1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Dan From Smithville, May 7, 2022.

  1. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    19,518
    Ratings:
    +14,337
    Religion:
    Christian
    I recall on another venue someone using the fact that in all the time we have been using bacteria and fungi for fermentation we have not observed speciation in those microorganisms. This was offered as evidence against theory of evolution.

    Is it?

    There is no evidence that ancient cultures making fermented milk products, bread, or beer had any idea what was causing the changes or that there were living things even involved. They were not only not looking, they were unaware of much of what was happening. Species could have evolved or not.

    When microorganisms were discovered, no one had any idea of the species that existed, so anything new, even under the nose of the observer, wouldn't have been recognized for what it was. All those species were new to man and until we looked, undescribed. Many remain undescribed. An undescribed species is one new to us, but not necessarily or probably one new to the world. It could be. Maybe not. There is no information to know specifically under those historic circumstances.

    Once we described some of them, recognized the role some of them had relating to us--food, pathogenesis, soil production, etc.--and started culturing them, I still do not see a feasible opportunity to know that speciation was occurring. Historically, scientists culturing bacteria, for instance, were doing so for some other purpose and such changes would go unnoticed for much the same reasons as before. No one was looking for these changes and any different species in what was intended as pure cultures could be just contamination.

    Only recently--the last 70 years perhaps--have we started looking at this with the intent to discover actual speciation events in a human time frame.

    Given that some of the same issues apply to macro-scale life on this planet that they do for microorganisms, much that may have happened probably did unnoticed.

    So, it seems that claiming a lack of observed speciation on a human history scale is not good evidence against the theory.

    I could go on, but the question remains. How do we know or not whether a species is new to us or new to the world?
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. Viker

    Viker Spirit in Black

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,778
    Ratings:
    +5,354
    Religion:
    In Diabolica
    :shrug:

    The best I got.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    51,766
    Ratings:
    +32,759
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I gave a part of an answer but I think that I will wait until others chime in first.
     
  4. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    10,112
    Ratings:
    +1,523
    Religion:
    Christian
    So please explain what observable evidence there is that one form (such as fish) evolves into another, such as landroving organisms. Now remember I'm not asking for presumptions claiming that such things as fish that wallow on land for a while and then go back to the water. I'm asking for observable changes. The argument (answer) I've often received is that mankind has not been around long enough to see these things? :) I'm not talking about beaks growing larger or smaller either.
     
  5. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    10,112
    Ratings:
    +1,523
    Religion:
    Christian
    Now, now, I've been looking into descriptions of DNA and how it was discovered. That DNA, which is essential obviously to so much, is rather complicated, isn't it?
     
  6. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    19,518
    Ratings:
    +14,337
    Religion:
    Christian
    DNA is a complex macromolecule, but I do not know what you mean by complicated. How could we use DNA to know if a new species was evolving?
     
  7. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    19,518
    Ratings:
    +14,337
    Religion:
    Christian
    This has been explained to you many times that the fossil record and shared genetics is evidence of the evolution of organisms and the commonality of ancestry for living things. I'm not sure what else I could add to that that would convince you since you have admitted you are not interested in being convinced or accepting the evidence.

    Changes in the physical structure of members of a population over time (beak changes) are evidence of evolution. The phenotype indicates an underlying change in the gene frequencies (genotypes) of the the population. What has never been demonstrated is a barrier to that process in higher taxa and change over great periods of time.

    How do you think your questions relate to knowing when speciation has occurred.

    You are free to make your own thread to discuss your own points listed here. But if I am not mistaken, it is among threads like that where you received the evidence you deny demonstrates the very things you question.
     
    • Winner Winner x 6
  8. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    19,518
    Ratings:
    +14,337
    Religion:
    Christian
    You know as well as I do that species new to the world have been identified and the basis for that recognition has been well established in the literature.

    I'm curious too. The very reason I made the thread.
     
  9. We Never Know

    We Never Know Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,912
    Ratings:
    +6,921
    Religion:
    It exists
    I some times ponder that when a new species is discovered.
     
    #9 We Never Know, May 7, 2022
    Last edited: May 7, 2022
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    51,766
    Ratings:
    +32,759
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I know. That was why I did not post. I would be a spoiler for the thread. I am being overly optimistic but it could be a chance for others to learn.
     
  11. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    10,112
    Ratings:
    +1,523
    Religion:
    Christian
    The point is, and I am sorry I have to point it out <g> is that it is so complex (ok maybe complicated is not the right word) that it defies rational comprehension or explanation as to how it developed and what motivates it. Again -- the best answer I think I can get at this point as to the mechanics is that humans just haven't had enough time to figure it all out. :) Furthermore, if mankind manages to eradicate itself as possibly projected by some, then that's it. :) Doesn't matter if, if fact, the sun is going to blow up. Which I don't think it will but that's what some esteemed scientists think.
     
  12. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    19,518
    Ratings:
    +14,337
    Religion:
    Christian
    I'm afraid you will have to point it out some more, since I am not following you here. Do you mean how DNA could have evolved? I do not know that molecules have motivations, so I cannot speak on that.

    All indications are that we do not know everything. Otherwise, we would not use science at all if we did. What would be the point?

    Again, in relation to recognizing new species, what is the relevance of your points and questions?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    10,112
    Ratings:
    +1,523
    Religion:
    Christian
    OK, now here's something for you and @Dan From Smithville : (don't know how correct it is, but maybe you do*...) "For example, imagine a normal white person consistently exposed to the sun. The higher and constant stimulus provided by the new environment (i.e. larger amount of radiation) forces the organism to produce more melanin, the related skin and tissue protein which protect the respective tissues and body from excessive incoming and dangerous sunlight. So, there's a tendency to produce more and more melanin, but its production is limited to the genetic capacity to response on this phenomena. A person who have albinism could not response in these ways, because there's NO genetic basis to produce melanin!"
    So -- question is -- is there proof of this? Have any "normal white skinned people" stayed long enough in the sun generation after generation to change skin color in subsequent offspring?
    How do species adapt to their environment? + Example (socratic.org)
    *OK, I change that. I don't think it is correct, I think so far that theory is unprovable, untenable, and I don't want to go on the deep end by calling it ridiculous -- but maybe by some reasoning that melatonin thing influenced by more melatonin produced by "normal white" people in the sun constantly can be upheld?
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  14. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    19,518
    Ratings:
    +14,337
    Religion:
    Christian
    I too am always hoping that someone will learn something from my posts. I know it does happen, since I am often the one that learns something. But I am always hoping for a wider impact too.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    51,766
    Ratings:
    +32,759
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Sorry, that is Lamarckism, and it is not how evolution works. Evolution reflects the natural world and may appear much crueler. One thing to remember is that there is always variation. Some people will have more melanin and some will have less, and there is a genetic reason for this A person with a low amount of melanin in a sun intense area is more likely to get skin cancer and die. If this happens before he breeds or if his offspring die due to his early death his early demise his DNA will drop from the genome. If this happens often enough There will be only dark skinned individuals left. The lighter skinned people would have been "selected" out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    51,766
    Ratings:
    +32,759
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I have found that I am more likely to learn than those that I am debating with too. I relish a new argument because that is always a chance to learn more. If it is the same old nonsense that has been refuted a thousand times over it can get rather boring.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  17. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    10,112
    Ratings:
    +1,523
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, I mean the spectacular occurrence of the possibility of DNA evolving. It's almost like the universe being started by some big bang. Therefore, while it is obviously possible that mutations can and do occur generally speaking, mutants do not extend well into the population. By that I mean two-headed snakes, etc. While I say that, I am not aware of two-headed snakes that reproduce more two-headed snakes. I have read on the other hand that conjoined twins have a greater possibility to reproduce conjoined twins. Whether that is true by studies I do not know. I would say in general this is not a mutation that includes betterment for that which is reproduced. I feel badly, though, for those that are suffering due to inherited physical problems like that. Since I believe in God, I can hope and pray that all such limitations will be done away with.
     
  18. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    19,518
    Ratings:
    +14,337
    Religion:
    Christian
    You are describing two different things. Tanning would be an example of developmental flexibility, though popularly referred to as adapting to the environment. It is not a genetic adaptation in response to selection. As you note with reference to albinism, the ability already exists in many people to do this. Evolution does not occur with the individual in an individuals lifespan. Tanning does not involve a change in genotype, as the genetic basis must already exist to some degree.

    Adaptation referred to in evolution is genetic variation driven by selection. The change from dark pigmentation in our ancestors to lighter pigmentation in populations that moved into colder climates, like that of Europe, is a genetic adaptation. Tanning is a flexible response by existing systems within existing people. It is slower than physiological versatility seen in octopus or flat fish species where pigmentation change is pretty quick.
     
    #18 Dan From Smithville, May 7, 2022
    Last edited: May 7, 2022
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    19,518
    Ratings:
    +14,337
    Religion:
    Christian
    Macromutations like polycephaly are not usually the mutations we have been discussing here. They arise as the result of problems with developmental conditions and not from a change in genes. Though, it sounds like the tendency to this may have a genetic basis.

    What that has to do with the evolution of macromolecules and DNA I have no idea.

    I have seen frogs with macromutations expressed as multiple legs and one instance of a toad with it eyes positioned inside its mouth. Functional eyes, but useless when its mouth was closed. They don't lend themselves to being very advantageous and often limit or end the lives of those with them.

    I hope and pray that God will allow us to continue to use science to learn and help others including those that suffer from limiting and deleterious macromutations.
     
  20. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    51,766
    Ratings:
    +32,759
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Oh noes!! X-Men biology.

    Sorry. Okay, um mutations don't work that way. You have on the order of 100 mutations from just your parent's DNA, and that number keeps getting added every generation. There are three types of mutations. By far the most common are benign mutations. Those are mutations that do nothing at all. The vast majority of your DNA is "junk" DNA. More properly known as noncoding DNA. It does nothing at all. There is a good chance that each and everyone of your mutations is benign. And you can also have benign mutations in functional DNA. DNA codes for various chemicals and some chemicals can be made by more than one combination. Switching one of the codons is not necessarily going to make a change. But it usually would.

    The next most common mutation would be a deleterious one. Or a bad mutation. They can kill an organism before it is even born or just make it slightly less likely to pass on its genes. There is a huge range of effects. The more negative a mutation is the faster that it takes itself out of the genome.

    And our third class of mutations are beneficial ones. They do not automatically get passed on, but there is a higher chance of that than for those without it.

    And that is very very simplified. There is far more to it than that, but it is a starting point.
     
Loading...