- #36
nautica
This maybe a bit off topic. But, could someone give me some specific examples of speciation in nature, which have been observed. (preferrably in the animal kingdom).
thanks
nautica
thanks
nautica
O Great One said:Nenad,
Evolution is a fairy tale and everybody posting on this board knows it.
It is the one theory that is accepted by scientists that has no support. Notice how everybody says that evolution is a 'fact' supported by mountains of evidence. This is what you say when you have no support.
nautica said:This maybe a bit off topic. But, could someone give me some specific examples of speciation in nature, which have been observed. (preferrably in the animal kingdom).
thanks
nautica
When we observe speciation, it is the result of duplication of genetic information or the shuffling of information that is already there. Therefore, scientific induction dictates that this isn't the method by which all species come into existence.
The way I read it, there was some starting point - a base set of genetic information - and some evolution has proceeded from there. It is a misunderstanding of what is happening in evolution and ignores (among other things) 4 billion years of fossil records. It sounds like a variation of the "micro-evolution but not macro-evolution" argument.loseyourname said:Wait a second. Explain this a little better. Because we have observed new species come into existence through wholly natural processes, scientific induction dictates that the rest were created? There's a middle step or two in this argument that you aren't revealing. What is it?
I believe in a recent article of Scientific American, there was actually an article about how some scientists in some south western state were observing 1 specie of fly begin to speciate. It was something like the 2 populations wouldn't actively seek out mating with one another, when a male from population 1 bred with a female from population 2 the offspring was infertile, and when a male from population 2 bred with a female from population 1 there was no offspring...nautica said:This maybe a bit off topic. But, could someone give me some specific examples of speciation in nature, which have been observed. (preferrably in the animal kingdom).
thanks
nautica
wasteofo2 said:I believe in a recent article of Scientific American, there was actually an article about how some scientists in some south western state were observing 1 specie of fly begin to speciate. It was something like the 2 populations wouldn't actively seek out mating with one another, when a male from population 1 bred with a female from population 2 the offspring was infertile, and when a male from population 2 bred with a female from population 1 there was no offspring...
I'll try to dig it up and post about it.
loseyourname said:Is the divergence from Canis lupis to Canis familiaris good enough for you? There are examples that were not the result of artificial selection, but I still think domestic animals are the most obvious answer to this question.
If you want speciation events that were not the results of breeding by humans, look at these: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.Did you know that there is not a single creationist paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Do you know why? (the answer is not: conspiracy)
O Great One said:People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.
http://www.cyan.qc.ca/catacombes/Elephant%20LivingR.htm
I'm curious, in all of the speciation events that we have observed, has the daughter species ever been physically different from the parental species that it broke off from? Or are they physically identical?
O Great One said:People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.
Mentat said:3) Facts are always facts, but sometimes we might take things for fact that are not actually fact...that's why it's such a good thing that science doesn't deal much in facts ("fact" having the scientific definition of a readily observable phenomenon that is beyond reasonable doubt), but in theories ("theory" having the scientific definition of an explanation of a "fact").
CyrusMcC said:There is no proof that Humans and Apes "evolved" from a common ancestor. We weren't there to see it!
As for as I know you cannot disagree with me when I say that evolution is a theory.
Also theories can never be proven true or false. Every science professor in my college career has told me that.
Otherwise, it's just a Theory that attempts to “explain how life is today,” but that does not necessarily mean that's how it is.
O Great One said:Evolution is a fairy tale and everybody posting on this board knows it.
It is the one theory that is accepted by scientists that has no support.
O Great One said:People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.
http://www.cyan.qc.ca/catacombes/Elephant%20LivingR.htm
I'm curious, in all of the speciation events that we have observed, has the daughter species ever been physically different from the parental species that it broke off from? Or are they physically identical?
O Great One said:People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.
http://www.cyan.qc.ca/catacombes/Elephant%20LivingR.htm
Nereid said:Good to see that you're back posting in PF Mentat!
JD said:This might be slightly OTT but it is within the same general area (I trust).
Looking at the proposed process of how eukaryotic cells developed from prokaryotic cells (or at least the one described at: http://dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/students/w96/joshbond/symb.htm )
how supportive have experiments been of this hypothesis (or set of hypotheses), in particular, the inclusion (or at least use) of the prokaryotic DNA by the host cell?
russ_watters said:The evidence is so overwealming though that all anti-evolution arguments eventually reduce to the "deceitful God" hypothesis: God created the universe and the Earth 4,000 years ago and it only looks like its older than that.
Phobos said:If you are asking for absolute, no uncertainty, complete in every way Truth, then you won't find that anywhere except in Blind Faith.
Averagesupernova said:We are actually experiencing a form of rapid natural selection today. Human intelligence natural selection. Think about what it takes to survive in todays high tech world and think about where those who can't fit in are ending up.
If anything, the data suggests that those with lower 'intelligence' are more successful - they have more offspring than those of 'higher intelligence'. IIRC, the government of Singapore was so concerned about this that they launched a program - costing millions - to get bright young people to marry and have children. It failed.Averagesupernova said:We are actually experiencing a form of rapid natural selection today. Human intelligence natural selection. Think about what it takes to survive in todays high tech world and think about where those who can't fit in are ending up.
aychamo said:There is no such thing as an anti-evolution argument. For an argument to be sound, it has to have all true premises. Nothing an anti-evolution (or pro-Christian-God) "argument" puts forth as its premises is true, it's all faith based bull****.
Err?
lol. No we aren't.
Phobos said:Funny, my dictionary doesn't define "argument" that way. You may disagree with the arguments presented by Creationists, as I do, but those proffering it are usually doing so with honest intent. Regardless, you're argument of the ideas is welcome here, but not statements like that which are simply fuel for a flame war.
If you are going to post, please include some content.
Nereid said:Approx 800 million people in China make a good living from their 'mere' manual labour, ditto ~700 million in India, several hundred million in Africa, etc. IOW, the large majority of homo sap. survive and reproduce perfectly well just with 'manual labour'. In terms of evolution, the fact that a tiny, tiny minority of people in some geographical regions fail to have offspring will likely have zero effect, n'est pas?
Averagesupernova said:Sorry aychamo, but I disagree with you on several points. Yes, you are correct that not knowing anything about unix doesn't make you dumb, it just means you don't know anything about unix. But being dumb DOES in fact mean you will have a hard time knowing anything about certain, if not many subjects. The days are gone in this country when if all else fails you can always be a ditch digger. In virtually EVERY field manual labor has been replaced by mechanization. You simply cannot afford to pay someone what it takes for them to make even a marginal living considering the amount of productivity you will get from their manual labor. Believe it or not there ARE people who simply are not capable of doing anything but manual labor. Those are the ones being pushed out. There are many reasons why they are not capable. Some just plain don't want to but still are capable. Where do these people end up? You assumed the streets. You are correct, some of them DO end up on the streets, but a lot of them end up in prison as well. Unless they already have a family, it is unlikely that they will be reproducing in prison. Yes it is also correct to say that those lower income families have more children. But they are not what I consider the lowest on the scale. The lowest would be the ones who are in prison and live on the street. With any natural selection the lowest or weakest are the first to go. Do you get my point yet? There are other example of what I am talking about. One in the past has been those who go to war. The smartest probably find a way to stay out and if you're not smart enough to stay out, you might be smart enough to find a way to stay alive.
selfAdjoint said:They don't all agree on how good that living is. Look at the migrations to the cities, even in China, and the results of the Indian elections, which turned on rural resentment that development had bypassed them.
We just don't know what the slection pressure of the future are oing to be. Some posters have had fun with the stereotype of the asocial computer geek. But notice the explosive growth of computer dating and mate search. Maybe in the future only people who know the that-era equivalent of unix will be able to find spouses?
Thanks for the correction; sorry that I wasn't clear. By 'a good living', I meant 'successful at having offspring', the only sense meaningful for this thread.selfAdjoint said:They don't all agree on how good that living is. Look at the migrations to the cities, even in China, and the results of the Indian elections, which turned on rural resentment that development had bypassed them.
Things may well turn out like that; maybe those without such skills will find other ways to reproduce, perhaps even as surrogate mothers and sperm donors?We just don't know what the slection pressure of the future are oing to be. Some posters have had fun with the stereotype of the asocial computer geek. But notice the explosive growth of computer dating and mate search. Maybe in the future only people who know the that-era equivalent of unix will be able to find spouses?
There are other threads which discuss whether - in a biological sense - there are any human races; perhaps you could read those too?Averagesupernova said:You guys just don't seem to get it. I am NOT talking about the whole world population of less intelligent people going extinct. The examples I gave were in this country. But since you brought up other countries, I will comment. Why do the the folks from China look the way they do? What about Scandanavia? Or any other country you can think of? Because of the way those folks evolved in their environment. The population in THIS country will adapt to this environment. In another thread there is discussion of blacks evolving into whites. Go read it if you haven't. Humans evolving into 2 different types or races of humans. Supposedly the whites branched off.
Assuming by 'this country' you mean the USA, then perhaps there's a far more significant aspect you're overlooking? Immigration. Within a timeframe far too short for any significant evolution to have taken place, the population of the US has changed from a few (tens?) million people whose ancestors had lived in the region for at most a few thousand generations, to one of ~300 million, whose ancestors come from all over the world. There are no significant populations of isolated homo sap, it's one species and evolution is happening to the entire ~6 billion.I say RAPID natural selection because of the sudden change of technology we have experienced in the last 100 years or so. We all know evolution takes place over MANY MANY years. I am not saying saying over the last 20 years there have been obvious changes. But the big picture tells me that for many many years people lived a simple life doing manual labor farming, hunting and whatnot and suddenly LOTS of people moved to the city. For a while they still did manual labor but now even rural jobs mostly are mechanized.
Here's what we know about how the environment will change in the future, over time periods long enough to have an effect on the evolution of homo sap:Here is what we know about natural selection:
The characteristics of a population will change over many generations indirectly due to environmental changes.
In the last several hundred years we have experienced SERIOUS environmental changes. Figure it out.