The following example of speciation appears on the Talk Origins website:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."1
From the description, one would think that this was a very convincing example of macroevolution in action. Obviously, there must have been quite a number of massive mutations to produce an entirely new species that could not interbreed with the original. Right? Actually, every statement above is absolutely true. However, some of the important details have been intentionally left out, in order to make this example sound much better than it really is. Here is what actually happened.
The example above is not macroevolution, but is simply due to a single genetic event known as polyploidy. The original goatsbeards from Europe were standard diploid (two copies of each chromosome) plants. However, plants often do not undergo complete monoploidy during meiosis (during the formation of the sex cells, or gametes). This means that the gametes may remain diploid. When diploid gametes fuse, a new polyploid "species" is formed. No new information is created (Do you have twice as much information if you copy one book to produce an identical copy? No!), but the chromosomes are duplicated. The new "species" cannot produce viable offspring with the original species simply because of the difference in number of chromosomes. With goatsbeards, the process has happened more than once. Of course, the two "new" species that have the same number of chromosomes and can produce viable offspring, since they are virtually identical.
If you look at the speciation events that are listed as evidence of evolution, most of them will fall into the polyploidy plant category. Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species" are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chromosomal duplication event. A casual oversight on the part of the writers? I think not! How much new information added to the new species? None!!! Were you deceived into thinking that the example given above was a dramatic example of evolution in action? Be wary of evolutionists bearing examples of "speciation."
Essentially he is saying that despite the new "species" of goatsbeard not breeding with the parents from which it evolved, it doesn't count as a new species because its not genetically different enough - due to the fact that its a polypoidy plant, ie it has twice the number of chromosomes, but the should have the same genetic information (one would think it would lead to greater genetic variability and more information because it can hold more).
In short, he has redefined what constitutes a different species (ie inability to breed with a different species) to suit his argument.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
That's a pretty stupid bit that he wrote. Actually, after having read it, I'm slightly more convinced of evolution, as I'd always before wondered how the formation of new chromosome pairs would occur. That they're essentially copies of what's already there is of little consequence, since time will cause enough change mutations for things to change a bit.
And yeah, this fellow was basically changing his notion of a species for the purpose of writing this. The biological definition of species, so I've heard, is based on if the creatures are different enough that they can't interbreed.
A quick memory of my flash card days in college: "Species: Two organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring." These creationists would have a hard time passing Bio 101...
Superman wrote:A quick memory of my flash card days in college: "Species: Two organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring." These creationists would have a hard time passing Bio 101...
I'm not defending this guy , but this definition is a bit problematic one ( not that we have better one ), mostly because of species with only/mostly asexual reproduction.
And as i remember , shouldn't there be notion about interbreeding in the "wild" ?
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move." Douglas Adams
"When smashing momuments, save the pedestals - they always come in handy." Stanislaw Lem
I don't have the quote handy (and it would be quite long), but Darwin attacked the distinction between "species" and "variations" in his seminal work "Origin of Species" by quite effectively showing that the boundary between the two classifications is completely arbitrary and inconsistent. That's the real point here; it is extremely difficult to determine when you switch from variations to species. Are lions and tigers the same species? No, and yet they can still interbreed, albeit very rarely. There is no objective standard for the level of genetic difference that is required in order to declare speciation. Even animals with different chromosome counts can interbreed in some cases, yet no one in his right mind would declare that a different chromosome count is not a significant genetic difference.
Yet another creationist argument which was anticipated and debunked by Darwin in the 19th century.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Actually, if memory serves, species are separated by whether or not it's possible or practical for them to interbreed. Two different populations which can interbreed but are separated by geographic barriers could be considered different species.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
The author's completely wrong anyway. To use his own example against him, there'd likely be typological errors with that new book, which is technically new information.
Further, they can't interbreed in the wild; that's what's generally defined as what a species is in biology. If they don't want to use the definitions of biology, then they really shouldn't argue with biology. It'd be like them redefining entropy to argue against physics!
SDNet: Unbelievable levels of pedantry that you can't find anywhere else on the Internet!
Interbreeding incompatibility is one definition of a new species. But, as we're talking about Creationists, the typical definition speciation must fit is a dog turning into a fish, or vice versa. Unless they see a whole new organism come about, not simply a new type of fish or new breed of dog, but one entirely different in genetics and morphology, they'll continue to attack this whole area. The kids are often heard asking why monkeys aren't evolving into people today at the zoo, so you know what to expect then.
Indeed, that's a very good point. The creationist caricature of evolution involves a dramatic change rather than a gradual one, so they expect speciation to fit this caricature and produce a new species which does not very closely resemble its predecessor.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:Indeed, that's a very good point. The creationist caricature of evolution involves a dramatic change rather than a gradual one, so they expect speciation to fit this caricature and produce a new species which does not very closely resemble its predecessor.
So, why don't they accept the wackiness that occurs with fruit flies as evidence of evolution? I mean, we can induce severe morphological changes from normal fruit flies. We've created fruit flies with legs for antenna and mouth parts, with several extra body segments, lack of wings, etc. Why isn't that considered evidence of evolution to them?
SDNet: Unbelievable levels of pedantry that you can't find anywhere else on the Internet!
So, why don't they accept the wackiness that occurs with fruit flies as evidence of evolution? I mean, we can induce severe morphological changes from normal fruit flies. We've created fruit flies with legs for antenna and mouth parts, with several extra body segments, lack of wings, etc. Why isn't that considered evidence of evolution to them?
Because humans are the ones who genetically modify the fly to have wierd appendages. Therefore, they don't consider it evolution. And technically they're right. A species must have genetic change on its own to be considered in the process of evolution. Humans making them doesn't count.
Not that there haven't already been newly evolved species of fruit fly.
Notice that he implies that the addition of genetic information is necessary for evolution.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
That's simply man tinkering with genetic engineering. The experiments with fruit flies only really look at how hormones from the egg stage up affect the layout of the organs, it's not really a new species anymore than a person with Down's is. If you showed them something of a chimaera, however, then they may see something in it. They have a nasty habit of moving the goal posts though, typically whenever we start winning again. Can't have the new generation notice logical arguments against their doctrine.
So, why don't they accept the wackiness that occurs with fruit flies as evidence of evolution? I mean, we can induce severe morphological changes from normal fruit flies. We've created fruit flies with legs for antenna and mouth parts, with several extra body segments, lack of wings, etc. Why isn't that considered evidence of evolution to them?
Because humans are the ones who genetically modify the fly to have wierd appendages. Therefore, they don't consider it evolution. And technically they're right. A species must have genetic change on its own to be considered in the process of evolution. Humans making them doesn't count.
Not that there haven't already been newly evolved species of fruit fly.
Notice that he implies that the addition of genetic information is necessary for evolution.
It's still selection pressures, if very odd ones. Isn't it also still representative of evolution, like livestock breeding? I mean, if we can do it, can't nature do it as well (in reference to only selection pressures and evolution)?
SDNet: Unbelievable levels of pedantry that you can't find anywhere else on the Internet!
Superman wrote:True, but Ligers and Tigons are infertile. Can you think of any examples of two different species producing fertile offspring?
Are coywolves infertile or do we know that for certain?
Beyond that, I think a lot of songbirds hybridize, as well as some frogs and other amphibians, but I don't have the book that mentions that onhand, so, I can't say that they can produce fertile offspring reliably. A problem with hybrids like that, though, is that they tend to be horribly maladapted to the habitat of either parent.
That also reminds me of anecdotal problems I've heard about ligers/tigons. I've heard that they have horrible times adjusting to social situations since the lion portion of their physiology is social whereas the tiger part is solitary. That's totally anecdotal, though, so I sadly can't back it up. However, it might be another reason why there aren't that many hybrids in nature due to psychology between parents being so great.
SDNet: Unbelievable levels of pedantry that you can't find anywhere else on the Internet!
This is a good time to ask. A few months ago my friend and I were talking about creationism, and he tried to goad me or strawman evolution by saying "is evolution saying that monkeys turn into men?" over and over, and I kept trying to explain the concept of natural selection, the important part of evolution.
Then he came back with "there's a point, where a species can't change anymore." Where is the basis for this kind of argument, it sounds so stupid that even creationists wouldn't use it, but I know he was reading literature so he had to get it from somewhere, and what is the devestating rebuttal to this? I could ask him "where's your proof" and then he'd ask me "where's your proof" and we'd both appeal to authority, so I'd prefer not to do that and rather figure out a logical flaw to the "species can't change beyond a certain critical point" argument rather than a practical one, although a practical one is good if it is potent enough.
He's claiming that there is some other mechanism which limits the observed and tested mechanism of evolution to strict boundaries. The mechanism of evolution has been observed and tested, so the burden of proof is upon him to show that this other limiting mechanism exists.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:He's claiming that there is some other mechanism which limits the observed and tested mechanism of evolution to strict boundaries. The mechanism of evolution has been observed and tested, so the burden of proof is upon him to show that this other limiting mechanism exists.
So that's why I couldn't think of a good rebuttal, because there really isn't a rebuttal to something that doesn't exist, or something that is so vague and undefined.
Anyway that was months ago, and he kind of shut up about evolution after I photocopied the National Geographic article on "Was Darwin Right" and threw in photocopies of the probabilities section from www.creationtheory.org , so I won't bring up "prove it to me" unless he presses me again, but good to know that he was really trying to shift the burden of proof rather than me being incapable of forming some kind of counter-argument. It was so blunt, so crass that I didn't realize it for what it was though.
He said he was going to photocopy creationist literature for me to read, but he hasn't yet so I assume he got owned. Lol. Or enlightened, I hope he changed his views, I'm not really out to embarass him so I won't bring it up again unless he does.
Durandal wrote:Actually, if memory serves, species are separated by whether or not it's possible or practical for them to interbreed. Two different populations which can interbreed but are separated by geographic barriers could be considered different species.
One of the nicer examples of the limitations of the species concept is ring species, such as the Herring\Lesser Black-Backed Gulls.
Herring gulls from the UK can breed with another variety of Herring gull in the US, and so on in around the Artic Circle. By the time you get back to the UK they've become Lesser black-backed gulls, which do not interbreed with Herring gulls. So where's the species break-point?
Like lots of things in science, species are a short-hand approximation designed to make life easier for humans to think about the universe around us. Which is why they don't fit very well with the idea of a omnipotent creator making everything from scratch a few thousand years ago.
My wife went to Vorbarr Sultana and all I got was this bloody shopping bag.
. Are lions and tigers the same species? No, and yet they can still interbreed, albeit very rarely.
True, but Ligers and Tigons are infertile. Can you think of any examples of two different species producing fertile offspring?
I read an article years ago, about some islands with a large number of gecko species. As it happens, many breed both sexually and by parthenogenesis. On occasion, two different species would breed, and if the resulting hybrid was female she would found a whole new species of copies.
Since when do creationist idiots get to decide what is and is not a new species? The biologic definition is "can they interbreed to produce fertile offspring?" This example and every other example of polyploidy most certainly count.
"everytime a person is born the Earth weighs just a little more."--DMJ on StarTrek.com
"You see now you are using your thinking and that is not a good thing!" DMJay on StarTrek.com
"Watching Sarli argue with Vympel, Stas, Schatten and the others is as bizarre as the idea of the 40-year-old Virgin telling Hugh Hefner that Hef knows nothing about pussy, and that he is the expert."--Elfdart
. Are lions and tigers the same species? No, and yet they can still interbreed, albeit very rarely.
True, but Ligers and Tigons are infertile. Can you think of any examples of two different species producing fertile offspring?
Klingons and humans.
Sorry, I just had to bring that one up.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
. Are lions and tigers the same species? No, and yet they can still interbreed, albeit very rarely.
True, but Ligers and Tigons are infertile. Can you think of any examples of two different species producing fertile offspring?
Klingons and humans.
Sorry, I just had to bring that one up.
Haha
Actually, I just saw that episode where Worf meets his ex girlfriend (the half human, half klingon woman), and she told Troi something along the lines of her parents had to go through some kind gene therapy.
You're right; the notion of a human and an extraterrestrial mating and making offspring is less probable than a human producing offspring with broccoli.
Magnetic wrote:Perhaps I could ask my christian forum people what they mean when they say "transitional species" then I can tell you all what they said.
Once they come up with a definition get them to stick to it, if its not to silly. Have one of them put it in writing and mail it to a third party. Then run to talkorigins.com, what ever they define it as you'll find it pretty easily there. Most likely either the fruit fly test that proved speciation in the 60's or the fossil record of equine evolution. The evolutionary track of horses is the most complete trail ever.
"Nobody ever inferred from the multiple infirmities of Windows that Bill Gates was infinitely benevolent, omniscient, and able to fix everything. " Argument against god's perfection.
