Birth of new species witnessed

On one of the Galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young Charles Darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.

birth of new species - wired

Do you think that was "designed" as well?

On one of the Galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young Charles Darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.

Seems to me, they witnessed microevolution.

Do you think that was "designed" as well?

Still looks like a bird to me.

[hr]

This still doesn't explain where that lemur came from...



[hr]

When scientists are able to witness non life turn into life, or witness cat turn into a dog, or a nose somehow that was up front move to the top of the head...when scientists witness something actually worth their name in a published article, you let me know...





[edit on 17-11-2009 by Solofront]

This was put there by God to test our faith in him.

Originally posted by Solofront
Seems to me, they witnessed microevolution.

Did you even read the article? Also, remember this is precisely what the idiots from discovery institute et al say can't happen.

When scientists are able to witness non life turn into life, or witness cat turn into a dog, or a nose somehow that was up front move to the top of the head...when scientists witness something actually worth their name in a published article, you let me know...
[edit on 17-11-2009 by Solofront]

Would you admit that *if* scientists are right and the world really is 4 billion years old, that "microevolution" in your words could lead to macroevolution given enough time?

Misleading title.

The thread and articles title leads one to believe there was a birth of a new species.



These birds are still able to reproduce and yield fertile offspring. Hardly an indicator of separate species.

[edit on 11/17/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by xelamental


Can the birds still mate? I mean the new birds produced at the hands of evolution.

Take a look at my old thread here about this:

www.belowtopsecret.com...

Anyone who's read my posts in this forum knows I accept the principle of evolution by natural selection as true. Speaking as a Darwinian, I must say I find this article distracting and unhelpful.

The truth is that the main taxonomic ranks, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species, are not separated by rigid boundaries. Whether two animals are conspecific or belong to different but closely related species is to some degree up to the zoologist who classifies them. An emergent species is always going to be closely related to the one it 'budded off' from--to expect a bird to turn into a lemur is idiotic--so there will always be room for argument.

This is not to say that taxonomic ranks are as elastic as the supposed distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', which is so fluid it's best described as drippy.

Originally posted by Solofront
When scientists are able to witness non life turn into life, or witness cat turn into a dog, or a nose somehow that was up front move to the top of the head...when scientists witness something actually worth their name in a published article, you let me know...

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Solofront]

You obviously don't even know what evolution is. It does NOT involve one species turning into another species over the course of a single lifetime. When two populations of a species are separated and cease to procreate with one another,especially when their environments differ, members of one or both groups will eventually be born with modest improvements. If these improvements provide a slight advantage with regard to survival and reproduction, their owner will live to pass on his good genes.

This post has seemed to spark the same old evolution vs creationism debate, but either way in my opinion it is an interesting find

Originally posted by Solofront
Seems to me, they witnessed microevolution.

Given that the division between "micro" and "macro" is completely nonexistent, you're agreeing with the statement of the OP.

When scientists are able to witness non life turn into life, or witness cat turn into a dog, or a nose somehow that was up front move to the top of the head...when scientists witness something actually worth their name in a published article, you let me know...

In other words, when htey witness something you made up off the top of the heap of ignorance you consider your knwledge of the subject at hand?

Yeah. How 'bout you call us when you find that foreskin-hating genocidal self-fathering jewish freak that lives in the sky. Then we'll talk

reply to post by xelamental


Damn you beat me to posting this, grrr

Well i don't think evolution actually needs any more proof. It is an established theory, with no better one suggested and has stood the test of time. When new sciences like genetics and various dating methods came into existence they just kept on supporting the theory.

This to me isn't the clinching moment of proof of evolution because speciation has been observed before and the fossil record is more than enough proof. It is however a nice extra club to bash the creationists with

Originally posted by Solofront
When scientists are able to witness non life turn into life, or witness cat turn into a dog, or a nose somehow that was up front move to the top of the head...when scientists witness something actually worth their name in a published article, you let me know...

None life into life? That is abiogenesis, not evolution, why do you creationists get this wrong so often? Cat turn into a dog? This isn't possible as they are two very seperate branches of the evolutionary tree. Also you would need literally hundreds of thousands of years for such drastic stages as millions of little steps need to be taken. Sudden massive changes like the creationists want to see simply don't happen as any such drastic change would mean the resultant animal would be to genetically different to breed.

Originally posted by JPhish
Misleading title.

The thread and articles title leads one to believe there was a birth of a new species.

These birds are still able to reproduce and yield fertile offspring. Hardly an indicator of separate species.

[edit on 11/17/2009 by JPhish]

What? Lol if new species couldn't produce fertile offspring then how could they continue the species? Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm...... Are you sure you thought this through?

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by xelamental

 

Can the birds still mate? I mean the new birds produced at the hands of evolution.

Look at the reply I made right before this one.

2nd line.

Originally posted by xelamental
Would you admit that *if* scientists are right and the world really is 4 billion years old

First of all, no one knows for sure how old the earth is, it could very well be 4 billion years old...it could be 6k years old, it could be 10 billion years old.

that "microevolution" in your words could lead to macroevolution given enough time?

No I won't admit it, any 5 year old could tell you that m.e. will never lead to M.e.
When someone is able to observe the naturalistic manipulation of dna you let me know

Originally posted by andrewh7
You obviously don't even know what evolution is.

You obviously like to jump to conclusions...

It does NOT involve one species turning into another species over the course of a single lifetime. When two populations of a species are separated and cease to procreate with one another,especially when their environments differ, members of one or both groups will eventually be born with modest improvements. If these improvements provide a slight advantage with regard to survival and reproduction, their owner will live to pass on his good genes.

So your saying my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandparents are lemurs?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Given that the division between "micro" and "macro" is completely nonexistent, you're agreeing with the statement of the OP.

ok...?

In other words, when htey witness something you made up off the top of the heap of ignorance you consider your knwledge of the subject at hand?

...right...and it's not ignorant to tell me we're cousins of monkey's, lemur's, and chances of randomness...

Yeah. How 'bout you call us when you find that foreskin-hating genocidal self-fathering jewish freak that lives in the sky. Then we'll talk

...GREAT!!, you are open minded about a "foreskin-hating genocidal self-fathering jewish freak that lives in the sky," now if only you could apply that open-mindedness to the topic at hand and the possibility that maybe a design requires a designer and a creation requires a creator.

...and why again, are you defending a group of "scientists" who you don't even know?

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Well i don't think evolution actually needs any more proof.

You mean m.e. right? We have plenty of proofs of that, and you know what, we can even OBSERVE that type of evolution naturally!!! = science

It is an established theory

M.e. ... yes, it is an established theory, and only a theory.

with no better one suggested and has stood the test of time. When new sciences like genetics and various dating methods came into existence they just kept on supporting the theory.

...carbon dating...lol

This to me isn't the clinching moment of proof of evolution because speciation has been observed before and the fossil record is more than enough proof.

You mean the same fossil record that includes Polystrate Fossils...?

It is however a nice extra club to bash the creationists with

You see...this is what's wrong, no group should be "bashed" at all, simply debate, thats it, no hating, no name calling...ehm "TheWalkingFox" just debate and provide facts and opinions when needed.

Geeze I swear I'm talking to my lil cousins, lol

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
None life into life? That is abiogenesis, not evolution, why do you creationists get this wrong so often?

"Labels" mean nothing, tagging indiviuals with labels solves nothing,

Cat turn into a dog? This isn't possible as they are two very seperate branches of the evolutionary tree. Also you would need literally hundreds of thousands of years for such drastic stages as millions of little steps need to be taken. Sudden massive changes like the creationists want to see simply don't happen as any such drastic change would mean the resultant animal would be to genetically different to breed.

All I'm asking for is, proof of naturalistic manipulation of dna...

Thats it, then I'll leave, lol j/k


Again, I wonder why pro-Macro evolutionists resort to name calling and hatred amongst the oppostion, don't they have jobs, or a school to attend or something...?

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Solofront]

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Solofront]

It's called speciation. Separate species ARE able to make and produce offspring, but not fertile offspring.

In this case, differences in size, beak shape, and vocalization (behavior) are enough to warrant a new species, instead of a subspecies differentiation. In this case, the two groups seem to not mate with each other, and there are probably enough genetic differences in place for these to be two different species. This is an example of allopatric speciation.

The wiki on speciation can be found here: en.wikipedia.org...
If you are interested in biology and/or evolution, I highly recommend becoming familiar with the processes of speciation.

reply to post by DaMod


www.ratbehavior.org...

Some species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This article did not specifically say if the birds can produce fertile offspring or not. This link provides some examples of species that can interbreed:

Canis species: Domestic dogs (Canis familaris), wolves (Canis lupus, Canis rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) can interbreed and produce fertile offspring:
Evidence for domestic dog DNA in wild Siberian wolves (Vila et al. 2003)
Evidence for domestic dog DNA in wild coyotes (Adams et al. 2003b).
Evidence for red wolf-coyote hybridization (Adams et al. 2003a); Northeastern coyotes may be the product of hybridization between Canadian wolves and Western coyotes.

Cichlid species in Lake Victoria are extremely variable, displaying 500 color morphs. The species are isolated through mate choice, which is determined by coloration: mates choose each other by color pattern. However, in recent years, human activity has caused the water of Lake Victoria to become cloudy. In these areas, the cichlids can't differentiate between species. In these cloudy areas, bright color morphs have disappeared and the fish have become similar and dull in appearance through hybridization (Seehausen et al. 1997).

For the record. The article makes it sounds like they can interbreed. It defines these birds as Incipient Species.

www.biology-online.org...

A group of a particular species that are about to become genetically isolated from the rest of the species, perhaps due a geographical barrier, though at this time can still reproduce with other groups of the species before their gene pools become too distinct.

There you have it.

reply to post by Solofront


In terms of primate evolution, you're a tad off.

Here is a very very basic phylogenetic tree. This is how we zoologists study the history of speciation and evolution.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9ddae7da25bd.jpg[/atsimg]

It's about common ancestors, not cousins.

The earth is also estimated to be around 4.5 billion years old.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

And, in addition, carbon dating is pretty darn accurate. It's better than any guessing that you could do, I imagine.

Draw a line down the center of that image, and in nature we have everything to the right...everything to the left is conjecture.

I too was taught that, remember, just because we are taught something, or it makes the most "sense" doesn't neccassirly mean it is correct, there very well may be some truth in everything.