Have scientists ever observed one species of animal being born from another species of parents?

Question

To be more clear:

Has there ever been a species (like Homo sapien) observed to be born from parents that are of another species (like Homo [any non-sapien])? Does not have to be of the genus Homo.

If it has not been directly observed, does science currently feel strongly that this is possible?

If it is possible, how likely is it for the offspring to have babies, or live?

Great point coolestguyever21!

That is what I was looking for.

Can anyone disput his point? He says this is the only thing holding up evolution. In my mind, it is the most important thing that evolution HAS to prove!

It comes down to microevolution vs macroevolution. Micro has to do with a species evolving within the species... that is FACT! However, Macroevolution has to do with whether or not one couple of species can give birth to another... and that is the focus of this question.

Have scientists observed Macroevolution? It is easy to extrapolate Microevolution and say that proves evolution... however, that is only if the "hurdle" of Macroevolution is proved to be even possible.

I am not saying it has not been observed or it is impossible... I am simply asking out of ignorance if it indeed has been observed or if it has been deemed possible?

Thank you coolestguyever21 for helping me clarify my question! Please answer along these lines!

Thank you for your input!

jonmcn49, your answer, while welcome, sounds very incomplete and seems to dance around the issue.

It raises more questions than answers.

POPULATIONS EVOLVE, NOT INDIVIDUALS? How can a population evolve if an individual does not?? Populations are made up of individuals. Individuals Microevolve! However, have they every Macroevolved??

That's the question, but your answer does not address it.

If two members of a species cannot have an offspring of another species, MacroEvolution cannot occur! Why, because the offsprings of a population of species will always be of that species, therefore the population will never contain any other species.

Do you see the logic in that statement?

Please address those concerns.

Answer 1

This question is the only thing holding up the theory of evolution.

There has never been a species of animal that gave birth to another species of animal. There are plenty of examples of cross breeding within species (dogs, cats, humans, equine, etc.)

Answer 2

> Have scientists ever observed one species of animal being born from another species of parents?
Yes, but only in cases in which the zygote or embryo was implanted artificially.

(I am not thinking about crosses such as the liger or mule).

> Have scientists observed Macroevolution?
We have observed results of long term isolation and millenia of selection. We extrapolate Macroevolution from these observations.

> How can a population evolve if an individual does not?
Allele frequencies within a population change. That is evolution. Individuals do not evolve. This is real life, not pokemon. Get your nose out of your Gameboy and read some biology books.

> If two members of a species cannot have an offspring of another species, MacroEvolution cannot occur
You're way off base. Two wolves give birth to a wolf that's a little different from them as a result of a point mutation. That wolf is successful in life, and has children of its own -- that are a little bit different. A lot of little differences, with a few mutations, some isolation, and selection for certain traits, can add up to a big difference. A mini-dachshund is not a wolf -- but its ancestors several thousand years ago were.

Answer 3

You have completely misunderstood the evolutionary process. POPULATIONS EVOLVE; NOT INDIVIDUALS. Only in the unicellular are you going to see speciation; their generation time being that fast. Evolution is not linear, but more like a sprouting bush. So, you have the whole population evolving; no missing link. It is not only possible, but the fossil record and the genetic record have shown it happening. If you could live long enough, you would see it. Go here for further explanation.

http://www.talkorigins.org

PS The first answer is totally off base!!

PSS the following answer completes the idea that needed no completion; to the educated. INDIVIDUALS DIE!!!!!! ONLY GERM LINES GO INTO THE NEXT GENERATION!!! ONE GERM LINE ONLY CONTAINS A SMALL PART OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS UNFOLDING INTO THE NEXT GENERATION!!!! THIS IS WHY POPULATIONS EVOLVE: INDIVIDUALS DO NOT!!!!! I hope by e-yelling at you that I can break through your illogical verbosity and get you to educate yourself. Your argument is in fallacy!

Answer 4

Dogs produce dogs. Every dog we see today is a mutt. They breed dogs to get desired looks or characteristics, but it's still a dog. I bet a wolf and a great dane and any one of those little ankle biters all share a common ancestor, and i'll bet it was a dog. Imbreeding will eventually diminish the gene pool and some dogs will no longer be able to mate with some other dogs, but they are still dogs. New genetic material is never added, it's always a loss, therefore you will never get anything other than a dog. Macroevolution will never be observed or proven because it simply can not happen. A dog cannot produce a non dog. Even a mutated dog will not produce a non dog, it's a loss or a mix up of genetic information that is already there, you never gain anything new.

Answer 5

Not that I know of. I mean, I'm sure people have tried to impregnant either themselves or get an animal pregnant from human sperm, but I don't think that is moral and would not be observed by scientists.
I do know the facination of a human and an animal making life, but I think it's more gross to people that facination.
I do know that there have been observation of humans being abandonned or went missing that lived in the wilds with dogs, monkeys etc that did survive, however they were not documented very well. Most parents who found the abandonned child or child who went missing/lost, said the child was found with wild animals, unable to speak, and did not like clothes. Ferel children. Look more into it, it's interesting.

Answer 6

One of my favorite subjects is science. I like to keep up with new discoveries of fossils, or other evidence of evolution taking place from one species to another. So far though, each time scientists have found a missing link or evidence that one species became an entirely new species, they later refute it. Then another piece of evidence crops up. It's been going on like this for what seems forever. They definitely do find evolution occurs within individual species though. That much they agree on.

Answer 7

enable me remark on some factors: first you stated that we the human beings progressed from monkeys, properly we and monkeys progressed from a specified relative. you stated ethical dispositions, properly ethical values and helping others progressed by way of time via the outcomes of training, social ties, and sympathy. you will locate that for the time of historic past, i'm no longer asking you to seem further interior the previous primitive circumstances, as an occasion what might you experience if we organize to construct and carry a gladiator section! evolution is consistent with performance, this concerning your remark on dropping some valuable characteristics, it would be great if I relatively have oxygen storage features to apply as quickly as a year to take a dip interior the sea! We regard evolution as a theory subjected to dis-data and we are very humble to no longer say something is absolute actuality!

Answer 8

I am not absolutely sure I understand the question but I once heard of a skunk being mated with a cat and having live offspring.