Sign in to follow this  
lucaspa

Observed Speciation

Recommended Posts

This is a resource page for anyone who engages anti-evolutionists. It is a list I have compiled from the literature of observed speciation, both in the lab and in the wild. It is not by any means complete. There are hundreds more references out there:

 

General

1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.

2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."

3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

 

Chromosome numbers in various species

http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

 

Speciation in Insects

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.

2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.

Lots of references in this one to other speciation.

3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.

4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.

5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.

6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.

7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.

34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

 

Speciation in Plants

1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.

2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1

3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization

4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."

7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).

10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).

11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).

12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).

13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).

14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

 

Speciation in microorganisms

1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.

2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

 

New Genus

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.

 

Invertebrate not insect

1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.

2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

 

Vertebrate Speciation

1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000

2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414

3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992

5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have

originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle

Ages[3].

[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.

[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.

[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.

7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,

W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

 

Speciation in the Fossil Record

1. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely find fossil record.

2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals

 

Overkill

20. Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

21. Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

24. de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

25. de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

26. de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

27. de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

28. Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

 

42. Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

43. Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

44. Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

45. Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

46. Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

47. Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

48. Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

49. Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

50. Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

51. Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

52. Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

53. Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

54. Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

55. Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

56. Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

57. Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

58. Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

59. Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

60. Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

61. McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

62. Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

63. Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

64. Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

65. Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

 

67. Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

 

68. Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

69. Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

70. Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

71. Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

72. Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

 

21. Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in _Epilobium angustifolium_

(Onaagraceae)", _Evolution_ 21:713-719

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome

count, from the original stock.

 

23. Kaneshiro, Kenneth Y. Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual selection

appears to play an important role. BioScience. V38. P258(6) April, 1988.

24. Orr, H. Allen. Is single-gene speciation possible? Yes. Evolution. V45. P764(6) May, 1991

25. Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.

26. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

27. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two methods for speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

 

30. Wright, Karen. A breed apart; finicky flies lend credence to a theory of speciation. Scientific American. V260. P22(2) Feb, 1989.

31. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation leading to speciation in Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

 

32. Barton, N.H. Hewitt, G.M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones (includes related information) Nature. V341. P497(7) Oct 12, 1989.

 

34. Coyne, J.A. Barton, N.H. What do we know about speciation examples?. Nature. V331. P485(2) Feb 11, 1988.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would you like to explain wut each one means? cuz u seem to like posting this on a lot of forums...

http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?p=45248#post45248

http://www.christianforums.com/t79954&highlight=speciation

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=877&page=5

http://darwintalk.com/message-board-forum/about222.html

 

Some were made by u...another was made by a vajradhara...just posting things without explanation is worthless...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the efforts; I wish that more of them were links. Is there a pfc site where most would be available?

 

Could this be added to the Welcome Creationist thread, I wonder?

 

Why not promote the page for the anti-evolutionist themselves? They may find the information instructive.

 

Edited:

Or have you already done that? I am not familar with the fora mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

 

That was the only one I can goto n I already could tell u its biased...

Definition of species...In biology, a species is, loosely speaking, a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring...

Then I will tell you this, if you take a sperm of one "species" of dog and a egg from one "species" of another dog, you will produce viable offspring, as my parents are both breeders it is possible. I do not consider it speciation because they can in essence be breeding and have viable offspring...Will they be good looking or smart and such I doubt it but artificial selection is fake in essence cuz a dachshound should never be that long should it? It would enver survive in nature...oh well...

 

I am too lazy to research everyone of them or would I know everyone of them...so thats it from me lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you weren't lazy, you'd note that only *one* of the *many* papers above deals with dogs.

 

If you're going to make a half-assed attempt at defending a POV, don't even bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a resource page for anyone who engages anti-evolutionists. It is a list I have compiled from the literature of observed speciation, both in the lab and in the wild. It is not by any means complete. There are hundreds more references out there:

 

 

Just wondering if there are any places where reprints are available for the articles you cite. It's a great resource list, for sure. But I'd actually like to read some of the articles, and I keep hitting up against the "pay $30 for 24 hours of access" firewalls.

Any suggestions? Is there a compilation of articles anywhere? That would be extremely helpful.

I don't like to just cite materials I haven't actually reviewed myself.

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a university or college nearby? Often, you can find these articles in their libraries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have a university or college nearby? Often, you can find these articles in their libraries.

Or getting access to the online database by virtue of logging on through a university computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys - just a question. If a wolf is mated to a dog, will their be viable offspring which are not sterile? If the answer is yes, can we define the wolf and the dog as different species? Hate to be awkward but I really have to know this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys - just a question. If a wolf is mated to a dog, will their be viable offspring which are not sterile? If the answer is yes, can we define the wolf and the dog as different species? Hate to be awkward but I really have to know this.

 

Well Jimmydasaint I think we have enough data to explain how speciation occurs. The answer to your question is 'No' and I am not a biologist and I don't know when the wolf and dog diverged from their common ancestar. I think Natural selection had already introduced a species barrier to prevent the wastage of gametes. If any populations produce inferior offsprings by mating with other populations of different allelic frequencies then natural selection will introduce a species barrier due to the above reason. I think species is very fundamental to evolution.

 

Guys - just a question. If a wolf is mated to a dog, will their be viable offspring which are not sterile? If the answer is yes, can we define the wolf and the dog as different species? Hate to be awkward but I really have to know this.

 

Well Jimmydasaint I think we have enough data to explain how speciation occurs. The answer to your question is 'No' and I am not a biologist and I don't know when the wolf and dog diverged from their common ancestar. I think Natural selection had already introduced a species barrier to prevent the wastage of gametes. If any populations produce inferior offsprings by mating with other populations of different allelic frequencies then natural selection will introduce a species barrier due to the above reason. I think species is very fundamental to evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a wolf is mated to a dog, will their be viable offspring which are not sterile? If the answer is yes, can we define the wolf and the dog as different species?

Yes (dogs and wolves can interbreed), and no (dogs and wolves are not different species). Dogs have recently been re-categorized as Canis lupus familiaris, i.e. they are subspecies of the wolf.

 

A better question: Since wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce viable offspring, why are wolves and coyotes considered different species? The answer is that

  • The inability to produce viable offspring definitely means that two populations are distinct species. The converse is not necessarily the case.
  • Populations that occasionally interbreed and produce viable offspring (e.g., wolves and coyotes) can still be considered distinct species if such interbreeding is rare. Wolves are much more likely to kill coyotes than mate with them.
  • The species classification is merely a label applied by us humans because some humans (*cough* scientists) can be very obsessive compulsive. When a wolf confronts a coyote, the wolf does not think "Ahh, Canis latrans". The wolf either sees a competitor for a meal or smells an opportunity for a quickie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just wondering if there are any places where reprints are available for the articles you cite. It's a great resource list, for sure. But I'd actually like to read some of the articles, and I keep hitting up against the "pay $30 for 24 hours of access" firewalls.

Any suggestions? Is there a compilation of articles anywhere? That would be extremely helpful.

I don't like to just cite materials I haven't actually reviewed myself.

Regards.

 

 

The articles in Science you can find in your local public library, because they all carry Science. Or, if you really like science, I suggest you become a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science -- you get a subscription to Science as part of your membership.

 

Otherwise, like iNow said, you will probably need to spend a Saturday in a university or college library and do some photocopying.

 

An alternative is to Google using the title of the paper in quotes. Many scientists now are putting up PDFs of their papers on their websites.

 

[*]The species classification is merely a label applied by us humans because some humans (*cough* scientists) can be very obsessive compulsive. When a wolf confronts a coyote, the wolf does not think "Ahh, Canis latrans". The wolf either sees a competitor for a meal or smells an opportunity for a quickie.

 

Species are NOT a label. Species are the only biological reality. Genera and higher taxa are labels applied by humans for groupings of species.

 

As I've stated before, there can be no precise definition of species because evolution happens. Since populations transform from one species to another gradually over dozens, hundreds, or thousands of generations, you will always be able to find populations in the midst of the transformation.

 

The biological species concept is: "Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups." (Mahr 1942)

 

Reproductive isolation is also a gradual process. It doesn't mean non-fertile, but means that individuals do not interbreed, even if they could produce fertile offspring. As you noted, coyotes and wolves simply don't view each other as mates. Below are isolating mechanisms:

 

"Classification of Isolating Mechanisms

1. Premating or prezygotic mechanisms: Mechanisms that prevent interspecific matings.

(a) Potential mates are prevented from meeting (seasonal and habitat isolation)

(b) Behavioral incompatibilities prevent mating (ethological isolation)

© Copulation attempted but no transfer of sperm takes place (mechanical isolation)

 

2. Postmating or postzygotic mechanisms:

Mechanisms that reduce full success of interspecific crosses

(a) Sperm transfer takes place but egg not fertilized (gametic incompatibility)

(b) Egg fertilized but zygote dies (zygotic mortality)

© Zygote develops into an F1 hybrid of reduced viability (hybrid viability)

(d) F1 hybrid is fully viable but partially or completely sterile, or produces deficient F2 (hybrid sterility)" Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is pg 171

 

Guys - just a question. If a wolf is mated to a dog, will their be viable offspring which are not sterile? If the answer is yes, can we define the wolf and the dog as different species? Hate to be awkward but I really have to know this.

 

Will a wolf and dog voluntarily breed in the wild? If not, then we can define wolves and dogs as different species. It appears that such interbreeding occasionally takes place, but not very often. Here is an article:

http://archonline.bio.bg.ac.yu/VOL58/SVESKA%204/06.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
would you like to explain wut each one means? cuz u seem to like posting this on a lot of forums...

 

Each one is showing reproductive isolation: the populations do not interbreed and, when they do, their offspring are not fertile.

 

Definition of species...In biology, a species is, loosely speaking, a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring...

 

The biological species concept says nothing about "related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form" BSC states:

 

A species is a group of individuals fully fertile inter se, but barred from interbreeding with other similar groups by its physiological properties. (producing either incompatibility of parents, or sterility of the hybrids, or both). (Dobzhansky 1935)

 

Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups. (Mahr 1942)

 

What you seem to have done is combine the biological species concept, phylogenetic species concept "more or less distinctive form", and a weird form of the evolutionary species concept "related organisms" into one.

 

"Then I will tell you this, if you take a sperm of one "species" of dog and a egg from one "species" of another dog, you will produce viable offspring, as my parents are both breeders it is possible."

 

The dog paper was looking at genetics. I would ask you parents if they have successfully mated every breed of dog.

Specifically, have they mated breeds from the different species described in the paper? Artificial insemmination does not count.

 

The genetic analysis says that this may no longer be possible. Most people that breed dogs do so only within a few closely related breeds. I have not heard of anyone breeding a Great Dane with a chihuahua or daschund, for instance. Do your parents do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are references to scientific papers that have observed speciation/evolution.

That's a razor's edge you're treading.

 

Observed similarities in form tell us nothing necessarily about descent. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

And there is a vast difference between two lines of the same organism no longer being able to reproduce with each other and one form of Life changing into another, different form of Life.

 

No one's ever seen -- nor will see -- either abiogenesis or newer, more complex forms of Life arising by only random, natural processes. But we have always and only seen Life arise from the same kind of Life (or its programs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one's ever seen -- nor will see -- either abiogenesis or newer, more complex forms of Life arising by only random, natural processes.

 

 

No one claimed that we have.

 

But we have seen new species appearing.

 

Let me repeat: WE HAVE SEEN new species appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be a huge double standard from creationists.

 

Believe in the bible, purely because some superstitious people wrote it thousands of years ago.

 

But don't believe in evolution of new species, even though the evidence is set in stone over millions of years. (and not by a man)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this