Ring species to my understanding can be explained with genetic variability, adaptation, and breeding. For example if you want to make a breed of dogs with long ears you would breed two dogs that have long ears. You are making the long ear gene more prevalent by making the short ear gene less prevalent. This is a decrease of genetic information while at the same time breeding a creature that will eventually have different physical traits from the original. This is contrary to evolution as evolution requires an increase in genetic information.
No, that's wrong. Speciation mostly happens in small isolated populations. So that involves a decrease in information. Which process, required for evolution do you think requires an increase in information?
Sometimes evolution results in an increase in information, and sometimes it results in less information.
Perhaps you should tell us how you calculate "information"; it appears that you don't actually know what it is.
Ring species to my understanding can be explained with genetic variability, adaptation, and breeding. For example if you want to make a breed of dogs with long ears you would breed two dogs that have long ears. You are making the long ear gene more prevalent by making the short ear gene less prevalent. This is a decrease of genetic information while at the same time breeding a creature that will eventually have different physical traits from the original. This is contrary to evolution as evolution requires an increase in genetic information.
Which process of evolution do you think "requires an increase in genetic information?" As you saw, speciation most often involves a decrease in information.
In the link provided neither DNA nor increase were mentioned. If your are willing could you please direct me to a reference that explains how ring species creates an increase in genetic information.
Every new mutation increases information in a population. I'm guessing you have no idea how "information" is actually determined, or what it does. How do you think it's measured in populations?
Your reasoning is not a complete picture. I do not question that there is a gain of genetic information. I question when has a gain of genetic information created a new species.
Speciation doesn't require an increase in information, and it certainly doesn't cause speciation. You weren't aware that most creationist groups now admit that new species evolve? (they say it's not "real evolution", though)
While I appreciate the attempt to make things simple for me. I am not a complete fool and can see that this attempt to be kind was underhanded. This is inconsiderate and I would ask you to please be nice. While I may not have the education others have I believe I bring up valid points.
Think about something you're really good at. Now imagine someone who didn't know the first thing about it, walking up and telling you that you were wrong about it. How would you respond?
Yep.
Could you expand upon why it is a bad assumption and a goofy conclusion?
Because speciation most often involves a decrease information.
I would assume after over one hundred years of work on a widely accepted theory there would be evidence of a species becoming a new species via a gain of new genetic information.
Of course. One that comes to mind is O. gigas, a species of evening primrose that evolved from O. lamarkana when a polyploidy event doubled the DNA in it. But more often, there's a decrease in information.
I agree with you to some degree. Many people come out of school not knowing how evolution works, but instead just assume it is true.
Usually the opposite. In general, the less one knows about biology, the less likely they are to know the evidence for evolution.
I have yet seen a valid rebuttal to,
As you learned, an increase in information is generally not seen in speciation.
I am not sure who you are talking about. I didn't let anyone use any form of word to convince me of anything.
I notice you talk about information, but don't seem to know anything about it, or even how it's measured. So that does tend to give the impression you were misled.
Could you please link this finding? I would like to read it for myself and cross check it.
Like African cichlids and the Darwin finches found on the Galapagos Islands, Hawaiian drosophilids are a striking example of a single lineage diversifying by adapting to a wide variety of environments. The Hawaiian drosophilids are broadly divided into two main groups: the Hawaii-endemic genus
Idiomyia and the
Scaptomyza genus. About 60 percent of
Scaptomyza species are unique to the Hawaiian Islands, with the other 40 percent distributed around the world.
Until now, the “single Hawaiian origin” hypothesis has held sway. This idea proposes that the different Hawaiian drosophilids diverged from a sole common ancestor that once colonized the Hawaiian Islands, then the Hawaiian
Scaptomyza subsequently moved back to different continents.
However, by newly determining the DNA sequence information of 11 kinds of non-Hawaiian
Scaptomyza species and analysing it along with existing sequence information, the researchers reconstructed the phylogeny, and estimated ancestral distributions and divergence times. The team thus inferred that the Hawaiian drosophilids had plural continental ancestors that independently migrated to Hawaii at different times.
Hawaiian drosophilids had multiple ancestors that migrated from continents: Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences showed that ancestors of the
Idiomyia genus migrated to Hawaii once, while ancestors of the
Scaptomyza genus migrated twice.
Hawaiian fruit flies had multiple ancestors
So from three species, hundreds of species evolved, to fill niches that would have been filled by other insects on the mainland.
I may have found a similar topic.
Nope. And your source misled you:
Competing Fruit Flies Show Evolution in Action
An experiment by University of California, Davis graduate student Daniel Bolnick has captured evolution in action, provided support for a long-standing hypothesis in evolutionary biology, and could help explain how some new species arise from old ones.
Using the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, Bolnick has shown that intense competition between members of the same species can drive some individuals into using different habitat niches. Biologists think that this separation into niches marks the beginning of the process of forming a new species.
"It's a long-standing problem in evolutionary ecology," said Bolnick.
"Dan's work represents a current spate of interest in looking for more empirical evidence," said biologist Peter Wainwright, who is Bolnick's thesis supervisor.
The study is published in the March 22 issue of the journal Nature.
When Charles Darwin arrived in the Galapagos Islands, he noticed that there were many more species of finch in the small islands than on the mainland of South America, said Bolnick. Biologists see the same result in other islands and remote places where a single species has arrived and found itself with few competitors.
Animals and plants have to compete for resources both with other species, and with individuals of their own species. These competitive forces balance each other, said Bolnick. In a big environment such as a continent, competition with other species is more important. But when a species -- for example, a finch -- enters an environment such as a remote island with few other species already present, competition within the species becomes more important.
Recent theoretical work shows that intense competition in the "middle" of a population drives more variation at the edges, said evolutionary biologist Sergey Nuzhdin. Bolnick's work provides experimental evidence for this, he said.
Competing Fruit Flies Show Evolution in Action
I'll repeat my motive just to make things clear.
The point of my question, is how could a single celled organism eventually become a creature like us today if there is no known occurrences of a species becoming a new species by gaining information it did not otherwise start with.
Two reasons. First, every new mutation adds information to a population. Second, speciation more often involves a decrease in information.
You've been totally misled. But now it's time for you to tell us what you think "information" is, in a population of living things, and how you figure out how much "information" it has.
You're on.
