"pompous ass if life is so easy to produce modify prove it or shutup"
Evolution explains the diversity of life, not it's start.
However, it's already been proven that it can be modified via natural selection or simply via selective breeding. The crops and cattles are selectivly bred to get a particular trait out of them, be it that they produce more milk, bigger in size or less seeds.
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection.
The natural order of things is to go from a state of order to less order. A simple brain does not evolve into a complex brain. See Cornell University's Dr. John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome. The human genome is deteriorating via the accumulation of mutations. Overall, mutations have the sum impact of being deleterious. Mutations and natural selection don't evolve anything - macro evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
Haha! I'm watching more of this video, and all he does is present the bible as right. He says that they bring forth their own kind. Well duh! If a man and a woman had a baby, there would be genetic differences, and there would be genetic similarities. This guy does nothing to support anything at all. He is just stating facts that offspring have differences and similarities. Red head, blonds, and brunets are all humans beings. So if this is evolution than count me in.
@jasonscfr Wolves only give birth to wolves. Great danes only give birth to great danes. Did god create great danes? Primates only give birth to primates. Chimps, bonobos, Gorillas, humans, they are still all the same kind, they are all primates.
"this could happen" or this "probably happened" is the same thing as creationism saying this could or probably happened except the difference is that there is evidence based in reality for this. all you guys have is an old book that says bats are birds snakes can talk, and ancient dead jew zombies can absolve old uncle lester of all responsibility for fucking his daughter.
Did you know that those moths that you studied about in school that turned color according to their environment was falsified just like so many other examples of evolution that were falsified... but yet it's still taught to our children. Research alternatives, you can than see past the jar your state of mind is currently in.
I used to be an ID proponent. I know about the moths and you've got the details wrong. Even if your claim were true, it isn't, then it would not change the facts of the peer reviewed refrences and examples cited in the video.
There is no grand conspiracy of science. Mistakes and fraud have been exposed by other scientists. That's what peer review is all about.
As for the moths. If you are intelectually honest the facts can be found at Talk Origins. Send me a PM if you want the link.
@awatson945 "Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection.
@achilles197474 Good for Prof Sanford but he is demonstrably wrong. Nylonase and countless other empirical facts prove him wrong. Google "Entropy, Disorder and Life". Also Google "talk origins Claim CB102"
Prof Sanford notwithstanding this is not at all controversial and he is a tiny minority of scientists (if what you are saying is true).
@awatson945 Hmm.. "Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[1]" Methinks science says that Sanford is correct.
@achilles197474 "Probably". And? You ignore the empirical facts I gave. We have demonstrable evidence that Sanford is wrong. It's not controversial. It's not debatable. It's a fact.
@awatson945 Professor of Genetics at the University of Wisconsin, James Crow writes:
"...mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it -- just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." [8] - Sanford is looking pretty good.
@achilles197474 Not if you consider the facts. We have evidence that mutations can over time lead to beneficial changes in organisms. I provided the empirical facts. If you want to pretend they don't exist and dig up quotes about what is typical regarding mutations and use that as your basis then you don't understand the facts or the scientific theory of evolution.
@awatson945 There is a reason the genetic code includes instructions for repairing mutations during meiosis. Mutations are harmful and the idea that the accumulation of mutations over eons of time, created you, is a fairy tale for adults. Believe it if you must, but it isn't remotely scientific. There is a reason you don't want to see mutations in your children.
@achilles197474 This is false. Mutated mice and fruit flies are used for scientific research and have been the basis for many scientific advances. Bacteria and viruses have been shown to mutate without "repairing". Modern medicine is predicated on this fact. I've given you the means to find out the truth. You are projecting. It is YOU who doesn't want to know the truth in order to protect your precious beliefs. I'm not invested in evolution. If you can show it wrong then fine. But it is a fact.
@awatson945 After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species.
"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."—*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.
@achilles197474 1964? Really? Look, first you are nearly a half century out of date. Second, speciation typically occurs over many thousands of years. Third, this an argument from ignorance. Finally, the claim is presumptious. There is, and was, no such problem. Let me also state that you are now arguing ad nauseam. You keep posting opinions without knowing the facts. It's a blatant appeal to authority. People, even experts, can be wrong.
@awatson945 You have substituted belief for science. Speciation typically occurs over many thousands of years. Really? And you know this because you have been observing the natural world for 1,000's of years? Of course not! Your assumption is not testable, therefore it is not scientific. What is testable is the impact of mutations over 1,000's of observed generations of fruit flies and it disproves your belief about mutations. No new species, no genetic improvement.
@achilles197474 >>"And you know this because you have been observing the natural world for 1,000's of years?"
It's called inductive logic based on facts. I don't need to have seen it snow in the middle of night to infer from snow on the ground in the morning that it did. By your logic we could not use forensic science to solve unwitnessed crimes.
@awatson945 >>"Your assumption is not testable, therefore it is not scientific."
Yes it is testable. Scientists have made predictions based on evolution and they have varified those predictions. Modern medicine relies on the explanatory and predictive power of evolution. Scientists have actively been trying to falsify evolution since Darwin and not a single experiment has done so.
@awatson945 Inductive logic, what BS. We're talking about science. State the theory. Do the experiments, record your observations, evaluate your results against the theory. Results have to be repeatable. We have observed mutations in fruit flies for 1,000's of generations. No good changes in the fruit flies, no new species. You don't have any science, you only have your belief that over thousands of years, you'll see new species of fruit flies, which isn't testable. Stick to science, not belief.
>>" State the theory. Do the experiments, record your observations, evaluate your results against the theory."
It's done every day throughout the world. Knockout mice, fruit flies, etc., etc. And don't forget explanatory and predictive power. Creationism has never, ever made a falsifiable claim. Evolution makes them every day yet creationists never manage to falsify the claims.
@awatson945 Predictive power of evolution? OK, which mammals are being protected from extinction by mutations which allow them to adapt to changes in the environment? Remember, the theory says that competition for scarce resources drives an animal to evolve and gain an advantage in their environment to avoid extinction. Name the mammals that are evolving to avoid extinction.
There are none so blind as they who will not see. Yes, we have seen beneficial changes to the fruit fly. The medicines you take like antibiotics and vaccines ARE predictable and testable and are conducted on a daily basis. You are demonstrably wrong. Calling modern medicine (predicated on evolution) a belief and not science is just ignorance. You can't and won't get a job in biological research without understanding evolution.
@achilles197474 I will because I can. It's a bit more complicated than you suggest but they do exist. Further we have many examples or things like bacteria and mice. I will PM you the link but for anyone else following Google "hartnell superfly".
@awatson945 "You can't and won't get a job in biological research without understanding evolution." Really? "In 2009, Lisanne Winslow was awarded a Fulbright Fellowship to teach and conduct research at the Misaki Marine Biology laboratory in the Konagawa Prefecture, Japan. Dr. Winslow investigated the immune system of three species of Asian Pacific sea urchin and their role as biological indicators of the effects of global warming and rising ocean temperatures." She rejects Darwinian evolution.
@achilles197474 All I can find about Winslow and and evolution is a list of scientists who declare skepticism that mutations can account for the diversity of life. A: Evolutionists do NOT hold any such absolutist opinion (see genetic drift). B.) The list of biologists who accept evolution and are named Steve (or a derivation therof) is far greater than all scientist, regardless of field, who reject evolution.
@achilles197474 AND, you ignore my fact: I said: "By your logic we could not use forensic science to solve unwitnessed crimes." That IS a fact and you ignore it because you either don't know how to answer it or you know I'm right. Inductive logic is the basis of science. We can't see atoms. We can't observe them. So, by your logic we don't know what the structure of atoms are. We can't see DNA. We can't observe DNA. By your logic we can't know the structure of DNA.
@achilles197474 Actually, in instances of Hox gene duplication and instances of polyploidy we do see
new genes created. in the case of polyploidy we see entire copied chromosomes. And in proceeding generations, genetic drift, further duplication, deletion and myriad of other changes cause divergence between the copy and gene or chromasomes and their respective originals.
@AcanLord@achilles197474 What is testable is the impact of mutations over 1,000's of observed generations of fruit flies and it disproves your belief about mutations.
A.) Not true. B.) To the extent that evolution predicts the rate of chane in gene frequency due to mutation we have varified evolution. It is a fact.
Not only what A watson has said but the Kettlewell moth observation has been reproduced more than once under different (and better) observational rules and experimental design.
This is just a dumb attacking of the icons because this sort of selective pressure is done on fruit flies every single day in every genetics lab in the world. It;s trivial to do these sorts of experiments
@nefrinhayat I know. Did you know in 1963 (the year the Bible was pushed out of schools and evolution was in) the FBI experiences a phenomenal increase in crime. Crime escalated 600% after that year. They say it's because kids are taught that they are animals so subconsciously they act like animals. Divorces increased shortly after that year, pre marital sex sky rocketed, and along with that so did diseases. It's sad.
@jasonscfr - why are you making this up in the age of Internet when a quick google search "USA crime rates per year" reveals that the increase in 1964 was about the same as in 1963 and the year before? Total # of crimes in USA, 1963: 4.1 million; In 1964: 4.5 million. Less than 10%, that's a fact. You got "600%" from where? Bible? Did you know that majority of prison population (80%) in USA is religious?
@FSMonster That will soon be pretty much 100% of people in prison will be religious. Did you also know that many criminals also find Jesus while being in prison? These people had no where else to turn to and they found Jesus. That should answer your question as to why there are so many Christian or so called "religious" people in prison. I guess were not doing a good enough job, as a Christian I would like to see that percentage increase.
@FSMonster I want you to google this web page. "Americans Get What We Deserve". They have charts for every crime, disease etc... since 1963. You will find it phenomenal. Look at all the graph charts and than tell me otherwise.
@FSMonster What did I tell you? Watch the video I made just so you can see the 600% stats that I was talking about. It's on my page. You will find it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Please show me where speciation results in an increase in genetic material as well as a new morphological feature/structure, that's what evolution would be.
speciation doesn't have to involve adding bases. You really don't know what your actually debating against. It can be as simple as one amino acid change in the surface proteins on egg and sperm.
Thats been shown in coral and sea urchins many times
"Please show me where speciation results in an increase in genetic material as well as a new morphological feature/strucutre..."
One example would be the evolution of the polar bear from brown bears. U. maritimus have evolved a variety of features for arctic life including webbed digits and specialized structures on the foot for walking on ice.
But ignoring that example, why does evolution require either of those two criteria?
Speciation does not result in an increase in genetic material. Increase in genetic material is irrelevant. Change in genetic material is relevant, and speciation results from that, not causes it. Speciation results in an increase in the number of species, splitting a larger and more diverse population into two smaller less diverse populations which then continue to grow in different directions.
The new feature is that the two species are now distinct and can no longer interbreed.
In fruit flies (Drosophila) it's a female choice system. If the male doesn't do it for the female, she won't give him the go ahead. The female has to life her wings in order for him to copulate with her, so if he doesn't suit her, she won't accept. With enough genetic change (as happened with the maltose and starch popsulations - different adaptation in each) the female can start to recognize that a male is "different", which basically means, "he doesn't sing right" or "he smells funny"
" one problem there's no evidence to support this hypothesis.the idea that chlorplasts and mitochondria both formed simultaneously and spontaneously is another magical leap"
There are quite similar to bacteria in a number of ways.
You'd also maybe be interested to know that cells don't need mitochondria or chloroplasts.vGiardia (a eukaryote protist) doesn't have any and does just fine.There are even cells within animals that have none
without chlorophyll the variety of life we have could not exist . the conversion of sunlight into sugar supports the entire food chain . I was not insinuating that there are no living cells sans chloroplast .
I was commenting on the importance of it's role in all plant life . and it's sudden appearance.
you changed subject when I backed you into a corner with regards to entropy. You see that complexity can come from other reactions running downhill and donating energy. My claim is that there is an external energy source and it is the sun and the sun is responsible for adding complexity and potential energy even though there is a net loss of energy.
This is very basic physics and is the basis for every reaction.
thanx for this series of videos, i wasn't aware that there are evidence for speciation
regarding the fruitflies' speciation, matings between the maltose populations and starch populations DID not happen because they WOULD not or COULD not mate?
I'm not sure if this is an accurate definition of the biological species concept. Ernst Mayr defines it as: "species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
"Reproductively isolated" doesn't seem to necessitate "nonviable offspring."
you forgot the words "or potentially interbreeding" (after "interbreeding") in Mayr's definition. Just because they don't interbreed doesn't matter. If they have the POTENTIAL to produce viable offspring, then they are the same species too.
lions and tigers have produced viable offspring. they are not the same species. two organisms are different species when they are different enough that biologists give them a new name
If I remember the study properly, the offspring are sometimes viable in the first generation but break down in subsequent generations. Wikipedia for liger and tigon cover the matter in some depth, with relevant citations. Despite sometimes being viable, there are obvious barriers to reproduction that would merge the lion and tiger into the same species, and tigons and ligers themselves are incapable of breeding true. It's just a more elaborate version of the problem a mule faces.
the textbook Advanced Biology. (Jones, M., and G. Jones. 1997. Cambridge University Press) The authors recount how from 1977 to 1982 there was a drought on one of the Galapagos Islands, and due to natural selection the average finch beak size became larger
Consider the visible spectrum. It starts at red, then orange, then yellow, etc. Now take a single wavelength from the yellow region and one from the orange region. The colors are easy to distinguish. But look at the entire transitional region between orange and yellow. Where does it stop being orange and start being yellow? You can't tell. Same with a species. You can't see speciation until you see two temporally isolated examples. No single transition point exists. Its a subtle gradation.
well... interesting analogy...and I understand fully the proposition.
ti just hasn't been observed now or in the fossil record .oh there are arguably transitionals in the record but the problem is transitionals are just as easily explained as unique species and more likely are .the idea that all life evolved from a single cell is a metaphysical argument
"all life evolved from a single cell is a metaphysical argument "
___
I don't see how it's a metaphysical argument. To support that hypothesis no one would present metaphysical evidence(there is no such thing) or make claims that are non-material in nature or rely on unknown or multiplied forces.
Science is necessarily limited to material claims backed up by real world evidence a
ahhh, but it is a mystical claim . evoluitoary biologists will say the process is unguided random mutations filtered by nat. selection.that isn't supported by real world evidence . you
can claim it is,but claims aren't evidence.
my point is the idea that a single celled organism had some desire to be more .
as I've heard alluded to by many so called experts. or that an organism can
completly reorganize it's structure through an unguided mechanism is a
I do not think not have I ever heard the claim formall put forth that
things like the advent of body plans or biochemical cascades are the result of a conscious choice
Perhaps you were confused by the fact that languages can add a tint of "agency".For example today my chemistry teacher said that "chlorine really prefers to form positive +1 ions." she did not mean to say that this was a concious preference on the part of an atom.See, languages anthropomorphize, it's well known
sorry I was logged in as my daughter , last time I posted.there's no confusion ,
I understand the subtelty of inference .
obviously i wasn't referring to the senario you describe .i have seen in docum. and in text the author will convey this idea of an organism striving to evolve ??I think it
natural to assume some guiding mechanism .but you see that is a metaphysical assumption . an innate desire to evolve...
There's never been any evidence of conscious choice to evolve.t's a ridiculous idea, organisms aren't aware of evolution, just as humans really weren't until recently. Even so they can't control which of their mutant gametes will develop.
just because it seems comforting to think of preplanning doesn't make it so. I've never heard a scientist or educator talk of pre-planning or concious choice so I don't see why you're saying evolution is metaphysical because that just isn't science
I didn't mention evidence .I've seen and heard many references to that effect.that not withstanding
what I am saying is the notion that all species you see today are the results
of a stochastic process .one mutation having no relationship to the next is impossible. claiming evolution as a scinence or evidence based fact is philosophy .
Would you care to find me a few references to anyone claiming that their view of evolution that they expouse is that species change because of wants and desires and internal drives?
Many people that believe that some deity guided, fertilized, watched over, or otherwise laid the groundwork for the ontogeny of species or humans in particular.This is a philosophical addendum to some people's view of evolution to reconcile it with theistic beliefs.Perhaps you were confused by that view?
no confusion here . the chances of the first living cell arising from anyhting known in physics or natural chemical processes are zero.if you want to ignore that out of an atheistic viewpoint, I can respect that .but don't tell me that you base your opinion solely on pure science.
Excuse me: abiogenesis is not evolution or speciation.
Google "protobionts" they have many of the same properties of cells by just replicating the chemistry.
beyond that you're point is insipid.There was a "vitalist" creationism which was mostly universal that claimed that organic mmolecules could not be synthesized outside of living systems.
Then Fredrich Wohler, a chemist synthesized Urea( a component of urine).
So it's really not historically sound to make such conjectures.
interesting that these imaginary prtobionts need a reducing atmosphere including methane to form. one problem there's no evidence to support this hypothesis.the idea that chlorplasts and mitochondria both formed simultaneously and spontaneously is another magical leap .denial of the obvious design in living cells and species is delusional .barn owls are very common where I live . they have echo location so acute they can catch prey in zero light .clearly the result of trillions of mutations.
the early earth must have had methane on it ?why?because the scientists trying to generate life in a lab needed methane for thier experiment . there is no evidence for methane or amonia on the early earth .this is not science.sciences role is to describe what the evidence is . not manufacture evidence . this is philosophy
You have heard wrong. Evolution has millions upon millions of facts supporting it, hence its classification as a theory. They are not simply claims. Organisms do not completely reorganize their structures to creates a news species. Rather, it is a slow, gradual process in which individual parts are changed. For instance, the bone that moved from the lizards jaw to the mammalian ear did not jump there in one generation, but slowly migrated over thousands of years.
This has been shown in the fossil record. Viewing additional videos by DonExodus2 or others can give you the evidence. Transitional forms are indeed individual species but are not stand alone with no ancestors or continuations.
How does accumalation of genetic differences lead to infertile offspring?? And what kind of genetic difference is it exactly ie no of chromosomes - how did this happen then?
I believe accumulation of genetic variation leads, not to infertility but the inability to breed with those who are not genetically close enough to them.
The campbell reece biology book has a great example of allopatric speciation where ground squirrels just a few hundred yards apart on opposite sides of the grand canyon have dramatically different phenotypes. yet experimentally they can be hybridized into non-sterile offspring.
it appears that when a barrier reaches a certain point, even if not completely isolating, even a little blockage can cause divergence
>>>"What about a huge difference in size making copulation impossible? Would that be speciation?
____________
The term for that is "mechanical isolation"
sometimes the two individuals don't really realize it and you get what is unscientifically known as the "hotdog in a hallway effect" or "bowling pin tailpipe problem"
but it's not just genital size. For example some treefrogs use a sticky goo to stick eggs to leaves. Some sperm just can't penetrate the thick film so the divergence starts there
I don't think it would be strange. Again reading up on "Species" even on Wikipedia is really interesting. The grade school textbook definition of "Species" has some parts where it breaks in certain circumstances. The term "Species" is a problem for actual biologists to deal with, and the majority of people do not correctly understand the science behind it.
Sorry, Bottlenose Dolphins are in the family Delphinidae and in the genus Tursiops, while Pseudorca crassidens is in family Delphinidae, genus Pseudorca. There are many genera under the Delphinidae family, not all of them can interbreed.
"But can everyone in those two genuses (geni?) interbreed?"
The answer is no. You will never get an Orca ("Real killer whales") and Bottlenose Dolphin reproducing offspring, let alone viable ones (both are Delphinidae). I would recommend reading up on the taxonomic rank that is represented by the term "species." It is much more complex than just whether or not an organism can produce offspring (although that is one aspect).
It is called hybridization (read up on this term). "False Killer Whales" aka Pseudorca crassidens and the Bottlenose Dolphin are in the SAME family, they are both Delphinidae, they are in a different genus though. This is called intergeneric hybridization.
Adrisan; There may be be proof that jesus was "in earth" , as you put it, but why should I believe what some guy, who lived thousands of years ago, say about anything? Especially some guy who said he'd forgive me for offending him, or he' d send me to be punished and tortured forever. Is that what youre offering? Don't you think that's kind of silly?
adrisan, Please: that's like saying, " I dont believe in air of gravity...I don't believe in numbers of the moon...I don't believe in computers or the internet....ALL scientists around the world accept evolution.Sorry, we dont need Jesus....We dont need god...The bible is filled with contradictions and errors and your faith is built on human sacrifice and suicide..
hahaha i laughed when i saw Kirk with the "but its still a bird" headline there cause i was showing a buddy of mine the articles about lizards developing cecal valves on the Pod Mrcaru islands or lizards evolving longer limbs in Arkansas to better survive the fire ant infested areas and he goes "they are still lizards though" :P
Yep, speciation only occurs within "created kinds." Perhaps creationists could be persuaded that god made just three "kinds" -- bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes and all the evolution since has taken place within these. This would be a small start toward bringing them into the domain of rationality.
Great vid as usual. Allow me to correct you in a detail- in your biological concept of species, you point out that two species belong to the same species if they can interbreed and produce viable offspring. Well, they are only considered to belong to the same species if those offspring are fertile. See the horse and the donkey for example. Their offspring - the mule - is viable, but infertile, as the homologue chromosomes are unable to pair up during meiosis.
Why would you assume that all "evolutionists" would share a common opinion about aliens? You might as well ask if all "evolutionists" think Bush was a good president; fact is there will be varying opinions. I personally believe aliens exist; to assume that in our entire galaxy we are the only inhabitable planet is simply ludicrous.
i do but that has nothing at all to do with evolution. its a matter of chance. with all the stars and galaxies we've found the chance of this not happening again are slim but what we need is to find planets. however technologically we haven't gotten to the point where we can see other planets like our own we have one technique where they look at a star and find a gravitational pull on it caused by a planet but they have to massive planets in close proximity to the star, like mercurey close....
For the umpteenth time, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist" -- there are biologists who study evolution, just as there are physicists who study gravitation, but they are not thereby described as "gravitationists", as if this is some form of ideological commitment, like socialist or libertarian; or philosophical stance like atheism; or religious belief like Christian or Muslim. To employ the term "evolutionist" is to disqualify oneself from knowledgeable discussion of the topic. Sigh.
evolving is bad? u know why? answer the next question: where is evolving going to? i mean whats the maximum point of evolution. we all see new tech all over the place in all domains...but all this "evolutions" leads us to becoming vegetables. we will end having tech that will teleport air in our lungs and teleport the crap from ass to toilet. we ll just stay like dead meat all day long.
I had a graduate advisor who had studied the genotypes of wild Drosophila in "kabukis"? I can't remember the spelling, but lava flows isolate little islands of green, and can be accurately dated. These normally represent an unbridgeable gap to the little fruit flies, and he looked at parent and isolate population gene frequencies.
The point is that unless you have this type of well defined geographic barrier, you can never be sure when interbreeding stops.
Cool vid, DonExodus2. As someone who is working on a doctoral thesis that deals specifically with speciation, I have one gripe, though:
Peripatric speciation is a form of allopatric speciation, and is not like parapatric speciation. Peripatric is simply when one of the allopatric populations is small and peripheral. Parapatric means the populations are directly next to each other with no serious barriers and often with some slight overlap. Broadly, para is everything between allo and sym.
...your description of peripatric speciation is a confounding of peri and parapatric.
Peripatric is allopatric, meaning geographic barriers exist. Parapatric implies that the barriers are not geographic. For instance, on white sands or lava flows, populations on and off may regularly come in contact on the ecotone while diverging (even with gene flow if predation is strong enough against hybrids). This wouldn't happen with allo or peripatry by definition.
Well, yes, you said that, but my point is that the three main geographic relationships for speciation are allo, para, and sympatry. Each of these terms refers to the amount of overlap. Peri is a subcategory of allo that refers to a completely different aspect (than geographic isolation): relative size of the two populations.
Confounding degree of geographic isolation (allo vs para vs sym) with relative range size (allo vs peri, para vs ?, sym vs ?) confuses instead of simplifying.
Yes, there is, NadNareek. We have observed to process happening in controlled lab environments as DonExodus points out (with references to the research).
This is by definition experimentally observed speciation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Evolutionists can make all the bold claims they like, but in the end the best science can offer is: "Then a miracle occurs". There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on earth.
You are looking at modern day products of billions of years of evolution and being surprised that it's complex. Amazing. How would it not be complex? Again, if we proved that abiogenesis for life as we know it was impossible that would still not point to a supernatural cause.
Abiogenesis and evolution are separate fields of study.
No current hypothesis in abiogenesis science is suggesting that a fully formed cell just popped into existence from unorganized organic or inorganic materials...
You are misrepresenting the field of abiogenesis to better come to terms with your own predetermined conclusions.
Really, my, some evidence came out just last week on it. It turns out that RNA can self replicate on its own. Guess what, this is the clincher, the original strain of RNA evolved into three mutants.
Along the same lines as joemarklawson pointed out, google "liger" and/or "tiglon". Lions and tigers are able to breed, yet in the same manner of mules, the resulting offspring are infertile. For viable, fertile offspring, look into the mating of dogs and wolves.
It's a good question; one that biologists still bicker about. The main problem is that biological relationships are so complex with so many variables. Of course, biology isn't the only field of science with these sorts of puzzles. Think of Pluto's recent demotion from official planetary member of our solar system to dwarf planet. Personally, I think biologists have been doing an excellent job in organizing the conceptual model for biological relationships.
Although Darwin's finches typically don't mate with each other, they are ABLE and will do so on occasion.
blurglide 3 days ago
You should keep the intro. Very cool.
KawaiiKemonomimi 2 months ago
it's NICHE not 'nitch' u american buffoon
samirhym 7 months ago
It's not just interbreed - its produce offspring which can reproduce, otherwise tigers and lions would be the same species.
Lylypie 7 months ago
pompous ass if life is so easy to produce modify prove it or shutup.
MrNewkingjames 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrNewkingjames
"pompous ass if life is so easy to produce modify prove it or shutup"
Evolution explains the diversity of life, not it's start.
However, it's already been proven that it can be modified via natural selection or simply via selective breeding. The crops and cattles are selectivly bred to get a particular trait out of them, be it that they produce more milk, bigger in size or less seeds.
Atharkas 8 months ago
@MrNewkingjames i`m doing it right now.
Modifying it that is.
AcanLord 7 months ago
pompous ass
MrNewkingjames 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection.
achilles197474 9 months ago
Comment removed
achilles197474 9 months ago
great video
UTfiredragon 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The natural order of things is to go from a state of order to less order. A simple brain does not evolve into a complex brain. See Cornell University's Dr. John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome. The human genome is deteriorating via the accumulation of mutations. Overall, mutations have the sum impact of being deleterious. Mutations and natural selection don't evolve anything - macro evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 11 months ago
@achilles197474
"The natural order of things is to go from a state of order to less order. "
Factually incorrect. Entropy does not cause "Less order" quite the reverse.
Large Ordered structures in nature are a example of a energy minima. they have less potential energy then
small Disordered structures do. "energy maximas" Entropy is one of the direct mechanisms responsible for
Chemistry. Even the reactions which appear to generate energy ultimately result in minimas and large stable molecules.
AcanLord 7 months ago
Thank you again fine sir.
TheBadbowman 1 year ago
only the first 24 seconds of this vid plays :S
uHoHiMeLLoZz 1 year ago
Why is the a picture of a fat guy in a devil suit in his title sequence?
michalchik 1 year ago
Correct me if I am wrong, but is peripatric speciation just an example of the founder effect and genetic drift?
CommonSense90 1 year ago
Haha! I'm watching more of this video, and all he does is present the bible as right. He says that they bring forth their own kind. Well duh! If a man and a woman had a baby, there would be genetic differences, and there would be genetic similarities. This guy does nothing to support anything at all. He is just stating facts that offspring have differences and similarities. Red head, blonds, and brunets are all humans beings. So if this is evolution than count me in.
jasonscfr 1 year ago
@jasonscfr Wolves only give birth to wolves. Great danes only give birth to great danes. Did god create great danes? Primates only give birth to primates. Chimps, bonobos, Gorillas, humans, they are still all the same kind, they are all primates.
awatson945 1 year ago
love the proof this guy presents. He just has a "this could happen" or "this probably happened" concept. I don't see any proof of anything.
jasonscfr 1 year ago
"this could happen" or this "probably happened" is the same thing as creationism saying this could or probably happened except the difference is that there is evidence based in reality for this. all you guys have is an old book that says bats are birds snakes can talk, and ancient dead jew zombies can absolve old uncle lester of all responsibility for fucking his daughter.
johnnythesailorman 1 year ago
@jasonscfr What about the peer reviewed refrences and examples of speciation. That's not just "this could happen".
awatson945 1 year ago
Did you know that those moths that you studied about in school that turned color according to their environment was falsified just like so many other examples of evolution that were falsified... but yet it's still taught to our children. Research alternatives, you can than see past the jar your state of mind is currently in.
jasonscfr 1 year ago
I used to be an ID proponent. I know about the moths and you've got the details wrong. Even if your claim were true, it isn't, then it would not change the facts of the peer reviewed refrences and examples cited in the video.
There is no grand conspiracy of science. Mistakes and fraud have been exposed by other scientists. That's what peer review is all about.
As for the moths. If you are intelectually honest the facts can be found at Talk Origins. Send me a PM if you want the link.
awatson945 1 year ago 13
@awatson945 "Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection.
achilles197474 9 months ago
@achilles197474 Good for Prof Sanford but he is demonstrably wrong. Nylonase and countless other empirical facts prove him wrong. Google "Entropy, Disorder and Life". Also Google "talk origins Claim CB102"
Prof Sanford notwithstanding this is not at all controversial and he is a tiny minority of scientists (if what you are saying is true).
awatson945 9 months ago
@awatson945 Hmm.. "Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[1]" Methinks science says that Sanford is correct.
achilles197474 7 months ago
@achilles197474 "Probably". And? You ignore the empirical facts I gave. We have demonstrable evidence that Sanford is wrong. It's not controversial. It's not debatable. It's a fact.
awatson945 7 months ago
@awatson945 Professor of Genetics at the University of Wisconsin, James Crow writes:
"...mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it -- just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." [8] - Sanford is looking pretty good.
achilles197474 7 months ago
@achilles197474 Not if you consider the facts. We have evidence that mutations can over time lead to beneficial changes in organisms. I provided the empirical facts. If you want to pretend they don't exist and dig up quotes about what is typical regarding mutations and use that as your basis then you don't understand the facts or the scientific theory of evolution.
awatson945 7 months ago
@awatson945 There is a reason the genetic code includes instructions for repairing mutations during meiosis. Mutations are harmful and the idea that the accumulation of mutations over eons of time, created you, is a fairy tale for adults. Believe it if you must, but it isn't remotely scientific. There is a reason you don't want to see mutations in your children.
achilles197474 7 months ago
@achilles197474 This is false. Mutated mice and fruit flies are used for scientific research and have been the basis for many scientific advances. Bacteria and viruses have been shown to mutate without "repairing". Modern medicine is predicated on this fact. I've given you the means to find out the truth. You are projecting. It is YOU who doesn't want to know the truth in order to protect your precious beliefs. I'm not invested in evolution. If you can show it wrong then fine. But it is a fact.
awatson945 7 months ago
@awatson945 After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species.
"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."—*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.
achilles197474 7 months ago
@achilles197474 1964? Really? Look, first you are nearly a half century out of date. Second, speciation typically occurs over many thousands of years. Third, this an argument from ignorance. Finally, the claim is presumptious. There is, and was, no such problem. Let me also state that you are now arguing ad nauseam. You keep posting opinions without knowing the facts. It's a blatant appeal to authority. People, even experts, can be wrong.
awatson945 7 months ago
@awatson945 You have substituted belief for science. Speciation typically occurs over many thousands of years. Really? And you know this because you have been observing the natural world for 1,000's of years? Of course not! Your assumption is not testable, therefore it is not scientific. What is testable is the impact of mutations over 1,000's of observed generations of fruit flies and it disproves your belief about mutations. No new species, no genetic improvement.
achilles197474 7 months ago
@achilles197474 >>"And you know this because you have been observing the natural world for 1,000's of years?"
It's called inductive logic based on facts. I don't need to have seen it snow in the middle of night to infer from snow on the ground in the morning that it did. By your logic we could not use forensic science to solve unwitnessed crimes.
awatson945 7 months ago
@awatson945 >>"Your assumption is not testable, therefore it is not scientific."
Yes it is testable. Scientists have made predictions based on evolution and they have varified those predictions. Modern medicine relies on the explanatory and predictive power of evolution. Scientists have actively been trying to falsify evolution since Darwin and not a single experiment has done so.
awatson945 7 months ago
@awatson945 Inductive logic, what BS. We're talking about science. State the theory. Do the experiments, record your observations, evaluate your results against the theory. Results have to be repeatable. We have observed mutations in fruit flies for 1,000's of generations. No good changes in the fruit flies, no new species. You don't have any science, you only have your belief that over thousands of years, you'll see new species of fruit flies, which isn't testable. Stick to science, not belief.
achilles197474 7 months ago
@achilles197474 "BS"? That's how science is done.
>>" State the theory. Do the experiments, record your observations, evaluate your results against the theory."
It's done every day throughout the world. Knockout mice, fruit flies, etc., etc. And don't forget explanatory and predictive power. Creationism has never, ever made a falsifiable claim. Evolution makes them every day yet creationists never manage to falsify the claims.
awatson945 7 months ago
@awatson945 Predictive power of evolution? OK, which mammals are being protected from extinction by mutations which allow them to adapt to changes in the environment? Remember, the theory says that competition for scarce resources drives an animal to evolve and gain an advantage in their environment to avoid extinction. Name the mammals that are evolving to avoid extinction.
achilles197474 7 months ago
@achilles197474 >>"No good changes in the fruit flies..."
There are none so blind as they who will not see. Yes, we have seen beneficial changes to the fruit fly. The medicines you take like antibiotics and vaccines ARE predictable and testable and are conducted on a daily basis. You are demonstrably wrong. Calling modern medicine (predicated on evolution) a belief and not science is just ignorance. You can't and won't get a job in biological research without understanding evolution.
awatson945 7 months ago
Comment removed
achilles197474 7 months ago
@awatson945 OK, name the mutations that make improvements in fruit flies. You won't because you can't.
achilles197474 7 months ago
@achilles197474 I will because I can. It's a bit more complicated than you suggest but they do exist. Further we have many examples or things like bacteria and mice. I will PM you the link but for anyone else following Google "hartnell superfly".
awatson945 7 months ago
Comment removed
achilles197474 7 months ago
Comment removed
achilles197474 7 months ago
@awatson945 "You can't and won't get a job in biological research without understanding evolution." Really? "In 2009, Lisanne Winslow was awarded a Fulbright Fellowship to teach and conduct research at the Misaki Marine Biology laboratory in the Konagawa Prefecture, Japan. Dr. Winslow investigated the immune system of three species of Asian Pacific sea urchin and their role as biological indicators of the effects of global warming and rising ocean temperatures." She rejects Darwinian evolution.
achilles197474 7 months ago
@achilles197474 I never said anything about accepting or rejecting "Darwinian evolution". Try again.
awatson945 7 months ago
@achilles197474 All I can find about Winslow and and evolution is a list of scientists who declare skepticism that mutations can account for the diversity of life. A: Evolutionists do NOT hold any such absolutist opinion (see genetic drift). B.) The list of biologists who accept evolution and are named Steve (or a derivation therof) is far greater than all scientist, regardless of field, who reject evolution.
awatson945 7 months ago
@achilles197474 AND, you ignore my fact: I said: "By your logic we could not use forensic science to solve unwitnessed crimes." That IS a fact and you ignore it because you either don't know how to answer it or you know I'm right. Inductive logic is the basis of science. We can't see atoms. We can't observe them. So, by your logic we don't know what the structure of atoms are. We can't see DNA. We can't observe DNA. By your logic we can't know the structure of DNA.
awatson945 7 months ago
@achilles197474 Actually, in instances of Hox gene duplication and instances of polyploidy we do see
new genes created. in the case of polyploidy we see entire copied chromosomes. And in proceeding generations, genetic drift, further duplication, deletion and myriad of other changes cause divergence between the copy and gene or chromasomes and their respective originals.
AcanLord 7 months ago
@AcanLord @achilles197474 What is testable is the impact of mutations over 1,000's of observed generations of fruit flies and it disproves your belief about mutations.
A.) Not true. B.) To the extent that evolution predicts the rate of chane in gene frequency due to mutation we have varified evolution. It is a fact.
awatson945 7 months ago
@awatson945
Wait, are you addressing me or achilles? because i agree with pretty well everything you said so far. what point are you addressing that i have said?
AcanLord 7 months ago
@AcanLord oops. My bad. It was achilles. :)
awatson945 7 months ago
@jasonscfr
Not only what A watson has said but the Kettlewell moth observation has been reproduced more than once under different (and better) observational rules and experimental design.
This is just a dumb attacking of the icons because this sort of selective pressure is done on fruit flies every single day in every genetics lab in the world. It;s trivial to do these sorts of experiments
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@jasonscfr thanks for the info. and that's so sad. they seem soo soo sure the way they teach us at school.
nefrinhayat 1 year ago
@nefrinhayat I know. Did you know in 1963 (the year the Bible was pushed out of schools and evolution was in) the FBI experiences a phenomenal increase in crime. Crime escalated 600% after that year. They say it's because kids are taught that they are animals so subconsciously they act like animals. Divorces increased shortly after that year, pre marital sex sky rocketed, and along with that so did diseases. It's sad.
jasonscfr 1 year ago
@jasonscfr - why are you making this up in the age of Internet when a quick google search "USA crime rates per year" reveals that the increase in 1964 was about the same as in 1963 and the year before? Total # of crimes in USA, 1963: 4.1 million; In 1964: 4.5 million. Less than 10%, that's a fact. You got "600%" from where? Bible? Did you know that majority of prison population (80%) in USA is religious?
FSMonster 1 year ago
@FSMonster That will soon be pretty much 100% of people in prison will be religious. Did you also know that many criminals also find Jesus while being in prison? These people had no where else to turn to and they found Jesus. That should answer your question as to why there are so many Christian or so called "religious" people in prison. I guess were not doing a good enough job, as a Christian I would like to see that percentage increase.
jasonscfr 1 year ago
@jasonscfr
So how come you conveniently left out the "600%" number you made up? No comments on that?
FSMonster 1 year ago
@FSMonster I want you to google this web page. "Americans Get What We Deserve". They have charts for every crime, disease etc... since 1963. You will find it phenomenal. Look at all the graph charts and than tell me otherwise.
jasonscfr 1 year ago
@jasonscfr
So you are not going to address the fact that you readily lie and make up numbers? Is that christian behavior?
FSMonster 1 year ago
@FSMonster What did I tell you? Watch the video I made just so you can see the 600% stats that I was talking about. It's on my page. You will find it.
jasonscfr 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Please show me where speciation results in an increase in genetic material as well as a new morphological feature/structure, that's what evolution would be.
micah1116 2 years ago
speciation doesn't have to involve adding bases. You really don't know what your actually debating against. It can be as simple as one amino acid change in the surface proteins on egg and sperm.
Thats been shown in coral and sea urchins many times
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago 2
Genetic Material doesn't usually increase, it uses what it has. That's why watermelons have longer information chains than us.
123Atheist 2 years ago
"Please show me where speciation results in an increase in genetic material as well as a new morphological feature/strucutre..."
One example would be the evolution of the polar bear from brown bears. U. maritimus have evolved a variety of features for arctic life including webbed digits and specialized structures on the foot for walking on ice.
But ignoring that example, why does evolution require either of those two criteria?
whitefox998 2 years ago
Speciation does not result in an increase in genetic material. Increase in genetic material is irrelevant. Change in genetic material is relevant, and speciation results from that, not causes it. Speciation results in an increase in the number of species, splitting a larger and more diverse population into two smaller less diverse populations which then continue to grow in different directions.
The new feature is that the two species are now distinct and can no longer interbreed.
rkyeun 2 years ago 5
In fruit flies (Drosophila) it's a female choice system. If the male doesn't do it for the female, she won't give him the go ahead. The female has to life her wings in order for him to copulate with her, so if he doesn't suit her, she won't accept. With enough genetic change (as happened with the maltose and starch popsulations - different adaptation in each) the female can start to recognize that a male is "different", which basically means, "he doesn't sing right" or "he smells funny"
i<3ev
riverjack24 2 years ago
by the way, the music at the beginning is the most exciting part of this video...
too dry I say.
riverjack24 2 years ago
yeah i'm guessing that's the excuse creationists use to deny evolution. Well the evidence is to dry, and my holy sky daddy is so much coooler.
kyebean 2 years ago
Comment removed
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
" one problem there's no evidence to support this hypothesis.the idea that chlorplasts and mitochondria both formed simultaneously and spontaneously is another magical leap"
There are quite similar to bacteria in a number of ways.
You'd also maybe be interested to know that cells don't need mitochondria or chloroplasts.vGiardia (a eukaryote protist) doesn't have any and does just fine.There are even cells within animals that have none
your move
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
without chlorophyll the variety of life we have could not exist . the conversion of sunlight into sugar supports the entire food chain . I was not insinuating that there are no living cells sans chloroplast .
I was commenting on the importance of it's role in all plant life . and it's sudden appearance.
bullviii 2 years ago
you changed subject when I backed you into a corner with regards to entropy. You see that complexity can come from other reactions running downhill and donating energy. My claim is that there is an external energy source and it is the sun and the sun is responsible for adding complexity and potential energy even though there is a net loss of energy.
This is very basic physics and is the basis for every reaction.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Hi,
thanx for this series of videos, i wasn't aware that there are evidence for speciation
regarding the fruitflies' speciation, matings between the maltose populations and starch populations DID not happen because they WOULD not or COULD not mate?
Thanx :)
tuftthewhale 2 years ago
Interesting fact about Wohler. He named two species of worms even though we wasn't a biologist.
Why? He found them growing in a wound.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
really good video!!! I actually learned a lot about speciation, thanks.
goodspelr 2 years ago
10:54 THE CAKE IS A LIE!
Katsuhisa777 2 years ago
Reticulate evolution is Kewl.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
I'm not sure if this is an accurate definition of the biological species concept. Ernst Mayr defines it as: "species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
"Reproductively isolated" doesn't seem to necessitate "nonviable offspring."
bandrewm 2 years ago
Over time it does, and that it is that effect overtime which is the essence of speciation.
DonExodus2 2 years ago 2
Yeah, that definitely makes sense, unfortunately that's not enough for the creationists...
bandrewm 2 years ago
you forgot the words "or potentially interbreeding" (after "interbreeding") in Mayr's definition. Just because they don't interbreed doesn't matter. If they have the POTENTIAL to produce viable offspring, then they are the same species too.
riverjackfinn 2 years ago
lions and tigers have produced viable offspring. they are not the same species. two organisms are different species when they are different enough that biologists give them a new name
ryanwtyler 2 years ago
We shouldn't pay too much attention to species and names. It's just the human nature to label everything. I think it's a side effect to language.
123Atheist 2 years ago
@ryanwtyler are such "viable offspring" fertile?
I do not know, But if they are not then arguably the offspring are not viable and separate species still exist.
This is not my field, I am just curious whether this applies.
marsCubed 2 years ago
If I remember the study properly, the offspring are sometimes viable in the first generation but break down in subsequent generations. Wikipedia for liger and tigon cover the matter in some depth, with relevant citations. Despite sometimes being viable, there are obvious barriers to reproduction that would merge the lion and tiger into the same species, and tigons and ligers themselves are incapable of breeding true. It's just a more elaborate version of the problem a mule faces.
rkyeun 2 years ago
and that they can't produce offspring with each other.
bouiglob 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ryanwtyler
"lions and tigers have produced viable offspring"
no they can't. the male liger is sterile.
pyr666 1 year ago
not necessarily. species is slippery like that.
Pelonetillo 2 years ago
Do you think you could add this to the "how evolution works" play list?
krzw92 2 years ago
more evolutionary fantasies from exodus
bullviii 2 years ago
Did you actually look at the papers?
MurderingCow 2 years ago
the textbook Advanced Biology. (Jones, M., and G. Jones. 1997. Cambridge University Press) The authors recount how from 1977 to 1982 there was a drought on one of the Galapagos Islands, and due to natural selection the average finch beak size became larger
bullviii 2 years ago
What does that have to do with anything?
dideoxynucleotide 2 years ago
the finches cannot be considered 'speciation "niether can cychlids they express the same radiation of forms in different geographic locations .
in other words built in variety within species
bullviii 2 years ago
So at what point does speciation occur? If you're arguing that speciation is a concrete distinction, that simply isn't true.
dideoxynucleotide 2 years ago
well that's the crux of the argument...how do we define "species " and has it occurred?
bullviii 2 years ago
Consider the visible spectrum. It starts at red, then orange, then yellow, etc. Now take a single wavelength from the yellow region and one from the orange region. The colors are easy to distinguish. But look at the entire transitional region between orange and yellow. Where does it stop being orange and start being yellow? You can't tell. Same with a species. You can't see speciation until you see two temporally isolated examples. No single transition point exists. Its a subtle gradation.
dideoxynucleotide 2 years ago
well... interesting analogy...and I understand fully the proposition.
ti just hasn't been observed now or in the fossil record .oh there are arguably transitionals in the record but the problem is transitionals are just as easily explained as unique species and more likely are .the idea that all life evolved from a single cell is a metaphysical argument
bullviii 2 years ago
"all life evolved from a single cell is a metaphysical argument "
___
I don't see how it's a metaphysical argument. To support that hypothesis no one would present metaphysical evidence(there is no such thing) or make claims that are non-material in nature or rely on unknown or multiplied forces.
Science is necessarily limited to material claims backed up by real world evidence a
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
ahhh, but it is a mystical claim . evoluitoary biologists will say the process is unguided random mutations filtered by nat. selection.that isn't supported by real world evidence . you
can claim it is,but claims aren't evidence.
my point is the idea that a single celled organism had some desire to be more .
as I've heard alluded to by many so called experts. or that an organism can
completly reorganize it's structure through an unguided mechanism is a
metaphysical leap ...
Kayxlivesxonxcoffee 2 years ago
I do not think not have I ever heard the claim formall put forth that
things like the advent of body plans or biochemical cascades are the result of a conscious choice
Perhaps you were confused by the fact that languages can add a tint of "agency".For example today my chemistry teacher said that "chlorine really prefers to form positive +1 ions." she did not mean to say that this was a concious preference on the part of an atom.See, languages anthropomorphize, it's well known
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
sorry I was logged in as my daughter , last time I posted.there's no confusion ,
I understand the subtelty of inference .
obviously i wasn't referring to the senario you describe .i have seen in docum. and in text the author will convey this idea of an organism striving to evolve ??I think it
natural to assume some guiding mechanism .but you see that is a metaphysical assumption . an innate desire to evolve...
bullviii 2 years ago
There's never been any evidence of conscious choice to evolve.t's a ridiculous idea, organisms aren't aware of evolution, just as humans really weren't until recently. Even so they can't control which of their mutant gametes will develop.
just because it seems comforting to think of preplanning doesn't make it so. I've never heard a scientist or educator talk of pre-planning or concious choice so I don't see why you're saying evolution is metaphysical because that just isn't science
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
I didn't mention evidence .I've seen and heard many references to that effect.that not withstanding
what I am saying is the notion that all species you see today are the results
of a stochastic process .one mutation having no relationship to the next is impossible. claiming evolution as a scinence or evidence based fact is philosophy .
bullviii 2 years ago
Would you care to find me a few references to anyone claiming that their view of evolution that they expouse is that species change because of wants and desires and internal drives?
Many people that believe that some deity guided, fertilized, watched over, or otherwise laid the groundwork for the ontogeny of species or humans in particular.This is a philosophical addendum to some people's view of evolution to reconcile it with theistic beliefs.Perhaps you were confused by that view?
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
no confusion here . the chances of the first living cell arising from anyhting known in physics or natural chemical processes are zero.if you want to ignore that out of an atheistic viewpoint, I can respect that .but don't tell me that you base your opinion solely on pure science.
bullviii 2 years ago
Excuse me: abiogenesis is not evolution or speciation.
Google "protobionts" they have many of the same properties of cells by just replicating the chemistry.
beyond that you're point is insipid.There was a "vitalist" creationism which was mostly universal that claimed that organic mmolecules could not be synthesized outside of living systems.
Then Fredrich Wohler, a chemist synthesized Urea( a component of urine).
So it's really not historically sound to make such conjectures.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
interesting that these imaginary prtobionts need a reducing atmosphere including methane to form. one problem there's no evidence to support this hypothesis.the idea that chlorplasts and mitochondria both formed simultaneously and spontaneously is another magical leap .denial of the obvious design in living cells and species is delusional .barn owls are very common where I live . they have echo location so acute they can catch prey in zero light .clearly the result of trillions of mutations.
bullviii 2 years ago
"interesting that these imaginary prtobionts need a reducing atmosphere including methane to form"
What's the problem? There are thousands of chemical reactions that produce methane including vulcanism.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
the early earth must have had methane on it ?why?because the scientists trying to generate life in a lab needed methane for thier experiment . there is no evidence for methane or amonia on the early earth .this is not science.sciences role is to describe what the evidence is . not manufacture evidence . this is philosophy
bullviii 2 years ago
You have heard wrong. Evolution has millions upon millions of facts supporting it, hence its classification as a theory. They are not simply claims. Organisms do not completely reorganize their structures to creates a news species. Rather, it is a slow, gradual process in which individual parts are changed. For instance, the bone that moved from the lizards jaw to the mammalian ear did not jump there in one generation, but slowly migrated over thousands of years.
anselmo666666 2 years ago
This has been shown in the fossil record. Viewing additional videos by DonExodus2 or others can give you the evidence. Transitional forms are indeed individual species but are not stand alone with no ancestors or continuations.
anselmo666666 2 years ago
How does accumalation of genetic differences lead to infertile offspring?? And what kind of genetic difference is it exactly ie no of chromosomes - how did this happen then?
alrubie86 2 years ago
I believe accumulation of genetic variation leads, not to infertility but the inability to breed with those who are not genetically close enough to them.
LaoGahn 2 years ago
The campbell reece biology book has a great example of allopatric speciation where ground squirrels just a few hundred yards apart on opposite sides of the grand canyon have dramatically different phenotypes. yet experimentally they can be hybridized into non-sterile offspring.
it appears that when a barrier reaches a certain point, even if not completely isolating, even a little blockage can cause divergence
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
>>>"What about a huge difference in size making copulation impossible? Would that be speciation?
____________
The term for that is "mechanical isolation"
sometimes the two individuals don't really realize it and you get what is unscientifically known as the "hotdog in a hallway effect" or "bowling pin tailpipe problem"
but it's not just genital size. For example some treefrogs use a sticky goo to stick eggs to leaves. Some sperm just can't penetrate the thick film so the divergence starts there
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
I don't think it would be strange. Again reading up on "Species" even on Wikipedia is really interesting. The grade school textbook definition of "Species" has some parts where it breaks in certain circumstances. The term "Species" is a problem for actual biologists to deal with, and the majority of people do not correctly understand the science behind it.
Gerafix 2 years ago
Sorry, Bottlenose Dolphins are in the family Delphinidae and in the genus Tursiops, while Pseudorca crassidens is in family Delphinidae, genus Pseudorca. There are many genera under the Delphinidae family, not all of them can interbreed.
Gerafix 2 years ago
"But can everyone in those two genuses (geni?) interbreed?"
The answer is no. You will never get an Orca ("Real killer whales") and Bottlenose Dolphin reproducing offspring, let alone viable ones (both are Delphinidae). I would recommend reading up on the taxonomic rank that is represented by the term "species." It is much more complex than just whether or not an organism can produce offspring (although that is one aspect).
Gerafix 2 years ago
It is called hybridization (read up on this term). "False Killer Whales" aka Pseudorca crassidens and the Bottlenose Dolphin are in the SAME family, they are both Delphinidae, they are in a different genus though. This is called intergeneric hybridization.
Gerafix 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
johnnyk2112 Jesus died for you
u need to accept him as your savoir to go to heaven
he offers eternal life and joy in your heart!!
what does evolution have to offer????
adrisan2006 2 years ago
A future for human understanding?
MilesB1975 2 years ago
It's merely the truth.
It's also something to shove in the faces of reality-challenged people such as yourself for fun times.
G0dmaster 2 years ago 2
haha, good sum-up :P
jamesmctosh 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
johnnyk2112 you are wrong believing in God is saying that he created all those theories and all basic kind of animal
wat if ur believe is not right and my believe is right you go to hell and i go to heaven with God!
but wat if ur believe is right, i die go nowhere thats it!!!
trust in the lord jesus christ he is real!!
theres proof that he was in earth
adrisan2006 2 years ago
lol
WillSKB88 2 years ago
Adrisan; There may be be proof that jesus was "in earth" , as you put it, but why should I believe what some guy, who lived thousands of years ago, say about anything? Especially some guy who said he'd forgive me for offending him, or he' d send me to be punished and tortured forever. Is that what youre offering? Don't you think that's kind of silly?
johnnyk2112 2 years ago 2
Extreme morphological differences like size sometimes serve as isolating mechanisms between populations living in sympatry.
inf0dump 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I strongly believe that
evolution is not true
God created everything
and im goin to heaven when i die
if u dont wanna have a religion
please believe that Jesus dies for your sin
Please
adrisan2006 2 years ago
adrisan, Please: that's like saying, " I dont believe in air of gravity...I don't believe in numbers of the moon...I don't believe in computers or the internet....ALL scientists around the world accept evolution.Sorry, we dont need Jesus....We dont need god...The bible is filled with contradictions and errors and your faith is built on human sacrifice and suicide..
johnnyk2112 2 years ago 2
It's also based on words, and as shakespeare said:
"These are but wild and whirling words my lord".
FOLLOW SHAKESPEARE, he died for our crappy literature so that Wordsworth may forgive us in Blake Eternity.
WillSKB88 2 years ago
lol
You'd better hope Allah isn't your God, there's a lot that you probably have to repent for is he is ;)
WillSKB88 2 years ago
I strongly believe I have 1 million dollars.
Poverty is not true.
Everyone is rich.
and I'm going to die a millionaire
If you don't want to have your money.
please give it to me.
Please
yuutokun 2 years ago
hahaha i laughed when i saw Kirk with the "but its still a bird" headline there cause i was showing a buddy of mine the articles about lizards developing cecal valves on the Pod Mrcaru islands or lizards evolving longer limbs in Arkansas to better survive the fire ant infested areas and he goes "they are still lizards though" :P
holywaterx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"BUT ITS STILL A BIRD!!!" combined with that picture!! haha briljant!! :D
Jimbo22111 2 years ago
Comment removed
Jimbo22111 2 years ago
Possibly, but I watched it on my iPod, so I can't view annotations. Well, glad you corrected it. Cheers
ashevm 3 years ago
Yep, speciation only occurs within "created kinds." Perhaps creationists could be persuaded that god made just three "kinds" -- bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes and all the evolution since has taken place within these. This would be a small start toward bringing them into the domain of rationality.
"BUT ITS STILL A EUKARYOTE!"
owlcowl 3 years ago
Great vid as usual. Allow me to correct you in a detail- in your biological concept of species, you point out that two species belong to the same species if they can interbreed and produce viable offspring. Well, they are only considered to belong to the same species if those offspring are fertile. See the horse and the donkey for example. Their offspring - the mule - is viable, but infertile, as the homologue chromosomes are unable to pair up during meiosis.
ashevm 3 years ago
Thanks, but didnt I make an annotation stating this?
DonExodus2 3 years ago
Don@
"Thanks, but didnt I make an annotation stating this?"
Yeah, that's what's up on my screen right now: The classic biological species concept: "viable offspring".
What's up ashevm? Did you watch the vid?
Keep it up, Don. Great work.
joemarklawson 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
THE EARTH IS 6,000 YEARS OLD.
Watergun858 3 years ago
i own a rock older than that
sbwsk8er 3 years ago
LOL...
annpetasupporter 3 years ago
Really?
Cnidarious 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I got one question for the evolutionists. Do you guys belive in Space aliens?
Yohani2 3 years ago
Why would you assume that all "evolutionists" would share a common opinion about aliens? You might as well ask if all "evolutionists" think Bush was a good president; fact is there will be varying opinions. I personally believe aliens exist; to assume that in our entire galaxy we are the only inhabitable planet is simply ludicrous.
HotbunsLalla 3 years ago 3
i do but that has nothing at all to do with evolution. its a matter of chance. with all the stars and galaxies we've found the chance of this not happening again are slim but what we need is to find planets. however technologically we haven't gotten to the point where we can see other planets like our own we have one technique where they look at a star and find a gravitational pull on it caused by a planet but they have to massive planets in close proximity to the star, like mercurey close....
sbwsk8er 3 years ago
Evolution"ist"?
Cnidarious 3 years ago
For the umpteenth time, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist" -- there are biologists who study evolution, just as there are physicists who study gravitation, but they are not thereby described as "gravitationists", as if this is some form of ideological commitment, like socialist or libertarian; or philosophical stance like atheism; or religious belief like Christian or Muslim. To employ the term "evolutionist" is to disqualify oneself from knowledgeable discussion of the topic. Sigh.
owlcowl 3 years ago 14
This has been flagged as spam show
evolving is bad? u know why? answer the next question: where is evolving going to? i mean whats the maximum point of evolution. we all see new tech all over the place in all domains...but all this "evolutions" leads us to becoming vegetables. we will end having tech that will teleport air in our lungs and teleport the crap from ass to toilet. we ll just stay like dead meat all day long.
floodinquier 3 years ago
NadNareek@
I had a graduate advisor who had studied the genotypes of wild Drosophila in "kabukis"? I can't remember the spelling, but lava flows isolate little islands of green, and can be accurately dated. These normally represent an unbridgeable gap to the little fruit flies, and he looked at parent and isolate population gene frequencies.
The point is that unless you have this type of well defined geographic barrier, you can never be sure when interbreeding stops.
joemarklawson 3 years ago
Cool vid, DonExodus2. As someone who is working on a doctoral thesis that deals specifically with speciation, I have one gripe, though:
Peripatric speciation is a form of allopatric speciation, and is not like parapatric speciation. Peripatric is simply when one of the allopatric populations is small and peripheral. Parapatric means the populations are directly next to each other with no serious barriers and often with some slight overlap. Broadly, para is everything between allo and sym.
EvoBiologist 3 years ago
...your description of peripatric speciation is a confounding of peri and parapatric.
Peripatric is allopatric, meaning geographic barriers exist. Parapatric implies that the barriers are not geographic. For instance, on white sands or lava flows, populations on and off may regularly come in contact on the ecotone while diverging (even with gene flow if predation is strong enough against hybrids). This wouldn't happen with allo or peripatry by definition.
EvoBiologist 3 years ago
///...your description of peripatric speciation is a confounding of peri and parapatric.///
Isnt that exactly what I said I was doing for time and simplicity? :P
Thanks though.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
Well, yes, you said that, but my point is that the three main geographic relationships for speciation are allo, para, and sympatry. Each of these terms refers to the amount of overlap. Peri is a subcategory of allo that refers to a completely different aspect (than geographic isolation): relative size of the two populations.
Confounding degree of geographic isolation (allo vs para vs sym) with relative range size (allo vs peri, para vs ?, sym vs ?) confuses instead of simplifying.
Am I wrong?
EvoBiologist 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there is no such thing as "observed speciation"
NadNareek 3 years ago
Yes, there is, NadNareek. We have observed to process happening in controlled lab environments as DonExodus points out (with references to the research).
This is by definition experimentally observed speciation.
EvoBiologist 3 years ago
"there is no such thing as "observed speciation"
Raphanobrassica
an allopolyploid species originated in a lab .. (IOW while we were watching)
it's a little older than my grandmother who's older than a 100
that's allopolyploid ...diff word
dancingnature 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Evolutionists can make all the bold claims they like, but in the end the best science can offer is: "Then a miracle occurs". There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on earth.
bitterchew 3 years ago
You are looking at modern day products of billions of years of evolution and being surprised that it's complex. Amazing. How would it not be complex? Again, if we proved that abiogenesis for life as we know it was impossible that would still not point to a supernatural cause.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Abiogenesis and evolution are separate fields of study.
No current hypothesis in abiogenesis science is suggesting that a fully formed cell just popped into existence from unorganized organic or inorganic materials...
You are misrepresenting the field of abiogenesis to better come to terms with your own predetermined conclusions.
Palantier 3 years ago
Really, my, some evidence came out just last week on it. It turns out that RNA can self replicate on its own. Guess what, this is the clincher, the original strain of RNA evolved into three mutants.
richi1173 3 years ago
bitterchew@
"thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event"
Isn't it amazing how robust the argument from personal incredulity is?
All that is required is an astounding ignorance of the nature of the theory, and you can refute it with thought experiments and blanket generalities!
To think I wasted all those years on book learnin' and research!
You ought to work on general relativity next. E=mc^2?... you don't see matter turnin' into energy 'round here!
joemarklawson 3 years ago
"There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on earth."
Do not make such claims unless you are a Biochemist and you are involved with research, It makes you look Freakishly Ignorant.
Cnidarious 3 years ago 3
Along the same lines as joemarklawson pointed out, google "liger" and/or "tiglon". Lions and tigers are able to breed, yet in the same manner of mules, the resulting offspring are infertile. For viable, fertile offspring, look into the mating of dogs and wolves.
Slotherder 3 years ago
Edit: Apparently genetics has won another one over in taxonomy :D Dogs and wolves are now the same species.
Slotherder 3 years ago
It's a good question; one that biologists still bicker about. The main problem is that biological relationships are so complex with so many variables. Of course, biology isn't the only field of science with these sorts of puzzles. Think of Pluto's recent demotion from official planetary member of our solar system to dwarf planet. Personally, I think biologists have been doing an excellent job in organizing the conceptual model for biological relationships.