Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Justatruthseeker]

When they diverge far enough do be definitive--then it's easier. In general there will be a long time during the speciation process when at least partial interfertility will be possible. But in biology species determination is often difficult and sometimes controversial, regardless. That, and the species "boundary" (if there is such a thing) is not as important to a biologist as it is to a creationist. With regard to the finches, it was the variation in beaks Darwin observed which gave him the idea of evolution, not the exact determination of species.

And you have observed this divergence far enough to become definitive with anything? How long is a long time, after we are all dead and gone so no one can prove anything? Is this another one of those ad hoc assumptions we are to take for granted even if never observed?

Dogs if left to natural occurrences like famine, etc instead of man interfering would have encompassed hundreds of millions of years to produce but a few breeds, but in the end would still be the same species.

So are you claiming that mutation to the ALX1 gene which changes beaks is reason enough to designate them as separate species? Or are you going to waffle on this as well?

And yet despite your claim Darwin specifically states in his books that he classified them as separate species based upon the belief they were reproductively isolated. It is that which he believed led to different beaks and separate species.

But they are not reproductively isolated, were never reproductively isolated and speciation never happened.

Must we now go to the definition of speciation to see how it supposedly occurs?

 

[pshun2404]

The progeny of the observed colony cannot breed with the other species of finches on the islands - as far as I understand it (and I'm definitely no expert on this) this is one of the definitions of speciation.

Your understand wrong, it is not that they cannot it is that they do not (there are many reasons for this within sub-species of other animals as well).All observations in nature and as tested and performed in labs show that speciation ONLY produces different varieties (sub species) of the same creature! Go with the real observable test demonstrated evidence on this one...

 

[Radagast]

Or they really want to think that they are a new species. I mean, if I were studying it for 40 years, I'd certainly want to believe that is what it is.

Indeed.

However, in 40 years, they haven't managed to get a paper accepted making the case that this is a new species.

 

[Radagast]

Speciation occurs.

But if you want to "see it in action," you're better off looking at plants.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When I was younger I used to dream of ways to get rich. Joining the worldwide atheistic evolution conspiracy was not one that occurred to me. Mainly, I suppose, because none of the scientists I knew seemed particularly well-to-do or politically powerful.

Because none of them controll who gets the grant money. They are just cogs in the machine.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But if you want to "see it in action," you're better off looking at plants.

Which ones, the ones we genetically spliced?

 

[Speedwell]

But if you want to "see it in action," you're better off looking at plants.

I get the impression that creationists don't care so much whether plants speciate or not, as they don't contain the "breath of life."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your understand wrong, it is not that they cannot it is that they do not (there are many reasons for this within sub-species of other animals as well).All observations in nature and as tested and performed in labs show that speciation ONLY produces different varieties (sub species) of the same creature! Go with the real observable test demonstrated evidence on this one...

They can’t. They can’t accept the DNA data showed extensive interchange of genes and mixed ancestory. To accept that would mean not only can they interbreed, but have done so across the entire lot of them.

That then as you correctly conclude would make them subspecies, not separate species.

They have the name Darwin attached to them and they will never admit to them being but subspecies. It is never going to happen regardless of the DNA data showing they have always been interbreeding.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I get the impression that creationists care so much whether plants speciate or not, as they don't contain the "breath of life."

Plants don’t spectate either, unless you incorrectly classify them, or genetically design them in the lab. But that just shows intelligent design, not evolution. And then it is still debatable as to if they are separate species, since they were all one species to begin with.

Now genetically splice an apple tree with a pea, and you might have a case to argue.

Or will you now argue that the lack of ability to pollinate with its parent species is adequate grounds, and then refuse to accept that finches capable of interbreeding are not separate species?

So either the ability to mate is an indication of the same species, or the inability to mate is not an indication of separate species. You can’t have inability to mate means separate then refuse to accept ability to do so doesn’t mean same.

Likewise if ability to mate doesn’t mean same, then inability to mate doesn’t mean separate.

 

[Radagast]

Plants don’t spectate either.

Plants speciate through polyploidy -- getting multiple sets of chromosomes. This can happen artificially, or in the wild.

 

[tyke]

Plants don’t spectate either, unless you incorrectly classify them, or genetically design them in the lab. But that just shows intelligent design, not evolution. And then it is still debatable as to if they are separate species, since they were all one species to begin with.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this means - how is it evidence for intelligent design?

More unevidenced assertions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Plants speciate through polyploidy -- getting multiple sets of chromosomes. This can happen artificially, or in the wild.

So? The cells in the human heart have variable numbers of chromosomes.

Ploidy - Wikipedia

“For example, the hearts of two-year-old children contain 85% diploid and 15% tetraploid nuclei, but by 12 years of age the proportions become approximately equal, and adults examined contained 27% diploid, 71% tetraploid and 2% octaploid nuclei.”

Some insects the different members of the same species have different numbers. Don’t see you arguing they should be separate species because of that.

“Ploidy can also differ with life cycle.[19][20] In some insects it differs by caste. In humans, only the gametes are haploid, but in the Australian bulldog ant, Myrmecia pilosula, a haplodiploidspecies, haploid individuals of this species have a single chromosome, and diploid individuals have two chromosomes.”

Are you arguing that the different caste of the Australian bulldog ant should be classified as separate species? If not why, since you are insisting different members of the same plant are for that reason...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this means - how is it evidence for intelligent design?

More unevidenced assertions.

Are you claiming plants we genetically spliced in the lab would have done so naturally on their own?

 

[Radagast]

Are you arguing that the different caste of the Australian bulldog ant should be classified as separate species? If not why, since you are insisting different members of the same plant are for that reason...

The point is that being polyploid stops plants from reproducing with their parent species. Thus becoming polyploid instantly creates a new species.

This applies to reproduction; somatic cells of a large organism, or castes of social insects may differ in ploidy, and that doesn't matter.

The key idea is: any mutation which prevents reproduction with the parent species (and which survives) instantly creates a new species.

 

[tyke]

Are you claiming plants we genetically spliced in the lab would have done so naturally on their own?

I am saying that I don't understand how you infer intelligent design from an OP about speciation in Darwins' finches.

And please don't flinch from the OP ( see what I did there)?
Ok - I'll get my coat.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The point is that being polyploid stops plants from reproducing with their parent species. Thus becoming polyploid instantly creates a new species.

This applies to reproduction; somatic cells of a large organism, or castes of social insects may differ in ploidy, and that doesn't matter.

The key idea is: any mutation which prevents reproduction with the parent species (and which survives) instantly creates a new species.

Then you would agree by your own reasoning that if not being able to reproduce means a separate species, then being able to reproduce means the same species?

So finches are classified wrong. Lions and tigers are classified wrong. Polar bears and grizzly bears are classified wrong. And the list goes on and on and on.....

Worker ants of the Australian bulldog ant can’t mate with their parents, or even others of their own caste. So they should by your reasoning be classified as a separate species of ant, distinct from the queen and drones.

So you now admit you are wrong in arguing finches are separate species, this is the logical conclusion of your claims of not being able to reproduce means a separate species. So you were arguing for something you now admit was wrong, simply to further the belief in evolution?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am saying that I don't understand how you infer intelligent design from an OP about speciation in Darwins' finches.

And please don't flinch from the OP ( see what I did there)?
Ok - I'll get my coat.

Never said anything about inferring intelligent design to Darwin’s finches. Was discussing laboratory genetically spliced plants, since someone brought up plants.

 

[pshun2404]

What did you find tobe fuzzy about them mating right in front of their eyes?

Why try to play them off, you can’t follow either one.

Species - Biology-Online Dictionary

“(2) (taxonomy) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.”

Speciation doesn’t occurr, certainly not with interbreeding pairs.

So, if the collection of terms are ad hoc concepts, then claiming one finch is a separate species is also ad hoc and holds little merit at all. Even if I see nothing ad hoc in either definition. Nor fuzzy when they are interbreeding right in front of their noses.

Why do I care? Apparently I care that science is done, not ad hoc classifications that have no meaning according to you. And btw, how does one support speciation after one admits his classification of species is based on ad hoc definitions?

Why do you care?

And who needs to look for gotchas? They are right out in the open for everyone to see. It’s your claims of speciation which fail, every single time. Even more so since you admit it is all based on ad hoc definitions to begin with.

Your last three or four posts have been spot on...good job! Yes they blur and even change definitions as convenient and never can simply say "Sorry! I guess we were wr-wr-wr-wrong...!" They have a real problem once convinced of a claim, separating the the real observable testable data from the story they have been persuaded is true.

 

[pshun2404]

They can’t. They can’t accept the DNA data showed extensive interchange of genes and mixed ancestory. To accept that would mean not only can they interbreed, but have done so across the entire lot of them.

That then as you correctly conclude would make them subspecies, not separate species.

They have the name Darwin attached to them and they will never admit to them being but subspecies. It is never going to happen regardless of the DNA data showing they have always been interbreeding.

Indeed the same is true for Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the so-called Sapien sapiens, but reclassifying them officially (though more and more scientists are agreeing these are only sub-species) does not fit the programmed paradigm and so many articles would have to be seen as incorrect or re-written. Plaus it would force us to re-think the out-of-Africa theory (Neanderthals existing from about 400,000 to 600,000 years ago means homo sapiens did not make that first migration only 195,000 years ago). When the OMO humans migrated 195,000 years ago they were met by homo sapiens already there (though a different variety of human) socially interacted and even mated producing fertile offspring (hence, same species).

 

[Radagast]

So finches are classified wrong.

That is exactly what I have been suggesting since the start of this thread -- at least for the genus Geospiza. Please try to keep up.

Lions and tigers are classified wrong.

No, because, although they can mate, their offspring is sterile. Same as with horses and donkeys.

Worker ants of the Australian bulldog ant can’t mate with their parents

Worker ants, bulldog or otherwise, don't mate at all.