How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[firedragon]

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?

I'm curious to know, why would you assume gradual and continuous evolutionary change as a foundation?

 

[sun rise]

Do you know what is probably the source for most noncoding DNA?

I'm not going to the internet but testing my memory - I believe it's the result of infection perhaps viral and perhaps bacterial but my memory says "infection".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to the internet but testing my memory - I believe it's the result of infection perhaps viral and perhaps bacterial but my memory says "infection".

I am pretty sure that it is due to gene duplication. That is a mutation when an entire gene is copied. If you ever wondered how a absolutely key gene can mutate the answer is usually gene duplication. A copy of the gene is added to the genome., then one of the two can mutate without killing the organism. It also results in extraneous copies of "turned off genes".

 

[firedragon]

So please explain what observable evidence there is that one form (such as fish) evolves into another, such as landroving organisms.

I know you are attacking a typical atheists argumentation of "observable evidence" but as a theist, you also should not be driven by these apologetics.

Ill give you an explanation as quickly as I could. You know that you had a great, great, into 20 grand father because you are here today. So what is the observable evidence for that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, there are even more sources of noncoding DNA than I remembered. Yes, endogenous retroviruses are one of them. About 8% of our genome. Gene duplication leading to pseudogenes is another source. By the placement in the article they appear to be out ERV's. But there are even more:

Non-coding DNA - Wikipedia

EDIT: Sorry, I should have tagged @sun rise

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know you are attacking a typical atheists argumentation of "observable evidence" but as a theist, you also should not be driven by these apologetics.

Ill give you an explanation as quickly as I could. You know that you had a great, great, into 20 grand father because you are here today. So what is the observable evidence for that?

Please do not conflate accepting the fact of evolution with atheism. There are probably more Christians that accept it than atheists. Simply because they outnumber them by a huge factor. And in western countries the percentage of Muslims that accept it is probably higher than you realize.

Plus we need not stoop so low as to use "apologetics". There is no need for poor arguments to support evolution.

 

[Heyo]

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?

No.

1. We have witnessed speciation of microorganisms in the wild. There were no plastic eating bacteria when there was no plastic. We now have multiple strains. Plastic-eating Bacteria - microbewiki
2. We have witnessed speciation in E. coli in the lab:

3. Not even the claim that we have never seen it in yeast is wrong. Brewers and wine makers have selected for species even before they knew there was such a thing. They are now breeding them for special purposes: (it seems only in Germany as there are no articles in other languages, use a translation service Reinzuchthefe – Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Laying the foundation for an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

EVERY SINGLE NEWBORN of EVERY species has mutations.
So in that sense ALL living things are "mutants".

By that I mean two-headed snakes, etc

Which doesn't even account for 0.0000000001% of mutations.

. While I say that, I am not aware of two-headed snakes that reproduce more two-headed snakes.

Right. So what are you on about?
Not all "mutations" happen in context of evolutionary processes.
And 2-headed snakes (or any other creature) aren't actually mutations in that sense of the word. Instead, they are Siamese twins.

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.

And since evolution works by mutations that DO have beneficial effects, why are you so hellbend on focussing only on those that don't?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah, I said goodnight but your first question caught me. Because -- humans stay humans so far -- and birds stay birds. And fish stay fish. And snakes stay snakes. Cars stay cars. OK -- goodnight.

Do you remember how many times I have explained to you that if humans would produce non-humans, or if any creature would produce creatures other then its own species, evolution would be falsified?


Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood?
Why do you insist on being wrong?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm curious to know, why would you assume gradual and continuous evolutionary change as a foundation?

Because that is what we observe.

 

[Clara Tea]

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?

OPINION OF CLARA TEA:

The pastor of my Baptist church (who was also a very dear friend), insisted that humans should evolve rapidly, so that he could see a change. Otherwise, he claimed, evolution didn't work. But we'd be up to our ears in new species if the process worked that fast, and we wouldn't have anyone to breed with (nor would any species).

But, on humans, evolution is a slow process. If it was a fast process, I'd look at the people that I argue with and I would see monkeys (that would certainly win the arguement, but they wouldn't have the intelligence to understand, so they would throw things in protest, as monkeys do).

Some creationists draw a distinction between mutation and speciation (creation of a new species, which usually means a change so radical that it can't procreate more than one generation). We need a new flu shot every year because it mutates. Covid is mutating (the Omicron mutation spreads rapidly, and caused a surge in the pandemic).

I believe that the mutations of cold viruses (and other viruses) is proof of evolution. It seems that the smaller the life, the more apt it is to mutate. Some viruses pick up bits and pieces of genetic material (DNA/RNA) from other species and use that to procreate.

MULE:

A female horse and a male donkey (***, as the bible calls it) can procreate, producing a mule. A mule "usually" cannot procreate (produce an offspring). Horses have 64 chromosomes, and donkeys have 62 chromosomes, so mules have 63 chromosomes. Since 63 is an odd number, it can't be split evenly, so they "usually" can't reproduce. 63 = 32 +31.

HINNY:

A male horse and a female donkey (***, the female version is called a jenny) can procreate, producing a hinny. The physiology and tempreament of a hinny is different than a mule. Hinnys are small, with strong legs, short ears, and a thicker mane. Their (mules and hinnys) size is inherited from their fathers.

Animal Hybrids: Ligers and Tigons and Pizzly Bears, Oh My! | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

TIGERS, LIONS, TIONS, AND LIGERS:

Tigers and lions are different species that can procreate tions and ligers. Both tions and ligers can procreate. So, why are they called different species? I suppose because they don't commonly mate.

Jaguars and leapards can also breed with each other and with tigers and lions, and with hybrids of the various big cats.

Think of the puzzled look on a domestic cat's face if it gave birth to a wild cat (shortly before being eaten). Inside the tummy of the young big cat, it would think....the Religious Right was certainly right about celebacy.

SPIDER-GOATS:

Some genes of a spider were mixed by scientists with the genes of a goat. 1/70,000 of the genes were used, and a living hybrid was produced. Silk proteins are in their milk. It must really mess up the song "Spiderman, Spiderman, Does Whatever a Spider Can."

HUMANS, NEANDERTHALS, DENISOVANS:

DNA proves that Neanderthals and humans interbred. Up to 6% of some human's DNA is Neanderthal. Blacks don't have Neanderthal DNA (the admixing occurred outside of Africa, likely in the Middle East).

In Denisova, Russia (Siberia), a finger bone was found of a new species, Denisova. Micronesians (humans of Micronesia) had bred with Denisovans. In Denisova, last year, and some this year, more bones were found, and it was determined that not only did Denisovans breed with humans, but also bred with Neanderthals. They found a hybrid Neanderthal and Denisovan.

Since Neanderthals, Denisovans, and humans could (and did) interbreed, and their offspring could also procreate why are they considered separate species? From what I have been reading, they didn't commonly interbreed, so they are considered separate species.

The pride and arrogance of humans make them shun the idea that we are related to apes or lower humans (if, indeed, Neanderthals and/or Denisovans are lower). I think that there are no "missing links" because I think that the transition was very fast. Apparently a primative ape woman had a baby with a genetic mutation (a flaw), which made it human. So, we look for a missing link, but there might not be one.

SHUN SCIENCE, BLAME SCIENCE FOR TRYING TO DESTROY RELIGION:

It takes years to get credentials to credibly talk about genetics. Most theists don't have degrees, but they are willing to pit their bibles against the knowledge of learned scientists. Some theists don't even study or heed the advice of others. They refuse to read, and think that it is blasphemy to listen. They spread rumors about evolution, and some believe them (rather than believing the truth from scientists).

MY IDEA ABOUT PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM:

At the K-T boundary (once called the K-Pg boundary), we see the death of dinosaurs, loss of many species, and suddenly many new species appear. This is called "punctuated equilibrium."

My idea is that punctuated equilibrium occurs because a disaster (in this case the Chixulub 100 megaton meteor impact in the Yucatan, 66 million years ago) killed most life. With few mating choices, inbreeding occurred. Inbreeding causes genetic mutations. Most of those mutations are harmful. But, since the environment radically changed, Darwin's natural selection quickly chose new species to adapt to the new conditions. Thus, new species arose.

 

[Clara Tea]

Because that is what we observe.

If that is what we observe, why have we not found a "missing link?"

Perhaps there is no missing link, but the transition from ape to man was rapid and a vast change?

 

[Clara Tea]

Do you remember how many times I have explained to you that if humans would produce non-humans, or if any creature would produce creatures other then its own species, evolution would be falsified?


Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood?
Why do you insist on being wrong?

Cars remain cars, he said?

I was hoping that my rusty old chrysler would evolve into a new corvette. Maybe if it died, and was buried in a vat of bondo, I could mold the body into a "larger version" of a corvette.

Then Chrysler could rise from the grave, with a different appearance, of course.

This story seems all too familiar....I've heard it somewhere before.

By the way, a creature must have produced a species other than its own in order to evolve to a different species. This doesn't mean that all creatures must produce a species other than their own.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

Some humans don't have wisdom teeth and some are missing toes. I think that might be the start of an evolutionary change.

The Black Plague is said to have changed the genetics of the English, because the ones who were not immune died, and the rest interbred.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

I think that too little time passed for dark skinned humans to adapt to colder climates by getting light skin. Rather, since we know that humans interbred with Neanderthal, and some studies (not all) have concluded that some Neanderals were blond or red haired, with blue eyes, could it be that humans picked up blond/red hair and blue eyes from Neanderthals? Neanderthals had been out of Africa for quite some time, and had sufficient time to mutate to adapt to the colder climate.

Hair Colour of Neanderthals Revealed - World Archaeology

The link above says that Neanderthals had all of the hair colors of modern humans, depending on where they lived.

However, it also appears to shoot down the theory that modern humans got red hair from Neanderthals because the Neanderthal version of the MCRI gene isn't found in modern humans.

However, could it be that there were other Neanderals that had modern human MCRI genes that passed them to humans?

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

The old idea was that "junk DNA" did nothing. Now scientists are concluding that some things can be passed on in the junk. For example, smoking and drinking might have effects that pass on in the junk.

I speculate that junk DNA is altered by starvation, and that animals stranded on islands starve and pass down junk DNA to their progeny which causes diminuative stature. For example, miniature mammoths were found on Catalina Island, off the coast of southern California. I could imagine that the food was scarce on that island, and smaller sizes were genetically chosen by natural selection. Perhaps that natural selection picked from among the junk DNA to alter the species?

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

Frog eyes in mouth.....they have to watch what they eat.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

I'll try to get you new nonsense.

 

[Clara Tea]

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?

In the arctic, a lot of animals are white. Polar bears, seals, unicorns (can't see them because they blend in with the white snow, so people think that they don't exist), etc. Hey, if you get to believe in God, I get to believe in unicorns.

Neanderthals, depending on where they lived, have all of the hair colors that modern humans have, and, in the north, they had blond or red hair, and blue eyes (determined through DNA). The red hair gene found in Neanderthals is different than the red hair gene found in modern humans, so it is thought that they didn't pass that down to modern humans, though it has been established (through DNA) that interbreeding did occur between humans and Neanderthals.

I suspect that the light color has relatively little to do with the absorption of light, and more to do with getting eaten. That is, if you were a white unicorn in a white snow field, and no predator could see you, no predator could eat you. If no predator could eat you, more unicorns would exist, and they would interbreed. If there was a dark unicorn, that might get eaten and soon, there would be no dark unicorns in white snow.

I think that absorption of light and production of vitamin D is a happy coincidence.