The Truth of Evolution

[axeplayer]

Hello everyone. I'm not sure if this has been brought up before in the forum, so if it has, forgive me. But I was wondering if any of the evolutionists out there could answer this question for me......do you know of any truths that exist in the theory of evolution? In other words, is it purely based on speculation and the combination of completely different fossils to make it look like gradualism? Or is there actually truth to it?

[youngborean]

Evolution is "change over time." So, of course this is evolution. Creationists call it microevolution, and accept it as fact. Aside from that, you've made some errors here. "Species" are defined as being unable to interbreed. In the case of the French and N. American dung beetles, their morphologies are so wildly different that they would not recognize each other, and their parts would not fit together for mating. It's a common misconception that transplanted species can interbreed with other species in the locations to which they have been moved, but it doesn't work. This misconception underlies a lot of the anti-GMO arguments as well--I've seen written statements that genetically-modified trees will "pollilnate with trees and other species" in the forest, and thereby destroy the forest ecosystem. "Other species"? Like squirrels?

To be fair I think a lot of distinctions were made early in this discussion to confuse the matter here. Evolution is Change over time. But the mechanism should be nailed down. For instance, the mechanism of polyploidy in various plants was put forth as a justification for speciation. This is change over time, however it is highly accelerated and does not have a corresponding mechanism outside of the plant kingdom. If the mechanism being proposed in the animal kingdom is mutation and selection then we should be relegated to basic genetic systems when talking about types. Certainly, species could arise by choices in practical breeding, which is what I think I am hearing in your example Jose. But for a real "species" in my mind to arise, the gametes would only match up with matching gametes of the same type. The cells in isolation would no longer pair with the previous beetle and would pair and make vaible offspring with its own type. I we could share examples on this basic genetic level it would clearly justify the model that is being proposed. Basically what I am asking is, "Is there evidence to show that the 2 species of beetles could no longer reproduce even in vitro?" Because, otherwise it would be similar to Miget/Giant mating in humans. Alleles would still line up, but they are seperated by numerous environmental factors.

[Chem]

A horse and a zebra are two different species, yet they can still produce fertile offspring....

Probably due to the fact that each has an even number of chromosomes- zebra has 44 while a horse has 64 so homologous chromosomes can match up (I'm sure Jose can give you a far better explanation). But as with previous postings, the information is slightly askew as most of the offspring cannot reproduce. There has been instances of (female) mules reproducing but these have been very few. There is no record of male mules reproducing. This point doen't prove anything. In fact it strenthens the case for the genetic basis of evolution.

[USIncognito]

I'm just going to mention ring species and salamanders. Well just that and California. I'll leave it up to other interested student to do their own homework.

[AlAyeti]

Question. If the same kind of beetle or bird has a number of individuals that seperate from the collective or group and form mating habits and behaviors different from the original condition, how does that qualify as evolution?

Are they a different kind of lifeform?

Are the beetles observed becoming little mammals and are the birds observed becoming something other than staying birds?

Aren't they still beetles and birds?

A crow can't mate with a dove (or doesn't have the desire) and a beetle doesn't party with ants. But they are still the within their same species or genus. No?

[jwu]

I suppose you're referring to the Biblical "kinds". Could you define that term?

But they are still the within their same species or genus. No?

Not the same species for sure, and there also is quite more than one genus of insects and such. Besides, the evolution even of a new genus has been observed:
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.


Besides that the evolution of something entirely new out of e.g. beetles has not yet been observed in full and directly, as that simply takes too long. There are other ways to demonstrate that this happened in the past though, for instance by finding exactly the right fossils which one would expect for such a case in the fossil records. E.g. the evolution of a land animal to whale is well documented, as is the change from reptiles to mammals or from dinos to birds.

[axeplayer]

A dung beetle native to France was introduced into both the North America and Australia. That is, dung beetles from one population (in France) were carried thousand of miles from their place of origin and set loose on two separate continents (North America and Australia). The three populations of beetles, all originally from France, diverged. They became different over time. The dung beetles in North America and the dung beetles in Australia, which both started out in France, now look different from each other. And both look different than the dung beetles in France. Do you get the drift? One population yields two populations that are physically different from each other and from the original population. What happened here? What’s it called? I’ll let you fill in the blank. It’s called _______________.

ok, you obviously didn't see my last post, so i'll explain it again. The dung beetles that look differently from one another are not the original dung beetles that were brought to the continents. They're the offspring of the originals. The French dung beetles mated with the american and australian dung beetles to produce an interbreeded population of dung beetles. If you gathered a group of, say, 200 single caucasian north americans, and shipped them off to japan, and told them "do what you want", wouldn't it be likely that at least half of them would reproduce with a Japanese partner? according to you, that would be evolution. but it is not. and here's where I fill in the blank........What happened with the beetles? What's it called? It's called reproduction.

[AlAyeti]

jwu: "Not the same species for sure, and there also is quite more than one genus of insects and such. Besides, the evolution even of a new genus has been observed:
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.


Besides that the evolution of something entirely new out of e.g. beetles has not yet been observed in full and directly, as that simply takes too long. There are other ways to demonstrate that this happened in the past though, for instance by finding exactly the right fossils which one would expect for such a case in the fossil records. E.g. the evolution of a land animal to whale is well documented, as is the change from reptiles to mammals or from dinos to birds."

"Formed by artificial selection." Nothing artificially "created" proves soemthing happened by random chance. That's one minus one equals plus seven. Why" Because I placed nine things BEFORE I took away two.

Doesn't "formed by artificial selection" mean, designed? It certainlymeans artificially selected. No?

More than one genus of insects? There not still and only insects? Are any of them changing into mice or some other kind of similar sized other-than-an-insect creature?

Isn't timeframe problems an excuse? Especially since the lab can
"artificially" reproduce and create?

Is there not design in whales and mammals? Their similarities certainly seem to have been put there to work best in the environments in which they exist. The bone structure similarity to a bear paw and a dolphin fin do the same thing the same way only in different environments. They hold up the animal when they are moving. A huge earth mover and a compact car certainly look different but are similarly shaped by design for a similar purpose.

Just asking. And I do not mean "kind" as in Biblical. Evolution does not find its greatest adversary in the Bible. And neither does empiricism. Evolution seems to cringe at empirical doubt. Although the word "kind" as in Biblical is 100% accurate to the subject matter here.

[ST88]

ok, you obviously didn't see my last post, so i'll explain it again. The dung beetles that look differently from one another are not the original dung beetles that were brought to the continents. They're the offspring of the originals. The French dung beetles mated with the american and australian dung beetles to produce an interbreeded population of dung beetles. If you gathered a group of, say, 200 single caucasian north americans, and shipped them off to japan, and told them "do what you want", wouldn't it be likely that at least half of them would reproduce with a Japanese partner? according to you, that would be evolution. but it is not. and here's where I fill in the blank........What happened with the beetles? What's it called? It's called reproduction.

Maybe you didn't notice the actual response to this assertion, so I will repeat it. These dung beetle species do not interbreed. For evidence of this you need only look at the fact that they are morphologically different. If A reproduces with A, then you would expect A offspring (barring mutations). On the other hand, if A breeds with B, eventually you would end up with an all-AB population. There are many different native species in Australia. If they could have inter-bred in the millions (sorry, thousands) of years they co-existed in the same area, then we would not expect to see different species at all. Instead we would expect that they all inter-bred with one another for all if this time, and they would all look about the same.

This is Onthophagus auritus, native from Adelaide to south Queensland.

This is Onthophagus australis, native from Victoria to south Queensland.
You will notice they are morphologically different. That they (and many other species) appear different indicates that they have not inter-bred when they could have.

Imported dung beetles from other areas of the world have reproductive behaviors that a similarly exclusive. Like mates with like (otherwise there would be no morphological differences between species). There is nothing about the importation of these beetles that would cause them to abandon this particular reproductive strategy and inter-breed with another species, let alone behave this way in two separate locations -- if this were even physically and chemically possible. In fact, one species of dung beetle was considered inadequate for the project because of the difficulty in breeding it. If they could have inter-bred with another species, this would not have been a problem.
History of importation of dung beetles into Queensland between 1966 and 1986

Dung beetles are not a single species world-wide. There are over 1500 separate species. One should not expect that they would be able to inter-breed any more other species.

[Chem]

Question. If the same kind of beetle or bird has a number of individuals that seperate from the collective or group and form mating habits and behaviors different from the original condition, how does that qualify as evolution?

Exactly because of their different habits and behaviours. Over time the two populations will seperate and won't interbreed due to the differing behaviours. Humans are different in this respect in that if the mating ritual for example, is different this (in most cases) will not put off the prospective partners.

In the animal kingdom the situation is that if the prospective mates do not understand each others mating ritual then how can they mate. It has been observed with species of duck where a male was brought up seperately to its own species. The upshot of this was even when the female ducks were throwing themselves at him, he only had eyes for females of the species that had reared him. Unfortunately enev if he could mate the offspring would not be viable. Of course the above is not evolution but does provide an indication of what might happen under the circumstances.

[Chem]

[url]http://tiger_spot.mapache.org/Biology/species.html[/url]

This link gives a very quick over view of the use of mating rituals and other effects that lead to speciation.