quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Evolutions is defined as the change of allele frequency in a populations. That is an observed fact.

Allele frequency is a statistical convenience. I'll stay with the Biological Species Concept.

All you have done is throw up a page full of discussion and opinions with maybe some minor speciation occurring in the laboratory. Just a smoke screen reply. I would expect better and more reasoned debate. Do your best. Give some concise detail. I am open to learning. But I'll be damned if I can except a mass of speculation and definitions as proof of your point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha897

You need to understand that in order for new species to arise, there must be an addition to the genetic material. What you are describing is a variation on the species not the development of a new one.

You need to understand that new genetic material arises all the time if you and your parents got sequenced you would find that there were several new mutations in your genome. Even in a static environment with no selective pressure drift over many generations would produce enough change to produce a new species.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Evolutions is defined as the change of allele frequency in a populations. That is an observed fact.

Allele frequency is a statistical convenience. I'll stay with the Biological Species Concept.

All you have done is throw up a page full of discussion and opinions with maybe some minor speciation occurring in the laboratory. Just a smoke screen reply. I would expect better and more reasoned debate. Do your best. Give some concise detail. I am open to learning. But I'll be damned if I can except a mass of speculation and definitions as proof of your point.

You didn't follow the link far enough. There are lots of examples provided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Evolutions is defined as the change of allele frequency in a populations. That is an observed fact.

Allele frequency is a statistical convenience. I'll stay with the Biological Species Concept.

All you have done is throw up a page full of discussion and opinions with maybe some minor speciation occurring in the laboratory. Just a smoke screen reply. I would expect better and more reasoned debate. Do your best. Give some concise detail. I am open to learning. But I'll be damned if I can except a mass of speculation and definitions as proof of your point.

You didn't follow the link far enough. There are lots of examples provided.

None that occurred in nature. Cite a specific significant example please. Just copy/paste. Thank you.

quote:

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha897

You need to understand that in order for new species to arise, there must be an addition to the genetic material. What you are describing is a variation on the species not the development of a new one.

You need to understand that new genetic material arises all the time if you and your parents got sequenced you would find that there were several new mutations in your genome. Even in a static environment with no selective pressure drift over many generations would produce enough change to produce a new species.

I agree with your rebuttal of the creationist bullshit put forward by Alpha897 but I disagree on two other points: 1) sexual reproduction and mutation are different mechanisms leading to variation, and 2) the idea of genetic drift resulting in speciation without isolation seems like fantasy to me. Maybe you can give me an example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

The above discussion is deficient of recent research in human coding that indicated simple changes (code order) in 'junk' DNA can be actually significant differences in how instruction code for how existing genes are expressed. Which seems to be what a LOT Of 'junk' DNA actually is. Phenotype is NOT genotype, at least not as previously surveyed and understood. It remains to be seen if expression coding changes easily results in non-fertile species arising from existing parental species. It obviously will result in different cross fertile species.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

The above discussion is deficient of recent research in human coding that indicated simple changes (code order, etc.) in 'junk' DNA can be actually significant differences in instruction code for how existing genes are expressed. Which seems to be what a LOT Of 'junk' DNA actually is. Phenotype is NOT genotype, at least not as previously surveyed and understood. It remains to be seen if expression coding changes easily results in non-fertile species arising from existing parental species. It obviously will result in different cross fertile species. A distinction without a real difference, despite the 'understanding' of creationists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha897

You need to understand that in order for new species to arise, there must be an addition to the genetic material. What you are describing is a variation on the species not the development of a new one.

You need to understand that new genetic material arises all the time if you and your parents got sequenced you would find that there were several new mutations in your genome. Even in a static environment with no selective pressure drift over many generations would produce enough change to produce a new species.

I agree with your rebuttal of the creationist bullshit put forward by Alpha897 but I disagree on two other points: 1) sexual reproduction and mutation are different mechanisms leading to variation, and 2) the idea of genetic drift resulting in speciation without isolation seems like fantasy to me. Maybe you can give me an example.

Why wouldn't drift lead to speciation? And the isolation of the population would be from earlier versions of itself.

quote:

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paladinagain

can anyone give an actual example of evolution? You know, an actual incedent where something gave birth to something else? I wonder why that is?

There's the fact that you need a new 'flu vaccine every year because the virus is evolving and mutating, I suppose.

The virus evolving and mutating supports biological change but says nothing about speciation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paladinagain

can anyone give an actual example of evolution? You know, an actual incedent where something gave birth to something else? I wonder why that is?

There's the fact that you need a new 'flu vaccine every year because the virus is evolving and mutating, I suppose.

The virus evolving and mutating supports biological change but says nothing about speciation.

Okay then, how about the emergence of bse from scrapie?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

If I understand this it looks like genome doubling occurred and that may be rare but not unheard of. But, Ken, does the above tell us anymore than I found a lion and a tiger and could not mate them to produce fertile progeny? New species are frequently identified. But the discovery of new species is not evidence in itself of evolution. It is just information we did not have before. There is plenty of evidence for evolution otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Genetic drift is microevolution and is prelude to speciation. However, if the variants can still mate and produce fertile progeny they are still the same species despite their differences. If some become isolated in a different environment in which their variation is better adapted the new variants will eventually continue to undergo modification that will inhibit reproduction with the original variant, or so goes the Theory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paladinagain

can anyone give an actual example of evolution? You know, an actual incedent where something gave birth to something else? I wonder why that is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paladinagain

can anyone give an actual example of evolution? You know, an actual incedent where something gave birth to something else? I wonder why that is?

This is the problem, that isn't what evolution is. One animal does not miraculously give birth to a totally new animal. Over millions of years, small changes in a species EVENTUALLY amount to a change from the species that it had been originally. Natural selection, mutations, etc. Learn what evolution is and how it really works before criticizing it, makes you look silly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CandiDanielz
Can I add my opinion without being attacked?
I believe that God is real. I also believe life is mysterious and everyone has their own opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Sexual selection doesn't really lead to new species, does it? I would discount the mule since it is infertile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
And artificial selection is sorta outside the box.