Question:
When is a new species counted as a new species?
Jack
2015-09-25 05:25:44 UTC
Very often we have examples of evolution where you see one species and 10,000 years later it has evolved into another.
And I think that throws people off. Evolution is an extremely slow process. It takes a lot of time.

Lets say we have an animal that climbs tress for instance. The individuals with longer nails, better grip can get a hold of more food and therefor they survive. 10,000 years later we have a completely different species that maybe even lives in the trees and they are the relatives of the first species.

But if we go back to that first species. When has evolution gone so far that it can be counted as a completely different species?

I'm not biologists but I live in the south. I often hear creationists ask where the species in between are. I often tell them this example with the claws and I say that today they look like this. Then 300 years later their claws are a little longer, 1000 years later the arms have changed so that they are more muscular and so on and so on. It's not like one species gives birth to another. It's tini, tiny changes over time constantly.

But when is it a new species?
Eight answers:
OldPilot
2015-09-25 05:39:58 UTC
The most common definition is: Two creatures are different species, if they cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring.



But, biology is "messy," so sometimes we cannot draw sharp lines, the lines blur. Ring Species are an example. A can breed with B. B can breed with A and C. Normally we would say that A, B, and C are all the same species, but nature throws us a curve, C cannot breed with A. C has drifted through isolation too far from A. This occurred because B is in a physical location between A and C and breeds with both. C rarely comes in contact with A, so it has drifted just enough from A that it is just genetically different enough from A that they cannot breed.



This, BTW, is a classic example of the slow drift from one related species to another as predicted by evolution. B is a living "Transitional Species" between A and C. Something the Creationists claim does not exist. Imagine if A, B, and C were extinct and we could find fossils of A and C, but no fossils of B. The Creationists would claim there was no Transitional Species between A and C, no "Missing Link."



You can GOOGLE "Ring Species" and read about the southern California salamanders.
?
2015-09-25 07:20:56 UTC
A species is defined as a group of organisms which does not naturally interbreed outside the group such that the offspring are both viable and fertile.



Some of the terms in that definition require some explanation:-

- "naturally" is required because it is possible to trick different species into interbreeding artificially



- "viable" is required because the interbreeding of some groups may result in deformed offspring or offspring which die during embryonic development



- "fertile" is required because some species can successfully interbreed but their offspring are infertile (for example the interbreeding of lions and tigers)



So all that it takes for two new species to form from one "parent" species is for the two groups to stop interbreeding. This would basically take place due to some mechanism which separates the two groups which then evolve separately. Separation may be due to one of several reasons such as being cut off on an island or by the gradual formation of a mountain range. But it can also be behavioural and in this circumstance can be very rapid.



This form of separation is often seen in insects. As an example, let's say there is a butterfly which lays its eggs on a particular plant. When the eggs hatch, the caterpillars eat the leaves of this plant and later as butterflies they will return to this same plant to find a mate and lay their own eggs.



Now let's suppose that a butterfly makes a mistake and lays its eggs on the wrong plant. All its offspring would become fixated on the wrong plant, find mates on that new plant and no longer meet butterflies on the original plant. This behavioural separation would almost instantly produce a new species.



The next time creationists ask where the species in between are, just reply that as evolution is happening all the time, every generation is "in between" the one that came before and the one that came after. Change is constant although the speed of change can vary enormously.



If an animal the size of a mouse grew in each generation by such a small amount that a human wouldn't notice a change in his whole lifetime, that mouse-sized creature would evolve to be the size of an elephant in just 60,000 years (the merest moment in life's 3.5 billion-year history). And no-one can say that an elephant-sized animal could breed with one the size of a mouse - not even a deluded creationist.
andymanec
2015-09-25 09:19:10 UTC
Strictly speaking, two different species are unable to reproduce with one another and produce fertile offspring. In reality, there's a lot more gray area. Most things in biology aren't that cut-and-dry... we try to place everything into neat little categories so we can more easily study them, but it's not always perfect, and can often be arbitrary.



If you're looking at two different populations living at the same time, it's a little easier. If they can interbreed, they're the same species. If they can't, then they're not. Of course, there's still a gray area - sometimes they can interbreed, but with lower chances of success, and sometimes they can interbreed and produce offspring that are sometimes fertile (mules, for example).



If you're looking at two different species separated by time, then it gets a lot trickier. It basically comes down to a judgment call, since dividing a continuous, gradual change into distinct segments is fairly arbitrary. It's also complicated by the fact that we're never completely certain that a given fossil is a direct ancestor to another species. It could just as easily be an offshoot of their lineage that went extinct, or later veered off on a different evolutionary path. The evolutionary tree isn't as strict as a family tree - it's more a description of where, when, and how different traits appeared, and the general course of evolution.
CRR
2015-09-25 05:52:11 UTC
About 100 years ago, bird-biting mosquitoes called Culex pipiens entered the tunnels then being dug for the London Underground (the ‘Tube’). Cut off from their normal diet, they changed their habits to feed on rats and, when available, human beings. During WW2, they attacked Londoners seeking refuge from Hitler’s bombs. Their plaguing of maintenance workers may be the reason the underground variety has been dubbed molestus.



British scientists have now found that it is almost impossible to mate those in the Tube with the ones still living above ground, thus suggesting that they have become a new species1 (or almost so). This has ‘astonished’ evolutionary scientists, who thought that such changes must take many times longer than this.



Informed creationists have long pointed out that the biblical model of earth history would not only allow for the possibility of one species splitting into several (without the addition of new information, thus not ‘evolution’ as commonly understood), but would actually require that it must have happened much faster than evolutionists would expect. The thousands of vertebrate species on the Ark emerged into a world with large numbers of empty ecological niches, often as varied as the two worlds of our mosquito example here. They must have split many times into new species in the first few centuries thereafter, as the bear population, for example, gave rise to polar bears, grizzlies, giant pandas and more. The observations on these underground mosquitoes are thus exciting news for Creationists.

http://creation.com/brisk-biters
?
2015-09-25 05:38:15 UTC
10,000 years is not nearly long enough to produce a new species. Most domestic dogs have been separated from the main gene pool of wolves for well over 10,000 years but no new species has emerged. It is recognised as a new species when it is no longer genetically compatible with the species it emerged from and can no longer produce offspring
Cal King
2015-09-25 07:01:54 UTC
There is no set time table for the appearance of a new species. According to the well supported theory of punctuated equilibrium (PE), most of the evolutionary changes we see in living organisms occur during the time when an existing species (or in most cases a small population of an existing species) gives rise to a new species. According to Eldredge and Gould, the authors of the 1972 paper proposing PE, the process happens relatively quickly, well within the ~5,000 year resolution limit of the fossil record. Once a new species evolves, it changes little, if at all, until it becomes extinct, to be replaced (or not) by a descendant species that is clearly different but also clearly closely related to it. In fact, the evolution of humans supports PE, as our ancestor, Homo erectus, first appeared in the fossil record about 1.8 million years ago. It changed very little over the entire lifetime, until it became extinct about 70,000 years ago, about the same time that Africans migrated out of Africa to occupy the rest of the world. Homo sapiens evolved about 150,000 years ago in Africa and the earliest skeletons are identifiable as modern humans. Of course there are some minor changes since modern humans first evolved, such as the flatter and broader faces of East Asians, and the shorter limbs and rounder torsos of cold-adapted populations like Eskimos and Northern Europeans, but these differences are not enough for a new species to be recognized.



As Eldredge and Gould point out, the old idea that evolution occurs gradually over a long stretch of time is not supported by the fossil record, and most scientists agree. Nevertheless, exactly how quickly a new species can arise is still under debate. Some suggest that it may take only a few hundred or a few thousand years, but others disagree. We do know that some new species have evolved since the end of the last ice age, which happened about 13,000 years ago. For example, 13,000 years ago, Death Valley in California was a large glacial lake. Yet today it is one of the hottest places on earth, with a small fish, known as the desert pup fish, having evolved to adapt to the hot temperatures. That means the desert pupfish evolved only within the last few thousand years at the most.



As to exactly when a new species should be recognized, scientists often disagree. People who read the scientific literature often come across disputes as to whether an island population should be classified as a different species because of minor differences from mainland populations. Many scientists also categorically reject the subspecies concept and they try to eliminate it by either lumping existing subspecies together or they split them into different species. Such intolerance is more ideological than scientific. Therefore many scientists disagree and continue to recognize the subspecies. Putting aside difficulties with the Biological Species Concept (BSC) when dealing with asexually reproducing organisms, most scientists do accept the BSC, which states that a species is one or more populations that actually or potentially interbreed, and they are reproductively isolated from other populations. The reason for that concept is that it fits what we observe in nature. Even though there is no one around to jail or executive individuals that mate with individuals from other species, most individuals in the wild simply refuse to do so. If you go to a duck pond, for example, you see ducks of the same species pair up, but you won't see individual ducks belonging to different species pair up. The same is true in a forest filled with different species of birds. They won't cross species lines. The reason for animals to be so reluctant to mate across species lines is that each species is superbly adapted to a particular way of life. For example, there are ducks that dabble and feed in the shallows, and there are diving ducks that feed below the surface. If two species adapted to different ways of life were to mate, then their descendants would be somewhat intermediate. A duckling with a diving duck mother and dabbling duck father may not be able to dive or dabble well enough to stay alive. If so, then natural selection would eliminate these hybrid ducklings. That means individuals that do not observe species boundaries will end up leaving fewer or no descendants at all. That is why many species have evolved ways to make sure that individuals recognize each other as the same species before they agree to mate. The different songs and plumages of birds are ways to identify individuals of the same species.



If each species is adapted to a particular way of life, then why do new species evolve? The reason is that individuals of the same species all have the same needs. As the population nears the limit the environment can support, competition for survival becomes fierce. One way to stay alive is to start exploitin resources that are new. For example, when the ancestor of Darwin's finches first inhabited the Galapagos Islands, they all ate the same thing. But as the population grows, some birds were probably forced to start eating different things to have enough to eat to survive. To eat different foods, a bird may need a new kind of bill. For example, a seed eater may need a short and thick bill to crack nuts, and a nectar feeder may need a long thin bill to drink the nectar. Even though the original birds that started eating a different food may have the wrong bill shape. Because of the absence of competition on that island, these individuals can get by for the time being until mutations happen through chance to make their bill better suited to processing the same food. Such a mutation would have been eliminated if the birds was still eating the old food, but it is most welcome when the bird has started eating the new food. This and other mutations that change the bill to suit the new food will then be welcomed, and they will spread. IN this way some individuals of an old species can be well on its way to becoming a new species. All that it needs is some way to avoid interbreeding with the old parental species to preserve these new adaptations. So, if a mutation changes the song or plumage of these individuals, they can be considered a new species, since they no longer interbreed with the old one. IOW, they have become a new species under the BSC.
?
2015-09-27 18:36:43 UTC
species evolve at a very fast rate, and climate change is speeding it up.

read on sciencedaily.com
DrJ
2015-09-25 08:04:04 UTC
CRR comments on your question. You might think he is a biologist with expertise in evolutionary science. You would be wrong. He is a Young Earth Creationist Engineer... not even a scientist.



Le't see what he says, and then DISPROVE IT WITH HIS OWN STATEMENTS. "informed creationists have long pointed out that the biblical model of earth history would not only allow for the possibility of one species splitting into several (without the addition of new information, .." NOTE: WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF NEW INFORMATION .... THAT IS NO NEW MUTATIONS OR NEW GENES. Why go to this contorted explanation? Just to deny descent through common ancestry and maintain CRR's belief without evidence that life on earth has existed "A little over 6,000 years" https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20150914234607AAbr2O3 . And then stopped using it when I pointed out what Pasteur felt about people of CRR's ilk: "religion has no more place in science than science has in religion" ... "In each one of us there are two men, the scientist and the man of faith or of doubt. These two spheres are separate, and woe to those who want to make them encroach upon one another in the present state of our knowledge! " http://tinyurl.com/ka82anb



added: Your source CRR? Creation.com CRR? LOL Really? Look at their website and "about us" : "Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history." Note "credible answers" not accurate answers or answers based on evidence or factual answers or answers based on peer-reviewed scientific papers, but "credible" answers for Young Earth Creationists. It's pseudoscience and has no credibility. http://creation.com/about-ushttp://creation.com/about-us


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...