I ask for something modest: an animal today, without any manipulation of DNA by man, giving birth to an entire new species.
Of course, one could go to http://www.talkorigins.com’s “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ…
But instead I’ll just point out that P-elements have divided Drosophila into new species.
-Ben
Site’s not working
I meant to say http://www.talkorigins.org, but that’s not working either.
Anyway, you have the example of speciation you asked for.
Now do you believe in evolution?
-Ben
Whoohoo! P-elements! Drosophila! What I do every day…
Now Dinsdale :
The problem with molecular taxonomy is that we lack any of the DNA of the intermediate species. I will readily admit that progression along the evolutionary tree is implied by similarity. The correlation with general morphology and paleontology is so striking, that no other plausible hypothesis can be submitted that adheres to the data so well. At least, we can postulate that divine intervention is the reason for all the similarity we observe now, just as divine intervention is responsible for all the fossils in the ground and the photons en route from the Andromeda Galaxy. Hence, we describe “Last Thursdayism” as I believe it is called.
So what tools do we have to imply evolution and a time-line? Well, we can estimate a time line using paleontologic evidence, or by assuming a constant mutation rate in neutral-mutating DNA (sometimes called “junk DNA”). We can see lots of shared stuff between related species and some shared stuff between not-so-related species. DNA evidence is not the whole answer. It is a very useful piece of the puzzle, and has wider uses beyond evolution and taxonomy (as in predicting importance of protein segments - the more important regions change more slowly over).
There are some nice substantive correlations though – all primates can’t synthesize vitamin C while our taxonomic neighbors can. All Old World monkeys (including humans) carry certain endogenous retroviruses, and New World ones don’t. Homonids share much more DNA with each other that they do with other Old World monkeys. We have fossils and geologic evidence which can date each of these transitions — the first primates, the last time large scale Old/New World interbreeding was possible, the emergence of the first homonids. These rules don’t change, and exist in all life examined, from bacteria to plants to humans.
Again, I am a molecular geneticist, so I mainly use DNA homology as a tool, and I don’t study it directly. Some of my fine details may be wrong.
Abso-freakin-lutely. This is what we do every day. I move between mouse, human, and fruit fly genes all the time. If a gene, when mutated, causes a striking phenotype in flies, our next step is to make a mouse knockout. Things are shared over 300 million years of evolution. This is to the point that some Drosophila mutations can be rescued (reverted back to normal) by the mouse gene. More fundamental proteins are conserved in ALL life - I can give dozens if not hundreds of examples. Histones, DNA repair proteins, RNA processing proteins, translation machinery, polymerases, nucleases, metabolism controls. And again, the proteins have all diverged in a fashion that depends on evolutionary relationship and importance – chimp proteins of the same function are much more similar to humans than bacteria…I have a chart somewhere in my old notes (I’ll dig it up) of percent of ORFs (genes) conserved between nematode, yeast, and humans. If I remember, it is upward of 75%.
You are correct. I chose the numbers randomly and the increase is insignificant. It could easily go both ways. Randomness is not well-defined in genetics, as most things carry a strong selection. Mutations usually serve to increase the disorder of the genome (or disrupt genes), but if the mutation is deleterious enough, than the mutation won’t be passed on. So, it is a little hazy.
**
So that’s where they come from…
**
But remember that it’s more than similarity. Present-day genes are arranged as the branchings of a parsimonious tree (for those of you who aren’t molecular biologists, this means that you figure out what set of evolutionary branchings would require the least mutations in order to lead to what we see in the present day. This is why creationists who rant about “molecular clocks” don’t know what they are talking about - parsimonious tree methods are insensitive to changes in mutation rate.)
To give an example, suppose you have genes with these sequences:
ABCDEFG
ABCDEFZ
ABCDJKZ
RSTUVFG
If you wanted to arrange these in a tree on the basis of similarity, you would lump together ABCDEFG with ABCDEFZ, with ABCDJKZ branching off second, and RSTUVFG branching off last. But on the basis of a parsimonious tree, you would lump together ABCDEFG and RSTUVFG in one branch, and ABCDJKZ and ABCDEFG in the other branch. Why? Because in the similarity-based tree you’re actually assuming that parts of the sequence will be mutated into new sequences and then mutated back into the old sequences- the final “FG” turns into a “KZ” and then back into an “FG” again. Since this is very unlikely, you use a parsimonous tree instead, and as it turns out parsimonious trees are not only logical, but also they agree with the fossil record.
Creation “scientists”, being dishonest folk, pretend that phylogenetic trees are made on the basis of similarity, and then whip out statistics about how human hemoglobin is more similar to lamprey hemoglobin than cod hemoglobin is. Technically that’s true, but the human-lamprey similarity is only about 1% more than the lamprey-cod and cod-human similarities. When you create a parsimonious tree, humans and cod end up on the same branch, right where the fossil record says they should be. (The latter point, incidentally, is also lost on creationists- they seem to believe that evolutionists think “fish”, “mammals”, “reptiles”, etc. are all supposed to have sprung from the depths of The Blob during the precambrian era. In reality, jawed fish like the cod split off of jawless fish like the lamprey, and then land animals like humans split off from cod.)
-Ben
IzzyR, you still haven’t explained what it is about the Biblical account that precludes evolution. Is there a verse specifically prohibiting it? Is there a conflict between some event you consider biblical fact and the theory of evolution? Or are you told what to believe by your Rabbi?
I get the impression that you consider the evidence for evolution in some way inadequate. But how can you make this judgement when you cannot imagine what would constitute acceptable evidence? I don’t believe in ghosts and goblins, yet I can easily fathom what would cause me to do so.
I hope you understand it is not my intention to be antagonistic. I simply wish to comprehend how a reasonably intelligent person such as yourself can consistently deny what the entire scientific community has affirmed.
A creationist (denialist?) and an evolutionist find a jigsaw puzzle. working together, they try to put it together. Unfortunately, they cannot finish it.
Evolutionist: “There are som pieces missing.”
Creationist: “Are you sure? Maybe these are all the pieces there have ever been.”
E: “Who, in their right mind, would deliberately make an incomplete jigsaw puzzle?”
C: “God would. If He can create the entire Universe by simply speaking, He can create an incomplete jigsaw puzzle. Besides, since we don’t have all the pieces, you cannot really call this a jigsaw puzzle. I challenge you to prove these pieces exist by showing them to me.”
E: “I can’t show you something I don’t have.”
C: “Then stop saying they exist. You’re speaking from faith, as you often accuse me of doing.”
E: “No, I’m speaking from logic and deductive reasoning, using physical evidence, not faith.”
And so on, and so on and so on…
The site http://www.talkorigins.org is still not working.
I’ll be very disappointed if the site was talking about a rat giving birth to another kind of rat. What I want is a rat giving birth to an viable animal that cannot be called a rat anymore, but must be given a whole new class or phylum, in my lifetime. I want a bird giving birth to an animal that cannot be called a bird anymore, in my lifetime. I want these examples of transpecies evolution occur in my lifetime. If that is too much to ask, then let me remind you that the evolutionists brought it up that it does occur. If they don’t want to let me take the theory of evolution up on faith, like the Genesis origin of the Bible is, well, I want, no I demand, that transpecies evolution occur naturally, while I am living, before I’ll believe it. None of this ‘lengthy million-year transisition period’ please. I don’t have a million years to live. Otherwise, to me transpecies evolution is just another faith, surrounded by science that can only prove the small parts.
I think I’ve identified a problem.
The reason so many people refuse to believe in evolution is that the public is unaware of practical applications of the theory. For example:
Heliocentrism - can you argue with the Space Program?
Germ theory of disease - the argument more or less died out after penicilin.
Relativity, and other branches of nuclear physics - Hiroshima more or less proved those.
And so on and so on, with practical uses of physics, mathematics, biology, medicine, chemistry, etc. Evoloution, though, like Quantum Physics, has been confined to pure research.
There will always be idiots and fanatics, but the moment somebody goes public and says: “this gadget\medicine\method would not be possible without evolution, and see - it directly affects your life”, the argument will basically be over.
**
Oh, puh-leeeze! You ask for an example of a new species forming. When I do it, you claim that all along you were demanding that a new class or phylum be seen to evolve. What next? If I give you a new phylum, will you say that what you really wanted was a new kingdom? Could it be that the real problem here is that you don’t know enough about taxonomy to even be able to phrase your question?
Folks, here’s my bet: one day common descent will become so well established in the public mind that “creationism” is reduced to arguments about abiogenesis, and creationists will demand that we produce silicon-based lifeforms before they will believe that life can arise without supernatural intervention. Hey, don’t laugh- we’ve seen those exact demands made on this list already!
**
Do you demand that glaciers flow before your very eyes? Do you demand that I point Pluto out to you so you can see it with your naked eyes before you will believe it exists?
Uh, but the science proves all the big parts- maybe if you bothered to educate yourself you’d know that. Go ahead, disbelieve evolution. Fortunately for you some of us do believe evolution, and so we’ll go on making the evolution-based medicines you need when you get sick.
BTW, none of this ‘God works in mysterious ways,’ please. Before I’ll believe in your God, I’ll have to see him re-crucified. I don’t have time to wait for the invention of a time machine, after all. Fair?
-Ben
You mean like the Human Genome Project?
Remember, modern biology wouldn’t be possible without evolution. Young-earth creationism pretty much contradicts the entirety of modern science, including relativity. The way creationists deal with it is to not learn about science- they just use all the useful gadgets it produces. How many people buy the ICR’s anti-relativity video and also supported Reagan’s strategy of building more nukes?
-Ben
Capacitor wrote:
Well, unfortunately, that is not what the theory of evolution says! If we saw a rat give birth to a dog, that would be evidence against evolution, not for it. Evolutionary theory predicts that when species reproduce, they create offspring which are similar, but not exactly like them. Over time, these differences accumulate to create the great diversity of life seen here on Earth. These things don’t just happen over night.
Now, do you want evidence that this actually happened? OK, how about Archaeopteryx? It is a transitional species with both avian and reptilian characteristics. Or how about the numerous fossil hominids we have? Or the fossils of horse evolution? Or cetacean evolution?
If you want to go beyond fossil evidence, we have protein sequencing and immunological evidence which is completely in line with the evolutionary tree created from fossils and anatomy alone, before any genetic or molecular evidence was available.
Consider this analogy to your denial of evolution. A man shows you a very small sapling and tells you that in several hundred (or thousand) years, it will be a giant sequoia tree. You scoff, saying that it is absurd to believe that such a small tree will become a mighty sequoia. When you are shown evidence for the growth of a sapling into a sequoia, you still scoff. You insist that in order to believe, you will have to see a sapling grow into a sequoia, within your lifetime. Botanists try to explain to you that this will simply not happen, that the tree does not grow that fast. Instead, they show you evidence that a sapling with five rings (i.e., a five year old tree) can add another ring in a year, and that this process over time will lead to a giant, thousand year old tree. They show you that giant sequoias do exist, and that they bear many physical similarities to saplings, indicating that they are the same species of tree.
Don’t you think that you’d be a bit silly for denying the “growth theory” of giant sequoias, just because you had never seen a sapling turn into one in your lifetime?
Precisely. Show a Creationist a cure for cancer, and tell him it wouldn’t have existed without the Theory of Evolution, and he’ll find a way to incorporate Darwin into his religious dogma.
I guess I’ll quote this post too.
Howzabout a discovery announced this past week? Scientists Announce Discovery of Obesity Gene
In researching diabetes, Greg Collier, a professor of microbiology at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia, discovered the Beacon gene in Israeli desert rats. If this gene is too active, it increases the rats’ appetite (by causing the formation of too much of the protein that governs appetite) and they eat too much. (Two other genes have been linked to obesity, leptin and NPy.)
Human beings also have the Beacon gene and it is 100 percent IDENTICAL to the rat gene.
Let me repeat that: Human beings and rats have an IDENTICAL gene that controls appetite. If humans and desert rats do not have a common ancestor, why do we have this gene in common? God liked the gene so much when He put it in rats, He decided to use it again when He made us? :rolleyes:
In looking for a match with Beacon, they found that earthworms have a nearly-identical Beacon gene, but it’s only an 81 percent match with the rat (and human) gene. According to Dr. Paul Zimmet, professor of diabetes at Monash University in Caulfield, Australia, this means that
What they need to do now is find some medication that can stop or slow down the Beacon gene in human beings and perhaps that will lead to (or even BE) a cure for both obesity and diabetes.
Let the creationists (denialists) argue their way out of this one.
Ah, Jab1, at last I can feel some national pride.
[hijack]
Ben, thank you for last night’s post. I’ve wanted to say that for some time now, on a number of different threads. You were ever so much more eloquent (and nicer!) than I’d manage.
[/hijack]
Move along, you! Back to your regularly scheduled blitzkreig!
A couple others have weighed in here, but I figure I’ll throw in my two cents (which may well be all it’s worth).
I’m not quite sure what, exactly, you expect a rat to give birth to, if not another rat. Similarly, a bird can only give birth to another bird. It is clear that the processes of speciation is something that may not have been explained clearly to you.
One thing you must realize is that, as has been pointed out earlier, individuals do not evolve; they develop. Populations evolve. The rate of evolution for a given population is dependent on a number of things; population size, environmental pressures, and generation length (by which I mean the time between birth and reproducibility) are some examples.
Now, to begin with, there is NO (that’s capital N, capital O) environmental pressure that could ever conceivably be present that would initiate the kind of species changes you are asking for, capacitor. Extreme environmental changes over a very short time period (which such pressures would have to be) tend to produce extinction, not speciation.
As if that isn’t enough, you also want a completely new class or phylum?! Macroevolution doesn’t work that way. Sorry. (Besides, apart from species, which are arguably a natural entity, all higher classifications within the Linnaean hierarchy are completely artificial).
Second, speciation does not occur spontaneously from one generation to the next. Indeed, it takes many generations for speciation to occur. There is never a case where Generation A begets Generation B, and Generations A and B are unable to interbreed. Over time, however, Generation Z may well be unable to interbreed with Generation A. Thus, it can be said that A and Z are separate species. But, because evolution is a continuum, you will never be able to look at any point within the A -> Z progression and say, “Ah ha! THIS is where the speciation event occurred!”
I hate to say this, but with the attitude you present, capacitor, I’m afraid you will have to live with the fact that all of geology, astronomy, evolution, and indeed all of human history, must be accepted (or nrejected) entirely on faith. Apparently logic and deductive reasoning aren’t enough to satisfy you.
But then again, I could want, no, demand, that God destroy Las Vegas with a pillar of fire, in my lifetime, before I believe that anything in the Bible is true…
Which one?
-Ben
Only people who deny evolution claim that those sort of changes happen in that kind of time frame. What you ask is contrary to the predictions of the theory of evolution.