7 ms·

Thanks. Is there a resource or a book on amazon that focuses on the testability of inter-species evolution ? I've been a bit frustrated by this as most people j

by nyrulez 12y ago

Thanks. Is there a resource or a book on amazon that focuses on the testability of inter-species evolution ? I've been a bit frustrated by this as most people just allude to the fact that it took thousands or millions of years so hard to test it - but we should extra-polate some observed lab principles at a much tinier and then scale the intuition by a billion times to get inter species evolution. Specifically are there any: 1. Simulations (i.e. code up the actors in the system and let it proceed it a accelerated time scale similar to what we do for space simulations for heavenly bodies) 2. Emulations (not computational but demonstrating using a real life model of some kind) 3. Lab demonstrations of this happening 4. Reproductions of the whole set of mechanisms that allow a species to evolve into something new that we would classify as a different species that clearly show the evolution principles in effect for a reasonably complex inter-species case. I have been frustrated from Richard Dawkins's accounts too. I once read his essay on how the eye might have evolved. His accounts tend to be so speculative and full of "should"s and "must"s, its very off putting. Edit: This book in fact is the best writing on evolution of eyes: http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Witness-How-Eyes-Evolved/dp/0195369742/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Witness-How-Eyes-Evolved/dp... But it completely skips the actual mechanism or testability of anything it says. So basically doesn't address the how at all. A resource that actually addresses the HOW and not just conjecture on the WHAT would be really cool.

svachalek 12y ago
I think the fundamental problem is that "species" is a way for human to divide up organisms, rather than a fundamental function of biology or evolution. Every organism has its own DNA but "species" is a way of trying to group those into patterns that make sense to humans. That is, it's easy enough to demonstrate that evolution drives changes in DNA. That's objective. Whether or not you call it a species change is subjective.
- nyrulez 12y ago
  Let me phrase the question a different way - since species seems to be overloaded. What stable state of organism led to the evolution of Giraffe ? Lets call that organism X. (I actually don't know what X is, is it a horse or a zebra or a donkey?) Is there a simulation that would demonstrate X evolving to a Giraffe or test it ? Or put another way, if we were to take some snapshots at times where we could consider the organism to be different enough according to the modern "species" classification say A -> B -> C -> D -> E, is there a way to test D -> E or B-> C using the stated principles/theory ?
  - splawn 12y ago
    There is no such thing as a "stable state of organism" in this context. Remove all your goalposts because they are confusing you. Evolution is a continuum.
    - nyrulez 12y ago
      Then what is evolution trying to explain ? I thought it was explaining how primates evolved to humans, not just micro evolution at the DNA level ? For all practical purposes these are considered stable states in that they are different enough (visually, internally, intellectually) so as not to be considered continuous i.e. just differing by some epsilon. Are you saying evolution does not claim to answer this and this is a question not worth asking? I have a feeling the gist of what I am asking is clear enough but we are getting lost in words. I just asked for a link on Amazon that talks about testing/simulating/demonstrating evolution for snapshots enough far apart in time where we would say yes these organisms are pretty different, something like the snapshots demonstrated here: http://www.bot1320.nicerweb.com/Locked/media/ch11/taxonomy.html http://www.bot1320.nicerweb.com/Locked/media/ch11/taxonomy.h...
      - simplexion 12y ago
        Are you just asking about macroevolution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
      - splawn 12y ago
        "micro evolution" You are being confused by terms that were invented by a group of people (Discovery Institute) that deny evolution because of their religion not because of lack of evidence. The snapshot evidence you need is found in the genome (genomes that developed over billions of years of "micro evolution") of every organism on the planet not just primates. You can't just ignore that and ask why we can't observe lizards turning into birds overnight. Edit: I wasn't aware of this until now. We actually have observed one species ("species" being defined as scott_s mentioned up-thread) evolve into another. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18...
- scott_s 12y ago
  Not entirely. We can define species as groups of organisms that can't reproduce with each other. (For species that have sexual reproduction, of course.) See: http://bioteaching.com/modes-of-speciation/ http://bioteaching.com/modes-of-speciation/
splawn 12y ago
Why do you think we should be able to extrapolate millions of years of random mutation into the future and be able to test it? If you want evidence there are plenty of other places to look.
hackinthebochs 12y ago
I get what you're asking. You want a testable account of how any given species went from what we would call species X to what we would call species Y. There is probably never going to be such a level of resolution in our analysis that would satisfy even the staunchest naysayer. To really comprehend evolution requires an imagination capable of extrapolating a given set of principles into a framework that entails the very minuscule available data we do have under one encompassing theory. That theory is evolution. It is not something that can be fully understood in isolation. This doesn't directly answer your question, but this was a key insight that finally made the entire picture click in my mind. Your question of wanting hard evidence of cross-species evolution is a red-herring and a distraction to your understanding. The concept of species is not a biological reality. Any definition we can come up with for a species, we can find many instances that break the definition. What we see as a species is just groups of individuals who have exchanged genes in recent history. There is no demarcation to delineate a transition between one species and another: (in the case of sexual reproduction) at every point a child can mate with its parents, with no exceptions (except for degenerate cases). This is true for every species that sexually reproduces, going all the way back to the origin of sexual reproduction. The reason groups of animals that represent a unified gene pool look so different is that groups of individuals fall into stable states with their environmental niche, while other groups fall into other stable states for other niches. Animals appear to be delineated by clear species simply as a function of our perspective from a single time slice. If we could observe gradual change over millions of years, we would see many splitting branches and merging branches, branches that get further apart and then seed an explosion of many smaller branches (i.e. when say land animals split from birds), etc etc. But in reality, every individual is a single branch on this tree. What we judge as a species are just branches that are 'close together' in this tree such that they look like a single unit.
- noonespecial 12y ago
  A good way to think about it is to imagine a prism's dispersion of white light. There is clearly red and clearly orange but it gets tricky finding the place where "red becomes orange". The closer you look, the harder it is to choose a spot.
- nyrulez 12y ago

by nyrulez 12y ago

svachalek 12y ago

I think the fundamental problem is that "species" is a way for human to divide up organisms, rather than a fundamental function of biology or evolution. Every organism has its own DNA but "species" is a way of trying to group those into patterns that make sense to humans. That is, it's easy enough to demonstrate that evolution drives changes in DNA. That's objective. Whether or not you call it a species change is subjective.

nyrulez 12y ago
Let me phrase the question a different way - since species seems to be overloaded. What stable state of organism led to the evolution of Giraffe ? Lets call that organism X. (I actually don't know what X is, is it a horse or a zebra or a donkey?) Is there a simulation that would demonstrate X evolving to a Giraffe or test it ? Or put another way, if we were to take some snapshots at times where we could consider the organism to be different enough according to the modern "species" classification say A -> B -> C -> D -> E, is there a way to test D -> E or B-> C using the stated principles/theory ?
- splawn 12y ago
  There is no such thing as a "stable state of organism" in this context. Remove all your goalposts because they are confusing you. Evolution is a continuum.
  - nyrulez 12y ago
    Then what is evolution trying to explain ? I thought it was explaining how primates evolved to humans, not just micro evolution at the DNA level ? For all practical purposes these are considered stable states in that they are different enough (visually, internally, intellectually) so as not to be considered continuous i.e. just differing by some epsilon. Are you saying evolution does not claim to answer this and this is a question not worth asking? I have a feeling the gist of what I am asking is clear enough but we are getting lost in words. I just asked for a link on Amazon that talks about testing/simulating/demonstrating evolution for snapshots enough far apart in time where we would say yes these organisms are pretty different, something like the snapshots demonstrated here: http://www.bot1320.nicerweb.com/Locked/media/ch11/taxonomy.html http://www.bot1320.nicerweb.com/Locked/media/ch11/taxonomy.h...
    - simplexion 12y ago
      Are you just asking about macroevolution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
    - splawn 12y ago
      "micro evolution" You are being confused by terms that were invented by a group of people (Discovery Institute) that deny evolution because of their religion not because of lack of evidence. The snapshot evidence you need is found in the genome (genomes that developed over billions of years of "micro evolution") of every organism on the planet not just primates. You can't just ignore that and ask why we can't observe lizards turning into birds overnight. Edit: I wasn't aware of this until now. We actually have observed one species ("species" being defined as scott_s mentioned up-thread) evolve into another. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18...
scott_s 12y ago
Not entirely. We can define species as groups of organisms that can't reproduce with each other. (For species that have sexual reproduction, of course.) See: http://bioteaching.com/modes-of-speciation/ http://bioteaching.com/modes-of-speciation/

splawn 12y ago

Why do you think we should be able to extrapolate millions of years of random mutation into the future and be able to test it? If you want evidence there are plenty of other places to look.

hackinthebochs 12y ago

I get what you're asking. You want a testable account of how any given species went from what we would call species X to what we would call species Y. There is probably never going to be such a level of resolution in our analysis that would satisfy even the staunchest naysayer. To really comprehend evolution requires an imagination capable of extrapolating a given set of principles into a framework that entails the very minuscule available data we do have under one encompassing theory. That theory is evolution. It is not something that can be fully understood in isolation. This doesn't directly answer your question, but this was a key insight that finally made the entire picture click in my mind. Your question of wanting hard evidence of cross-species evolution is a red-herring and a distraction to your understanding. The concept of species is not a biological reality. Any definition we can come up with for a species, we can find many instances that break the definition. What we see as a species is just groups of individuals who have exchanged genes in recent history. There is no demarcation to delineate a transition between one species and another: (in the case of sexual reproduction) at every point a child can mate with its parents, with no exceptions (except for degenerate cases). This is true for every species that sexually reproduces, going all the way back to the origin of sexual reproduction. The reason groups of animals that represent a unified gene pool look so different is that groups of individuals fall into stable states with their environmental niche, while other groups fall into other stable states for other niches. Animals appear to be delineated by clear species simply as a function of our perspective from a single time slice. If we could observe gradual change over millions of years, we would see many splitting branches and merging branches, branches that get further apart and then seed an explosion of many smaller branches (i.e. when say land animals split from birds), etc etc. But in reality, every individual is a single branch on this tree. What we judge as a species are just branches that are 'close together' in this tree such that they look like a single unit.

noonespecial 12y ago
A good way to think about it is to imagine a prism's dispersion of white light. There is clearly red and clearly orange but it gets tricky finding the place where "red becomes orange". The closer you look, the harder it is to choose a spot.
nyrulez 12y ago