4 ms·

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".

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.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  Sure, biological taxonomy is not absolute and it's criteria like "morphological differences" can be interpreted in different ways. That said though - we DO clearly observe speciation in the paleo records (assuming you won't be claiming that Eohippus == Modern Horse) so yes at some point these genome changes accumulate into a critical mass leading to speciation. Except that the "accepted" (there is obv some very solid criticism out there) narrative of natural selection being the only(or primary) vector of that change is yet to be proven after ~200 years of attempts to do so. Speaking of flipping of the "reproduction gene" - if it gets flipped in a single specimen via a random mutation then he's obv stuck in terms of his reproductive ability, but that's a whole another can of worms no pun intended.
  - Amezarak 10y ago
    > That said though - we DO clearly observe speciation in the paleo records (assuming you won't be claiming that Eohippus == Modern Horse) Sure, because we're looking at a big gap in time. An Eohippus never gave birth to a horse, though. There were intermediate organisms in between E and H. But as I said, there's no bright line you can point to and say one Eohippus is one species and its immediate progeny are another. Put another way, if you have H(n), H(n+1), H(n+2), H(n+3)...and so on, there's no point at which you can say H(n+m) and H(n+m+1) are different species. But sure, you can compare H(n) and H(n+2000) and say they're different species. The line is inherently fuzzy. It disappears whenever you look too closely. Only when you zoom out is it present. If you concede that natural selection leads to small changes, you have therefore conceded that it leads to speciation.
    - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
      >> But as I said, there's no bright line you can point to and say one Eohippus is one species and its immediate progeny are another. by this logic you can claim that "there's no bright line between the colors" because there are shades between them. there are discreet species in the Eohippus -> Modern Horse lineage however just like there's color white and color black. there are also "subspecies" out there like polar bears being essentially grizzly bears who adapted to living in the arctic but again this doesn't negate the existence of distinct species in their lineage. >> If you concede that natural selection leads to small changes, you have therefore conceded that it leads to speciation. and by this logic taking a CS101 class equals to graduating with a masters degree. sympatric speciation (or rather lack of proof in this area) has been a thorn in darwinists' collective sides since the day "the origin of species" came out and is a huge hole in the whole "emergence of new species via natural selection" narrative. so huge as a matter of fact that after couple of hundreds of years of trying to figure out how it works they decided it wasn't all that important :)

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.

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
Sure, biological taxonomy is not absolute and it's criteria like "morphological differences" can be interpreted in different ways. That said though - we DO clearly observe speciation in the paleo records (assuming you won't be claiming that Eohippus == Modern Horse) so yes at some point these genome changes accumulate into a critical mass leading to speciation. Except that the "accepted" (there is obv some very solid criticism out there) narrative of natural selection being the only(or primary) vector of that change is yet to be proven after ~200 years of attempts to do so. Speaking of flipping of the "reproduction gene" - if it gets flipped in a single specimen via a random mutation then he's obv stuck in terms of his reproductive ability, but that's a whole another can of worms no pun intended.
- Amezarak 10y ago
  > That said though - we DO clearly observe speciation in the paleo records (assuming you won't be claiming that Eohippus == Modern Horse) Sure, because we're looking at a big gap in time. An Eohippus never gave birth to a horse, though. There were intermediate organisms in between E and H. But as I said, there's no bright line you can point to and say one Eohippus is one species and its immediate progeny are another. Put another way, if you have H(n), H(n+1), H(n+2), H(n+3)...and so on, there's no point at which you can say H(n+m) and H(n+m+1) are different species. But sure, you can compare H(n) and H(n+2000) and say they're different species. The line is inherently fuzzy. It disappears whenever you look too closely. Only when you zoom out is it present. If you concede that natural selection leads to small changes, you have therefore conceded that it leads to speciation.
  - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
    >> But as I said, there's no bright line you can point to and say one Eohippus is one species and its immediate progeny are another. by this logic you can claim that "there's no bright line between the colors" because there are shades between them. there are discreet species in the Eohippus -> Modern Horse lineage however just like there's color white and color black. there are also "subspecies" out there like polar bears being essentially grizzly bears who adapted to living in the arctic but again this doesn't negate the existence of distinct species in their lineage. >> If you concede that natural selection leads to small changes, you have therefore conceded that it leads to speciation. and by this logic taking a CS101 class equals to graduating with a masters degree. sympatric speciation (or rather lack of proof in this area) has been a thorn in darwinists' collective sides since the day "the origin of species" came out and is a huge hole in the whole "emergence of new species via natural selection" narrative. so huge as a matter of fact that after couple of hundreds of years of trying to figure out how it works they decided it wasn't all that important :)