Intelligent Abiogenesis

[Wiccan_Child]

If fruit fly is so easy to generate new species, then how many fruit fly species have been produced?

Quite a few. Part 5.3 of TalkOrigin's speciation article lists a load of speciation events reported in labs working with D. melanogaster.

Why is the fruit fly so easy to make new species, but not other flies?

A very good question. The fruit fly is so often used for several reasons, as listed on Wikipedia, but primarily because it has a short gestation period, and it just so happens to have a simple genome (just four chromosomes), allowing us to experiment and know exactly what we're doing (compared to, say, the ferns, which has thousands of chromosomes).

But the results attained with D. melanogaster aren't unique to it. Don't forget the theory made the prediction, and then we picked one species at random to test it. And we've observed speciation in more than just D. melanogaster.

If these questions are not answered, then it suggests that the original experiment on the speciation of fruit fly had some problems. The melanogaster A, B, C, ... may not be true species.

These questions good questions, but are very easy to answer. There are a host of reasons for why D. melanogaster is used (simple genome, etc), and speciationhas been observed loads of times.

And, yes, each one is a new species. There's the wild species of D. melanogaster, and the populations bred in the lab which cannot breed with it - thereby qualifying as a new species.

A species should have a name. So what is the species name of each dog? Why don't they have specified species name?

First, don't confuse common names for actual taxonomic names. English has the word 'fish', yet in biology there's no such thing - 'fish' isn't a taxonomic classification, just like how 'pet' isn't.
Second, there is only one species of dog, and several subspecies (or breeds). They're not different species, because they can interbreed.

However, if in the future the Chocolate Labrador breed evolved to such an extent that it couldn't breed with any other dog, then yes, it would be a bona fide new species, worthy of its own name.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Second, there is only one species of dog, and several subspecies (or breeds). They're not different species, because they can interbreed.

That depends on how you define species. Most if not all cichlid fish in Lake Victoria or even Lake Malawi and Lake Tanganyika will be able to interbreed, even though in practice they don't. But keeping unrelated males and females in a tank with no appropriate mates will result in hybridisation, producing fertile offspring. This is a major problem in the aquarium trade with improper care being taken to prevent hybridisation, resulting in impure species.

With the dogs I was pointing out that Great Danes and Chihuahuas satisfy the general requirements for being different species according to a number of species concepts. Hence, whether or not we label them as different species or not, it can be shown that we can create differences sufficient to satisfy species concepts as different species. It's just that in the case of dogs, we haven't chosen to do so because it makes less sense when all dog varieties are considered, most of which will interbreed freely. It's only if you choose extreme cases that they won't. "Dogs" in general can and will interbreed. Great Danes and Chihuahuas?

 

[juvenissun]

Quite a few. Part 5.3 of TalkOrigin's speciation article lists a load of speciation events reported in labs working with D. melanogaster.


A very good question. The fruit fly is so often used for several reasons, as listed on Wikipedia, but primarily because it has a short gestation period, and it just so happens to have a simple genome (just four chromosomes), allowing us to experiment and know exactly what we're doing (compared to, say, the ferns, which has thousands of chromosomes).

But the results attained with D. melanogaster aren't unique to it. Don't forget the theory made the prediction, and then we picked one species at random to test it. And we've observed speciation in more than just D. melanogaster.


These questions good questions, but are very easy to answer. There are a host of reasons for why D. melanogaster is used (simple genome, etc), and speciationhas been observed loads of times.

And, yes, each one is a new species. There's the wild species of D. melanogaster, and the populations bred in the lab which cannot breed with it - thereby qualifying as a new species.


First, don't confuse common names for actual taxonomic names. English has the word 'fish', yet in biology there's no such thing - 'fish' isn't a taxonomic classification, just like how 'pet' isn't.
Second, there is only one species of dog, and several subspecies (or breeds). They're not different species, because they can interbreed.

However, if in the future the Chocolate Labrador breed evolved to such an extent that it couldn't breed with any other dog, then yes, it would be a bona fide new species, worthy of its own name.

I see the argument and I also see the problem.

The species is defined as two groups of life forms which does not interbreed. According to this definition, all variations of a species produced in the lab that fit the definition will be, according to the known results, called a "sub-species". The reason to use the prefix sub- is that all of them are still ONE species, but with some variations so they do not interbreed any more.

The question has two folds: 1. Why bother to evoke the use of "sub-species"? Why just treat each one as a full species since they fit the definition? 2. These "sub-species" are lab produces. If they were released to the natural environment, they would probably die off, no matter how many were released. So the same process observed in the lab does not happen naturally.

It is amazing on what can we do in the lab. We can even clone life. So, when we still can not produce field-survivable new species in the lab, it should be taken as a surprising result. So, put the argument back to the point: even we can observe a species which changed its genetic characters in a lab conditions, we still do not call the procedure a full process of speciation (thus use sub-species).

So, we still do not see speciation happen before our eyes.

 

[juvenissun]

That depends on how you define species. Most if not all cichlid fish in Lake Victoria or even Lake Malawi and Lake Tanganyika will be able to interbreed, even though in practice they don't. But keeping unrelated males and females in a tank with no appropriate mates will result in hybridisation, producing fertile offspring. This is a major problem in the aquarium trade with improper care being taken to prevent hybridisation, resulting in impure species.

With the dogs I was pointing out that Great Danes and Chihuahuas satisfy the general requirements for being different species according to a number of species concepts. Hence, whether or not we label them as different species or not, it can be shown that we can create differences sufficient to satisfy species concepts as different species. It's just that in the case of dogs, we haven't chosen to do so because it makes less sense when all dog varieties are considered, most of which will interbreed freely. It's only if you choose extreme cases that they won't. "Dogs" in general can and will interbreed. Great Danes and Chihuahuas?

The problem you have is that your do not stick with basic definition in your reasoning. The result is "a mess".

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I see the argument and I also see the problem.

The species is defined as two groups of life forms which does not interbreed. According to this definition, all variations of a species produced in the lab that fit the definition will be, according to the known results, called a "sub-species". The reason to use the prefix sub- is that all of them are still ONE species, but with some variations so they do not interbreed any more.

That's just one definition of species. There are many species out in the real world that will interbreed quite easily. Have a look at forums concerning aquarium fish and search for "hybridisation"/"hybridization". Have a look here for a list of species concepts, which I'm confident will not be exhaustive. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/mallet05spconc.pdf

The question has two folds: 1. Why bother to evoke the use of "sub-species"? Why just treat each one as a full species since they fit the definition? 2. These "sub-species" are lab produces. If they were released to the natural environment, they would probably die off, no matter how many were released. So the same process observed in the lab does not happen naturally.

Have a look on the net, you will find a LOT of argument about what should be separate species, and what should be sub-species. That's because in the real world there is no clear dividing line between what is a species and what is a sub-species.

It is amazing on what can we do in the lab. We can even clone life. So, when we still can not produce field-survivable new species in the lab, it should be taken as a surprising result. So, put the argument back to the point: even we can observe a species which changed its genetic characters in a lab conditions, we still do not call the procedure a full process of speciation (thus use sub-species).

Who says we can't produce field-survivable new species in the lab. I don't think the experiment has been done, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. Nobody has created a ocean going yacht out of laminated bamboo that I'm aware of, but I'm sure it's possible.

So, we still do not see speciation happen before our eyes.

In the fruit-fly example, we have. In the dogs example, we've done enough similar things to show us that we could if we wanted to.

Can you tell us why we can't produce a new species in the lab? There's a big difference between "can't" and "haven't yet".

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The problem you have is that your do not stick with basic definition in your reasoning. The result is "a mess".

The world is not clear cut and simple. There is no one single species concept. Hence if we're going to say whether or not Great Danes and Chihuahuas chould be classified as different species, we need to consider this complexity.

If you find it hard to follow, then unfortunately that's that. "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I see the argument and I also see the problem.

The species is defined as two groups of life forms which does not interbreed. According to this definition, all variations of a species produced in the lab that fit the definition will be, according to the known results, called a "sub-species". The reason to use the prefix sub- is that all of them are still ONE species, but with some variations so they do not interbreed any more.

Incorrect. Those created in the lab are true species, they're not sub-species.

In the lab, we can start with a sample of the wild D. melanogaster population, and end up with two boxes: D. melanogaster A and D. melanogaster B. The former and latter cannot interbreed, and so truely are unique species in their own right.

So, after the experiment, there are now three species of D. melanogaster:

1. D. melanogaster (what you find in the wild)
2. D. melanogaster A (in the first box)
3. D. melanogaster B (in the second box)

(2) and (3) aren't subspecies, they're just species.

The question has two folds: 1. Why bother to evoke the use of "sub-species"? Why just treat each one as a full species since they fit the definition?

As explained above, we don't call them sub-species.

2. These "sub-species" are lab produces. If they were released to the natural environment, they would probably die off, no matter how many were released. So the same process observed in the lab does not happen naturally.

First, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that lab-produced speciation events don't produce field-viable species?

Second, the new species of D. melanogaster are not some aberrant strains that would die without round-the-clock care - as explained in the literature I cited, the populations can't interbreed because of, for instance, changes in the chemical signature that allow gametes to recognise each other. The new species themselves are quite viable.

It is amazing on what can we do in the lab. We can even clone life. So, when we still can not produce field-survivable new species in the lab, it should be taken as a surprising result. So, put the argument back to the point: even we can observe a species which changed its genetic characters in a lab conditions, we still do not call the procedure a full process of speciation (thus use sub-species).

So, we still do not see speciation happen before our eyes.

Your analysis is incorrect. Not only is your use of the term 'subspecies' wrong - the speciation events show new species, not subspecies - your characterisation of the experiments as not 'real' speciation just shows you don't quite understand what the experiments do. Moreover, speciation has been observed outside the lab, and these new species are as viable as anything else.

Take, for instance, the hawthorn fly. Due to the introduction of apple trees in the 19th century, the native hawthorn fly has split into two distinct species (not subspecies) - one that feeds on apples, and one that feeds on more traditional fruit. This has even produced new breeds within the hawthorn fly's parasites.

 

[juvenissun]

Incorrect. Those created in the lab are true species, they're not sub-species.

In the lab, we can start with a sample of the wild D. melanogaster population, and end up with two boxes: D. melanogaster A and D. melanogaster B. The former and latter cannot interbreed, and so truely are unique species in their own right.

So, after the experiment, there are now three species of D. melanogaster:

1. D. melanogaster (what you find in the wild)
2. D. melanogaster A (in the first box)
3. D. melanogaster B (in the second box)

(2) and (3) aren't subspecies, they're just species.



As explained above, we don't call them sub-species.


First, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that lab-produced speciation events don't produce field-viable species?

Second, the new species of D. melanogaster are not some aberrant strains that would die without round-the-clock care - as explained in the literature I cited, the populations can't interbreed because of, for instance, changes in the chemical signature that allow gametes to recognise each other. The new species themselves are quite viable.


Your analysis is incorrect. Not only is your use of the term 'subspecies' wrong - the speciation events show new species, not subspecies - your characterisation of the experiments as not 'real' speciation just shows you don't quite understand what the experiments do. Moreover, speciation has been observed outside the lab, and these new species are as viable as anything else.

Take, for instance, the hawthorn fly. Due to the introduction of apple trees in the 19th century, the native hawthorn fly has split into two distinct species (not subspecies) - one that feeds on apples, and one that feeds on more traditional fruit. This has even produced new breeds within the hawthorn fly's parasites.

I didn't know anything of so-called subspecies. YOU brought it up and I just use it. Now you want to wipe it out. Fine, delete it. It won't hurt.

Now, the hawthorn fly. Do you know the species name (or better, their definitions) of the split hawthorn fly group? Is one of them no longer named hawthorn fly? Or are they named something like hawthorn_fly_A and howthorn_fly_B? The naming system like XXXX_A and XXXX_B implies that they are not independent species. They could even still be the same species. Otherwise, it should be named XXXX and YYYY.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Now, the hawthorn fly. Do you know the species name (or better, their definitions) of the split hawthorn fly group? Is one of them no longer named hawthorn fly? Or are they named something like hawthorn_fly_A and howthorn_fly_B? The naming system like XXXX_A and XXXX_B implies that they are not independent species. They could even still be the same species. Otherwise, it should be named XXXX and YYYY.

You're concentrating on the names. The names are just what people decided to call them. Whether or not they are different species depends not on their names but on whether they satisfy various species concepts. E.g. will they tend to interbreed and produce fertile offspring, or will they not?

Previous postings here suggest that they will not. As if they live on different host trees, and mate on those trees, they won't meet the other species.

Previous postings also suggested that the speciated fruit flys couldn't produce fertile offspring.

 

[juvenissun]

The world is not clear cut and simple. There is no one single species concept. Hence if we're going to say whether or not Great Danes and Chihuahuas chould be classified as different species, we need to consider this complexity.

If you find it hard to follow, then unfortunately that's that. "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein.

In your case, I bet you will be confused on anything and everything. In the study of science, definition is the number 1 thing to set up and to clear up. Otherwise, it will be a mess. Remember that.

I can provide you a way out in the case of dog. Add "naturally breed" to the definition. Then artificially bred dogs are NOT new species regardless interbreed or not.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Now, the hawthorn fly. Do you know the species name (or better, their definitions) of the split hawthorn fly group? Is one of them no longer named hawthorn fly? Or are they named something like hawthorn_fly_A and howthorn_fly_B? The naming system like XXXX_A and XXXX_B implies that they are not independent species. They could even still be the same species. Otherwise, it should be named XXXX and YYYY.

No. They are two different species because members of one can't breed with members of the other. Where we had one species - R. pomonella - we now have an additional species co-existing with the original one. It is simply convenient to call this new species R. pomonella 1, or something. The rules of taxonomy were devised before we realised species could speciate, so there's no standard set of rules for naming the species that arise out of speciation events. Redefining 'R. pomonella' from the name of a species to a genera that encompasses the two modern species (R. pomonella original and R. pomonella new, perhaps) might do it.

Anyway, nomenclature aside, the fact remains that the main species continues to thrive regardless, while a section of the population has become a genuine species in its own right.

An analogy would be how Europeans emigrated to the Americas, and those emigrants became 'Americans'. So we now have two distinct 'species': the original European variety and the new American variety. The original variety still exists, but a new one has sprung up from it and now co-exists with it.

 

[juvenissun]

You're concentrating on the names. The names are just what people decided to call them. Whether or not they are different species depends not on their names but on whether they satisfy various species concepts. E.g. will they tend to interbreed and produce fertile offspring, or will they not?

Previous postings here suggest that they will not. As if they live on different host trees, and mate on those trees, they won't meet the other species.

Previous postings also suggested that the speciated fruit flys couldn't produce fertile offspring.

I want to see if they were put in a confined environment and they still don't interbreed. I don't favor inter-racial marriage. But if I were put in a space flight for 50 years, I will do.

 

[juvenissun]

No. They are two different species because members of one can't breed with members of the other. Where we had one species - R. pomonella - we now have an additional species co-existing with the original one. It is simply convenient to call this new species R. pomonella 1, or something. The rules of taxonomy were devised before we realised species could speciate, so there's no standard set of rules for naming the species that arise out of speciation events. Redefining 'R. pomonella' from the name of a species to a genera that encompasses the two modern species (R. pomonella original and R. pomonella new, perhaps) might do it.

Anyway, nomenclature aside, the fact remains that the main species continues to thrive regardless, while a section of the population has become a genuine species in its own right.

An analogy would be how Europeans emigrated to the Americas, and those emigrants became 'Americans'. So we now have two distinct 'species': the original European variety and the new American variety. The original variety still exists, but a new one has sprung up from it and now co-exists with it.

That is a good argument. However, experiment of this kind need to demonstrate some genetic change has happened to the split groups in addition to their behavior change, such as apple tree eating or not eating. Just like your European/American example, if the two group does not have any genetic variation, then the American is still the same as the European, and there is no new species.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is a good argument. However, experiment of this kind need to demonstrate some genetic change has happened to the split groups in addition to their behavior change, such as apple tree eating or not eating. Just like your European/American example, if the two group does not have any genetic variation, then the American is still the same as the European, and there is no new species.

Being unable to interbreed shows their genomes have sufficiently changed. Nonetheless, the advantage of D. melanogaster is that we can easily study its genetic material, and the new species do indeed show genetic change.

 

[juvenissun]

Being unable to interbreed shows their genomes have sufficiently changed. Nonetheless, the advantage of D. melanogaster is that we can easily study its genetic material, and the new species do indeed show genetic change.

How significant is the change? We human have our genetic details changed all the time. Right? Is my genetic code exactly the same as yours? I don't think so. Is my son's genetic code exactly the same as mine? I don't think so. What is the threshold on the degree of genetic change so that something can be called a new species when the threshold is passed?

 

[DaneaFL]

Did you not see the salamanders?

NOVA | Evolution in Action: Salamanders

We keep showing you evidence of speciation in progress in real-time in front of your very eyes yet you keep asking for it.

I think lions and tigers are also a good example of speciation. They are considered different species because they are different enough to warrant it, yet they can still sometimes interbred to make fertile offspring.

So should we call them the same species still? Maybe, maybe not. It's up to taxonomy to decide if we want to call them different species based on their behaviors, physical traits, and genetics.

Or did God specially create lions and tigers separately? Well why can they breed then?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How significant is the change? We human have our genetic details changed all the time. Right? Is my genetic code exactly the same as yours? I don't think so. Is my son's genetic code exactly the same as mine? I don't think so. What is the threshold on the degree of genetic change so that something can be called a new species when the threshold is passed?

A very good question. As you rightly point out, each individual in a species in genetically unique. There are a number of mutations that arise during conception - for instance, about 4 ERVs arise in the gametes that eventually make a human offspring, the inheritance and locations of which create a pattern we use as the foundation of paternity (and maternity) tests. So I have about four sections of my DNA which comes from viruses infecting the sperm or sperm-producing cells in my father's testicles - unique to me. However, I also inherited my dad's ERVs, which would let scientists identify him as my biological father, if need be.

Anyway. Genetic variation gets introduced all the time. As I indicated with ERVs, these variations are static once formed, and are inherited by any and all offspring. The nature of population dynamics is that these mutations quickly make it around to all the local populace - that is, sooner or later, everyone shares a local common ancestor. This means that unique genetic material becomes pretty ubiquitous over time.

Now, this only happens when the populace remains interbreeding, when there's no real barrier between any given male and any given female in the group from producing children. So although new genetic material arises all the time, it gets passed around, so the local populace's average genome changes over time, with each new individual being a slight variation of these average.

Over time, this moving average will drift from some ancestral average. Eventually, even though no one with the ancestral average are alive, if they were, they wouldn't be able to breed with their modern-day descendants - though they're descended from one another, an individual today couldn't breed with an individual from 10,000,000 years ago, because these small and inconsequential changes add up.

So, back to your question, or rather, a rephrasing of the question. How much genetic change is needed before the modern average genome constitutes a new species with respect to the ancestral average genome? Or, how much genetic change is needed before a modern individual would no longer be able to breed with an ancestor (assuming they were time-travelled tot he present)?

The answer is: it depends. Humans have been around for a couple hundred thousand years. With fruit flies, scientists can coax a new species to form in a minimum of eight generations. Natural selection is not as expedient as artificial selection, it seems.

So it's important to realise that each individual is just a small variation from the local average, and it is that average we need to look at. How long it takes for the local average to change so much that it's a new species is completely dependant on the species in question.

With regards to fruit flies, then, the fruit fly offspring are always only a small step from the average, but it's the average which has changed quite a lot, and it is the average's change which denotes speciation. You and I are not exactly alike, genetically speaking, but our differences are minor. The difference required for us to be a whole species apart, is far bigger than the difference that actually exists between us.

 

[juvenissun]

A very good question. As you rightly point out, each individual in a species in genetically unique. There are a number of mutations that arise during conception - for instance, about 4 ERVs arise in the gametes that eventually make a human offspring, the inheritance and locations of which create a pattern we use as the foundation of paternity (and maternity) tests. So I have about four sections of my DNA which comes from viruses infecting the sperm or sperm-producing cells in my father's testicles - unique to me. However, I also inherited my dad's ERVs, which would let scientists identify him as my biological father, if need be.

Anyway. Genetic variation gets introduced all the time. As I indicated with ERVs, these variations are static once formed, and are inherited by any and all offspring. The nature of population dynamics is that these mutations quickly make it around to all the local populace - that is, sooner or later, everyone shares a local common ancestor. This means that unique genetic material becomes pretty ubiquitous over time.

Now, this only happens when the populace remains interbreeding, when there's no real barrier between any given male and any given female in the group from producing children. So although new genetic material arises all the time, it gets passed around, so the local populace's average genome changes over time, with each new individual being a slight variation of these average.

Over time, this moving average will drift from some ancestral average. Eventually, even though no one with the ancestral average are alive, if they were, they wouldn't be able to breed with their modern-day descendants - though they're descended from one another, an individual today couldn't breed with an individual from 10,000,000 years ago, because these small and inconsequential changes add up.

So, back to your question, or rather, a rephrasing of the question. How much genetic change is needed before the modern average genome constitutes a new species with respect to the ancestral average genome? Or, how much genetic change is needed before a modern individual would no longer be able to breed with an ancestor (assuming they were time-travelled tot he present)?

The answer is: it depends. Humans have been around for a couple hundred thousand years. With fruit flies, scientists can coax a new species to form in a minimum of eight generations. Natural selection is not as expedient as artificial selection, it seems.

So it's important to realise that each individual is just a small variation from the local average, and it is that average we need to look at. How long it takes for the local average to change so much that it's a new species is completely dependant on the species in question.

With regards to fruit flies, then, the fruit fly offspring are always only a small step from the average, but it's the average which has changed quite a lot, and it is the average's change which denotes speciation. You and I are not exactly alike, genetically speaking, but our differences are minor. The difference required for us to be a whole species apart, is far bigger than the difference that actually exists between us.

That answer is basically equal to no answer.

The genetic change of a life form is closely related to the nature of the life form itself. Either we can use quantitative index, say 1% change, or 0.1% change; or we can look at some specific parts of the genetic code as indicators; or we can focus on the genetic pieces which control a critical function. In any case, there has to be a testable way to describe the change.

For example, if we identify the genetic parts in the fly which evolved, could we find those parts in another fly and change them to see if other species of flies would also evolve in a similar way?

I guess we are not able to do that now. That is why we can not define human by our genetic code. Evolutionist can only HOPE that the criteria could be established in the future generations. Frankly, that is a FAITH. There is no guarantee it will happen.

 

[juvenissun]

Did you not see the salamanders?

NOVA | Evolution in Action: Salamanders

We keep showing you evidence of speciation in progress in real-time in front of your very eyes yet you keep asking for it.

I think lions and tigers are also a good example of speciation. They are considered different species because they are different enough to warrant it, yet they can still sometimes interbred to make fertile offspring.

So should we call them the same species still? Maybe, maybe not. It's up to taxonomy to decide if we want to call them different species based on their behaviors, physical traits, and genetics.

Or did God specially create lions and tigers separately? Well why can they breed then?

What I have said to Wiccan_Child goes beyond your question. So if you like to learn, then try to catch up. Or, ask your own question.

I have no idea why couldn't a lion and a tiger breed. I think they could. But their cubs won't survive. (you may ask why, but I have no answer to it except saying that they are different creatures)