4 ms·

>> The rules of the game force natural selection to exist. There is no other way it can work. care to cite a proven example of speciation caused by natural sel

>> The rules of the game force natural selection to exist. There is no other way it can work. care to cite a proven example of speciation caused by natural selection ?

laurencerowe 10y ago
Lenski's famous experiment observed speciation in the lab: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair
- mratzloff 10y ago
  Thanks for linking that. Interesting read about an experiment I hadn't heard of.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  Don't see any mentioning of speciation in that article. From the looks of it it's adaptation we're looking at, correct me if I'm wrong. To my knowledge, to date, the established experimental cases of achieving reproductive isolation (none achieving complete isolation btw)- no experiments demonstrated morphological differences between the "species" they produced.
  - kirrent 10y ago
    I'll correct you because you're wrong. Adaptation is evolution. There's no line in the sand, no requirement for 'morphological differences', and no reproductive isolation before you call it evolution. Calling it adaptation is just a no true Scotsman fallacy.
    - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
      Are we not discussing the "origin of species" ? Sure, you can call adaptation "an evolution" in the same sense you can call a subset of something "something". Just because there's no evidence that natural selection leads to speciation it doesn't mean speciation in an of itself is not an important part of the evolutionary process unless of course you don't consider emergence of new species a part of that process. Defining a framework/requirement for "something" to be called "something" is not a fallacy, removing the requirement because it doesn't fit your narrative is though.
      - kirrent 10y ago
        I misread your reply on Lenski's experiment as dismissing it as not an example of evolution, rather than as not an example of speciation. The first would be incorrect, the second is more of a judgement call which calls for discussion. If you did want a similar example in the same vein where speciation unambiguously occurred then one of Lenski's students just did a great experiment that shows that. I highly recommend reading it, it's a great paper. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6317/1301 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6317/1301
        ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
        Without getting too deep into discussion of this particular paper - viruses aren't even considered to be "living organisms" per se and don't really fit into the biological taxonomy. Their own taxonomy is rather vague and uses classification methods different from those applied to living organisms. As far as the paper is concerned - divergence in virus populations based on their affinity for a specific receptor is nothing new, the very well researched influenza virus has been shown to do the exact same thing.
      - Amezarak 10y ago
        There is no bright line between species, ergo there is no point we can stop and say "there! it's speciated!" 'Species' just an arbitrary dividing line humans invented. The reality is much, much messier. We might call something a different species, but it might still be able to breed with some other species. It might not ever do so because of proximity. It might not ever do so due to some minor characteristic throwing off mate signalling. Maybe it does, but the offspring aren't fertile. Maybe it does, but the offspring are only rarely fertile, like mules. There's this and a thousand other edge cases. If you sit there and change an organism gene-by-gene, at what point do you think it becomes another species? If I flip a single gene and it affects reproduction, is it a different species? If I flip a thousand genes but it still interbreeds, is it a different species? Similarly, if you imagine going back through the line of your male ancestors, there's no point at which you can look between your great grandpappy^x and your great grandpappy^x + 1 and say one of them is homo sapiens and one of them is not.

>> The rules of the game force natural selection to exist. There is no other way it can work. care to cite a proven example of speciation caused by natural selection ?

laurencerowe 10y ago

Lenski's famous experiment observed speciation in the lab: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

mratzloff 10y ago
Thanks for linking that. Interesting read about an experiment I hadn't heard of.
ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
Don't see any mentioning of speciation in that article. From the looks of it it's adaptation we're looking at, correct me if I'm wrong. To my knowledge, to date, the established experimental cases of achieving reproductive isolation (none achieving complete isolation btw)- no experiments demonstrated morphological differences between the "species" they produced.
- kirrent 10y ago
  I'll correct you because you're wrong. Adaptation is evolution. There's no line in the sand, no requirement for 'morphological differences', and no reproductive isolation before you call it evolution. Calling it adaptation is just a no true Scotsman fallacy.
  - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
    Are we not discussing the "origin of species" ? Sure, you can call adaptation "an evolution" in the same sense you can call a subset of something "something". Just because there's no evidence that natural selection leads to speciation it doesn't mean speciation in an of itself is not an important part of the evolutionary process unless of course you don't consider emergence of new species a part of that process. Defining a framework/requirement for "something" to be called "something" is not a fallacy, removing the requirement because it doesn't fit your narrative is though.
    - kirrent 10y ago
      I misread your reply on Lenski's experiment as dismissing it as not an example of evolution, rather than as not an example of speciation. The first would be incorrect, the second is more of a judgement call which calls for discussion. If you did want a similar example in the same vein where speciation unambiguously occurred then one of Lenski's students just did a great experiment that shows that. I highly recommend reading it, it's a great paper. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6317/1301 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6317/1301
      - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
        Without getting too deep into discussion of this particular paper - viruses aren't even considered to be "living organisms" per se and don't really fit into the biological taxonomy. Their own taxonomy is rather vague and uses classification methods different from those applied to living organisms. As far as the paper is concerned - divergence in virus populations based on their affinity for a specific receptor is nothing new, the very well researched influenza virus has been shown to do the exact same thing.
    - Amezarak 10y ago
      There is no bright line between species, ergo there is no point we can stop and say "there! it's speciated!" 'Species' just an arbitrary dividing line humans invented. The reality is much, much messier. We might call something a different species, but it might still be able to breed with some other species. It might not ever do so because of proximity. It might not ever do so due to some minor characteristic throwing off mate signalling. Maybe it does, but the offspring aren't fertile. Maybe it does, but the offspring are only rarely fertile, like mules. There's this and a thousand other edge cases. If you sit there and change an organism gene-by-gene, at what point do you think it becomes another species? If I flip a single gene and it affects reproduction, is it a different species? If I flip a thousand genes but it still interbreeds, is it a different species? Similarly, if you imagine going back through the line of your male ancestors, there's no point at which you can look between your great grandpappy^x and your great grandpappy^x + 1 and say one of them is homo sapiens and one of them is not.