More observed instances of speciation?

[martin]

Let's examine some evidence for speciation, shall we?

"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."

From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

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.

Taken from:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/deception.html

Which is correct?

[Her pinkness saves]

Definitions of speciation on the Web:

* The development of one or more species from an existing species.
www.fao.org/docrep/003/X3910E/X3910E22.htm

so we had two species, now we have four species, it would look like speciation wins.

[anthrosciguy]

Which is correct?

You will no doubt get more substansive answers than mine (you already have, actually) but let me point out that if you were a betting person, and you are faced (as in your OP) with a statement from Talk Origins archive on the one hand, and on the other hand you have a contrary quote from a creationist/ID source, and you ask which is correct, you should always bet, and bet big, on the correct answer being "Talk origins".

And that's the winning answer to the question in your OP, unsurprisingly enough.

[uberhobo]

I think the key issue in the excerpt from godandscience.org is that any single mutation event for which we understand the mechanism (or observed the direct effect of) cannot be responsible for speciation. That prized position is forever reserved for miracles and the hand of god.

[Dr.Xu]

There is more than one way to speciate, and hybridization/polyploidy is a very common and accepted one for plants. But we don't see this mechanism in vertebrates, though.

The second quote does indeed describe the mechanism involved in the creation of the new, polyploid species, but the bit that triggers the bullshit-detector is this:
No new information is created (Do you have twice as much information if you copy one book to produce an identical copy? No!)

This quote betrays a blatant misunderstanding of how genes operate. Many genes are dosage-sensitive, and altering the number of copies of genes does alter the phenotype of the organism (whether an alteration in phenotype caused by a genetic mutation constitutes "new information" I leave to creationists to muse...).
One example: Down syndrome is caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21. No new information, right? The genes on the third chr. 21 are exactly the same as in the other two. But having 3 copies of some genes can make a great difference in the lives of persons born with Down syndrome.

[ninewands]

Let's examine some evidence for speciation, shall we?

<snippage>

Which is correct?
Polyploidy, which is poo-pooed in your creationist source, is, in fact, one of the mechanisms by which genetic variation gets injected into plant genomes (i.e., it's a part of the "random mutation" part of evolution). So, to answer your question, they are both technically correct but the quoted passage from talkorigins is also more scientifically accurate.

[ZouPrime]

The example above is not macroevolution, but is simply due to a single genetic event known as polyploidy.

Ok. So biologists keep saying that "genetics events" are responsible for speciation, and creationists don't believe it's enough. When presented with a specific example of a genetic event causing speciation, they then move the goal posts by saying it's not macroevolution anymore. Of course, that's precisely why scientists keep asking them for a precise definition of macroevolution, and why creationist keep ignoring this request (or use vague generalities like "change between kind"). Must easier to claim a new definition for a word when there's no accepted definition to begin with.

[Foobear]

Ok. So biologists keep saying that "genetics events" are responsible for speciation, and creationists don't believe it's enough. When presented with a specific example of a genetic event causing speciation, they then move the goal posts by saying it's not macroevolution anymore. Of course, that's precisely why scientists keep asking them for a precise definition of macroevolution, and why creationist keep ignoring this request (or use vague generalities like "change between kind"). Must easier to claim a new definition for a word when there's no accepted definition to begin with. No, the ID camp is that as single mutations and genetic drift are accepted and not really interesting. Their argument is more about the improbable set of circumstances needed to bring about multiple beneficial mutations in the same creature.

[SophistiCat]

For that matter, scientists keep asking creationists for a precise definition of information. If it is algorithmic information in the genetic code, then polyploidy cetainly constitutes an increase of information - and as Dr. Xu noted, it can have very noticeable effects.

But in this case we also have a hybrid of two distinct species. Since it is not identical to either one of its parents (even if you don't count polyploidy as a distinguishing trait), it must be a new species.

[Sounder]

No, the ID camp is that as single mutations and genetic drift are accepted and not really interesting. Their argument is more about the improbable set of circumstances needed to bring about multiple beneficial mutations in the same creature.

"same creature" as in the first possessor of the new mutation? Yes, that's extremely improbable. But if we're talking about the offspring and subsequent generations of that first, should he survive and propagate, it's not improbable at all.

[martin]

I think first we have to agree on definitions. I believe scientists make up their own new definitions to prove their theories.This is their definition of speciation:

The scientific community defines speciation as when, over time, one species diverges to the point that members of that species can no longer interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

yet this is what websters says:

Main Entry: spe·ci·a·tion
Pronunciation: "spE-shE-'A-sh&n, -sE-
Function: noun
: the process of biological species formation
- spe·ci·ate /'spE-shE-"At, -sE-/ intransitive verb
- spe·ci·a·tion·al /"spE-shE-'A-shn&l, -sE-, -sh&-n &l/ adjective


and species is defined as:

in specie : in the same or like form or kind <ready to return insult in specie>; also : in coin



and species is:



Main Entry: 1spe·cies
Pronunciation: 'spE-(")shEz, -(")sEz
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural species
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, appearance, kind, species, from specere to look -- more at SPY
1 a : KIND, SORT b : a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class


and genus is defined as:

Main Entry: ge·nus
Pronunciation: 'jE-n&s, 'je-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural gen·era /'je-n&-r& /; also ge·nus·es
Etymology: Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind -- more at KIN
1 : a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitalized singular noun
2 : a class of objects divided into several subordinate species

TO ME goatsbeard is the same KIND as the original FLOWER and not relly a new species

see below quotes

But, it does not speak of how a goatsbeard population had a segment that evolved into something other than a flower. This is the whole problem with macro evolution and micro evolution. Micro evolution is scientifically sound and provable! Macro evolution, non-life to life, plant to animal, amoeba to man evolution, falls precisely in the realm of science that creation science does: it cannot be observed in the present, and so we must make assumptions and conclusions based on the evidence we have from the UNOBSERVABLE PAST.



i am not a biolologist but I tried my best to see what this stuff offered - it says it is just stuff off the provider's head and kind of what was around the house on proof of evolution on specification (which has one definition as - a list) but what I see that it doesn't mean here that there is evidence that shows that mutation leads from one species to another separate species - the fruit fly stays a fruit fly and the mouse doesn't become a squirrel and where there was tampering - the result from mating was hybrid - as the Bible points out - in one case regarding plants the result was apparenetly not a hybrid - but there is little fan fare or documentation and peer treview data - so - while the implication is taht these examples are just a sampling - off the top of his head - my guess is that these are the HIGHLIGHTS and the myriads of fossil data and missing link evidence still eludes and in fact all indications are that they do not exist. These are not evidence of MUTATION leading to new - different species nor Natural Selection taking place. Without those evidences - you aare missing step one and step two of darwin's ideas - that is why it is a theory - because there is no proof and these paultry experiments leave a lot to be desired.

[FatherMithras]

I think first we have to agree on definitions. I believe scientists make up their own new definitions to prove their theories.This is their definition of speciation:
Scientists do make up their own definitions, especially when they discover something new and have to define it. How else would it get defined? Lots of definitions are different in science, and webster publishing something doesn't make it true.

TO ME goatsbeard is the same KIND as the original FLOWER and not relly a new species
Fine. But that's as valid as saying an amoeba is still the same "kind" as a horse. It doesn't matter how you choose to define things. If it can't breed with it's old species, it's a new one. And until you can show a mechanism that prevents new species fromg etting more and more different over time, while simultaneously refuting all our fossils and gentic evidence, than your opinion doesn't matter anymore than any other person who doesn't know what they're talking about.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I think first we have to agree on definitions. I believe scientists make up their own new definitions to prove their theories.

[...]

TO ME goatsbeard is the same KIND as the original FLOWER and not relly a new species

So you're going to define 'kind', then, yes?

I mean, you surely wouldn't make up your own definition to fit your theory, now would you...? So you must have some reliable, rigorous source for what a 'kind' is.

Off you go...

[Peez]

martin:
I think first we have to agree on definitions.Certainly. Biologists have already been as clear as possible about definitions, but creationists are notoriously vague and unwilling to commit to clear definitions.I believe scientists make up their own new definitions to prove their theories.Leaving aside the apparent misuse of the word "theory" (look it up if you wish), your belief here is without basis.This is their definition of speciation:

The scientific community defines speciation as when, over time, one species diverges to the point that members of that species can no longer interbreed to produce fertile offspring.I find it interesting that you didn't (http://www.bonnie-q.com/Jesus-is-King/printthread.php?t=1757&page=1&pp=25) go to a scientific source for "their definition." Why is that?yet this is what websters says:Main Entry: spe·ci·a·tion
Pronunciation: "spE-shE-'A-sh&n, -sE-
Function: noun
: the process of biological species formation
- spe·ci·ate /'spE-shE-"At, -sE-/ intransitive verb
- spe·ci·a·tion·al /"spE-shE-'A-shn&l, -sE-, -sh&-n &l/ adjectiveThat definition is fine with biologists, and does not contradict the definition given above.and species is defined as:in specie : in the same or like form or kind <ready to return insult in specie>; also : in coinThat is given as a definition of "specie," not "species." It is interesting in terms of etymology, but not really relevent here.and species is:Main Entry: 1spe·cies
Pronunciation: 'spE-(")shEz, -(")sEz
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural species
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, appearance, kind, species, from specere to look -- more at SPY
1 a : KIND, SORT b : a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive classWoa, wait a minute there. Why exactly did you stop there? Why did you omit the following text? I mean, you included at that pap about pronounciation and such, why not the other relevent information? For example, there is an example following in the very same definition:1 a : KIND, SORT b : a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class <confessing sins in species and in number>More to the point, why did you skip these definitions:c : the human race : human beings -- often used with the <survival of the species in the nuclear age> d (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name (2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species e : a particular kind of atomic nucleus, atom, molecule, or ion
2 : the consecrated eucharistic elements of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Eucharist
3 a : a mental image; also : a sensible object b : an object of thought correlative with a natural object? (colour added) I would have though that you might have included that part, if you were honestly assessing the definitions.and genus is defined as:Main Entry: ge·nus
Pronunciation: 'jE-n&s, 'je-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural gen·era /'je-n&-r& /; also ge·nus·es
Etymology: Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind -- more at KIN
1 : a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitalized singular noun
2 : a class of objects divided into several subordinate species(colour added) I have little problem with that definition.TO ME goatsbeard is the same KIND as the original FLOWER and not relly a new speciesGood for you. Let us go back to that definition that you posted. The first part was "a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name..." That applies to people who speak English, for example. Are English-speaking people a "species"? The second part is "specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class." That certainly applies to English-speaking people, and (incidentally) to the different species of goatsbeard.see below quotesMore of the same creationist drivel.

Now, how about a definion of "kind"?

Peez

[martin]

Lots of definitions are different in science, and webster publishing something doesn't make it true.

Webster's definition is older than these modern scientific definitions of species. I will go with the unbiased older one which isn't the result of constant updating in order to conform to a theory.

[RBH]

Webster's definition is older than these modern scientific definitions of species. I will go with the unbiased older one which isn't the result of constant updating in order to conform to a theory.Then don't pretend to talk about science. The vocabulary of science is tighter and more restrictive than ordinary language, and you are doomed to irrelevancy if you don't know the language of the discipline you're allegedly critiquing.

RBH

[flashbaby]

So older is better; I suppose bronze age is best, especially shepherd campfire tales.

[Xasz]

Wouldn't Helacyton gartleri count as a cross-"kind" speciation event (whatever a "kind" is supposed to be)?

What mechanism(s) prevents variation from building up to the cross-"kind" level?

[Peez]

martin:
Webster's definition is older than these modern scientific definitions of species. I will go with the unbiased older one which isn't the result of constant updating in order to conform to a theory.That's good, let's use a definition of "species" that was formulated before we knew what a "species" is.
:rolleyes:
Creationist logic at it's best.
:Cheeky:
Meanwhile, explain why you want to use some of the Webster definitions but not others, and why you specifically omitted the ones that correspond to the modern scientific definition. You might also explain how any particular definition of "species" is biased. If you are on a roll, you can give us a definition of "kind," explain why you didn't use a scientific source for the scientific definition, explain why you omitted certain definitions from Webster's, and tell us how your definition of "species" does not apply to English-speaking people.

Peez