[BenV]

Actually, speciation is pretty much irrelevant.  Evolution shows that all species are genetically related, so where we draw the boundary between one species and the next doesn't matter. Genetically, it's harder to tell one species from the next.

As I stated above, the inability to use citrate as a food source was a defining feature of e.coli as a species. How many more defining features would you like to transgress before you're happy to call it a new species? Will it matter? Of course not - the later populations had evolved to out-compete the earlier populations, and some had evolved to take advantage of a new niche.

The bacteria in Lenski's lab evolved. Regardless of whether or not they speciated. Do you deny that?

[Asyncritus (OP)]

They did not evolve. Not even Lenski claimed a new species. Have a look at the wiki accountand you'll see that E coli remained E coli.http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=254372

Unless,of course the taxonomists don't know their job either.

This is simply an example of variation within a species, nothing more and no help to evolution at all.

[blakestyger]

They show very very clearly that there are huge numbers of species which just appear BANG! and with no ancestors. Score 2 for the creationists.

No ancestors? Could that perhaps mean they haven't made it into the fossil record?

What exactly is it about evolution that frightens you? - And where did you learn to argue like that?

[Asyncritus (OP)]

They didn't make it into the fossil record? The ancestors of all 6,000,000 species existing today?
Not one of them made it? Is that really possible? Darwin said they should be littered everywhere. They're nowhere to be found.

C'mon Blake - get real willya.

Scared of evolution? No, scared of swallowing scientific gibberish. And of pushing God out of His own Universe. I'll have no truck with that.

[BenV]

Actually, speciation is pretty much irrelevant.  Evolution shows that all species are genetically related, so where we draw the boundary between one species and the next doesn't matter. Genetically, it's harder to tell one species from the next.

As I stated above, the inability to use citrate as a food source was a defining feature of e.coli as a species. How many more defining features would you like to transgress before you're happy to call it a new species? Will it matter? Of course not - the later populations had evolved to out-compete the earlier populations, and some had evolved to take advantage of a new niche.

The bacteria in Lenski's lab evolved. Regardless of whether or not they speciated. Do you deny that?

Did you choose to ignore my entire post?

The bacteria in Lenski's lab evolved - into new varieties of the species if you like, but being pedantic isn't a good arguement.  Ancestral populations were less able to compete with modern generations - evolution by natural selection - once again it doesn't matter if they didn't form a new species in this instance it is a concrete example of the mechanisms of evolution in action.  It's simply nonsense to say that evolution can produce variation within species but not speciation - there's only so much variation before the variants become sexually incompatible.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Ben

I don't quite know what your definition of evolution might be.Perhaps you'd like to distinguish between 'variation' and 'evolution' for me.

Mine is 'the production of new species, genera and higher taxons from existing ones.'

So a Pakicetus could eventually evolve into a whale (ho ho!).

That's what I think about when I use the word 'evolution'.

You clearly don't think so, but accept the production of insignificant new variants of the same species as 'evolution'. So you would probably regard a bunch of monkeys with longer tails as 'evolution'. I'm afraid the taxonomists whose business it is to define species etc won't agree with you.

They have reasonably well defined criteria for naming new species, and Lenski's 'new' bacteria didn't meet them. Not even Lenski claimed they did.

But that creates an enormous problem for you.

If it takes 33,127 generations NOT to produce a single new species of relatively uncomplicated bacteria, then how many generations does it take to produce a whale from a Pakicetus? Not to mention the 6 - 8,000,000 species in the Cambrian from nowhere, it seems.

Whatever the answer, that represents rather more time than evolution has got.

[Flyberius]

[]

LOL owned! You really are the very thing evolution is going to ditch.

Btw, which of the competing gods has your balls in a vice. I am pretty sure it is just jebus. Other religions tend to conduct themselves with more dignity, not going onto science forums looking to get into fights.

The only ID I need is the one that made this lovely iPod touch keyboard. So sexy!

[Flyberius]

oh. I forgot to mention that this forum never fails to cheer me up. It's nutters like you that push science onwards. In hundreds of years we will look back and laugh at ancient humans with it's silly warring religions.
We will all then toast to our mastery of nature and drink alchopops from the holy Grail. 

[blakestyger]

Mine is 'the production of new species, genera and higher taxons from existing ones.'

Then you'd be wrong - a new species does not have to appear for evolution to occur.

Imagine a wading bird that feeds by pulling worms out of the mud on a marsh, a Curlew say. If there were prolonged periods of drought that forced invertebrates to go deeper in the mud to avoid drying out then the birds with the longer bills (there is always a range in properties like this) would be favoured in that they would be able to feed long after those with shorter bills had insufficient nutrition to breed or had starved.
This longer bill trait would be inherited and the average bill length would increase in this species - it would still be the same species but there would be a quantifiable inherited change, that is, evolution had taken place.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Imagine a wading bird that feeds by pulling worms out of the mud on a marsh, a Curlew say. If there were prolonged periods of drought that forced invertebrates to go deeper in the mud to avoid drying out then the birds with the longer bills (there is always a range in properties like this) would be favoured in that they would be able to feed long after those with shorter bills had insufficient nutrition to breed or had starved.
This longer bill trait would be inherited and the average bill length would increase in this species - it would still be the same species but there would be a quantifiable inherited change, that is, evolution had taken place.

You overlooked just one little thing, didn't you?

What's that?

Well, maybe two.

1. The genes for long beak ARE ALREADY THERE.

2. If they got longer by practice (ho ho!) then the longer beak CANNOT BE PASSED DOWN, because ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED!!!!!

So you have a lickle problem there, haven't you?  []

[lyner]

If it takes 33,127 generations NOT to produce a single new species of relatively uncomplicated bacteria, then how many generations does it take to produce a whale from a Pakicetus? Not to mention the 6 - 8,000,000 species in the Cambrian from nowhere, it seems.

Ever heard of a little thing called SEXUAL REPRODUCTION?
Species can develop at a fantastically quicker rate this way than the poor old trial and error  Asexual variety. The results of  mutation are constantly being injected into the gene pool and 'come out' if and when they prove to be an advantage.
To enable yourself to grasp the probabilities involved you need to be aware of the actual numbers - they are huge.

[BenV]

I think you've misunderstood (Asyncritus, not sophie).  The birds with longer beaks were more likely to breed - so in the population as a whole the 2nd generation were more likely to have longer beaks.  Of generation 2, those with the longest beaks were the most likely to breed, so longer beaks again would be more common in generation 3 and so on.

Blakestyger was not suggesting that acquired characteristics were inherited.

We know that genetic mutations, deletions, translations, substitutions etc happen, and this is how we get new genes - so the genes for a long beak came from these processes.

And although Flyberius has been forward in his opinions, bordering on being rude, he's entitled to his opinions. Religion inspires strong feelings in people, both for and against.

Flyberius - please try to be a little more tactful, thanks.

[Flyberius]

Flyberius - please try to be a little more tactful, thanks.

Sorry, I know I rarely contribute to these arguments and what I do say is usually anti-god and very offensive. 

Tough love.

[RD]

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution

The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories,
nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work.
 
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent      14 Sep 2008

www.telegraph.co.uk

[_Stefan_]

Asyncritus, your definition of evolution is equivalent to saying that centimetres can't add up to kilometres. Genotypes and phenotypes don't just jump from one form into another like magic. There is a gradual accumulation of changes. These changes are evolution in action.

Of course, you reject despite the evidence that there are beneficial mutations that natural selection can act on, as you demonstrated with the E. coli experiment and the hypothetical beak lengthening.

It's unfortunate that you would rather pursue your ideology than actually understand the science. Please come back when you have done so. (There's no way you can come back with your current opinion after actually understanding the science. Please do us and yourself the favor). 

[blakestyger]

1. The genes for long beak ARE ALREADY THERE.

2. If they got longer by practice (ho ho!) then the longer beak CANNOT BE PASSED DOWN, because ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED!!!!!

So you have a lickle problem there, haven't you?  []

Asyncritus - you really haven't understood a thing, have you?

[Asyncritus (OP)]

If it takes 33,127 generations NOT to produce a single new species of relatively uncomplicated bacteria, then how many generations does it take to produce a whale from a Pakicetus? Not to mention the 6 - 8,000,000 species in the Cambrian from nowhere, it seems.

Ever heard of a little thing called SEXUAL REPRODUCTION?
Species can develop at a fantastically quicker rate this way than the poor old trial and error  Asexual variety. The results of  mutation are constantly being injected into the gene pool and 'come out' if and when they prove to be an advantage.
To enable yourself to grasp the probabilities involved you need to be aware of the actual numbers - they are huge.

Sophie

There is not a single case on record where you can point to a new species emerging either slowly or at once in the literature today.

I showed you the 33,127 generations didn't do it in Lenski's experiment. How many more do you need? I don't call that 'fantastically quickly', do you?

If a human generation is 14 years (to reach sexual maturity) then that's 33,127 x 14 = 464,000 years for NO new species to evolve. Tough luck!

[BenV]

Dont forget that conditions were not changed in Lenski's experiment - had he started with one population, split it in two and subjected the subsequent generations to different selection pressures (different temperatures, type/amount of food etc) then you would have seen much quicker selection, and greater variation.  Even with no change in conditions, the bacteria evolved to be bigger and better able to compete.

You can't escape Lenski's observations, and you are choosing to ignore that bacteria reproduce asexually, thus greatly limiting the genetic variation from one generation to the next. Sexual reproduction recombines genes each generation, thus leading to much, much quicker variation.

[atrox]

ignorance is not a proof, so again...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5


And I already explained the "Race circle" to you in the other Thread... there are some of them you can observe today, that show pretty good how Evolution could work.. I gave you the Example of the great tit in Europe, these salamanders at the end of the quote are another one..

2) Reproductive isolation evolves gradually: species distinctions somewhat arbitrary
      Rassenkreis  (''race circle'): a geographically convergent series of species
        Ex.  Ensatina salamanders (Anura) are continuously distributed in California
              adjacent forms are reproductively compatible & morphologically similar
              ends of circle are reproductively isolated & morphologically distinct

(http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2900_Species.htm)

[Asyncritus (OP)]

The talkorigins article is a messy collection , mainly of polyploidy, and of very badly treated animals in some monster's laboratory.

And another point - these new'species' never leave the genus. So we've got a few miserable examples of species alterations, and 6,000,000 living species to account for. How do you square that numerical circle?

There is no example of new species arising in the wild where all this would have happened n million years ago.

I am horrified to read some of the quite monstrous experiments they performed to 'produce' these brutalised 'new species'. Have you read what they actually did? No, I didn't think so.

But I do want to say that these 'new species' are artificially produced for the most part, and cruelly for the rest.