How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[Clara Tea]

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.

I think that dark skinned people came from Africa (where they now reside), and some moved north to the colder climates. For some reason, their skin color got lighter, and their hair color and eye color also did (at least in some cases).

If it is true that creatures are white to avoid being seen in white snow, then smaller animals (prey) are white so they won't be eaten, and larger animals (predators) are white so they can sneak up on prey. In either case, blending in with snow would be naturally selected (Darwin's idea of natural selection) because they could survive better.

I think that too little time passed for humans to evolve light skin, light eyes, and light hair in colder climates. Do we see that happening among Eskimos, who have black hair? Rather, I specualte that the inbreeding that we know occurred between humans and Neanderthals might have passed light color genes to humans. However, studies of red haired Neanderthal prove that humans didn't inherit that gene from Neanderthals. But could Neanderthals have had another gene, that was the same as humans, that passed to humans?

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

It will take billions of years for the sun to become a red giant and engulf the earth.

Global Warming might wipe us out in one generation. Los Angeles was 121 degrees Fahrenheit last year. Former president Donald Trump, a couple of weeks ago, said that Global Warming was a hoax (but he isn't a scientist, nor are the people that he listens to).

Putin said that he will launch a nuke by September. At the US?

 

[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?

Dark animals are seen, so they are eaten, in snow. That is why dark animals die out and white animals survive (Natural Selection).

 

[PruePhillip]

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?

The Covid virus is a new species.

 

[ElishaElijah]

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.

Shared genetics just says there is common language used for living organisms.
There also seems to be a different meaning used for “species”. For example there are many species of viruses but still viruses. What term would you use instead? For example there may be many species of viruses but has that virus ever become something other than a virus? What term would you use?

 

[sun rise]

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".

That tickled my "need to know". Finding an answer was a bit of a snark hunt. Wikipedia has this which supports your statement for the parts where the source is known:

Over 8% of the human genome is made up of (mostly decayed) endogenous retrovirus sequences, as part of the over 42% fraction that is recognizably derived of retrotransposons, while another 3% can be identified to be the remains of DNA transposons. Much of the remaining half of the genome that is currently without an explained origin is expected to have found its origin in transposable elements that were active so long ago (> 200 million years) that random mutations have rendered them unrecognizable.[36] Genome size variation in at least two kinds of plants is mostly the result of retrotransposon sequences.[37][38]

 

[Subduction Zone]

That tickled my "need to know". Finding an answer was a bit of a snark hunt. Wikipedia has this which supports your statement for the parts where the source is known:

Over 8% of the human genome is made up of (mostly decayed) endogenous retrovirus sequences, as part of the over 42% fraction that is recognizably derived of retrotransposons, while another 3% can be identified to be the remains of DNA transposons. Much of the remaining half of the genome that is currently without an explained origin is expected to have found its origin in transposable elements that were active so long ago (> 200 million years) that random mutations have rendered them unrecognizable.[36] Genome size variation in at least two kinds of plants is mostly the result of retrotransposon sequences.[37][38]

Yes, I tagged you in a follow up and mentioned the 8% from ERV's as well. It was way too late at night when I asked my question because I could not even remember the term and ERV's are one of the strongest lines of evidence for the theory of evolution. If you read the article that I linked it appears that both of our sources are beaten in numbers by others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shared genetics just says there is common language used for living organisms.
There also seems to be a different meaning used for “species”. For example there are many species of viruses but still viruses. What term would you use instead? For example there may be many species of viruses but has that virus ever become something other than a virus? What term would you use?

Sorry, but it does not work that way. You don't get to just deny evidence. That is why we have evidence in the first place.

I know, it sucks when there is no evidence for one's own belief, or worse, when the evidence shows that they are full of hmm let's say excrement. And you make it too easy to simply dismiss all of your claims because you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Think about it, if you are right why are you so afraid?

 

[sun rise]

Yes, I tagged you in a follow up and mentioned the 8% from ERV's as well. It was way too late at night when I asked my question because I could not even remember the term and ERV's are one of the strongest lines of evidence for the theory of evolution. If you read the article that I linked it appears that both of our sources are beaten in numbers by others.

Sometimes when I'm catching up there are so many items that I skip some. That happened here. I missed the EDIT: Tag in that post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that dark skinned people came from Africa (where they now reside), and some moved north to the colder climates. For some reason, their skin color got lighter, and their hair color and eye color also did (at least in some cases).

If it is true that creatures are white to avoid being seen in white snow, then smaller animals (prey) are white so they won't be eaten, and larger animals (predators) are white so they can sneak up on prey. In either case, blending in with snow would be naturally selected (Darwin's idea of natural selection) because they could survive better.

I think that too little time passed for humans to evolve light skin, light eyes, and light hair in colder climates. Do we see that happening among Eskimos, who have black hair? Rather, I specualte that the inbreeding that we know occurred between humans and Neanderthals might have passed light color genes to humans. However, studies of red haired Neanderthal prove that humans didn't inherit that gene from Neanderthals. But could Neanderthals have had another gene, that was the same as humans, that passed to humans?

The "some reason" is well understood. It takes energy to make melanin. Also melanin hampers Vitamin D production. And due to the cold we wear more clothing. Those two factors select against melanin production meaning that in colder climates fair skin is an evolutionary advantage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sometimes when I'm catching up there are so many items that I skip some. That happened here. I missed the EDIT: Tag in that post.

I tagged you in the EDIT with the hopes that it alerted you. But yes, my great expertise in genetics was refuted by Wikipedia

 

[ElishaElijah]

Sorry, but it does not work that way. You don't get to just deny evidence. That is why we have evidence in the first place.

I know, it sucks when there is no evidence for one's own belief, or worse, when the evidence shows that they are full of hmm let's say excrement. And you make it too easy to simply dismiss all of your claims because you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Think about it, if you are right why are you so afraid?

Would be helpful if you’d answer the question, you’re fearful projection and incoherent comments tell on you.
Even a computer programmer uses a universal language, yet for evolution this concept seems to evade you for a concocted evolutionary faith stance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would be helpful if you’d answer the question, you’re fearful projection and incoherent comments tell on you.
Even a computer programmer uses a universal language, yet for evolution this concept seems to evade you for a concocted evolutionary faith stance.

What question? And are you making the error of conflating DNA with a computer language? Sheesh It is like a language. It is not a language itself. You are taking things too literally again.

DNA is more like a cookbook that writes itself. How does it do that? There are often millions or more copies of one particular recipe. At times one of them changes an ingredient or varies an instruction slightly. It is a very competitive kitchen and a good percentage of recipes are trashed because they do not taste as good as other ones. That is happening constantly. And those changes add up over time. Eventually all of life is one huge book of extremely complex recipes that had a very simple beginning.

 

[ElishaElijah]

What question? And are you making the error of conflating DNA with a computer language? Sheesh It is like a language. It is not a language itself. You are taking things too literally again.

DNA is more like a cookbook that writes itself. How does it do that? There are often millions or more copies of one particular recipe. At times one of them changes an ingredient or varies an instruction slightly. It is a very competitive kitchen and a good percentage of recipes are trashed because they do not taste as good as other ones. That is happening constantly. And those changes add up over time. Eventually all of life is one huge book of extremely complex recipes that had a very simple beginning.

Of course evolution is a mystery, recipes don’t write themselves and someone had to write the language of DNA, this is obviously intelligence and understanding. Not sure how you’re going to reconcile that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course evolution is a mystery, recipes don’t write themselves and someone had to write the language of DNA, this is obviously intelligence and understanding. Not sure how you’re going to reconcile that?

Normal recipes do not reproduce either. It was an analogy.

And evolution is only a mystery to you because you refuse to learn. Do not make false claims about others.

And once again, DNA is not a language. It was not made by an intelligence. It is merely a molecule. Your inability to understand does not make it magic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Cars remain cars, he said?

I purposefully ignored that part. But off course, I have pointed out to him countless times also how it is absurd to compare objects that aren't subject to evolutionary processes for obvious reasons with entities that are.

By the way, a creature must have produced a species other than its own in order to evolve to a different species.

Nope.
Speciation is a vertical process.
When a species produces a new species, it is always a subspecies of the parental species - which always remains with that group.

ie: the ancestors of chimps and humans were primates. Both humans and chimps remain primates.

It's the law of monophy: you can't outgrow your ancestry.

This doesn't mean that all creatures must produce a species other than their own.

They never do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Shared genetics just says there is common language used for living organisms.

No.
It's the pattern of genetic matches that is the relevant part.
It form a nested hierarchy. AKA, a family tree.

There also seems to be a different meaning used for “species”. For example there are many species of viruses but still viruses. What term would you use instead? For example there may be many species of viruses but has that virus ever become something other than a virus? What term would you use?

[/quote]

You are not making any sense here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would be helpful if you’d answer the question, you’re fearful projection and incoherent comments tell on you.
Even a computer programmer uses a universal language, yet for evolution this concept seems to evade you for a concocted evolutionary faith stance.

DNA is not a language.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
You are not making any sense here.

Well, I think he means at the base. Single cell life how did that become multi-celled and would it be the same group? But I don't know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course evolution is a mystery, recipes don’t write themselves and someone had to write the language of DNA, this is obviously intelligence and understanding. Not sure how you’re going to reconcile that?

DNA is not a language. It's a molecule.

The "language" part is a metaphor.

@Subduction Zone 's recipe thingy is an analogy.

Do you understand how metaphors and analogies work?
It sounds like you don't.