So, has it happened?

[Revelation 22:21]

For years I have been pondering evolution over creation (who hasn't right)- first I was a hardcore creationist- beliving that evolution was "sicence gone wrong"- after coming across your forums (which are the most active I've ever seen)- I had to give evolution some credit- and ultimately realize that it is possible- and was possible. I've seen evidence of changes within different species- I've seen how mutations can occur- I've seen natural selection in action- and I've seen the fossil records of supposed species of animals changing into other species- For most people this is enough evidence to undoubtly prove evolution as absolute fact-- but evolution is all about change- one species into another. Through everything i've seen and all I have herd about evolution- no one has given me an expample of current visable species completely changing into another- everything is in place- we know how it happens- but has it happened so that it can be observed.
I'm simply looking for an example of a species (or part of a species) changing into another species-

Forgive my opnion- but evolution is kinda like an illusion- everything is in place- but its still not there.

 

[notto]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Here you go. There are several instances of observed speciation that have been recorded. So much for evolution being an illusion, right?

 

[JohnR7]

I'm simply looking for an example of a species (or part of a species) changing into another species-

I would like to see evidence that backs up "survival of the fittest". Not a demotion or degeneration of a species on it's way to extinction.

 

[lucaspa]

For years I have been pondering evolution over creation (who hasn't right)- I'm simply looking for an example of a species (or part of a species) changing into another species-

First, this is not "evolution over creation". It is evolution over creationISM. Both evolution and creationISM are methods of creation. Creation is a theological statement that God created. CreationISM is a HOW of creation. So is evolution.

OK, you wanted examples of one species turning into another. Remember, you said SPECIES. Now, ancestor and descendent species are not going to be VERY different, remember evolution doesn't take large leaps. The new species will be similar to the old. The criteria scientists look for in deciding if there is a new species is whether the two populations (old and new species) interbreed to make fertile offspring. But a real step in this is simply not breeding with members of the other population.

So, with that in mind, let me give you some examples of speciation in both animals and plants.

G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. This one was done in the lab by separating populations of a Drosophila species and placing them at different climates (temperatures) or diets. After 5 years of this natural selection, they had new species that did not interbreed with the original population that had been kept in the original environment. Genetic analysis showed that the new species differed from the old by over 3%. Chimps and humans differ by less than 2%. BTW, lots of references here to other studies that got new species, too.

2. 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. Follow up paper in PNAS http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/20/11757 This is plants where speciation occurred by hybridization of two species of a genus -- sunflowers -- to produce a third species that can no longer produce offspring with either of the two parent species (different number of chromosomes).

2a. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1

12. 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

These two studies were in the wild. A new species of salmon. It breeds in the shallows while the original breeds in the middle of the stream. The two species don't interbreed.

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.

This one is in the fossil record. Nice series of transitionals of a snail species splitting in two. Graphs show the divergence of the two species until the bell-shaped curves of the shells and other characteristics don't overlap anymore.

3. 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.

Another one in the fossil record showing multiple species coming from a single ancestor in clams in African lakes. Each lake developed its own new species. Again, graphs showing the divergence of shells so that they no longer overlap.

Finally, a real genetic study actually identifying the genes that are involved in reproductive isolation:

4. 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.

There, does that satisfy you or do you need more examples?

 

[Arikay]

Yep, speciation has happend:
http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm
(Although its probably not the best, or least biased site, the Times article that I normally link to seems to have gone to subscription viewing only, but this site has reposted it).

John: Something interesting is that Darwin never actually said "survival of the Fittest" in his book. Natural Selection on the other hand works basically based on what animals can survive to procreate better than others in a competing environment. (thats probably an over simplifacation)

For years I have been pondering evolution over creation (who hasn't right)- first I was a hardcore creationist- beliving that evolution was "sicence gone wrong"- after coming across your forums (which are the most active I've ever seen)- I had to give evolution some credit- and ultimately realize that it is possible- and was possible. I've seen evidence of changes within different species- I've seen how mutations can occur- I've seen natural selection in action- and I've seen the fossil records of supposed species of animals changing into other species- For most people this is enough evidence to undoubtly prove evolution as absolute fact-- but evolution is all about change- one species into another. Through everything i've seen and all I have herd about evolution- no one has given me an expample of current visable species completely changing into another- everything is in place- we know how it happens- but has it happened so that it can be observed.
I'm simply looking for an example of a species (or part of a species) changing into another species-

Forgive my opnion- but evolution is kinda like an illusion- everything is in place- but its still not there.

 

[lucaspa]

I would like to see evidence that backs up "survival of the fittest". Not a demotion or degeneration of a species on it's way to extinction.

OK.

3. D. Grady, Quick-change pathogens gain an evolutionary advantage.Science, vol.274: 1081, 1996 (November 15). The primary research articleis JE LeClerc, B Li, WL Payne, TA Cebula, High mutation frequencies among Eschericia coli and Salmonella pathogens. Science, 274: 1208-1211, 1996 (Nov.15). The paper also looks at the evolution of the ability of E. coli to live in an acid environment -- apple juice -- where it couldn't live before.

You can add this to the study above: 3. Sequence of favorable mutations in E. coli http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3807

5. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, vol90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growingon 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."

Survival of the fittest all the way.

1. Case, TJ, Natural selection out on a limb. Nature, 387: 15-16,May 1, 1997. Original paper in the same issue, pp. 70-73 (below). Discusses natural selection in the wild where lizards were introduced to various islands in the Bahamas. Length of limbs varied according to the plant life present on the islands. Those individuals with the appropriate limb length survived and reproduced.

2. Reznick, DN, Shaw, FH, Rodd, FH, and Shaw, RG. Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poeciliareticulata). Science 275:1934-1937, 1997. The lay article is Predatory-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, pg 1880.

This one PREDICTED ahead of time which guppies would survive in the new environment. Predictions fulfilled.

3. Intense natural selection in a population of Darwin's finches inthe Galapagos by Boag, PT and Grant, PR appeared in Science vol 214 pp82-85, 1981. This study tracked the effects of drought on finches on Daphne Major. The drought killed about 85% of the birds. The survivors were statistically significantly larger than the pre-drought population and had larger bills. This is directly related to changes in the food supply during the drought.

Again, exact survival of the fittest. Altho that is a terrible soundbite for natural selection.

 

[lucaspa]

Yep, speciation has happend:
http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm
(Although its probably not the best, or least biased site, the Times article that I normally link to seems to have gone to subscription viewing only, but this site has reposted it).

John: Something interesting is that Darwin never actually said "survival of the Fittest" in his book. Natural Selection on the other hand works basically based on what animals can survive to procreate better than others in a competing environment. (thats probably an over simplifacation)

Arikay, in the first edition of Origin Darwin did NOT use the term. It was coined by Herbert Spencer (a sociologist) later. But in the 6th Edition Darwin did equate the term as shorthand for natural selection.

That was a mistake, IMO, since "survival of the fittest" is a soundbite version and, like all soundbites, is not totally accurate.

 

[ifriit]

That was a mistake, IMO, since "survival of the fittest" is a soundbite version and, like all soundbites, is not totally accurate.

While I can see how it isn't a useful definition, being pretty much shorthand for a tautology (Why do species survive? Because they are fit. How do you know they are fit? Because they survive.), how is it inaccurate?

 

[Arikay]

Thanks for the info.

I agree. The biggest problem with this Soundbite I have seen in our times is that some creationist organizations seem to have latched onto it as some sort of "kill or be killed" Evil atheistic Evolution Mantra, as an attempt to show people that Evolution is evil, or something like that.

Arikay, in the first edition of Origin Darwin did NOT use the term. It was coined by Herbert Spencer (a sociologist) later. But in the 6th Edition Darwin did equate the term as shorthand for natural selection.

That was a mistake, IMO, since "survival of the fittest" is a soundbite version and, like all soundbites, is not totally accurate.

 

[Revelation 22:21]

ok ok ok ok ok fine u win

now its time to graduate from creationISM to thestic evolution-

I wonder how long it will take to get from that to atheism... - if it takes me more than a lifetime i'll be more than lucky

I asked for an answer to a question and thats what i got- i give much thanks to all of you

 

[Arikay]

Dont worry, I doubt you will get to Atheism through evolution.

Lucaspa there is one of our Christian type peoples, and he seems to have a hand on biology better than most of us.

 

[Jet Black]

I would like to see evidence that backs up "survival of the fittest". Not a demotion or degeneration of a species on it's way to extinction.

microevolution is a prime example of survival of the fittest.

 

[PhantomLlama]

It always puzzled me when creationists said suvival of the fittest or natural selection was not true, because it is a logical necessity if life can mutate.

 

[webboffin]

Read the Bible and tell me God was wrong

 

[PhantomLlama]

God wasn't wrong, your interpretation of the passage was wrong. It is non literal, just as the sea is not held in with doors, and the earth is not flat and stationary.

 

[ifriit]

Read the Bible and tell me God was wrong

Okay; God was wrong.

What was the point of that challenge?

 

[Melange_Thief]

ok ok ok ok ok fine u win

now its time to graduate from creationISM to thestic evolution-

I wonder how long it will take to get from that to atheism... - if it takes me more than a lifetime i'll be more than lucky

I asked for an answer to a question and thats what i got- i give much thanks to all of you

If you ever come to atheism thru evolution, then you have a serious problem about understanding evolution. I do not use it as an excuse not to believe in a god, simply because it cannot refute a god. I am an atheist because I have not seen what constitutes for evidence of a god or gods.

THE ABOVE POST SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS A CHALLENGE, AND SHOULD NOT BE REPLIED TO IF YOU ARE USING IT TO DEBATE THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD OR GODS WITH ME. THAT BELONGS IN GENERAL APOLOGETICS AND I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN SUCH A DEBATE, ANYWAYS.

 

[OldBadfish]

Read the Bible and tell me God was wrong

Tell me too! I don't remember seeing anything about how God created primates and waited around for them to evolve before putting him in the garden.

 

[OldBadfish]

God wasn't wrong, your interpretation of the passage was wrong. It is non literal, just as the sea is not held in with doors, and the earth is not flat and stationary.

And your interpretation is also wrong, it's analogous and in terms that people can understand as they stand on the earth. (about the flat earth and sea being held in with doors)

IMHYECO

 

[Arikay]

Of course, Phantoms interpretation was the literal one. The one many YECs claim is the only true way to read the bible.

I also dont see anything about people being made up of Cells and DNA.