How can scientists possibly know ... ?? An open exploration thread

[Mallon]

Hey, if it is God who is talking, who am I to question that? Of course my interpretation may be fallible, but He is not.

Agreed. So as long as we recognize our interpretation of God's inspired message as fallible, we should not be dogmatic about our position.

Science is not infallible, because it is human. Humans bring their own views and interpretation into it.

Who said otherwise? Remember when you accused me earlier of not reading your posts?

I was hoping for new species. Alas, I didn't, as I googled these that you mentioned.

You asked for new species; I gave them to you. And now you're saying they don't exist after looking around on Google for a couple of minutes?
I think you're being very dishonest, holdon. Please, quit squirming and admit that maybe there is something more to this speciation business than you've previously cared to read about. And if not, then please answer my previous request that you explain what mechanism prevents speciation form occuring over time. Lord knows the rest of us have put in enough effort explaining ourselves.

 

[holdon]

Who said otherwise? Remember when you accused me earlier of not reading your posts?

No, I was merely stating it.

You asked for new species; I gave them to you.

Well, why don't you give me something to verify that these are new formed species. I couldn't find it.

 

[Mallon]

Well, why don't you give me something to verify that these are new formed species. I couldn't find it.

I think I've done enough research for you, holdon. It's your turn to try now. Like I said earlier, if there's a paper you're interested in reading, give me the citation and I'll try tracking it down for you. Google doesn't have all the answers. Sometimes you have to dive into the scientific literature to find scientific answers.

 

[gluadys]

I agree. All it is adaptation within a species to pressures of various kinds. This does not explain new species occuring, if they do.

Yes it does. Because if you have part of a population of fish accustomed to living in salt water migrating up a stream and adapting to living in fresh water, it is very likely that after a few generations, it will be reproductively as well as ecologically isolated from the parent species which is still living in salt water. Hence, the freshwater form is a new species.

Heck, we have 100s of species of chiclid fish just in one lake in Africa.

Ring species show the same pattern. Population A at one end of the ring freely interbreeding with population B which also freely interbreeds with population C which also freely interbreeds with D...E...F which freely interbreeds with population G which is reproductively isolated from population A.

Let some ecological disaster wipe out populations C through E and no one would question that the A/B group is a different species than the reproductively isolated F/G group.

New species occurring in this way is not speculation. It has been observed and documented.

 

[holdon]

we should not be dogmatic about our position.

I guess this would apply to science as well, if not even more so.

Science is very much like a fundamentalist religious sect. They preach a certain paradigm; teach their disciples only this paradigm; baptize them into this paradigm (only recognize those who adopt the same paradigm); only appoint ministers (professors and teachers) who hold the same paradigm; who have studied at the same institutions that uphold this paradigm; etc.. The rest are easily branded as heretics in their literature.

These scientific preferences (heresies) are an obvious sign that at the very bottom science is just a belief system....

 

[holdon]

Yes it does. Because if you have part of a population of fish accustomed to living in salt water migrating up a stream and adapting to living in fresh water, it is very likely that after a few generations, it will be reproductively as well as ecologically isolated from the parent species which is still living in salt water. Hence, the freshwater form is a new species.

Heck, we have 100s of species of chiclid fish just in one lake in Africa.

Ring species show the same pattern. Population A at one end of the ring freely interbreeding with population B which also freely interbreeds with population C which also freely interbreeds with D...E...F which freely interbreeds with population G which is reproductively isolated from population A.

Let some ecological disaster wipe out populations C through E and no one would question that the A/B group is a different species than the reproductively isolated F/G group.

New species occurring in this way is not speculation. It has been observed and documented.

Of course, the Dane will have a hard time mating with a Chihuahua...
All you're talking about is variation; not an incremental increase in genetic information to bring it to a new species or genus.

 

[gluadys]

Of course, the Dane will have a hard time mating with a Chihuahua...
All you're talking about is variation; not an incremental increase in genetic information to bring it to a new species or genus.

The production of variation is what evolution is. Refusing to call it evolution does not change the fact that variations such as Great Dane and Chihuahua came about through the evolutionary mechanisms of mutation and selection (though not in this case "natural" selection.)

In this case we don't (yet) have reproductive isolation because although the breeds named would have problems mating, gene flow via intermediate breeds keeps them in the same species. This makes dog breeds essentially a ring species.

We have many examples in nature where speciation (reproductive isolation) has occurred.

You can call the resulting separate populations variations instead of species if you choose, but they still became different from and reproductively isolated from their parent species because they evolved.

Semantics don't change the facts.

 

[holdon]

The production of variation is what evolution is. Refusing to call it evolution does not change the fact that variations such as Great Dane and Chihuahua came about through the evolutionary mechanisms of mutation and selection (though not in this case "natural" selection.)

It is micro evolution. Like I said a few posts earlier. Macro evolution is where really new genetic material is added and functional so as to generate a completely new kind.

 

[gluadys]

It is micro evolution. Like I said a few posts earlier. Macro evolution is where really new genetic material is added and functional so as to generate a completely new kind.

You are using a non-standard definition of evolution. That is not what the process of evolution is theorized to be. The claims you are making are not part of the theory of evolution, nor is it claimed that they are necessary to evolution.

So your scenario is a strawman argument.

If you are going to claim evolution does not happen, first get right what science says evolution is and how it works. Then show that what is actually claimed doesn't happen.

If you think what you are describing is evolution, you've been had. It is a caricature of evolution you've been conned into thinking is the real thing.

 

[holdon]

You are using a non-standard definition of evolution. That is not what the process of evolution is theorized to be. The claims you are making are not part of the theory of evolution, nor is it claimed that they are necessary to evolution.

Huh???

If you are going to claim evolution does not happen, first get right what science says evolution is and how it works. Then show that what is actually claimed doesn't happen.

If you think what you are describing is evolution, you've been had. It is a caricature of evolution you've been conned into thinking is the real thing.

I have told you that what you have sought to demonstrate so far is merely micro evolution. That is differences in gene expression frequencies in a given population compared to another. It's variation and I have no problem with that. If you want to call a group that has (in most cases artificially) been bred and selected, a new species, that's fine with me. That really depends on the definition of what is a species.

What I challenge however, is macro evolution. Where one species becomes a entirely and completely different one, with different and more genetic information.
That would truly be the theory of the origin of new species....
Now, if you claim that does happen, give us an example what, where and how.

 

[gluadys]

Huh??? I have told you that what you have sought to demonstrate so far is merely micro evolution.

The prefix "micro-" is unnecessary and inaccurate. I have been describing evolution. Furthermore, I have been describing evolution that results in speciation or reproductive isolation of a population from its ancestor. When scientists do use a prefix, they use "macro-" to apply to evolution with speciation.

What I have been describing applies to evolution at all scales of time and change. Scientists don't stop calling evolution "evolution" just because no new species is a current result. They don't feel it is necessary or accurate to call evolution within a species by what precedes (variation) or follows (adaptation) the process of evolution in a species.

Variation is not evolution. Variation is a necessary pre-requisite to evolution. Adaptation is not evolution. It is a consequence of natural selection, a mechanism of evolution.

Evolution is selecting an adaptive variation and favoring its reproduction so that it appears more and more frequently in the population.

Scientists do distinguish between evolution within a species (as above) and evolution in which two sub-populations diverge to the extent that reproductive isolation occurs and the two groups which once formed a single gene pool are now two gene pools closed to each other. "micro-"evolution refers to the process within the species. "macro-" evolution refers to the identical process when it produces speciation.

With the exception of reproductive isolation, there is no difference in the results, and there is no difference at all in the process.

This is how ALL evolution occurs including the evolution of humans and chimpanzees from a common primate ancestor. No other or additional process is necessary.

If you want to call a group that has (in most cases artificially) been bred and selected, a new species, that's fine with me.

Actually, most artificial breeds are not new species, although there have been experiments in which reproductive isolation has resulted (with concurrent genetic change).

Most documented speciations have occurred in nature without artificial assistance.

What I challenge however, is macro evolution. Where one species becomes a entirely and completely different one, with different and more genetic information.

Depends on what you mean by "entirely and completely different" species. Evolution does not take any new population out of the genus in which its parent was found. Since we already have a genus of roses, any new species of rose will still be part of that genus. It won't suddenly pop up in a different genus or family, much less a different class and order.

Expecting a new species to be so different from its parent that it belongs in a completely different classification is like expecting a child to be a direct descendant of its uncle instead of its father. Doesn't happen.

That would truly be the theory of the origin of new species....

No, it wouldn't truly be the theory of the origin of new species.

It is not the theory Darwin first proposed. It is not the modern theory as it was developed in the 1930s-40s. It is not the theory that is agreed on by biologists today.

It is a strawman caricature of what is truly the theory of the origin of species (aka evolution).

So you can claim all you like that what you describe doesn't happen. I agree it doesn't happen. Because what you are attempting to describe is not how evolution is described by those who work in biology.

If you want to claim evolution (including speciation and common descent) doesn't happen, you will first need to understand what evolution is.

Or, if you prefer, you can keep barking up the wrong tree.

 

[holdon]

So you can claim all you like that what you describe doesn't happen. I agree it doesn't happen. Because what you are attempting to describe is not how evolution is described by those who work in biology.

There you said it: it doesn't happen. That's enough for me.
Because species tend to be so enormously stable (stasis) they have sought to explain the "jumping" to completely new species, in order to account for the great diversity of a supposed common ancestor (whatever that was). This is commonly called macroevolution. And to this date is has not been observed to happen in real life, and it is the object of great discussions and hypotheses.
You can stay in your morass of gradually changing variations and will never be able to arrive at these comparitively major genetic jumps to account for monophyletic evolution as taught in most textbooks or even polyphyletic evolution.

 

[Mallon]

There you said it: it doesn't happen. That's enough for me.

Nice quote mine.

Because species tend to be so enormously stable (stasis) they have sought to explain the "jumping" to completely new species, in order to account for the great diversity of a supposed common ancestor (whatever that was). This is commonly called macroevolution.

No, it is called 'punctuated equilibrium', as coined by Eldridge and Gould, and is not simply another term for macroevolution. In fact, 'punk eek' is not mutually exclusive to gradual evolution, as Gould himself would have told you (read his stuff). Rather, it is simply another hypothesized mechanism by which evolution occurs. Read these (including the original paper) and inform yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Common_misconceptions
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.asp

You can stay in your morass of gradually changing variations and will never be able to arrive at these comparitively major genetic jumps to account for monophyletic evolution as taught in most textbooks or even polyphyletic evolution.

Now you're using words you don't even seem to understand. There can be no such thing as "polyphyletic evolution". You're really killing your credibility, here.

 

[holdon]

Nice quote mine.


No, it is called 'punctuated equilibrium', as coined by Eldridge and Gould, and is not simply another term for macroevolution. In fact, 'punk eek' is not mutually exclusive to gradual evolution, as Gould himself would have told you (read his stuff). Rather, it is simply another hypothesized mechanism by which evolution occurs. Read these (including the original paper) and inform yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Common_misconceptions
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.asp

But of course that's why I said there is much debate about this. They try to reconcile one and the other; not an easy thing....

Now you're using words you don't even seem to understand. There can be no such thing as "polyphyletic evolution". You're really killing your credibility, here.

Really? By polyphyletic we mean that there may have been different original sources.

 

[gluadys]

There you said it: it doesn't happen. That's enough for me.
Because species tend to be so enormously stable (stasis) they have sought to explain the "jumping" to completely new species, in order to account for the great diversity of a supposed common ancestor (whatever that was). This is commonly called macroevolution.

The only people who commonly call that macroevolution are people who are trying to convince you that evolution does not happen and/or cannot account for common descent. They have a vested interest in distorting the information they provide you.

Macroevolution=speciation. You can easily find observed instances of speciation. Speciation does not require "jumping". Common descent does require "jumping". Nor does it require "completely new species" that are so different from their ancestors as to be outside their genus/family/order whatever.

Evolution is not about "completely" new species. It is about species which are modifications of other species. These require no jumping and explain common descent as well as or better than supposed but non-existent "jumping to completely new species".

And to this date is has not been observed to happen in real life,

I agree, your caricature of macro-evolution has not happened and will not happen, not because evolution does not happen, but because your caricature is actually not allowed in real macro-evolution.

You can stay in your morass of gradually changing variations and will never be able to arrive at these comparitively major genetic jumps to account for monophyletic evolution as taught in most textbooks or even polyphyletic evolution.

There are no major genetic jumps. Evolution does not need them to account for common descent. And this is NOT taught in most textbooks. (I'd be interested in a citation of such a textbook.)

See mallon's post.

 

[holdon]

The only people who commonly call that macroevolution are people who are trying to convince you that evolution does not happen and/or cannot account for common descent. They have a vested interest in distorting the information they provide you.

I guess that depends with scientific dogma you adhere to.

Macroevolution=speciation. You can easily find observed instances of speciation. Speciation does not require "jumping". Common descent does require "jumping". Nor does it require "completely new species" that are so different from their ancestors as to be outside their genus/family/order whatever.

Evolution is not about "completely" new species. It is about species which are modifications of other species. These require no jumping and explain common descent as well as or better than supposed but non-existent "jumping to completely new species".



I agree, your caricature of macro-evolution has not happened and will not happen, not because evolution does not happen, but because your caricature is actually not allowed in real macro-evolution.

You said that already, thank you. You're entitled to stick to your beliefs of course.

There are no major genetic jumps. Evolution does not need them to account for common descent.

Again, it depends on what ev. theory you believe in. Gould and Eldridge say evolution happens in "sudden leaps and bounds", with other long periods of stasis. This is to satisfy stasis and to still allow for incremental changes. (otherwise there would be no evolution at all)

Because, the And this is NOT taught in most textbooks. (I'd be interested in a citation of such a textbook.)

Common descent is not taught in most textbooks???

 

[Biblewriter]

But yes, the species had changed. It changed from 5% black to 95% black. (And then back to 5% black when the pollution was cleaned up.) How can you say that is not a change?

Here is simple proof of the nonsense, for anyone whose mind is not totally blinded by prejudice. No evolution of any kind took place. When the altered ecology was altered back, the mix of the species changed back to what it was before. No hereditary change of any kind took place at all.

A demonstration of natural selection is not a demonstration of evolution.

Depends on your definition of species. When you lump a whole genus or even family together as one "species" because they share a common name, you will get a hard time showing speciation. Speciation doesn't happen at that level. It happens at the point of reproductive isolation between similar populations.

As I said before, when you re-define a species as modern evolutionists have done, speciation can be demonstrated. Defining a species in this way eliminates the need to have new genetic material to have a new "species."

But evolution cannot proceed without the introduction of new genetic material that confers a distinctive procreatioal advantage.

 

[gluadys]

Again, it depends on what ev. theory you believe in.

There is only one theory of evolution recognized by the scientific community.

Gould and Eldridge say evolution happens in "sudden leaps and bounds", with other long periods of stasis. This is to satisfy stasis and to still allow for incremental changes. (otherwise there would be no evolution at all)

And if you think G&E's theory is incompatible with the standard theory of evoolution, you have not read their work. You are relying on hearsay which has distorted their theory.

Common descent is not taught in most textbooks???

Of course it is. But it is not taught that "gradually changing variations .. will never be able to arrive at these comparitively major genetic jumps to account for monophyletic evolution as taught in most textbooks ..."

In fact, the opposite is taught---namely that it is precisely these gradually changing variations that DO account for evolution (including macro-evolution) and common descent.

There has always been a temptation to introduce saltations (major jumps) into the evolutionary process. Thomas Huxley wanted to. Richard Goldschmidt wanted to with his notion of "hopeful monsters". Gould & Eldredge's initial presentation seemed (but only seemed) to suggest saltation.

(They were not actually suggesting major jumps in evolution. If you want to really know what "punk eek" is about, I suggest you actually read Gould for yourself.)

No attempt to introduce saltation into evolution has been successful. The process of evolution just does not allow it.

 

[gluadys]

Here is simple proof of the nonsense, for anyone whose mind is not totally blinded by prejudice. No evolution of any kind took place. When the altered ecology was altered back, the mix of the species changed back to what it was before. No hereditary change of any kind took place at all.

No hereditary change of any kind took place? So how did new generations of moths get their colour? Was it painted on them instead of written in their genes? Don't talk nonsense.

Colour is inherited. Melanism is governed by the expression of an inherited gene. The predominant colour of the species changed--twice--once to black and once back to white. Both changes were hereditary and illustrated differential reproductive success.

A demonstration of natural selection is not a demonstration of evolution.

That's like saying a demonstration of a slapshot is not a demonstration of hockey.

As I said before, when you re-define a species as modern evolutionists have done, speciation can be demonstrated. Defining a species in this way eliminates the need to have new genetic material to have a new "species."

We all know that the biological species concept does not work for all species. However, where you do have exclusively sexual reproduction, it seems to work well. If separate gene pools do not indicate separate species, what, in your opinion, does?

But evolution cannot proceed without the introduction of new genetic material that confers a distinctive procreatioal advantage.

Actually, evolution seems to do quite well with duplicated, rearranged and modified genetic material.

I don't know what you mean by procreational advantage. It is not giving birth to more offspring that is all important, but having more of them survive through their reproductive cycle. If one bird produces 10 chicks of whom 2 survive to hatch chicks of their own, while another produces only three but all three survive to hatch chicks of their own, it is the latter whose descendants will come to dominate the species.

 

[holdon]

There is only one theory of evolution recognized by the scientific community.

Ah, the dogmatic stance.

There has always been a temptation to introduce saltations (major jumps) into the evolutionary process. Thomas Huxley wanted to. Richard Goldschmidt wanted to with his notion of "hopeful monsters". Gould & Eldredge's initial presentation seemed (but only seemed) to suggest saltation.

And guess why that perceived need existed and still exists. Because the gradual model cannot satisfactorily explain a whole lot of things.

No attempt to introduce saltation into evolution has been successful. The process of evolution just does not allow it.

That is your interpretation of evolution does not allow it. Not everybody thinks so.