Hybrids Prove New Species are Possible

[Dale]

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
--Genesis 1:24 NIV

Some may take this and other verses from the Creation story to mean that living things will always reproduce according to their kind. As a general rule, this is true but there are exceptions, such as mutation. Creationists assure me that living things cannot mate and produce a new species, but in fact, this does happen. It's called hybridization or hybrid speciation.

We don't have to go to the ends of the earth to find hybrids. Wheat is a hybrid. I had better pass on to animals since experience shows that creationists have no interest in plants.


Try this one.


Bear shot in N.W.T. was grizzly-polar hybrid
Could be first 2nd generation hybrid found in wild


The story is from the Canadian Broadcasting Company in April of 2010.

<< Biologists in the Northwest Territories have confirmed that an unusual-looking bear shot earlier this month near Ulukhaktok, N.W.T., was a rare hybrid grizzly-polar bear. >>

Also,

<< "This confirms the existence of at least one female polar-grizzly hybrid near Banks Island," the release said.
"This may be the first recorded second-generation polar-grizzly bear hybrid found in the wild."
>>

This conclusion is based on DNA analysis as well as physical characteristics. Biologists believe it is a "second generation" hybrid bear. In other words, these hybrids not only exist, they are fertile and can produce offspring.

"Hybrid bears will likely become more common in the North, as the direct consequence of climate change, predicts Brendan Kelly, a marine biologist with the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks."


Link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100705233832/http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/04/30/nwt-grolar-bear.html#ixzz5XimrPrUQ

 

[JohnB445]

Yes, and it reminds me of the mark of the beast because remember the hybrid humans had to be wiped out by God.

Mark of the beast may be the same way, I dunno. The Bible says those who take the mark will get sores and very sick.

 

[grasping the after wind]

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
--Genesis 1:24 NIV

Some may take this and other verses from the Creation story to mean that living things will always reproduce according to their kind. As a general rule, this is true but there are exceptions, such as mutation. Creationists assure me that living things cannot mate and produce a new species, but in fact, this does happen. It's called hybridization or hybrid speciation.

We don't have to go to the ends of the earth to find hybrids. Wheat is a hybrid. I had better pass on to animals since experience shows that creationists have no interest in plants.


Try this one.


Bear shot in N.W.T. was grizzly-polar hybrid
Could be first 2nd generation hybrid found in wild


The story is from the Canadian Broadcasting Company in April of 2010.

<< Biologists in the Northwest Territories have confirmed that an unusual-looking bear shot earlier this month near Ulukhaktok, N.W.T., was a rare hybrid grizzly-polar bear. >>

Also,

<< "This confirms the existence of at least one female polar-grizzly hybrid near Banks Island," the release said.
"This may be the first recorded second-generation polar-grizzly bear hybrid found in the wild."
>>

This conclusion is based on DNA analysis as well as physical characteristics. Biologists believe it is a "second generation" hybrid bear. In other words, these hybrids not only exist, they are fertile and can produce offspring.

"Hybrid bears will likely become more common in the North, as the direct consequence of climate change, predicts Brendan Kelly, a marine biologist with the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks."


Link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100705233832/http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/04/30/nwt-grolar-bear.html#ixzz5XimrPrUQ

And I thought bears were of a kind. Let me know when a crocodile mates with a platypus to produce offspring. Then I will be impressed. Two different types of bears producing a hybrid is as unsurprising as seeing a cockapoo or any other mutt like my dog who has DNA from at least 4 separate types of dogs. I know some people deny any type of evolution takes place, but the evidence to disprove that claim has been around a lot longer than this polizzly bear has. Heck I believe it is likely that I have Neanderthal ancestry to a small degree. But human x human = human, dog x dog= dog and bear x bear =bear. Wake me up when tiger x elephant = something.

 

[Tolworth John]

Bear shot in N.W.T. was grizzly-polar hybrid

Wow what a shocking relelation a bear has produced....
wait for it. .. it produced a bear.

This is evidence for evolution !

evolution is 'goo to you, via the zoo'

 

[Dale]

The question of fertility in interspecies hybrids is not as simple as many have assumed.


"Similarly, in the animal kingdom, hybrids are often sterile. For example, when you breed a tiger and a lion [they] will only produce sterile males. Females, however, are fertile. Hybrids are much more possible, and therefore common, in the plant kingdom."


"First off, not all hybrids are sterile. However, it is more common among these animals to be infertile due to the presence of extra chromosomes in their DNA. An extra chromosome means that it cannot create a homologous pair. This will result in the disruption of the meiosis stage which ultimately hinders the formation of sex cells."


Link:
9 Fascinating Real Hybrid Animals

 

[Dale]

This graphic is from Wikipedia.






Link
Hybrid speciation - Wikipedia

 

[Hank77]

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
--Genesis 1:24 NIV

Some may take this and other verses from the Creation story to mean that living things will always reproduce according to their kind. As a general rule, this is true but there are exceptions, such as mutation. Creationists assure me that living things cannot mate and produce a new species, but in fact, this does happen. It's called hybridization or hybrid speciation.

We don't have to go to the ends of the earth to find hybrids. Wheat is a hybrid. I had better pass on to animals since experience shows that creationists have no interest in plants.


Try this one.


Bear shot in N.W.T. was grizzly-polar hybrid
Could be first 2nd generation hybrid found in wild


The story is from the Canadian Broadcasting Company in April of 2010.

<< Biologists in the Northwest Territories have confirmed that an unusual-looking bear shot earlier this month near Ulukhaktok, N.W.T., was a rare hybrid grizzly-polar bear. >>

Also,

<< "This confirms the existence of at least one female polar-grizzly hybrid near Banks Island," the release said.
"This may be the first recorded second-generation polar-grizzly bear hybrid found in the wild."
>>

This conclusion is based on DNA analysis as well as physical characteristics. Biologists believe it is a "second generation" hybrid bear. In other words, these hybrids not only exist, they are fertile and can produce offspring.

"Hybrid bears will likely become more common in the North, as the direct consequence of climate change, predicts Brendan Kelly, a marine biologist with the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks."


Link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100705233832/http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/04/30/nwt-grolar-bear.html#ixzz5XimrPrUQ

Yes they can breed and produce little bears like themselves. They can also breed with a pure grizzly or a pure polar bear and produce little bears. They are not a separate species.

 

[Hank77]

The question of fertility in interspecies hybrids is not as simple as many have assumed.


"Similarly, in the animal kingdom, hybrids are often sterile. For example, when you breed a tiger and a lion [they] will only produce sterile males. Females, however, are fertile. Hybrids are much more possible, and therefore common, in the plant kingdom."


"First off, not all hybrids are sterile. However, it is more common among these animals to be infertile due to the presence of extra chromosomes in their DNA. An extra chromosome means that it cannot create a homologous pair. This will result in the disruption of the meiosis stage which ultimately hinders the formation of sex cells."


Link:
9 Fascinating Real Hybrid Animals

There are different types of hybridization. Your link isn't helpful. They mix in a Wolf Dog which is not the same as breeding a zebra and donkey.
Wolves and dogs both have 39 pairs of chromosomes, they make really cute little wolf dogs. Those offspring can breed with their parents and have offspring therefore they are not a new species.

How can an animal be a new species if it can't replicate itself, which a Zonkey cannot? It's just a hybrid and fun to look at.

 

[Dale]

Creationists often claim that mutation cannot produce desirable characteristics. I think they are wrong, but sticking to the subject, hybrid speciation is known to produce characteristics that could be beneficial.

In captivity, lions and tigers can mate to produce ligers. I have seen ligers on television. In ligers, the males are sterile but the females are fertile. "The other hybrid, the liger, ends up larger than either of its parents: about a thousand pounds (450 kilograms) fully-grown."

If a hybrid can be larger than the parents, this is a characteristic that could be a considerable advantage as long as there is enough food to maintain this weight.


Source: See Wikipedia under Hybrid Speciation under Ecological Constraints
Hybrid speciation - Wikipedia

 

[Dale]

Returning to wheat, it is a valuable crop and has been around a long time. The dollar value of wheat in world trade is larger than all other crops together. The type of wheat first cultivated in the ancient world is called emmer. Archaeologists say that cultivation of emmer in the Middle East goes back to 9600 BC, or almost twelve thousand years ago. Experts believe that wild emmer is a hybrid, of two distinct species, with hybridization occurring in nature, probably centuries before it was domesticated.


In modern times, wheat species continue to hybridize. Various forms of wheat are diploid, tetraploid or hexaploid, that is, having two, four or six sets of chromosomes. Where did these odd variations come from?


"Hexaploid wheats evolved in farmers' fields."

Note the word "evolved."


Source:
Wheat - Wikipedia

 

[Dale]

One hybrid species among mammals that is well established in the wild is the clymene dolphin, or short-nosed spinner dolphin.

"This species is the result of the natural interbreeding in the wild between the striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) and the spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris)."

Clymene dolphins are found all over the tropical and temperate regions of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico. They form pods of 60-80 individuals. There is no solid information on how many clymene dolphins there are but there could be as many as 7,000.

Source:
Clymene Dolphin (Stenella clymene) - Dolphin Facts and Information





"A well-known dolphin species, the clymene dolphin, arose from mating between two separate and distinct dolphin species, report genetics researchers."

A story in National Geographic quotes Ana Amaral, a marine biologist at the University of Lisbon.


<< ... Amaral and colleagues discovered that while the nuclear DNA of the clymene dolphin most resembled that of the spinner dolphin, the mitochondrial DNA was most similar to that of the striped dolphin. ...

"This is strong evidence that the clymene dolphin is a naturally occurring hybrid of the spinner and striped dolphins, said Amaral. >>


The same story quotes Pamela Willis, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Victoria, Canada.

<< "You need to have hybrids be as fit as the parental species, able to carve out their own ecological space," she explained.

Then they somehow have to mate with only each other, rather than with either parental species, "hence allowing them to spin off onto their own, independent evolutionary trajectory and become a species of their own," Willis added. "Both of these conditions are hard to meet." >>

Further,

<< This study "adds to an ever-increasing amount of recent research that indicates that hybridization is a common and important part of animal evolution, facilitating the formation of new species," Willis said. >>

Source
DNA Discovery Reveals Surprising Dolphin Origins

 

[Dale]

There are different types of hybridization. Your link isn't helpful. They mix in a Wolf Dog which is not the same as breeding a zebra and donkey.
Wolves and dogs both have 39 pairs of chromosomes, they make really cute little wolf dogs. Those offspring can breed with their parents and have offspring therefore they are not a new species.

How can an animal be a new species if it can't replicate itself, which a Zonkey cannot? It's just a hybrid and fun to look at.

The information in posts #10 and #11, particularly #11, should answer the question you are asking. Some hybrids are fertile enough to produce a new species. Also, in post #1, the grizzly-polar hybrid is "second generation," so they are fertile as well, and may result in a new species if conditions are right.

 

[Hank77]

Also, in post #1, the grizzly-polar hybrid is "second generation," so they are fertile as well,

They are a crossbred bear and only a bear. They are not another species of animal as they can still breed with their grandparents and have a little bear.

Proving their genetic compatibility, brown bears and polar bears can mate and produce viable, or fertile, offspring. It is this reproductive viability that establishes that an animal belongs within a given species. In 2006, a hybrid grizzly/polar bear, which some call a “pizzly,” was discovered in the Canadian Arctic, providing researchers proof that polar bears and grizzly bears can interbreed, even in the wild.
...
This is believed to be an important step in the evolution of a new subspecies of bear — Ursus maritimus or the polar bear.

The 'prizzly' is a subspecies just like the polar bear is, thye are not a new species.
Arctic Bears | How Grizzlies Evolved into Polar Bears | Nature | PBS

 

[Hank77]

"Similarly, in the animal kingdom, hybrids are often sterile. For example, when you breed a tiger and a lion [they] will only produce sterile males. Females, however, are fertile. Hybrids are much more possible, and therefore common, in the plant kingdom."

So because a female liger is fertile are you saying that the liger is a new species?

 

[RDKirk]

Creationists often claim that mutation cannot produce desirable characteristics. I think they are wrong, but sticking to the subject, hybrid speciation is known to produce characteristics that could be beneficial.

In captivity, lions and tigers can mate to produce ligers. I have seen ligers on television. In ligers, the males are sterile but the females are fertile. "The other hybrid, the liger, ends up larger than either of its parents: about a thousand pounds (450 kilograms) fully-grown."

If a hybrid can be larger than the parents, this is a characteristic that could be a considerable advantage as long as there is enough food to maintain this weight.

To get back to an earlier post, if the male liger is sterile, then you can't mate a male liger with a female liger to produce a stable lineage of ligers. So how can you call that a new "species" if it cannot continue to reproduce itself?

Edit: I Googled "is a mule a species" and the answer to that is, "No."

 

[The Barbarian]

Wow what a shocking relelation a bear has produced....
wait for it. .. it produced a bear.

It's not very surprising. Polar bears evolved from grizzly bears maybe 100,000 years ago. They are about as different genetically from each other as humans are from chimpanzees. But they didn't have a change in chromosome number as humans did. So not a big surprise that they can still interbreed. Zoos that have let them stay in the same enclosures quickly learned that.

The Barnoff Island brown bears are very close genetically to polar bears, apparently by inbreeding centuries ago.

This is evidence for evolution !

Yes. Remember what evolution is.

evolution is 'goo to you, via the zoo'

That's a common misconception. It's not about the way life began. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population of living things over time. So hybridization, if it leads to fertile individuals, is evolution. Mostly, it's not by hybridization, though.

For example, Polar bears show genetically that they evolved from a very small population of brown bears. They are still genetically very homogenous, and show no intermixture with brown bears.

 

[Tolworth John]

That's a common misconception. It's not about the way life began. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population of living things over time.

I didn't mention how life began, just the process that the highly complex single celled first creature had to go through in order for there to be human life.

So as evolution is a 'scientific fact' please explain how that single celled creature became a multiecelled creature.
Where did the information required to form specialist cells , or the information instructing the cell aquiring nutrients to share the nutrients with the specialist cells come from?

 

[The Barbarian]

I didn't mention how life began

That's what the "goo to you" stuff is about. Didn't they tell you?

just the process that the highly complex single celled first creature had to go through in order for there to be human life.

Since there are all stages of that evolution still living on Earth, it's not much of a problem.

So as evolution is a 'scientific fact' please explain how that single celled creature became a multiecelled creature.

We still see it happening today. Slime molds are unicellular organisms. But sometimes they gather together, form an organism with specialized structures, and produce spores. There isn't much difference between colonial choanocytes and sponges.

From

Origin of animal multicellularity: precursors, causes, consequences—the choanoflagellate/sponge transition, neurogenesis and the Cambrian explosion
Thomas Cavalier-Smith
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017 Feb 5; 372(1713)
Multicellularity evolves in two ways. Naked cells, as in animals and slime moulds, evolve glue to stick together. Walled cells modify wall biogenesis to inhibit the final split that normally makes separate unicells, so daughters remain joined. The ease of blocking that split allowed almost every group of bacteria, fungi and plants (and many chromists) to evolve multicellular walled filaments, more rarely two-dimensional sheets, most rarely three-dimensional tissues. Tissues require more geometric control of daughter wall orientation, as in embryophyte green plants and chromist brown algae; both can grow longer than blue whales. Evolving tissues is selectively harmful to many walled multicells whose filaments are best for reproductive success. Almost all multicells retain unicellular phases (eggs, sperm, zygotes), so adhesion is temporally controlled and developmentally reversible—except for purely clonal vegetatively propagating plants or ‘colonial’ invertebrates (evolutionarily transient) the only organisms that are never unicellular.

Where did the information required to form specialist cells

All the functions necessary for life would be in each cell, so the information would be there. There are at most, 8 types of cells in a sponge, and they all are formed from a single type, the archaeocytes. For an incipient multicellular animal, the colonial stage would be followed by an organism where the exterior was tougher and more resistant to damage (pinacocytes). To grow larger, an advanced sponge would have a central cavity with cells forming pores and flagella to move water in and out. The interior would be lined with choanocytes.

Pretty simple, really. Sponges lack tissues found in all other animals, but the layer of pinacocytes is very tissue-like.

 

[Tolworth John]

We still see it happening today. Slime molds are unicellular organisms.

All the functions necessary for life would be in each cell, so the information would be there.

Ah I see it now. evolution is not something that happens it is just word play.
A creature has a change and that is evolution, even though the creature is still a slime mould, or a dog, or a bird with a bill that changes sizes between generations.

So glad you convinced me there is no evidence for evolution.

Just to be clear that is sarcasm.
your evidence of evolution is change that does not alter the creature, it starts as slime mould and it is still slime mould even many generations later.

and according to you a sing celled creature has the genetic information to enable it to become any creture? see the second quote.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ah I see it now. evolution is not something that happens

We directly observe it happening. You're confusing evolution with de novo creation. You see, evolution never produces something from nothing. It's always a modification of something already there. Like the transition from unicellular choanoflagellates, to sponges, to metazoans, we see only modification of things already there to make new structures and traits.

A creature has a change and that is evolution

No. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. So sponges are genetically very much like choanoflagellates, but they have some significant mutations that modify older genes to new functions.

So glad you convinced me there is no evidence for evolution.

We directly observe it, as you just learned.

Just to be clear that is sarcasm.

Technically, it's called a "misconception."

your evidence of evolution is change that does not alter the creature,

As you just learned, a change from single-celled life to multicellular life can happen without any evolution at all. (in the case of slime molds) Or it can involved some basic changes in genes such as the evolution of sponges from single-celled organisms. But remember, sponges still retain most of the genes from choanoflagellates. It's just a change in allele frequency. The big difference between the change in slime molds and the change in sponges, is that the former is not an evolutionary change, and the latter is.

it starts as slime mould and it is still slime mould even many generations later.

Slime molds do evolve; we see cases of mutation and allele frequency shift. But they so far, haven't actually evolved to the point that they remain multicellular, as sponges have done.

and according to you a sing celled creature has the genetic information to enable it to become any creture?

You are about 50% similar to a banana, for example. About 60% similar to an insect. And not surprisingly, we are much closer to fish than either of those. And closer to reptiles than to fish, and so on.

Modification of existing things is the way evolution works. This is why reptiles have simple ears and complex jaws, while mammals have simple jaws and complex ears. In mammal-like reptiles, some of the lower jaw bones became smaller and more closely attached to the ear (the lower jaw in reptiles is attached to the ear and transmits vibrations to the ear).

If you would like to learn where jawbones and ear bones originated, we can go back a little farther. Would you like to learn about that?