Observed Speciation

lucaspa · May 19, 2004

kenneth558 said:
Sexual Selection in Giraffe Neck Elongation
[Kenneth558], University of Nebraska at Omaha
Speech given on April 30, 2004

Abstract. Giraffes demand an explanation, according to authors Freeman and Herron[sup]1[/sup]. But Robert E. Simmons and Lue Scheepers suggest in their 1996 The American Naturalist article[sup]2[/sup] that the classic evolutionary explanation of giraffe neck elongation lacks credibility when scientifically scrutinized. Therefore, based on their own research and that of others, including David Pratt and Virginia Anderson[sup]3[/sup], they propose an alternative hypothesis to the classic Darwinian feeding competition idea: sexual selection favors males with more massive necks. In their defense, Simmons and Scheepers argue that current research leads to failure of three of four predictions arising from the classic feeding competition hypothesis assumptions, while all predictions arising from assumptions of the sexual selection hypothesis hold true. I present their case - not as one convinced of their conclusions, but as a critical audience suggesting other issues appear to have been overlooked. As Freeman and Herron admonish, The giraffe example demonstrates that we must not uncritically accept a hypothesis about the adaptive significance of a trait just because it is plausible.[sup]4[/sup] Specifically, I would question the requisite evolution of other traits within the generally accepted evolutionary time frame while consistent with the constraints of known ranges of phenotypic variation. In part, those troublesome traits are chromosome characteristics, head and neck vasculature, ossicone origin and dimorphism, and structure of fetal ovaries that needs an explanation according to the accomplished Dr. Kurt Benirschke of the UCSD School of Medicine[sup]5[/sup].

[sup]1[/sup]Evolutionary Analysis, 2004. p. 331.
[sup]2[/sup]The American Naturalist, 1996. Vol. 148, pp. 771-786.
[sup]3[/sup]Journal of Natural History, 1985. Vol. 19, pp. 771-781.
[sup]4[/sup]Evolutionary Analysis, 2004. p. 335.
[sup]5[/sup]http://medicine.ucsd.edu/cpa/okapi.htm, 2004.

I've been over this Abstract in another thread. Do you want a repeat here?

I presume you are going to correct that misquote of Benirschke in the last sentence in this version, too. Thank you.

You notice that there is nothing in Simmons and Sheepers' article to suggest that the giraffe did not evolve. It merely says that the selection pressure is not as traditionally viewed. However, one must look at the context of the traditional adaptationist argument. Jean Baptiste Lamarck used the giraffe as a prime example for his theory of "acquired characteristics". In this theory, the necks of the giraffes changed from generation to generation because giraffes stretched their necks to reach food and the stretched necks of one generation were inherited in the next, to be stretched even further in that generation.

As an illustration, Darwinians took Lamarck's example and showed how natural selection would work in the scenario in contrast to acquired characteristics. It was never presented as the actual selection pressure, but simply as a way of contrasting Lamarck and Darwin's views on change from generation to generation.

The new work demonstrates that the selection pressure was not feeding, but rather fighting among males for mates. The long neck is the result of sexual selection in the competition for mates, not competition for food. That's fun to know, but does not fundamentally affect the earlier argument, which was in the context of a response to Lamarck's acquired characteristics.

zoink · May 19, 2004

lucaspa said:
Jesus got into trouble when he went against the Biblical literalists of his day. And an interpretation of the Bible is a tradition of man.

[font=&quot]
Are you referring to the Pharisees or the Sadducees?

Sincerely,
zoink
[/font]

monkenstick · May 20, 2004

I don't see how the chromosomes present any problem to okapi - giraffe common ancestry

ikester7579 · May 20, 2004

lucaspa said:
Once again I've seen several people say "macroevolution" doesn't happen and say that the formation of new species has not been observed. OK, once again, here is the list. Evolutionists, you may want to bookmark this so we can simply refer to the thread when we run into the statement again, and again, and again, and again, and ... BTW, this is just my list I have compiled by going thru just a portion of the literature. It is by no means complete, as evidenced by the section "Overkill" at the end that I don't even bother to list anymore. There are another 50 or so references in it.

General
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."
3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Chromosome numbers in various species
http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Speciation in the Fossil Record
1. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely find fossil record.
2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals

Overkill
Another 50 references for people who don't think the above is enough. Available on request.

Hmmm, no references to the word of God? Does any of this support the word of God lucaspa? And you claim to be what? O well, guess it's according to who your God really is. And don't get mad. You seem to poke it in our face when it's convient for your cause and to claim that you are. Now it's being poked back.
It does make me wonder with all your scientific knowledge, that you would feel the need to challenge? Science is what it is. And God's word is what it is. And by all your posts throughout this forum, it is well known what you will defend and what you will redicule. You may have some fooled, but I look at the actions of the person. And yours don't fit what you claim.
So I ask: When will you do a thread defending the word of God? You claim to be a believer, or did I get that wrong? Or could it be that there's nothing in God's word to believe?

Mistermystery · May 20, 2004

ikester7579 said:
Hmmm, no references to the word of God? Does any of this support the word of God lucaspa? And you claim to be what? O well, guess it's according to who your God really is. And don't get mad. You seem to poke it in our face when it's convient for your cause and to claim that you are. Now it's being poked back.
It does make me wonder with all your scientific knowledge, that you would feel the need to challenge? Science is what it is. And God's word is what it is. And by all your posts throughout this forum, it is well known what you will defend and what you will redicule. You may have some fooled, but I look at the actions of the person. And yours don't fit what you claim.
So I ask: When will you do a thread defending the word of God? You claim to be a believer, or did I get that wrong? Or could it be that there's nothing in God's word to believe?

I like it how you just avoid adressing the evidence completly.

Jet Black · May 20, 2004

Mistermystery said:
I like it how you just avoid adressing the evidence completly.

he always does. He blatantly avoids any facts that you tell him. takes on board any lies and falehoods that support his position, and then goes on about the word of God being either literal or a total lie. it's all old skool stuff

Data · May 20, 2004

ikester7579 said:
Hmmm, no references to the word of God? Does any of this support the word of God lucaspa? And you claim to be what? O well, guess it's according to who your God really is. And don't get mad. You seem to poke it in our face when it's convient for your cause and to claim that you are. Now it's being poked back.

He's a theistic evolutionist, and he beleives that genesis isn't to be taken literally. His evidence? God's other word, the earth.

Are you trying to prove God's creation.. wrong, in some way?

Karl - Liberal Backslider · May 20, 2004

ikester7579 said:
Hmmm, no references to the word of God? Does any of this support the word of God lucaspa? And you claim to be what? O well, guess it's according to who your God really is. And don't get mad. You seem to poke it in our face when it's convient for your cause and to claim that you are. Now it's being poked back.
It does make me wonder with all your scientific knowledge, that you would feel the need to challenge? Science is what it is. And God's word is what it is. And by all your posts throughout this forum, it is well known what you will defend and what you will redicule. You may have some fooled, but I look at the actions of the person. And yours don't fit what you claim.
So I ask: When will you do a thread defending the word of God? You claim to be a believer, or did I get that wrong? Or could it be that there's nothing in God's word to believe?

Tell me, Ikester. If we were defending the sphericity of the earth against flat-earthism, would you be expecting lots of references to the Bible?

lucaspa · May 20, 2004

ikester7579 said:
Hmmm, no references to the word of God? Does any of this support the word of God lucaspa?

Well, considering your past misuse of the Bible, I should hope there are no references to the Bible here.

Does any of this contradict the Bible, Ikester? I realize it contradicts your particular literal interpretation, but does it contradict God?

And you claim to be what?

Does everything have to be a testimony about the Bible, Ikester? I would think that would be necessary only if you were worshipping the Bible as a god.

O well, guess it's according to who your God really is. And don't get mad. You seem to poke it in our face when it's convient for your cause and to claim that you are. Now it's being poked back.

Who is the "our" in "our face"?

It does make me wonder with all your scientific knowledge, that you would feel the need to challenge? Science is what it is. And God's word is what it is.

I feel the need to challenge those who have decided to worship a literal interpretation of the Bible as god and to turn their back on God's second book and those who would force that false idol worship on everyone else. IOW, I feel the need to defend God from the Biblical literalists who would revile Him.

Science is the study of God's second book -- Creation. What you call "God's word" is a man-made interpretation of the Bible. An interpretation that is in error and contradicts God's second book.

So I ask: When will you do a thread defending the word of God? You claim to be a believer, or did I get that wrong? Or could it be that there's nothing in God's word to believe?

In several threads I have defended Christianity against the attacks of atheism. I have even, in the CO forum, defended the Bible against your false attacks that science faslifies the Resurrection. I can never defend your literal interpretation of the Bible, for the simple reasons that 1) it is wrong and 2) that interpretation has been set up as a false idol to worship. I don't worship false idols. And yes, there is plenty in God's word to believe, but nothing in the false idol to believe.

You want to try to tell me again that John 1:1 refers to the Bible?

lucaspa · May 20, 2004

zoink said:
[font=&quot]
Are you referring to the Pharisees or the Sadducees?

Sincerely,
zoink
[/font]

Pharisees mostly. They are the ones that took such an extreme literal interpretation of the Law.

ikester7579 · May 21, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Tell me, Ikester. If we were defending the sphericity of the earth against flat-earthism, would you be expecting lots of references to the Bible?

O I forgot. Back in the begining they knew the difference between the meaning of 2d and 3d and 4d when describing the shapes of objects. In fact I hear they had 2d 3d video cards and computers that are faster than ours... LOL, your so funny.

ikester7579 · May 21, 2004

Mistermystery said:
I like it how you just avoid adressing the evidence completly.

It's not that I would even attempt to approach it. I do not have the vast libary to look up all that is listed. And no I won't go read all these books just to confront this issue on this thread. Nor do I feel the need to. If Lucaspa believes all these books, that's his right. My question was on his approach and his faith.

ikester7579 · May 21, 2004

Data said:
He's a theistic evolutionist, and he beleives that genesis isn't to be taken literally. His evidence? God's other word, the earth.

Are you trying to prove God's creation.. wrong, in some way?

God's other word? Am I missing something?

Data · May 21, 2004

ikester7579 said:
God's other word? Am I missing something?

You're missing... everything.

I meant his other word as in the earth, his creation.

ikester7579 · May 21, 2004

Lucaspa, I'm glad you finally told me where you stand in your faith in God's word. You only believe about 50% of what's said. The rest science replaces for you. I now understand.

Science can't explain the rapture. Was wondering if you believe it will happen? Or does this fall on the other side of the 50% that's wrong?

ikester7579 · May 21, 2004

Data said:
You're missing... everything.

I meant his other word as in the earth, his creation.

O, believe in what you see only? Has anyone seen God lately? But you still believe Lucaspa?

Jet Black · May 21, 2004

ikester7579 said:
O I forgot. Back in the begining they knew the difference between the meaning of 2d and 3d and 4d when describing the shapes of objects. In fact I hear they had 2d 3d video cards and computers that are faster than ours... LOL, your so funny.

are you telling me they didn't know the difference between a plate and a ball? mealtimes must have been fun.

Data · May 21, 2004

ikester7579 said:
O, believe in what you see only?

I have a feeling your god is actually the bible.

ikester7579 · May 21, 2004

Jet Black said:
are you telling me they didn't know the difference between a plate and a ball? mealtimes must have been fun.

Lets see you find the word ball or sphere in Gods word.

ikester7579 · May 21, 2004

Data said:
I have a feeling your god is actually the bible.

John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD.

Observed Speciation

Legend

:-)

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Here's looking at you kid

Jet Black

Guest

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jet Black

Guest

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency