New species since humans?

Viewing 34 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #11797
      idek
      Participant

      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?

    • #92785
      robsabba
      Participant

      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.

    • #92786
      robsabba
      Participant

      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.

    • #92788
      idek
      Participant

      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?"

    • #92794
      robsabba
      Participant
      quote idek:

      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?”

      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.
      http://hagblomfoto.com/article_evolution.htm

      Humans evolved in East Africa about 200,000 years ago, so that puts these species in the timeframe you asked about.

    • #92819
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      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?

      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 is

      quote :

      It is the process by which heritabletraits 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

      so

      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 argued

      quote :

      NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
      if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

      you must also bear in mind that biologist dont know what species is

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

      quote :

      However, the exact definition of the term “species” is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3″

      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
      this
      show that this definition of species ends in contradiction
      ie
      bactrian camel and dromardry camel inter breed should mean they are the same species
      but
      they are different species so should not breed
      but
      they do
      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

    • #92820
      robsabba
      Participant

      Idek:

      Just ignore gamila. All he does is repeat garbage from colin leslie dean. Attempting to explain anything to him is futile.

    • #92961
      idek
      Participant

      Yes, I was under the firm belief that NS did lead the speciation.

    • #92962
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      Yes, I was under the firm belief that NS did lead the speciation

      as colin leslie dean has shown NS cannot lead to speciation- it is a logical impossibility

      http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf

      quote :

      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

      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]

    • #92976
      robsabba
      Participant
      quote gamila:

      quote :

      Yes, I was under the firm belief that NS did lead the speciation

      as colin leslie dean has shown NS cannot lead to speciation- it is a logical impossibility

      http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf

      quote :

      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

      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 :

      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.

    • #92977
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      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.

      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

    • #92978
      robsabba
      Participant
      quote gamila:

      quote :

      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.

      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

      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.

    • #92980
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      The population evolves by changing the frequency of those traits.

      facts is

      quote :

      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

      definition of NS -from this site

      quote :

      It is the process by which heritable 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
    • #92983
      robsabba
      Participant
      quote gamila:

      quote :

      The population evolves by changing the frequency of those traits.

      facts is

      quote :

      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

      definition of NS -from this site

      quote :

      It is the process by which heritable 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

      I really need to take my own advice. We’re done here.

    • #92984
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      I really need to take my own advice. We’re done here.

      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 :

      It is the process by which heritable 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
    • #93009
      MichaelXY
      Participant
      quote gamila:

      quote :

      I really need to take my own advice. We’re done here.

      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 :

      It is the process by which heritable 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

      What about genetic mutations? If the mutation is favorable, then it might pass on to next gen.

    • #93020
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      What about genetic mutations? If the mutation is favorable, then it might pass on to next gen.

      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 parent

      quote :

      natural selection is all about the passing on of traits already present

      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 again

      quote :

      natural selection is all about the passing on of traits already present

      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

    • #93025
      MichaelXY
      Participant

      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.

    • #93028
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      Who ever said the parent had the mutant gene
      quote :

      The offspring could have created the mutant gene which then gets passed on to it’s offspring

      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 offspring

      quote :

      natural selection is all about the passing on of traits already present
      quote :

      I am not really sure where your argument is going.

      dean is saying

      quote :

      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 already present

      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
      as

      quote :

      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]
    • #93030
      MichaelXY
      Participant

      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.

    • #93031
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      Are you saying Darwin is wrong?

      n dean is correct

      quote :

      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.

      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

    • #93032
      MichaelXY
      Participant

      Clearly you are misinformed.

    • #93040
      robsabba
      Participant
      quote MichaelXY:

      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.

      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.

    • #93055
      idek
      Participant

      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.

    • #93061
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      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.

      idex i dont know Like me colin leslie dean is not a creationist and does not believes in ID

    • #93070
      MichaelXY
      Participant
      quote gamila:

      quote :

      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.

      idex i dont know Like me colin leslie dean is not a creationist and does not believes in ID

      So in essence, you mock all theories, yet have no answers of your own. Not surprising I suppose.

    • #93071
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      So in essence, you mock all theories

      yes true
      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

    • #93470
      Sophyclese
      Participant

      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.

    • #93660
      jwalin
      Participant

      a question.
      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

    • #93662
      jwalin
      Participant

      what is true please help.

    • #93663
      JackBean
      Participant

      I think, if they are in a family, than they may (but maybe also may not) produce infertile offspring 😉

    • #93667
      jwalin
      Participant

      not sure if family or phylum or genus or species produces fertile off springs please help.

    • #93673
      JackBean
      Participant

      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 😆

    • #93699
      jwalin
      Participant

      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.

    • #93716
      robsabba
      Participant
      quote Sophyclese:

      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.

      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

Viewing 34 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.