Observing the Origin of a new Species...

With apoligies to Charles Darwin.....

Allowing for the fact that it takes a new species x amount of years to develop.

Would it be possible to observe the starting point of a new species?
Lets say, a new set of male and female Homo Sapiens.
Would the Astro/Cosmo-nauts that experienced 'flashes of light', from cosmic rays be good candidates?

What would you have to look for? wait for?

The practice of grafting plants creats new species, does it not?
But it doesn't seem to take forever with plants...A year, five, ten?
Does this mean that plants are not as complicated as us?
Because we cannot communicate with plants or animals, Whose fault is that?

Could a person, so affected 'know' or 'feel' that they were special?
Would it be sudden or gradual?

As a sidebar........
My wife and me have been to the top of Mt Washington in New Hampshire, where some Scientists held tests with timing muons?
Does this mean that we could be candidates? For evolutionary change?

What it would be like!, If my wife and me could change our mass to energy and thought!

What glories would lie ahead?
What pitfalls would lie ahead?

Does the act of death create a new species?

It is getting late for this nite worker, and I need to regenerate.
Be good, Be safe.......chendoh

[hallenrm]

It would be really difficult to say if any organism that you observe is a new species or its a progeny of an old species. The theory of evolution is the greatest hurdle. Scientists would be much more reluctant to give the status of a new species

Can someone count the characteristics that would make a species to be called new?

I for one, can think of the following:

A species that is not based on DNA with ATGC code.

A species that has a much larger proportion of elements other than Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Oxygen.

It's an interesting question indeed!!

[CraigD]

What constitutes a species – that is, the precise rule by which we can determine that 2 individual animals are not “of the same species” – is, I think, imprecise and used differently by different people in different disciplines at different times in history. For example, Alexander Bell expressed concern that human beings with heritable deafness might for a “separate human subspecies”, because of the tendency for deaf people to socialize, marry, and breed with other deaf people, even though no one then or now would expect deaf and hearing human beings to be genetically different in more than a few critical genes. (A distinction at least some deaf people, if this blog can be taken as representative, are not unhappy to embrace) On the other hand, biologist frequently classify species with nearly indistinguishable external appearances by differences in their typical behaviors and abilities much more slight than the ability hear.

Because species distinctions, whether based on external appearance, habitat location, genetic analysis, cohorting, or other factors, involves a somewhat arbitrary choice of characteristics by the person making the distinction, vagueness appears unavoidable.

Given that speciation is a matter of degree, not a discrete datum, one trait comes to my mind as a good standard for determining species boundaries: the ability to breed – that is, for at least 2 parent individuals to produce one or more new child individuals containing some genes from each parent. Although the genetic data that determines the mechanics of reproduction in a species is only a small part of the total genome that determines nearly every physical feature of the animal, it’s very critical to speciation, and, being small, can in principle change quickly. Two animals may have nearly identical physical characteristics, behaviors, and genetic information, but be unable to breed due to a minor change in reproduction related genes, while two animals ordinarily considered being of different species, may have very pronounced genetic differences, such as different numbers and length of chromosomes, yet be able to breed, because these genes are either similar, or functionally similar. For example, lions and tigers can interbreed (apparently only in captivity), although they have different numbers of chromosomes (lions 36, tigers 38). Pig and tigers, although they both have 38 chromosomes, cannot.

Families like the cats reveal a lot, I think, about the mechanics of speciation. Although nearly all of the cat family genus panthera can interbreed, and many share habitats, no such breeding appears to occur in nature. Being competitors for the same resources, and having recognizable difference in appearance, the different cat species appear to simply not like each other, and therefore refrain from breeding, producing the distinct species.

Originally Posted by chendoh

Would it be possible to observe the starting point of a new species?

With the preceding example in mind, I think the answer is yes – though the starting point may be un-dramatic, and the speciation still gradual. A species who’s individuals are aggressive toward individuals outside of their tribe or family to the extent that they almost never breed outside of it would appear to be such a start.

There appear to be many speciation mechanisms, some biological, some social/behavioral, some physical and gestational. For example, although genetically similar, small and large cat species can be bred. Even if successfully artificially fertilized, the size difference usually makes it impossible for such a hybrid to survive to birth. This suggests that a significant speciation mechanism involves species becoming geographically isolated, and adapting to new environments by becoming dwarfs or giants, even after the dwarf/giantism trait has disappeared from the population.

Would the Astro/Cosmo-nauts that experienced 'flashes of light', from cosmic rays be good candidates?

AFAIK, nearly any person with normal vision who’s exposed to high levels of cosmic rays will experience the “flashes of light” phenomena chendoh describes. Given the small number of people who travel to high mountains or outer space, and the very small possibility of such radiation creating heritable genetic change (germline mutation), I pretty certain the answer is “no”

Could a person, so affected 'know' or 'feel' that they were special?

Because speciation appears to occur only due to reproduction, I don’t think so. Among nearly all animals with high cognitive functions, juveniles feel “special” and different from adults, so any difference they might feel as a result of gradual or sudden speciation would likely be very small. Given the penchant among many animals to kill atypical offspring, the feeling of being a new species is likely to be a very brief one.

My wife and me have been to the top of Mt Washington in New Hampshire, where some Scientists held tests with timing muons?
Does this mean that we could be candidates? For evolutionary change?
...
What it would be like!, If my wife and me could change our mass to energy and thought! …
It is getting late for this nite worker, and I need to regenerate.

Taken altogether, I think this last quote is pretty clear evidence that chendoh really needs some sleep!

[ErlyRisa]

DID u know that their is evidence that thier is less incidents of cancer in high cosmic ray mountainous ranges (or higer altitude)....

ie their are more incidence of cancer in LA and NY than in colorado.

-maybe constant background radiation 'stabilises' any rapid changes the body tries to make.?

--an interesting study could be undertaken comparing Tibetens.

-seperate species? - well I wreckon if the Chinese (Japanese ++) would have evolved in more of a segregated petri dish they would already be 1000yrs ahead of us. ...it's thier history of segregation and societal strucure that spawned thier apparent 'higher' abilities.
the indians (non-waring persians to the left) that also have 'hihger' traits.

-Us Euro's were a bit more of a mishmash, with a very dynamic history - which spawned our overall 'hihgher' trait -> curiosity.

*its the women of our species (and in may others) that are the stabilisers and accelerators toward overall evolutionary change, via societal/communal change. eg. soccer mom vs. -> the rest.

--so it's the overall structure of the society that spawns generative change....eg. the West vs. the third world. -> or tribes.

--so do U feel different... to for example an Aborigine of Australia?

--Abo's of australia have changed in under 50yrs.... what used to be common traits amongst them (big noses for smelling, shortness for agility/energy convservation, large flat feet, etc etc) are all pretty much dissipating, new abo gen's look pretty much western. (and are very attractive)

--Chinese/Japanese -> Japan's door heights have been slowly raising in the last 40 years, what used to be average is now very short., they are also now somewhat more muscular, and also rounder (italian pot) and women have started to grow larger breasts.


Proof to the pudding ... genertive change occurs ALOT faster than we presume, observing the animal kingdom outside of not observing our own evolution is probably what has developed this type of physche.

--The cuttle fish - all they need to evolve to become even more intelligent is to change thier societal structure. -just like the chimps did when they first started brooding around the fire.

--The real question is... what kind of change in structure, gives rise to certain traits?
-eg. if we were to want to go X, what kind of structure should the society organise in, to help further thier offspring to be capable of going X.

First of all, I would like to apologize to the pilots of the X-Plane, The Asian, Indian (in about five years) space-farers, and any others that plan on challenging Space-Time, for omitting them in my thoughts.

Gentlemen:

I thoroughly enjoyed your replies, to have a species based on something other than Genoms?

Originally Posted by hallenrm

It would be really difficult to say if any organism that you observe is a new species or its a progeny of an old species. The theory of evolution is the greatest hurdle. Scientists would be much more reluctant to give the status of a new species

Agreed

Originally Posted by hallenrm

Can someone count the characteristics that would make a species to be called new?

I for one, can think of the following:

A species that is not based on DNA with ATGC code.

A species that has a much larger proportion of elements other than Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Oxygen.

Let say, Murcury and Copper….Would that make you a Changeling?

So far scientists have only found a hundred or so elements.
What if? there were 200, 300, a 1,000?

Is our share of the ‘brane limited to these 100, 150 or so? (109, 112 comes to mind)
Does each creation of a ‘Universe’, increase or decrease the amount of elements acquired?

We'd need a binder wouldn't we?

Originally Posted by hallenrm

It's an interesting question indeed!!

Originally Posted by CraigD

Taken altogether, I think this last quote is pretty clear evidence that chendoh really needs some sleep!

And on that note, I will address CraigD & Erlyrisa tomorrow.
Goodnight, All.........................................

[ErlyRisa]

Yeah well we have theorised about silicon based organisms -- but aren't we creating them right now? -silicon chip?

I for one don't belieive that we are living in a membrane, from my veiw piont I beilive the universe (which I believe is the only one) is set to not only create life via carbon, but create the physical laws via some very rudimentary principals. - these principals, which I call the 'algorithm' aka GOD, define all action, between existance and existance itself (their is no interaction b/t nothing and something)

-so as for copper organisms - nope not in my view.

--but as for an entity outside the evolutionary chain that has spawned us? well - didn't OUR evolution spawn the silicon chip? -the next intellignece will be a quantum qubit, after which hopefully it realises how to exist as part of the universe it self. --or alternatively, we as in us carbonites could wait untill our own conscience determines how to exist as a part of the universe.


***The dinosuars are extinct, because the algorithm saw how they only provided a 'stale mate' evolution.*** --if we don't make it, the cuttlefish are next inline. --anyone waiting for impact?

[Ganoderma]

a grafted plant is not really considered a new species...in fact it is a clone of a plant put on a different rootstock.

I think the biggest points are "What is a specie" and if you want to consider evlution and its mysteries.

people may say that all mammarilia (sp?) cacti are of one species or of many....this debate has gone on forever.

I think the start of a new species is likely a varietion and a different environment in which it needs to adapt to. why do plants seem quicker to adapt? perhaps because they reproduce faster than us? perhaps because they do not need to move much...they just sit and collect water, or die.

Take a look into cacti taxonomy, for example, and you will see that no one really has a full understanding of any of it...

Originally Posted by Ganoderma

a grafted plant is not really considered a new species...in fact it is a clone of a plant put on a different rootstock....

I'm not sure. I know I will be looking into that

Originally Posted by Ganoderma

I think the biggest points are "What is a specie" and if you want to consider evlution and its mysteries.
people may say that all mammarilia (sp?) cacti are of one species or of many....this debate has gone on forever.

I think the start of a new species is likely a varietion and a different environment in which it needs to adapt to. why do plants seem quicker to adapt? perhaps because they reproduce faster than us? Perhaps because they do not need to move much...they just sit and collect water, or die....

That's rather callous isn't it?

Originally Posted by Ganoderma

Take a look into cacti taxonomy, for example, and you will see that no one really has a full understanding of any of it...

I will look.

Originally Posted by chendoh

Does the act of death create a new species?

Why doesn't anyone want to tackle this?
I sure think it does!
This is where the period of one's awareness folds with ancestors past, present, and future into a wedding of the sublime.

And to think all I wanted to do is go to the bathroom, that's what woke me up; check the forum, then go back and regenerate.
Oh well.......

Originally Posted by CraigD

Taken altogether, I think this last quote is pretty clear evidence that chendoh really needs some sleep! ...

Chamu`se.....chendoh

[Ganoderma]

honestly i do not understand what you mean by this: "Does the act of death create a new species?"

is it leaning towards afterlife, god, rebirth etc???

what do you mean by i seem calous? just curious, i am just offering suggestions towards the reasons why plants seem quicker to adapt/evolve into new species. that f course does not take into account microscopic organisms, insects etc which may evolve in a matter of days. lets compare mammals to say cacti. cacti are very hardy and can likely survive being transplanted half way accross the world. they would likely adapt to the new situation. mammals (not counting humans as we kind of cheat) taken half way accross the globe may be harder to find their specific foods nests etc etc. but others such as rats/mice evlve rather easily...mayeb thats why we see so many variations in mice and rats, is that perhaps one thing you could look at for the beggining of a specie?

[ronthepon]

Perhaps you could say that there are 'ecotypes' of the same species, a term which implies sub-populations having certain 'special features' that differentiate the members of the population from the rest of the memebrs of the species.

Take the Ladakhi people, who happen to be native to a place at an altitude of 11000 feet. These people are obviously genetically better suited to living in high altitudes. (A link in the direction) I've been there for three years, and I swear that even months of acclimitation did not allow my body to work as well in that environment as theirs.

But you cant call then a separate speceies, can you? Yeah, their population is the definite outcome of 'evolution', but it's stuill not 'speciation'.

Perhaps reproductive isolation can become a better marker of actual speciation.