Could someone answer a couple of questions about evolution, please?

Question

I have a two questions about evolution. Please understand that I am trying to understand the theory of evolution--not disprove it (Believe me, I know I don't have the knowledge to even begin to attempt that). I hope I can even explain my questions right.

First, have we ever seen a new species occur in nature? If so, what was/is it?

Second, if a species is defined as a group of animals that can reproduce fertile offspring, who does the first one of a new species reproduce with so that the species can continue? There must be some cutoff point where one female gives birth to offspring that is a different species. If that is the case, it would not be able to reproduce with any of it's predecessors. Or could it?

Not necessarily seen a new species within our lifetimes, but any time within recorded history. (is what I meant to ask)

Predecessors was the wrong word. I meant any other living relative, actually.

For example, I heard about a population of moths that had changed from black to white because the trees that are their habitat turned white due to acid rain. One wouldn't really be able to say that the white moths are a new species, because they could still reproduce with the black ones, right?

Tell me if I'm beginning to understand this: But take the white moths and go back 10,000 years and they wouldn't be the same species as the ones that lived then?

So, it's really impossible to say, "hey! a new animal!" It's that they are a different species than their ancestors of thousands of years ago?

Answer 1

Yes, we have seen examples of new species occurring in nature, and in the laboratory. These are covered in great (and somewhat technical detail) in my Source. But here are four examples:

a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

... As for your second question. No. There is never a cutoff point where a female gives birth to a member of a different species.

Yes, a member of a generation can always mate with one of its *immediate* predecessors (if generation A gives birth to generation B, A's and B's can still interbreed) ... but look at things over many generations A B C D E F G H I J K L M N.

A's can mate with Bs, Cs, Ds, and Es .. but it is possible that through enough accumulation of new genes (evolution), that A's could not mate with Ms or Ns. I.e. if an A mated with an N they would produce stillborn or infertile offspring. Are they different species? Hard to tell, since there's little chance of A's and N's actually meeting (as they are 14 generations apart).

But now imagine that a big drought happens and generation B gets divided into two sub-populations B1 and B2 (now caught on opposite sides of a desert).
B1 gives birth to generations C1 D1 E1 F1 ... M1 N1.
B2 gives birth to generations C2 D2 E2 F2 ... M2 N2.

Now the early generations would probably be able to interbreed ... so if E1s and E2s met, they could still interbreed ... IF they met.

But if they did NOT meet, and the geographic isolation was for many more generations, then the members of generation N1 (the descendants of B1), could not interbreed with generation N2 (the descendants of B2) even if they did meet.

At that point N1 and N2 are two different species! But both are descendants of the same ancestor species A.

And notice that at no point does any generation suddenly give birth to a new species. It is just a slowly aquired set of genetic differences in two genetically isolated populations. And also notice that once split into two species, they can NEVER become one species again (they will never re-aquire the ability to interbreed) ... if neither species goes extinct they can go on evolving away from each other ... and branching again, and again.

(Incidentally, this kind of speciation through geographic isolation is given the name 'allopatric speciation'. However, it of course takes a lot more than 14 generations for speciation to occur.)

Branching, branching, branching. That is the KEY to understanding evolution.

Answer 2

first question: seen it happen in nature, no not directly, i dont htink so. but new species are discovered every say

aesong question: there is no definate cutoff point. the transitions are somewhat of a grey area. the mother does not give birth to a new species, but rather a variation of her own. as more variants give birth to even more, the variants that move toward a different characteristic become a new species in whole. as for reproducing with its predecsors, they will all have long since died, as most evolutionary turns take thousands of years or more.

Answer 3

Your first question refers to "speciation", and yes, there are countless observations that have been made. My study of speciation is not extensive, but I have read of several hundred from journals (wish I could remember the names). From what I've studied, I made the following observations:

About half of all new species are man-made, and about half were naturally occuring (in a lab). Of those that were natural, about 80-90% of them were simple organisms, like bacteria, viruses and protozoans. Of those that were not simple organisms, most were plants or amphibians. Few of those naturally occuring were capable of reproduction, let alone able to find another like it to reproduce with (assuming it was other than asexual).

As far as I know, speciation has never been observed in mammals, and there is no such thing as speciation among humans. (I assume that this is because our tissues, organs and systems are far too complex and too interconnected. Changes are more likely to be destructive than viable.)

Your second question is a paradox, and I await a reasonable answer. As far as I know, this has never been "observed", it is only a difficulty with the theory.

Answer 4

None of your questions have something to do with evolution. they might desire to do with the beginning of the Universe. Theories of the particular beginning of the Universe don't have something to do with organic and organic evolution. besides, the Earth is under a third the age of the Universe and the preliminary circumstances of the Universe do not remember as long as they brought about the form of Universe wherein existence might desire to look. the visual appeal of existence additionally has not something to do with evolution, it might desire to have been spontaneous right here, planted by technique of an further -terrestrial customer in a spacecraft, drifted in on a meteor or been set up by technique of a supernatural being in an unique act. Evolution purely gets going whilst there's a inhabitants of organisms. Q1. the internet capability of the Universe has presently been expected as 0. If it is actual, the internet mass of the Universe is likewise 0. So there is not any conflict with the 1st thermo. regulation. in spite of everything, your assertion isn't extremely maximum suitable. Mass isn't destroyed to any significant quantity in mechanical or chemical procedures. besides the undeniable fact that it interconverts from radiation to mass and lower back with gay abandon in nuclear and severe capability procedures. Q2. The stuff approximately entropy is a load of codswallop. that could be a chunk of classic misdirection by technique of creationist liars. that is actual that remember can't self-organise in a closed device, it fairly is, with out enter of capability. however the Earth, on which organic and organic evolution is an occasion of self-business enterprise, isn't a closed device. The solar pours capability onto the Earth on the linked fee of a pair of Watt in line with sq. meter. Q3. i'm not likely to attempt to respond to this because of the fact i don't have the physics.

Answer 5

It's not as clear cut as that at all, for 2 reasons.
It takes an unimaginable ammount of time.
The changes, or mutations, are too subtle to percieve from the point of view of a single human lifespan.

Answer 6

1. my landlord evolut from very nice when I first moved in, to very very mean now that I can't pay my rent on time


2. it wont' be a different species, it'll be alittle different from the first is like a wolf don't give birth to a dog, it give birth to a less evil wolf, a kind wolf, then slowly the wolf says wolf wolf and becomes a dog

Answer 7

there have been no new species just small variations in already existing groups....