Observed Speciation

[lucaspa]

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."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

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.

 

[Bulldog]

Why do Creationists always say that macroevolution has not been proved, even when the evidence mounts against them?

 

[ForeRunner]

Crtl-D

 

[lucaspa]

Why do Creationists always say that macroevolution has not been proved, even when the evidence mounts against them?

It's the ostrich strategy. Or the 3 monkey strategy.

 

[JohnR7]

Why do Creationists always say that macroevolution has not been proved, even when the evidence mounts against them?

Maybe because there is no evidence against them. Not even enough evidence to stand up in a kangaroo court.

 

[Bulldog]

Maybe because there is no evidence against them. Not even enough evidence to stand up in a kangaroo court.

Are you saying there's no evidence against creationism?

 

[ForeRunner]

Maybe because there is no evidence against them. Not even enough evidence to stand up in a kangaroo court.

That was quick, you've already gone to the library and looked up all 50 of them, then published data showing they are wrong?

We should call you the Flash.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Maybe because there is no evidence against them. Not even enough evidence to stand up in a kangaroo court.

You have got to be kidding?

By all means say that you disagree with the conclusions extrapolated from the evidence if you wish (although I would still tend to disagree), but don't claim there is no evidence.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Why do Creationists always say that macroevolution has not been proved, even when the evidence mounts against them?

Mounting evidence and proof are not the same thing, the degree to which they are not the same depends on the methodological standpoint you have. For example some one working from the methadological standpoint that Lakatos describes as "Nieve Methadological Falsificationism" may argue that there is no such thing as proof at all, and that the closest we get is a theory that has withstood repeated attempts at falsification. However they would argue that the falsifiying evidence may be jsut around the next metephorical corner.

An overt positivist standpoint on the otherhand would argue that any theory with sufficient supporting evidence may be considered proven.

Now that said, I find the weight of evidence in favour of evolution to be overwhelming, and whilst I generaly consider myself a falsificationist (probably closer to what Lakatos described as a suffisticated methodological falsificationist I think), I am happy to consider evolution to be as close to proven as it is possible to get without God himself poping in to confirm that is how he did it*.

Ghost

*Or not, for the Atheisits

 

[lucaspa]

Maybe because there is no evidence against them. Not even enough evidence to stand up in a kangaroo court.

John, that list of papers is evidence that shows macroevolution. It has stood up in court -- the court of peer-review. This is what I meant by the ostrich strategy. Stick your head in the sand and pretend the evidence doesn't exist. Or use the 5 year old strategy: stick your fingers in your ears and shout "NAH NAH NAH NAH" real loud so you don't have to hear things you don't like.

 

[MuAndNu]

Maybe because there is no evidence against them. Not even enough evidence to stand up in a kangaroo court.

This statement is just staggering in light of the OP. Do Christians really want the truth?

 

[lucaspa]

Mounting evidence and proof are not the same thing, the degree to which they are not the same depends on the methodological standpoint you have.

I submit that it depends on the degree of emotional attachment you have. You continue:

For example some one working from the methadological standpoint that Lakatos describes as "Nieve Methadological Falsificationism" may argue that there is no such thing as proof at all, and that the closest we get is a theory that has withstood repeated attempts at falsification. However they would argue that the falsifiying evidence may be jsut around the next metephorical corner.

The concept of naive falsification comes from Pierre Duhem in 1905 who showed that any falsification can be rejected by rejecting one of the underlying hypotheses. You see, hypotheses are tested in huge bundles. What we have here is the creationist refusal to admit that the hypothesis "there is no evidence for macroevolution" has been falsified. In this case, if you follow John's post, he simply didn't even look at the data. He doesn't even acknowledge its existence.

However, falsification and the ability to admit falsification are two different things. Falsification does not depend on acceptance by everyone. It has an independent existence. Refusing to accept the evidence says a lot about a person's personality, but says nothing about the evidence.

An overt positivist standpoint on the otherhand would argue that any theory with sufficient supporting evidence may be considered proven.

Unfortunately, positivism has been shown to be false.

whilst I generaly consider myself a falsificationist (probably closer to what Lakatos described as a suffisticated methodological falsificationist I think), I am happy to consider evolution to be as close to proven as it is possible to get without God himself poping in to confirm that is how he did it*.

Right. As Gould pointed out, speciation is so well observed that it is perverse to withold (provisional) assent.

 

[lucaspa]

This statement is just staggering in light of the OP. Do Christians really want the truth?

Christians do. Creationists don't. Remember, only a minority of Christians are creationists. See Aggie's thread of the danger of creationism to Christianity. You, MuAndNu, are unintentionally reinforcing points Aggie and I made in that thread. You try and paint all Christians as creationists. And you are showing that creationism falsely sets Christianity up to be falsified. Thank you for the support.

 

[MuAndNu]

Christians do. Creationists don't. Remember, only a minority of Christians are creationists. See Aggie's thread of the danger of creationism to Christianity. You, MuAndNu, are unintentionally reinforcing points Aggie and I made in that thread. You try and paint all Christians as creationists. And you are showing that creationism falsely sets Christianity up to be falsified. Thank you for the support.

Yes, yes. After I wrote this I realized my error. Not all Christians are Creationists. It's just that that's the brand of Christianity I grew up with. Sometimes I still take that unconsciously as a definition of what Christianity is.

 

[kenneth558]

You evolutionists just don't catch on, do you? Speciation can mean nothing more than new and different mating choices. So what? The color and size of an organism can change, and so can courtship and mating methods. The first doesn't normally create new species, the second does according to your definition of species. But both still leave birds as birds, mammals as mammals, insects as insects, and life from life.

 

[Arikay]

Kenneth, you just don't seem to catch on. To steal an analogy by IB, you apparently don't believe a centimeter can become a kilometer.

Once speciation happens, it means that given enough time (just like adding centimeters will eventually give you a kilometer) the new species can change completly from its old one.
Unless of course you can provide a mechanism that prevents this. So far, no one has been able too (the few that creationist groups have proposed are either nice and vague or proven wrong).

 

[lucaspa]

You evolutionists just don't catch on, do you? Speciation can mean nothing more than new and different mating choices. So what?

It means that the gene pools are separated and that changes to one population don't happen to the other. Remember what species are: populations that freely interbreed and fail to produce fertile offspring.

The color and size of an organism can change, and so can courtship and mating methods. The first doesn't normally create new species, the second does according to your definition of species. But both still leave birds as birds, mammals as mammals, insects as insects, and life from life.

What are "birds" or "mammals" or "insects"? Are they species. That is, are all mammals one species? All insects? No! They are groups of species. All three are examples of "classes", not species. So, higher taxa are just groups of species. But the only biological reality is species!Mammals and insects don't have any biological reality -- they are simply how we group species. So once you have species, you are done -- EVOLUTION. The groups of species come about simply thru multiple speciations spread out in time. See the diagram in Origin at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_04.html and see that speciation will inevitably produce genera, families, orders, and classes.

Now, as to genetic changes. Several of the papers looked at the genetics. This one -- 1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. -- found a genetic difference of 3% between the old species and the new. Remember, the comparable difference between chimps and humans is less than 2%. So there is a greater genetic difference in this observed speciation than between chimps and humans.

 

[pollo]

Yes, yes. After I wrote this I realized my error. Not all Christians are Creationists. It's just that that's the brand of Christianity I grew up with. Sometimes I still take that unconsciously as a definition of what Christianity is.

Same here sadly. Living in rural Georgia has its drawbacks.

 

[kenneth558]

So once you have species, you are done -- EVOLUTION.

Well, well, lucaspa, why all the debate, then? I believe in speciation. No problem. But I don't believe in the theory part of evolution. No, speciation is not the only event needed to disprove a literal Biblical Special Creation. It does nothing for evolutionists.

lucaspa, I serve a God big enough to create a universe in 6 days. I serve a God honest enough to tell the truth: morning and evening were each of those days. I serve a God gracious enough to credit righteousness to my account for simply believing what He says. And I serve a God holy enough to dangle the bait of evolutionist delusion for those who chose not to believe Him. Don't take that bait! You take that bait when you uncritically accept profoundly atheistic interpretations of the data by your peers. Don't you realize that God did intervene in the origins of this physical realm? And that atheistic scientists vow to themselves never to recognize that intervention, regardless of any evidence for it? That prejudicial vow is a very unscientific approach to the search for truth. Because the whole of truth includes facts whose characteristics are beyond the limitations of glass flask and test tube.

 

[michabo]

lucaspa, I serve a God big enough to create a universe in 6 days. I serve a God honest enough to tell the truth: morning and evening were each of those days. [...] And I serve a God holy enough to dangle the bait of evolutionist delusion for those who chose not to believe Him.

First, if if "bigness" or "quickness" is a virtue, why not one day?

If honesty is a virtue, why create the universe to trick us into believing evolution?

What relevance does trickery and deceit have to holiness?