Login

Join for Free!
117148 members


New species since humans?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

New species since humans?

Postby idek » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:23 pm

The perception in much of the religious world is that humans (more specifically homo sapiens) were the last life form created on earth. I realize evolution says they weren't "created" at all, and that there were other "humans" before homo sapiens. Those issues aside for the moment, is there evidence of animal or plant species that came into being after modern humans were already on this planet?
idek
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:16 pm

Postby robsabba » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:43 pm

Oh yes. There is a long list of Observed Speciations both in the lab and in nature. For example, Humans created the new genus Triticale by crossing rye and wheat. A natural hybridization occurred in the last 50 years between common groundsel and the Oxford ragwort in England. New species of Cichlid fishes evolved in lakes in East Africa in the last 300,000 years.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Postby robsabba » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:06 pm

Also, there are Ring Species, which show speciation in action. In these cases, populations that undergo genetic variation (subspecies)form a circle or loop where adjacent variants interbred, but those at either end do not, even where meet. Examples include: Larus gulls, Ensatina salamanders, and the Greenish Warbler.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University


Re: New species since humans?

Postby idek » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:22 pm

Yes, I've heard of the gull situation, but didn't know when that took place. You mentioned cichlids in the past 300,000 years. So a question I should be clear on now is "how far back to modern humans date?"
idek
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: New species since humans?

Postby robsabba » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:01 pm

idek wrote:Yes, I've heard of the gull situation, but didn't know when that took place. You mentioned cichlids in the past 300,000 years. So a question I should be clear on now is "how far back to modern humans date?"

OK. The diverisfication of 14 Cichlid fish species in Lake Victoria took only 12,000 years, since the lake was dried up for 5,000 years, until about 12,000 years ago.
http://hagblomfoto.com/article_evolution.htm

Humans evolved in East Africa about 200,000 years ago, so that puts these species in the timeframe you asked about.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Postby gamila » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:10 pm

Those issues aside for the moment, is there evidence of animal or plant species that came into being after modern humans were already on this planet?


but you must bear in mind natural selection does not account for the generation of species as colin leslie dean has pointed out
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

this sites definition of NS is
It is the process by which heritabletraits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism


so

if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

as colin leslie dean has argued

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation


you must also bear in mind that biologist dont know what species is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3"


some say species interbreed
but the case of the bactrian camel and dromardry camal which are considered different species can breed with fertile of spring
this
show that this definition of species ends in contradiction
ie
bactrian camel and dromardry camel inter breed should mean they are the same species
but
they are different species so should not breed
but
they do
thus a contradiction

thus all this talk in this thread about species speciation is really meaningless nonsence as colin leslie dean has shown biologist dont know what a species is
or when they give a definition ie breeding together
they end in self contradictionn
Last edited by gamila on Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby robsabba » Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:15 pm

Idek:

Just ignore gamila. All he does is repeat garbage from colin leslie dean. Attempting to explain anything to him is futile.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Re: New species since humans?

Postby idek » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:14 am

Yes, I was under the firm belief that NS did lead the speciation.
idek
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:16 pm

Postby gamila » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:21 am

Yes, I was under the firm belief that NS did lead the speciation


as colin leslie dean has shown NS cannot lead to speciation- it is a logical impossibility

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on


NS is -definition from this site

[quote]It is the process by whichheritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism [quote]
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re:

Postby robsabba » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:20 pm

gamila wrote:
Yes, I was under the firm belief that NS did lead the speciation


as colin leslie dean has shown NS cannot lead to speciation- it is a logical impossibility

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on


NS is -definition from this site

It is the process by whichheritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism
Instead of coming to a serious thread and quoting yourself in the third person over and over, try reading up on Population Genetics. Evolution is a change in gene frequency in a Population over time. Populations evolve, not Individuals.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Postby gamila » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:24 pm

Instead of coming to a serious thread and quoting yourself in the third person over and over, try reading up on Population Genetics. Evolution is a change in gene frequency in a Population over time. Populations evolve, not Individuals.



as i said before

if a trait appears in population which is not present in its parents population then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re:

Postby robsabba » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:47 pm

gamila wrote:
Instead of coming to a serious thread and quoting yourself in the third person over and over, try reading up on Population Genetics. Evolution is a change in gene frequency in a Population over time. Populations evolve, not Individuals.



as i said before

if a trait appears in population which is not present in its parents population then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

NO, you said this: "if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on "

Individuals in a population vary in their traits. The population evolves by changing the frequency of those traits.Thus, the average size, beak shape, coloration, etc. of a population can change over time, even without new mutations. This is the basic definition of natural selection as presented by Darwin. Read On the origin of Species if you don't believe me. Many traits are quantitative (under contol of many genes) and thus can change rapidly by this process. New mutations add to this variation over longer time frames.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Next

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron