

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

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

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

The Earth is only 10s of millions of years old.
10s of Millions of years old
You really said that.
HELL. FREAKIN'. NO!
Are you saying the Earth was created after the Dinosaurs came about because of 10s of millions of years of evolution?
REALLY?
That's possible to have a species on a planet before it was created? Never knew that.
I knew the Earth was at least 100s of millions years old when I was 4. I studied Dinosaurs, and could recite facts about many of them, name a lot of them, and know what they ate (generalized of course into herbivore, carnivore) so I knew the first dinosaurs were well before 100 million BC. That's like the Jurrasic, which was the second dinosaur period I think. (I stopped studying dinos in Grade 4)

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.

You obviously missed the whole point of this thread. I don't believe in many of the "facts" that are taught in the school system. No matter what anyone says, the age of the earth has not yet been proven.

 

[dnnydllr]

The fact that scientists "blindly" accept it? I think you're a little confused here. You're blindly denying it because it isn't in line with your views and "doesn't make sense to you."

Just because you don't have the capacity to understand how something works doesn't mean it isn't true or didn't happen. Evolution has nothing to do with random mutations and the fact that you even mentioned that shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

But of course religious groups and institutions always cling to words and phrases like "random mutations" or "random chance." One of the only things the US educational system does right is not teaching religion or accepting religion as a counterpoint to scientific theories and facts.

Although in principel I agree with you as far as i'm aware mutations are integral to the entire concept of evolution and without those mutations it would be impossible to happen.

Random mutations is more or less the basis of evolution. And I said to keep religion out of this. What don't you understand about that? I don't question evolution from a religious perspective.