New species since humans?
September 14, 2009 at 5:23 pm #11797
The perception in much of the religious world is that humans (more specifically homo sapiens) were the last life form created on earth. I realize evolution says they weren’t "created" at all, and that there were other "humans" before homo sapiens. Those issues aside for the moment, is there evidence of animal or plant species that came into being after modern humans were already on this planet?
September 14, 2009 at 5:43 pm #92785
Oh yes. There is a long list of Observed Speciations both in the lab and in nature. For example, Humans created the new genus Triticale by crossing rye and wheat. A natural hybridization occurred in the last 50 years between common groundsel and the Oxford ragwort in England. New species of Cichlid fishes evolved in lakes in East Africa in the last 300,000 years.
September 14, 2009 at 6:06 pm #92786
Also, there are Ring Species, which show speciation in action. In these cases, populations that undergo genetic variation (subspecies)form a circle or loop where adjacent variants interbred, but those at either end do not, even where meet. Examples include: Larus gulls, Ensatina salamanders, and the Greenish Warbler.
September 14, 2009 at 6:22 pm #92788
Yes, I’ve heard of the gull situation, but didn’t know when that took place. You mentioned cichlids in the past 300,000 years. So a question I should be clear on now is "how far back to modern humans date?"
September 14, 2009 at 8:01 pm #92794quote idek:
OK. The diverisfication of 14 Cichlid fish species in Lake Victoria took only 12,000 years, since the lake was dried up for 5,000 years, until about 12,000 years ago.
Humans evolved in East Africa about 200,000 years ago, so that puts these species in the timeframe you asked about.
September 16, 2009 at 1:10 pm #92819quote :
but you must bear in mind natural selection does not account for the generation of species as colin leslie dean has pointed out
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf
this sites definition of NS isquote :
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on
as colin leslie dean has arguedquote :
you must also bear in mind that biologist dont know what species isquote :
some say species interbreed
but the case of the bactrian camel and dromardry camal which are considered different species can breed with fertile of spring
show that this definition of species ends in contradiction
bactrian camel and dromardry camel inter breed should mean they are the same species
they are different species so should not breed
thus a contradiction
thus all this talk in this thread about species speciation is really meaningless nonsence as colin leslie dean has shown biologist dont know what a species is
or when they give a definition ie breeding together
they end in self contradictionn
September 16, 2009 at 2:15 pm #92820
Just ignore gamila. All he does is repeat garbage from colin leslie dean. Attempting to explain anything to him is futile.
September 23, 2009 at 2:14 am #92961
Yes, I was under the firm belief that NS did lead the speciation.
September 23, 2009 at 4:21 am #92962quote :
as colin leslie dean has shown NS cannot lead to speciation- it is a logical impossibility
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdfquote :
NS is -definition from this site
[quote]It is the process by whichheritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism [quote]
September 23, 2009 at 2:20 pm #92976quote gamila:
Instead of coming to a serious thread and quoting yourself in the third person over and over, try reading up on Population Genetics. Evolution is a change in gene frequency in a Population over time. Populations evolve, not Individuals.
September 23, 2009 at 2:24 pm #92977quote :
as i said before
if a trait appears in population which is not present in its parents population then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on
September 23, 2009 at 2:47 pm #92978quote gamila:
NO, you said this: "if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on "
Individuals in a population vary in their traits. The population evolves by changing the frequency of those traits.Thus, the average size, beak shape, coloration, etc. of a population can change over time, even without new mutations. This is the basic definition of natural selection as presented by Darwin. Read On the origin of Species if you don’t believe me. Many traits are quantitative (under contol of many genes) and thus can change rapidly by this process. New mutations add to this variation over longer time frames.
September 23, 2009 at 2:52 pm #92980quote :
facts isquote :
definition of NS -from this sitequote :
September 23, 2009 at 3:42 pm #92983quote gamila:
I really need to take my own advice. We’re done here.
September 23, 2009 at 4:23 pm #92984quote :
it is logically impossible for natural selection to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before
in your language
if a population has new traits never seen before these traits could not have come from a parent population-as the parent population did not have them- there fore natural selection can not account for their presence as natural selection is all about the passing on of traits [b]already present[b]quote :
September 24, 2009 at 9:59 am #93009quote gamila:
What about genetic mutations? If the mutation is favorable, then it might pass on to next gen.
September 24, 2009 at 4:50 pm #93020quote :
the fact that the mutant gene is present in the parent which passes it on to the the next generation
means that the mutant gene in the off spring is not a new gene as it is allready present in the parentquote :
if you are implying that the mutant gene leads to a new species off spring
then the parent that passed on the gene would be a new species as it has the gene as well
thus once againquote :
it is logically impossible for natural selection to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before if a population has new traits never seen before these traits could not have come from a parent population-as the parent population did not have them- there fore natural selection can not account for their presence as natural selection is all about the passing on of traits [b]already present[b]
as they both have the same gene that makes them a new species
September 25, 2009 at 7:01 am #93025
Who ever said the parent had the mutant gene? The offspring could have created the mutant gene which then gets passed on to it’s offspring, several generations later the mutation may become dominant, thus altering the phylogeny of the species, but since the species can still mate, they are considered the same species. I am not really sure where your argument is going.
September 25, 2009 at 8:52 am #93028quote :quote :
if the off spring that created the gene- passes it onto its off spring that sure looks like to me as a parent passeing it on to its offspringquote :quote :
dean is sayingquote :
the gene being generated in the off spring as you say and then this off spring passing it onto its offs spring
is just an example of natural selection the last offspring has no new gene never seen before as this gene is present in its parent- the off spring that generated the gene
if you are implying that the mutant gene leads to a new species off spring
then the parent – the off spring that generated the gene- would be a new species -the same as its off spring-as it has the gene as well
in other words if this mutant gene creates a new species then the off spring that generated the gene would be a new species and all it does is then pass it onto its offspring which makes it the same species as its parent
this is just an example of NS
but not an example of NS producing a new species with traits never seen before
September 25, 2009 at 9:52 am #93030
Again I fail to see your point. An example: Polydactyly or the six finger person, this is an obvious sign of a mutation, yet the mutated indivdual can still inter-breed with its original species.
Mutation does not imply a speciation , only an alteration in the same species. Only after much time and other environmental factors will a new species be possible to emerge.
So what exactly is your argument? Are you saying Darwin is wrong? I only ask because I have not been able grasp the paradigm of your point as it now seems somewhat circular and convoluted.
September 25, 2009 at 10:05 am #93031quote :
n dean is correctquote :
the new species – with new traits never seen before-that appears has not been generated by natural selection as natural selection is all about passing on traits already present
September 25, 2009 at 10:20 am #93032
Clearly you are misinformed.
September 25, 2009 at 2:12 pm #93040quote MichaelXY:
Bingo! You now understand gamila (ie Colin Leslie Dean) . He will do nothing but quote himself as an "authority" in the third person over and over while repeating that a new trait cannot be present already since it is a new trait. Ignore him.
September 25, 2009 at 11:03 pm #93055
gamila, since I’m not familiar with colin dean, may I ask where you think new species come/came from if not by way of NS? I’m not asking to try and start an argument. Just curious.
September 26, 2009 at 6:35 am #93061quote :
idex i dont know Like me colin leslie dean is not a creationist and does not believes in ID
September 26, 2009 at 1:35 pm #93070quote gamila:
So in essence, you mock all theories, yet have no answers of your own. Not surprising I suppose.
September 26, 2009 at 1:42 pm #93071quote :
just like colin leslie dean i believe that all views end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … hought.pdf
Contentless thought: case study in the meaninglessness of all views
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ience4.pdf
The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … nality.pdf
Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being ‘true’ rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for ‘truth’: mathematics and science examples
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … smbook.pdf
Aristotelian logic as an epistemic condition of truth, the grand narrative of western philosophy: logic-centrism, the limitations of Aristotelian logic, the end of Aristotelian logic, logic/essence and language lead to the meaningless of all views
October 8, 2009 at 11:19 pm #93470SophycleseParticipant
I beg to differ,robsabbo and gamila. There is no solid, direct evidence that supports the appearence of new species on Earth. As science states, there are over 40 million species of animals on this pplanet, but only 2 million have been discovered. Just becuase we discover new species does not necisarily mean that the new species evolved from a older species.
Also, I have not heard of the "gull situation". Would you give me a link to a website that can tell me more or just post and tell me yourself.
Also, please read my new paper concerning Evolution. It is of course in the Evolution forum and it is titled "Evolution is a Disprooven Theory". It is a post that breezes through the basics of evolution and divuldges those points.
October 13, 2009 at 7:54 am #93660
2organisms are of one species if they can successfully interbreed and produce fertile offsprings then they are of one species.
but isn’t this the old theory.
i have come to hear that if 2 organisms are in the same family they can produce fertile offsprings
October 13, 2009 at 7:56 am #93662
what is true please help.
October 13, 2009 at 8:03 am #93663JackBeanParticipant
I think, if they are in a family, than they may (but maybe also may not) produce infertile offspring 😉
October 13, 2009 at 8:14 am #93667
not sure if family or phylum or genus or species produces fertile off springs please help.
October 13, 2009 at 8:22 am #93673JackBeanParticipant
To my knowledge, one of definitions of species is, that they can only produce fertile offspring. But that’s like six years ago, we have learned that 😆
October 14, 2009 at 1:44 am #93699
but that’s the definition even i learnt but there are a few other discoveries. if you read this thread from the begining you shall read regarding camels prooving my point.
October 14, 2009 at 2:06 pm #93716quote Sophyclese:
Speciation has been observed both in nature and in the lab. If you are asking about RIng Species, which are examples of speciation in action, look up Larus Gull, Green Warbler, and Ensatina salamanders. Wikipedia has an entry on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.