Poll: Do you believe in speciation?

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

ID is part of the creationist's Wedge Strategy. It's a red herring intentionally designed to throw people off of the religionist trail. Read up.

Also, most belief systems have a creation myth. There are other types of creationism than Christian creationism.

 

[lykopis783]

ID is part of the creationist's Wedge Strategy. It's a red herring intentionally designed to throw people off of the religionist trail. Read up.

Also, most belief systems have a creation myth. There are other types of creationism than Christian creationism.

I have read up on it, and I read beyond the history paragraphs, while it may have started out as such, it evolved into a more broad theory.

And yes, there are other types, but when someone says creationism, the term specifically refers to the christian creation story in Genesis.

 

[sqwalnoc]

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.

I thought that this was a problem, but i thought about it for a while and came up with a solution that seemed plausible. Imagine that you have a population of a certain species, say dogs (although its not important), now split this population in two and place the two groups in geographically isolated areas so they cannot interbreed, or interbreeding is limited (through migration or continent shift for example).

The two geographically isolated areas these two groups are in possess different environmental conditions and therefore different selective pressures. each group would begin the process where beneficial mutations would allow them to survive better, but these mutations would be so small that any offspring would be able to reproduce with all the members of its own group as it is almost genetically identical.

Allow this process to continue for many thousands of generations.. now if you reintroduced the two groups to each other they would be highly different from each other genetically and unable to reproduce with eachother. The strange things about this is that if you had observed only one group, you would never of seen it turn into a new species as all offspring in that group could mate with all members of the group. but when you compare the two groups together, you find that what was one species has become two.. even though neither group technically "changed" species.

Now imagine this happening back when single-celled organisms were the only life, isolation of groups from eachother could happen much easier for such a small lifeform and small generational periods increase the speed that beneficial mutations arise, starting a sort of "tree" where one species changes into two or more, then they change into two or more, very quickly you'd have a large variety of different, non-interbreeding species

Sorry if that was a bit long, I hope I've helped

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Why, yes. Yes, I do.​

 

[dukethepcdr]

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 are correct sir! Species do adapt and change a little over time (just look at all the variety there is within the bears that are around the world they all have special adaptations to their environment and look different but they are still bears), but it is quite impossible for a new species to "evolve" out of another species. Stick to your guns and don't fall for speciation.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

ID is part of the creationist's Wedge Strategy. It's a red herring intentionally designed to throw people off of the religionist trail. Read up.

Also, most belief systems have a creation myth. There are other types of creationism than Christian creationism.

I have read up on it, and I read beyond the history paragraphs, while it may have started out as such, it evolved into a more broad theory.

And yes, there are other types, but when someone says creationism, the term specifically refers to the christian creation story in Genesis.

Yeah if we wanna get technical we can split the creation story into the literal Six Day creation, the Gap Theory, the Day-Age Theory, Theistic Evolution, Deism...

All basically involve differing levels of compromise when it comes to incorporating evolution into the story.

 

[Kagetatsu]

You are correct sir! Species do adapt and change a little over time (just look at all the variety there is within the bears that are around the world they all have special adaptations to their environment and look different but they are still bears), but it is quite impossible for a new species to "evolve" out of another species. Stick to your guns and don't fall for speciation.

So Giant Pandas and Grizzly Bears are the same species? That'll simplify the conservation effort! We'll just send a few Grizzly studs over to China, to give the Panda chicks a taste of American-style lovin'!

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

I have read up on it, and I read beyond the history paragraphs, while it may have started out as such, it evolved into a more broad theory.

It's not a theory at all. It starts by asserting what happened then looks for justifications. That's the opposite of a scientific theory that seeks to explain observations. It's backwards.

It doesn't matter if you believe "God did it" but you don't believe in the same God someone else does, you're still flushing science down the toilet.

Here's the big problem, and I'm risking thread drift by bringing this up, but meh, whatever...

Intelligent Design would only be necessary if we had to explain the existence of something that has no other explanation. Not something we don't know the explanation for yet or that we don't know all the details of, but something that has no other explanation. We don't need it. The origin and progression of life on Earth is actually not so mysterious that we need to invoke magic. We have a theory that has explanatory and predictive value and there is quite simply NO evidence against it. None. All the appeals to ignorance and appeals to incredulity I keep seeing in this thread are not evidence against the theory.

That's the special place where science gets to turn the tables on religion. Religious people love to claim that you can't prove a negative, so you can't prove God exists, but forget that the burden of proof is theirs, and it's really simple. All we need is one thing that has no natural explanation. We need only a single supernatural event or miracle that can't be explained any other way.

So there you go: please point me toward your animal that didn't and couldn't have evolved.

 

[szaleniec1000]

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 suggest you do some research as to the mathematical background of Big Bang cosmology. It naturally follows from the assumption that on a macroscopic scale the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, which fits all observed astronomical data.

As to speciation, we know it happens because we've seen it happen. On a larger scale I see no problem with the idea that over billions of years the process of natural selection can change life beyond all recognition, nor do I take issue with the related but distinct topic of abiogenesis.

On an admittedly less scientific note, I find some of the stated motivations behind the opposition to evolutionary theory to be deeply disturbing.

 

[dnnydllr]

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 suggest you do some research as to the mathematical background of Big Bang cosmology. It naturally follows from the assumption that on a macroscopic scale the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, which fits all observed astronomical data.

As to speciation, we know it happens because we've seen it happen. On a larger scale I see no problem with the idea that over billions of years the process of natural selection can change life beyond all recognition, nor do I take issue with the related but distinct topic of abiogenesis.

On an admittedly less scientific note, I find some of the stated motivations behind the opposition to evolutionary theory to be deeply disturbing.

I'd just like to point out that math doesn't always prove things in the physical world. For example, it's mathmatically possible to go back in time, but it's obviously physically impossible.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

For one, who cares? Be it the age of the Earth or where life came from. What good does it serve to prove one or the other? Darwin saw birds and monkeys on an island that had developed new traits, and that's all that he could prove. The rest is speculation at it's best. Beyond that, I'd love to know how a bunch of amino acids just up and decided to group up and start self-replicating. I wasn't there, modern scientists weren't there, scientist from our earliest recorded history weren't there. There's no way to know.

The fact of the matter is, we know jack nothing. We can take measurements on how the world is now, even then based on a great deal of assumptions. We can make assumptions about how the world was based on what we have observed so far, but we can't even be sure that the rates of the rates of the rates of change are constant.

If you want to talk fossil record, don't. It isn't even close to complete. We don't even know dates. C-14 dating is only accurately calibrated to 45,000 years. Respectable, but not exactly millions of billions. We base the age of bones beyond that on the rocks we find them in, and we base the age of some rocks by the bones we find in them. We can "kind-of" age rocks from sediment and magma, but there is even sedimentary rock with seashells in it on the top of the tallest mountains.

How did a rock formed either from tons of asteroids hitting each other, or just a molten mass that solidified, get so much water on it?

We just don't know, we can guess all we want, but we honestly don't have a clue. I frankly don't know why we care.

 

[Shivari]

Alright, I made it about 2 pages in to this and felt like I could resolve a couple of issues with a simple graphic...

Now, let's say that the color of Red-Violet is the start of life. So as time goes one some of these Red-Violets went off across the field one day, into some woods, and are never seen again by the others. Let's say that those who migrated away turned Red, while the ones who stuck around eventually turned Violet. Now, for some time both Red and Violet will be able to continue mating with Red-Violet, but over time these colors become more defined and lose their ability to "mix" well with Red-Violet. Soon, Red turns into Orange, and Violet turns into Blue. Once again, Orange and Blue can mix well enough with their predecessors for a while, but eventually they become distinct enough to be separate. Finally, Orange becomes Yellow and Blue becomes Light Blue. Now, Both Yellow and Light Blue came from the same ancestor, and their ancestors were even quite closely related, but over time, they've changed and can no longer "blend" right into each other. Thus, they can not reproduce.

This is basically the color wheel version of evolution, but I find it to be a decent analogy. Just think of the entire spectrum of colors. The colors really close to each other can blend nicely with each other, but those colors any distance away from each other can't blend right into each other.

 

[FallenRainbows]

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.

They don't jump from bacteria to fish. Its like different bacteria with similar enough properties to reproduce with the current species of Asexually. Basicly inter-species sex. But the mutations would be so small and such a small chance of thriving that it talks billions of years, We as humans cannot grasp the time span in thousands let alone billions.

 

[Dorian]

How do you not believe in a fact? That's like saying I don't believe the sky is blue.

 

[FallenRainbows]

How do you not believe in a fact? That's like saying I don't believe the sky is blue.

You haven't been to England have you? Its grey here...

 

[UltimatheChosen]

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.

Because it doesn't happen overnight, or even over the course of decades. This takes thousands to millions of years. It's not like a neanderthal suddenly gave birth to Cro-Magnon. They changed VERY slowly. So slowly, in fact, that it's essentially impossible to decide when they stopped being Neanderthals and started being homo sapiens.

Saying "Why don't we see it today?" is like saying "Why don't we see more coal forming from compressed peat?", only more absurd. Why don't we see the expansion of the universe? Because these things are far too gradual to measure within a lifetime.

 

[KaiRai]

I think if everything evolves, every 100 million years or so, there are more than 100 million species of anything on this planet. The up and coming years are bound to see something evolve by process of elimination, right?

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

For one, who cares? Be it the age of the Earth or where life came from. What good does it serve to prove one or the other? Darwin saw birds and monkeys on an island that had developed new traits, and that's all that he could prove. The rest is speculation at it's best. Beyond that, I'd love to know how a bunch of amino acids just up and decided to group up and start self-replicating. I wasn't there, modern scientists weren't there, scientist from our earliest recorded history weren't there. There's no way to know.

The fact of the matter is, we know jack nothing. We can take measurements on how the world is now, even then based on a great deal of assumptions. We can make assumptions about how the world was based on what we have observed so far, but we can't even be sure that the rates of the rates of the rates of change are constant.

If you want to talk fossil record, don't. It isn't even close to complete. We don't even know dates. C-14 dating is only accurately calibrated to 45,000 years. Respectable, but not exactly millions of billions. We base the age of bones beyond that on the rocks we find them in, and we base the age of some rocks by the bones we find in them. We can "kind-of" age rocks from sediment and magma, but there is even sedimentary rock with seashells in it on the top of the tallest mountains.

How did a rock formed either from tons of asteroids hitting each other, or just a molten mass that solidified, get so much water on it?

We just don't know, we can guess all we want, but we honestly don't have a clue. I frankly don't know why we care.

It's not guessing. Also, we don't have to be there to figure out what happened somewhere we weren't. That's a great part of science.

What do you think a "complete" fossil record is? What do you want from the fossil record that you aren't gettting? Every single individual has to fossilize before you what, "believe" in fossils?

I really hate this "we can't know anything" philosophical nonsense people start getting into when they reach a certain level of education. There's such a thing as keeping an open mind, and then there's leaving the lid flapping in the breeze.

 

[KaiRai]

How do you not believe in a fact? That's like saying I don't believe the sky is blue.

You haven't been to England have you? Its grey here...

This. Lol