Hybrids Prove New Species are Possible

[Tolworth John]

We directly observe it,

Evidence please.
This is something very new because otherwise atheists would be queuing up to demonstrate this evidence to Ken Ham etc.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. It's directly observed.

Evidence please.

Natural Selection on a Major Armor Gene in Threespine Stickleback
Rowan D. H. Barrett*,Sean M. Rogers,
Science 10 Oct 2008:
Vol. 322, Issue 5899, pp. 255-257
Abstract
Experimental estimates of the effects of selection on genes determining adaptive traits add to our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. We measured selection on genotypes of the Ectodysplasin locus, which underlie differences in lateral plates in threespine stickleback fish. A derived allele (low) causing reduced plate number has been fixed repeatedly after marine stickleback colonized freshwater from the sea, where the ancestral allele (complete) predominates. We transplanted marine sticklebacks carrying both alleles to freshwater ponds and tracked genotype frequencies over a generation. The low allele increased in frequency once lateral plates developed, most likely via a growth advantage. Opposing selection at the larval stage and changing dominance for fitness throughout life suggest either that the gene affects additional traits undergoing selection or that linked loci also are affecting fitness.

This is something very new

Nope. This one is over 10 years old.

because otherwise atheists would be queuing up to demonstrate this evidence to Ken Ham etc.

Ham is well aware of the evidence showing evolution. He responded years ago, by redefining"evolution" to mean "change so drastic that no one could live long enough to see it happen."

 

[Tolworth John]

Barbarian observes:
Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. It's directly observed.



Natural Selection on a Major Armor Gene in Threespine Stickleback
Rowan D. H. Barrett*,Sean M. Rogers,
Science 10 Oct 2008:
Vol. 322, Issue 5899, pp. 255-257
Abstract
Experimental estimates of the effects of selection on genes determining adaptive traits add to our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. We measured selection on genotypes of the Ectodysplasin locus, which underlie differences in lateral plates in threespine stickleback fish. A derived allele (low) causing reduced plate number has been fixed repeatedly after marine stickleback colonized freshwater from the sea, where the ancestral allele (complete) predominates. We transplanted marine sticklebacks carrying both alleles to freshwater ponds and tracked genotype frequencies over a generation. The low allele increased in frequency once lateral plates developed, most likely via a growth advantage. Opposing selection at the larval stage and changing dominance for fitness throughout life suggest either that the gene affects additional traits undergoing selection or that linked loci also are affecting fitness.



Nope. This one is over 10 years old.



Ham is well aware of the evidence showing evolution. He responded years ago, by redefining"evolution" to mean "change so drastic that no one could live long enough to see it happen."

Natural selection is scientificly proven, but it is not evolution.
So again evidence please of evolution.

 

[Dale]

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.



Yes. Remember what evolution is.



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.

Barbarian: " Polar bears evolved from grizzly bears maybe 100,000 years ago."

The information I've seen says that they diverged longer ago than that.


"A population of brown bears that lived along the coast became specialized for hunting seals, eventually evolving into the polar bear around 700,000 years ago."


Link
North American Bear Center - Bear Evolution

 

[Dale]

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.

When you say that "hybrid humans had to be wiped out by God," I assume you are talking about the passage in Genesis 6, where the "sons of God" got together with the "daughters of men." I've been on Christian Forums for years and I have encountered only one other person who thought that God brought the Flood to get rid of people descended from demons. Oddly enough, that person went on to say that Goliath and other giants in the OT were also descended from demons. In this scenario, God used the Flood to destroy the world to annihilate the nephilim, then clumsily allowed more of them to be produced after the Flood. Does this make any sense to you? It doesn't make sense to me.


I doubt that 1% of Christians believe this scenario, if they have even heard of it. Can you give me one reason to take it seriously?


I started this thread to make one simple point. Creationists keep telling me that two living things cannot produce a new species, yet scientific and observational evidence shows that this can and does happen.

 

[Dale]

Natural selection is scientificly proven, but it is not evolution.
So again evidence please of evolution.

What do you think evolution is? In my experience, when creationists say they are against evolution, they mean that they are against science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Natural Selection on a Major Armor Gene in Threespine Stickleback
Rowan D. H. Barrett*,Sean M. Rogers,
Science 10 Oct 2008:
Vol. 322, Issue 5899, pp. 255-257
Abstract
Experimental estimates of the effects of selection on genes determining adaptive traits add to our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. We measured selection on genotypes of the Ectodysplasin locus, which underlie differences in lateral plates in threespine stickleback fish. A derived allele (low) causing reduced plate number has been fixed repeatedly after marine stickleback colonized freshwater from the sea, where the ancestral allele (complete) predominates. We transplanted marine sticklebacks carrying both alleles to freshwater ponds and tracked genotype frequencies over a generation. The low allele increased in frequency once lateral plates developed, most likely via a growth advantage. Opposing selection at the larval stage and changing dominance for fitness throughout life suggest either that the gene affects additional traits undergoing selection or that linked loci also are affecting fitness.

Barbarian chuckles:
Ham is well aware of the evidence showing evolution. He responded years ago, by redefining"evolution" to mean "change so drastic that no one could live long enough to see it happen."

Natural selection is scientificly proven, but it is not evolution.

As in the above case, it is the cause of most evolution. As you just learned, observed natural selection resulted in a change in alleles frequencies that made the sticklebacks more fit in their new environment. Which is, as you just learned, what evolution is.

Any other questions?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian: " Polar bears evolved from grizzly bears maybe 100,000 years ago."

The information I've seen says that they diverged longer ago than that.


"A population of brown bears that lived along the coast became specialized for hunting seals, eventually evolving into the polar bear around 700,000 years ago."


Link
North American Bear Center - Bear Evolution

Sorry, I should have provided a link. It kind of surprised me, too.

DNA from a polar bear jawbone has revealed the Arctic species first originated about 150,000 years ago, scientists announced today.

It has been known that polar bears evolved from brown bears, but until now, it wasn't clear when this happened.

The discovery was enabled by the rare jawbone find on the Norwegian island of Svalbard in 2004. Very few early polar bear fossils have been recovered so far, so their evolution has not been well understood.
Polar Bears Evolved Just 150,000 Years Ago

 

[Tolworth John]

Natural Selection on a Major Armor Gene in Threespine Stickleback
Rowan D. H. Barrett*,Sean M. Rogers,
Science 10 Oct 2008:
Vol. 322, Issue 5899, pp. 255-257
Abstract
Experimental estimates of the effects of selection on genes determining adaptive traits add to our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. We measured selection on genotypes of the Ectodysplasin locus, which underlie differences in lateral plates in threespine stickleback fish. A derived allele (low) causing reduced plate number has been fixed repeatedly after marine stickleback colonized freshwater from the sea, where the ancestral allele (complete) predominates. We transplanted marine sticklebacks carrying both alleles to freshwater ponds and tracked genotype frequencies over a generation. The low allele increased in frequency once lateral plates developed, most likely via a growth advantage. Opposing selection at the larval stage and changing dominance for fitness throughout life suggest either that the gene affects additional traits undergoing selection or that linked loci also are affecting fitness.

Barbarian chuckles:
Ham is well aware of the evidence showing evolution. He responded years ago, by redefining"evolution" to mean "change so drastic that no one could live long enough to see it happen."



As in the above case, it is the cause of most evolution. As you just learned, observed natural selection resulted in a change in alleles frequencies that made the sticklebacks more fit in their new environment. Which is, as you just learned, what evolution is.

Any other questions?

Yes why are you repeating what is not evolution.
I have already said natural selection is a scientific observed process. Bu that it does not demonstrate how creature A turns into creature b.

 

[Tolworth John]

What do you think evolution is? In my experience, when creationists say they are against evolution, they mean that they are against science.

Evolution is a word with two meanings.
1. change within a species.
2. change from a species into another unrelated species.

The first is seen in the three spined stickleback, or in dogs, bears or what ever creature you'd like to mention.

The 2nd is unobserved, undocumented and is unproven.

As you can see from the post between me and the barbarian. Who is trying to prove the second meaning by giving examples of the first meaning.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes why are you repeating what is not evolution.

As you learned from the research:
A derived allele (low) causing reduced plate number has been fixed repeatedly after marine stickleback colonized freshwater from the sea, where the ancestral allele (complete) predominates. We transplanted marine sticklebacks carrying both alleles to freshwater ponds and tracked genotype frequencies over a generation. The low allele increased in frequency once lateral plates developed, most likely via a growth advantage.

Yes, that is evolution. Remember, evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Which is exactly what happened. No point in denying the obvious.

I have already said natural selection is a scientific observed process. Bu that it does not demonstrate how creature A turns into creature b.

See above. It's just a change in allele frequencies. Sometimes, the change is enough to produce new species. Most professional creationists now admit that fact. But they don't tell you guys about it. For reasons that are obvious.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is a word with two meanings.

No, that's wrong. Evolution (when we are talking about biological evolution) is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

The first is seen in the three spined stickleback, or in dogs, bears or what ever creature you'd like to mention.

The 2nd is unobserved, undocumented and is unproven.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute For Creation Research both admit the fact of speciation. They just redefined "evolution" to mean "evolution so great that no one could ever see it in one lifetime.

Both AiG and ICR now admit that new species, genera, and (at least sometimes) families of organisms evolve from others.

They don't use "evolve", of course.

 

[Dale]

Evolution is a word with two meanings.
1. change within a species.
2. change from a species into another unrelated species.

The first is seen in the three spined stickleback, or in dogs, bears or what ever creature you'd like to mention.

The 2nd is unobserved, undocumented and is unproven.

As you can see from the post between me and the barbarian. Who is trying to prove the second meaning by giving examples of the first meaning.

Consider this. The thing about birds is that they can fly because they have wings. Yet, ostriches are an example of a bird that can't fly. They have wings but they can't fly because their wings aren't large enough in relation to the body. There are other examples, including emu. There are also much smaller birds that have lost the ability to fly. It is obvious to me that birds that can't fly are descended from birds that can fly. It took a long time for ostriches to evolve from their flying ancestors but it is obvious that it happened. Why would God create an animal with wings that can run at great speed but cannot fly?


Penguins are another example of birds that can't fly. They clearly have wings, and they can swim very well, but they can't fly. Penguins, like ostriches, are obviously descended from birds that can fly and it must have taken quite a long time for flying birds to evolve into penguins.


You say that evolution is "unobserved" but we can observe the results.

 

[The Barbarian]

Penguins are another example of birds that can't fly. They clearly have wings, and they can swim very well, but they can't fly. Penguins, like ostriches, are obviously descended from birds that can fly and it must have taken quite a long time for flying birds to evolve into penguins.

We see that process happening in the Northern Hemisphere:

Puffins are any of three small species of alcids (auks) in the bird genus Fratercula with a brightly coloured beak during the breeding season. These are pelagic seabirds that feed primarily by diving in the water. They breed in large colonies on coastal cliffs or offshore islands, nesting in crevices among rocks or in burrows in the soil. Two species, the tufted puffin and horned puffin, are found in the North Pacific Ocean, while the Atlantic puffin is found in the North Atlantic Ocean.

All puffin species have predominantly black or black and white plumage, a stocky build, and large beaks. They shed the colourful outer parts of their bills after the breeding season, leaving a smaller and duller beak. Their short wings are adapted for swimming with a flying technique under water. In the air, they beat their wings rapidly (up to 400 times per minute)[1] in swift flight, often flying low over the ocean's surface.
Puffin - Wikipedia

The black and white coloration is an adaptation for swimming. It makes them less visible to predators in the water. They swim like penguins and feed like penguins, but they can still fly.

When my son was four, his teacher at preschool told me that he liked to make up imaginary names for animals. She showed me a poster of what she called "penguins" and told me that he named them "puffins."

Yep. They were puffins.

 

[Tolworth John]

You say that evolution is "unobserved" but we can observe the results.

I will let you judge my reaction by your reaction to this:-

What you are commenting on is the result of natural selection and not evolution.

 

[Tolworth John]

No, that's wrong. Evolution (when we are talking about biological evolution) is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.



No, that's wrong, too. For example, "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute For Creation Research both admit the fact of speciation. They just redefined "evolution" to mean "evolution so great that no one could ever see it in one lifetime.

Both AiG and ICR now admit that new species, genera, and (at least sometimes) families of organisms evolve from others.

They don't use "evolve", of course.

I have not disputed natural selection.

here for your edifcation are the dictionary meanings of evolution:-

1The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
2The gradual development of something.

I am asking you to provide evidence that the first definition has happened.

the second is what we see in natural selection.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have not disputed natural selection.

You merely have a misconception of what "evolution" means.

here for your edifcation are the dictionary meanings ...

Nice try. But evolution is defined in science as a change in allele frequency in a population over time. If you try to use a general dictionary for technical terms, you're going to be continually confused. Here's the definition from a biology dictionary:

Evolution


Definition

noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
Evolution - Biology-Online Dictionary | Biology-Online Dictionary

Your general use dictionary is confusing evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. Just as you confused natural selection with evolution. As you now see, natural selection is a cause of evolution.

If the term confuses you, use Darwin's term: "descent with modification."

 

[The Barbarian]

What you are commenting on is the result of natural selection and not evolution.

As you now realize, evolution is the result of natural selection.

Let's see what a dictionary of biology has to say about that:
Natural selection

Definition
noun
A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations

Supplement
Evolution pertains to the processes and events that take place over time illustrating the gradual progression of changes in the genetic composition of a biological population over successive generations. Two major mechanisms that drive evolution are genetic drift. Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction. These traits are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism. Evolution that arises from natural selection is called adaptive evolution. In contrast, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Evolution that arises from genetic drift is called neutral evolution.
ibid

You learned something new, today.

 

[The Barbarian]

One way to test for natural selection is to see if evolution has occurred:

The Hardy–Weinberg principle, also known as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law, states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences. These influences include genetic drift, mate choice, assortative mating, natural selection, sexual selection, mutation, gene flow, meiotic drive, genetic hitchhiking, population bottleneck, founder effect and inbreeding.

In the simplest case of a single locus with two alleles denoted A and a with frequencies f(A) = p and f(a) = q, respectively, the expected genotype frequencies under random mating are f(AA) = p2 for the AA homozygotes, f(aa) = q2 for the aa homozygotes, and f(Aa) = 2pq for the heterozygotes. In the absence of selection, mutation, genetic drift, or other forces, allele frequencies p and q are constant between generations, so equilibrium is reached.

The principle is named after G. H. Hardy and Wilhelm Weinberg, who first demonstrated it mathematically. Hardy's paper was focused on debunking the then-commonly held view that a dominant allele would automatically tend to increase in frequency; today, confusion between dominance and selection is less common. Today, tests for Hardy-Weinberg genotype frequencies are used primarily to test for population stratification and other forms of non-random mating.
Hardy–Weinberg principle - Wikipedia

 

[Tolworth John]

You merely have a misconception of what "evolution" means.



Nice try. But evolution is defined in science as a change in allele frequency in a population over time. If you try to use a general dictionary for technical terms, you're going to be continually confused. Here's the definition from a biology dictionary:

Evolution


Definition

noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
Evolution - Biology-Online Dictionary | Biology-Online Dictionary

Your general use dictionary is confusing evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. Just as you confused natural selection with evolution. As you now see, natural selection is a cause of evolution.

If the term confuses you, use Darwin's term: "descent with modification."

Ok that technical definition just defines natural selection as that is all those processes listed will produce.
Please now supply the definition of evolution where a creatures descendents are radicaly different, as in a parent bteather air and offspring breath in water.