Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Speciation events
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 27 (58)
01-10-2001 5:57 PM


The claim has been made that we don't observe transitional fossils and therefore evolution is simply conjecture. In the other thread I posted a link that cites a series of transitions for snails.
However, one other way we know that new species appear is that we observe them:
Please see:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=619396302
http://x62.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=632350236
As well as two FAQs on talkorigins.org in the Evolution section. We observe new species evolving with some frequency and therefore it is not a real objection to say that evolution has never been observed.
Some go further, and claim that even if speciation occurs, it can't continue because of limits to genetic change. To make such a claim you need to demonstrate such a barrier.
Larry Handlin

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by lbhandli, posted 01-24-2001 12:13 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 27 (103)
01-24-2001 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
01-10-2001 5:57 PM


FE: I contested the changing definitions and doubtful conclusions on another post
There aren't changing definitions. There are several definitions depending upon the situation. For example, if one is studying live animal populations the BSC is generally the definition you will use. This has changed over time as we have refined what we mean. I would consider this a strength and not a weakness. Additionally the current definition clearly delineates what the standard is (even if experiments are somewhat impractable.
You would not use the BSC in certain specific cases though, such as self-pollinating plants. The definition just becomes meaningless.
Alternatives include morphological/phenological based differences.
Each possible definition though has been observed.
FE: <
Allison: Why? What would prevent it from happening to any creature?
FE: We don't see evidence of this process of speciation except in the frankenstein experiments that even your talk origins moderator was hard pressed to find examples of.
There are quite a few examples actually. And natural ones as well.
FE: No arguement there is variation within species, but NATURALLY occuring speciation is quite an elusive find. A sense a long stretch to hammer home a point.
Here, I'm especially curious to why you say that with the evidence of ring species.
From post 26 of Thibault's:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=619396302
quote:
If branching of existing species into new species occurred gradually in the past, we should see all possible degrees of speciation or genetic isolation today, ranging from fully interbreeding populations, to partially interbreeding populations, to populations that interbreed with reduced infertility or with complete infertility, to completely
genetically isolated populations.
In the same post he gives specific examples of ring species. In contrast to your claim that only unnatural instances are observed, he points out a couple examples of species that are geographically separated. As you follow the geographic feature they are around you notice that while nearby populations can interbreed the populations at the end of the "ring" can't. This is both natural and a perfect example of how speciation can occur in stages. Given this it appears that we do see variation leading to a different species all together.
Larry Handli

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 01-10-2001 5:57 PM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 08-11-2001 11:02 AM lbhandli has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 27 (340)
08-15-2001 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
08-11-2001 11:02 AM


John Paul,
No, speciation doesn't demonstrate that the diversity of life came from common ancestors. However, the genetic data does. A great article on this is done by Doolittle in the February 2000 Scientific American. In the article he describes the current understanding of the tree of life.
Another great source of information on common descent is a series of evidence on the talkorigins.org cite that lists 20 lines of evidence.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
My particular favorite area is Part 4 that deals with the molecular evidence. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
How else, other than through common descent, can you explain this evidence?
Larry Handli

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 08-11-2001 11:02 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2001 2:45 PM lbhandli has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 27 (378)
08-21-2001 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
08-21-2001 2:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
I can't control what other Creationists believed, proposed or thought about speciation at one time. Whatever that was it appears to have changed. The problem could have been with the definition of species. I am not even sure what state it is in now (the definition of species). And once a solid definition of species "evolves", how could we test it on all the extinct fauna?
The question then is where is the barrier? If not at speciation exactly where are the limits for population change and the evidence for it. Molecular evidence shows very clear commonalities between closely related populations that reduce steadily as evolution would predict, as the move farther away genetically. Why would this be?
As for the "history" of what Creationists claimed, what about the "evolution" of the theory of evolution? Where does it stand now? Is the Modern Synthesis still reign supreme? Or has it been replaced? I can never get a straight answer.
What literature were you reading in attempting to answer the question? Specifically?
Some would argue that it has been replaced--such as Gould, others such as Ayala and Fitch would argue the essential nature of the Modern Synthesis is still in place--the joining of population genetics and natural selection. Taking the second view what literature argues that this synthesis has broken down?
John Paul:
I advocate that all life is descended from the originally Created Kinds.
Then you need to define kind in terms of the standard taxonomic classification system so we can evaluate such a claim.
Actually they could have been just dropped off by "aliens" for all I care, but I infer from the evidence that descendants tend to resemble their ancestors, more closely than humans resemble bacteria (if indeed bacteria was the "first family" of life on Earth).
Then how are we able to construct a tree of life such as Doolittle does off of genetics? What would account for such a pattern other than common descent?
From the Feb, 2000 issue of Sci Am by Doolittle:

Also by "back to a time", do you mean the lower down in the strata we look? You do know that not every organism that has lived and died gets fossilized. Entire populations have not been represented in the fossil record according to Phil (an evolutionist on the OCW DB). That coupled with the fact we have barely 'scratched the surface' looking for fossils, gives us a very incomplete and fragmented record to be basing any inferences on.
Except that we do have quite a few finds and they inevitably do follow the pattern evolutionary biology predicts. It shouldn't be the case that of the sample we do see that there aren't violations (other than with geological anomalies of course)

Now that we have directly witnessed catastrophes depositing many layers of sediments in a short time frame also puts a damper on the old line "the further down in the strata you go, the older the objects are that are found there," because in fact it doesn't matter in what layer they are found, the objects could have been deposited at the same time.

This doesn't make any sense. In a catastrophe you would find fossils jumbled together. We don't find this in the geogogic record and you need to account for this if you are going to challenge evolution on this basis.
Larry Handlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2001 2:24 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2001 3:52 PM lbhandli has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 27 (380)
08-21-2001 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
08-21-2001 2:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry, my apologies to you too for my absence.
Larry:
Another great source of information on common descent is a series of evidence on the talkorigins.org cite that lists 20 lines of evidence.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
John Paul:
I've read that before. It is not a good sign when we (Creationists & evolutionists) can't even agree on a definition of a word. The word in this case is macroevolution. By the definition used on your link, Creationists are evolutionists! Creationists generally use these definitions (for what it's worth):

evolution, biological n.
1) microevolutionhe empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within a gene pool (or population of organisms) are manifested or suppressed among members of that gene pool over a series of generations. Essentially a synonym for genetic variation. Often erroneously extrapolated (through semantic redefinition) to rovethe possibility of acro evolution 2) Pseudogenes:a description of the problem
Your site is problematic:
The Creationist sees our whole Biosphere as increasing in entropy since Creation
Define entropy as the authors are using it. It most certainly is not entropy in the thermodynamic sense because such entropy is strictly defined and observed to decrease often times with photosynthesis.
Additionally, the treatment of pseudogenes (and apparently retroviri) doesn't address the evidence at all. In the case of evidence line #21 we observe 5 identical retroviri insertions identical to each other in identical places between chimps and humans. This makes sense in the case of common descent, but makes no sense in any other claim that I have heard. In common descent such patterns should occur because common ancestors would have retroviri invade and change the genome and those changes would be passed along. However, I have no idea of why such non-functional genetic changes would occur in populations that were not genetically connected that are identical and occur in the same identical place on the genome. Could you offer a reason why?

John Paul:
Common Creator, common mechanisms.

This doesn't address the evidence. It is an assertion with no support behind it. Why would a common creator place the same retroviri insertions (non-functional) at the same place in the genome? There is no function, there is no loss of function in this case, there is simply an insertion by outside agent of a DNA sequence that does not code. Why and how would a designer do this?
Thanks,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2001 2:45 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2001 4:00 PM lbhandli has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 27 (383)
08-21-2001 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by John Paul
08-21-2001 4:00 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry:
This was answered in the link I gave but here it is cut and pasted:
"So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.
If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.
Not at an identical location and creating an identical effect. There is no reason to expect that at all. What evidence is there that a retrovirus would
1) create an identical insertion
at
2) the identical spot in the genome
According to what is said above one would expect insertions of similar nature, not identical and in an identical spot.

The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.
The ridiculous nature of this is that there is no reason why a common mechanism would produce the same effect at the same location. And then do it five times. Reacting the same way is expected, reacting in an identical way in another time is not. We see this evidence throughout life on earth not only in humans and chimps.
The claim is silly from the perspective the insertions could occur anywhere in the genome, but don't. They occur in common places and are identical. There is no reason for a designer to do this that has been introduced and such a claim as this site makes would mean the designer had to plan for that level of specificity.
Additionally, what is the benefit of these insertions--they don't code.

Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer."
So give another answer. Your answer so far seems to be God did it for unexplainable reasons. That isn't a scientific answer.
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2001 4:00 PM John Paul has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 27 (384)
08-21-2001 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by John Paul
08-21-2001 3:52 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry:
The question then is where is the barrier? If not at speciation exactly where are the limits for population change and the evidence for it.
John Paul:
The barrier would lay in the protein structure. Its 3-D structure can't be manipulated too much or else it will no longer bond to the other proteins it once bonded to.
.
And this is why most mutations are neutral. Spettner nor Plaisted offer any barrier but at best a speed limit. However, I've yet to see any work that would limit change over the long haul. There is nothing in the articles that operates as a barrier. There isn't a hard line wherre genomes can't cross. And the observation of such should exist in the molecular evidence if it truly existed in nature. Indeed, both seem to indicate that genetic change has to occur much faster than is necessary in reality.
Information arguments are rather silly unless you can define and operationalize information. If you wish to discuss that start it in a new thread.

Larry:
Molecular evidence shows very clear commonalities between closely related populations that reduce steadily as evolution would predict, as the move farther away genetically. Why would this be?
John Paul:
Molecular commonalities are also predicted in the Creationist version of biological evolution and ID.
Commonalities aren't the issue. The issue are identical insertions in the identical portion of the genome of NON-FUNCTIONAL DNA.
Also, give me a specific prediction of the types of commonalities expected under your "theory" and the potential falsifications. One of the most difficult areas to discuss with creationists is what their model is. If you could provide a scientific theory that covers why we observe the genetic similarities as we do I would appreciate that. It should have testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications. And of course be clear how this relates to a creation event.

And, at least in the Creation version, similarities would also be reduced in the evolutionary process. The 3 major differences in the theories are 1. The starting point (what organism or organisms started the evolution process); 2. What direction is the evolutionary process taking;
Evolution doesn't have a "direction" except towards fitness. So I'm at a loss as to how this would even be a comparable point.

and 3. To what extent can organisms evolvePoint 3 is your barrier question. A good observation ccan be made by all of our experimentations with organisms. In all of our experiments with bacteria, not once after billions of generations, has bacteria evolved into anything else but bacteria.
And why would we expect that to happen in such a short time? Where in evolutionary biology is such a prediction made? References please?
You are attempting to falsify evolutionary biology through an argument it doesn't make.

Dogs are still dogs, cats are still cats and fruit flies are still fruit flies. Our own experiments cry out "there's a barrier."
No, they are saying there is a limit to the rapidness of change. Which no one denies.
As I specifically said, a dog into a cat is not predicted by evolution. Any single step is going no farther than speciation. An event that turned a dog into a cat would be evidence of creation actually.
The specific patterns of genetic commonalities also happen to follow a pattern that matches several nested hierarchies including those observed in the fossil record and taxonomic classification. These clearly are compatible with common descent--what specifically in creationism accounts for these hierarchiers? Especially what accounts for the non-functional nested hierarchiers we observe?

me from earlier:
Larry:
What literature were you reading in attempting to answer the question?
John Paul:
What would you recommend?
Gee...Ayala and Fitch. What have you read?In the thread on the MS, see the references to Thmsberry. I'm seriously asking you what literature you have read from mainstream biology. Given your claims of confusion I would like to understand where the confusion came from--also, I do have doubts over what you have read. I have taken the time to read a lot of creationist literature, where as I seldom find the reverse is true.
PE isn't contrary to the MS so why would it replace it? Unless you are arguing from Gould's point of view--which PE isn't even his argument about the MS being replaced? So I'm confused, what have you read that has confused you from the literature?

Larry:
Then you need to define kind in terms of the standard taxonomic classification system so we can evaluate such a claim.
John Paul:
If fair is fair, then what was that allged first population of living organisms? What is the evidence that single-celled organisms can evolve into multi-cellular organisms?
Answer the question. What is a kind? If you can't define it, how can you claim there is a barrier at the kind level?
The question you are asking I would recommend seeing Doolittle's work starting with the Scientific American ARTICLE I ALREADY CITED! See further down.
As for the multiple cell development that is still a question. The problem is that isn't a claim against common descent, but an understanding that there are mechanisms we still investigate.

me from before:
Actually they could have been just dropped off by "aliens" for all I care, but I infer from the evidence that descendants tend to resemble their ancestors, more closely than humans resemble bacteria (if indeed bacteria was the "first family" of life on Earth).
Larry:
Then how are we able to construct a tree of life such as Doolittle does off of genetics? What would account for such a pattern other than common descent?
John Paul:
But common descent from what? The way you guys talk about it it is more like common ascent.
Would you care to explain the statement?

Where is the evidence to support that chart?
Well contained in the cited papers. Who would have guessed that? Doolittle in previous work has assembled a great deal of evidence to show the connections between different branches working especially with Horizontal Gene Transfer. Now, what you would have to explain is not only why a nested hierarchy exists for coding DNA, but also for non-coding DNA. Specifically Doolittle has looked at precursors for hemoglobin found in both vertebrate and invertebrates and connected them before he had the observational evidence. Then he went out and found the observation. I know of no reason creationism would predict such an occurrence, but common descent exactly predicts it.
AFAICT there is no evidence contradicting the nested hierarchies so how do they fit the creationist theory? And here I need testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications.

Larry:
This doesn't make any sense. In a catastrophe you would find fossils jumbled together.
John Paul:
Not really. Many organisms would most likely be destroyed by the catastrophe and not be around to fossilize.
Why would this occur only in the order that evolution predicts?

Also it would depend on what was living together at the time of the catastrophe. If only reptiles lived on an island that suffered a volcanic explosion, I wouldn't think we would find horses in the sediments left behind.
Ah, but they do live together in some areas. Why do we not find them together then?

Animals (other than us) seem to have an ability to tell when a catastrophe is going to happen. They tend to go where they think it is safe. I am sure that animals wouldn't huddle together (that is all different types of animals in one place), so this would also act to seperate the organisms and thus their fossils.
But this shouldn't affect layers--what is your point?
The catastrophe you are indicating would be so widespread as to not cause this problem. The ordering you are arguing against should be broken in our sample. You must provide a reason why it is not. So far you haven't even addressed it simply waiving your hand and saying they moved around. Given a major catastrophe the pressure and force would mix them in many cases.
Cheers,
Larry
[This message has been edited by lbhandli (edited 08-21-2001).]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2001 3:52 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by lbhandli, posted 08-21-2001 6:40 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 27 (385)
08-21-2001 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by lbhandli
08-21-2001 5:15 PM


It seems to me that this thread is becoming muddled very quickly. Let me suggest that future posts not directly related to speciation (and given that doesn't appear to be at issue for anyone this seems easy to do)
Issues presented include
1) Information Issues
2) Common Genetic Traits and their status as evidence for either or both--I would think the tree of life would fall here.
3) The Definition of kind and Genetic barriers to macroevolution above the kind classification
4) Fossilization and Layers
5) Modern Synthesis--though I think a rereading of the thread with thmsberry might put that one to ad nauseum quick enough
6) The development of multicellular life
7) The "direction" of evolution
There is a tendency to throw out more and more topics sometimes, but creating a structure we can deal in-depth with each issue and avoid moving on from specific points. I will look for responses in other threads or move my responsed to new threads if they aren't related to speciation events.
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by lbhandli, posted 08-21-2001 5:15 PM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 08-22-2001 6:02 AM lbhandli has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 27 (395)
08-22-2001 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John Paul
08-22-2001 1:42 PM


johnpaul: With genetic engineering we should be able to manipulate an organism's genome to see what happens. But alas, bacteria always remain bacteria,
You have ignored by specific response to this. And why would one expect an entirely domain to appear? Such a strange requirement.
johnpaul:a virus always evolves into a virus, a dog remains a dog, all this with intelligent intervention meant to speed up the evolutionary process.
You continue to ignore my previous specific response. Would you care to respond specifically or not?
johnpaul: Right now all the data tends to support a barrier does exist but we just haven't identified it yet.
The data you claim exists supports nothing of the sort. The fact that a macromutation does not occur does not reflect on evolutionary biology because no one asserts such things do occur. If you disagree I want a specific cite to the scientific literature supporting your claim of macromutations being necessary.
The barriers you claim only require that evolution not occur at a certain pace, but present no problem over many years. So, I'm still at a loss as to what the a barrier is to evolution. And you still have not responded to what a kind is. Please do so.
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John Paul, posted 08-22-2001 1:42 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by John Paul, posted 08-22-2001 3:55 PM lbhandli has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 27 (400)
08-22-2001 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by John Paul
08-22-2001 3:55 PM


larry:
You have ignored by specific response to this. And why would one expect an entirely domain to appear? Such a strange requirement.
John Paul:
Sooner or later an organism very different from the original would have to appear or else all life would still be some unknown population of single-celled organisms. Nothing even close has come as a result of trying to do so.
And the time frame for evolution is? Given the Modern Synthesis is around 50 years old and so experiments of the appropriate type only began since then, why would you expect us to be able to create a new domain? That is an extraordinary claim.
johnpaul:a virus always evolves into a virus, a dog remains a dog, all this with intelligent intervention meant to speed up the evolutionary process.
John Paul:
I didn't say a dog would/ could evolve into a cat, but with all the tinkering we have done with mumerous organisms not once has anything fundamentally different (as in procaryotes and eucaryotes; reptiles and mammals or birds). Bacterial experiments involved more than just a single step and yet nothing would lead anyone to believe a proc can evolve into a euc. Nothing.
Except the genetic evidence of common descent. And which theories do you believe have been falsified and please present specifically the evidence that falsifies them.
larry from an earlier post:
The specific patterns of genetic commonalities also happen to follow a pattern that matches several nested hierarchies including those observed in the fossil record and taxonomic classification. These clearly are compatible with common descent--what specifically in creationism accounts for these hierarchiers? Especially what accounts for the non-functional nested hierarchiers we observe?
John Paul:
First, non-functional needs to be defined. I am aware of research that shows the previously thought of "junk" DNA isn't really junk.
non-coding is the standard definition of non-functional code. The pseudogenes and retrovirus insertions are non-coding.
johnpaul: Also viral insertions have been shown to attach to specific DNA sequences, regardless of the organism that contains those sequences and once there they do get passed along.
Cite please for retroviruses doing this.
johnpaul: Common descent really isn't the issue. It's common descent from what? We don't even know what the first populations of single-celled organisms were. How do we know we can get here from there when we don't even know where there is? A Common Creator using common processes is as viable for hierarchies as is common descent.
How so? Please be specific in providing how the evidence fits a theory of a common designer. Include testable hypotheses, confirming evidence, and potential falsifications. So far, everything seems to fit your theory with no evidence that would contradict it.
The Junk Dealer Ain't Selling That No More The article is at the bottom of the page.
This doesn't address pseudogenes nor does it address retroviral insertions.
Pseudogenes: Are they non-functional
How is saying some pseudogenes code important if the specific evidence for the ones presented is that they don't code?
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by John Paul, posted 08-22-2001 3:55 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024