Evolution Observed

[Sunstone]

New Species of Galapagos Finch Observed Evolving

Some folks like to claim evolution has never been observed. But the recent discovery of a new, fast emerging species of Galapagos finch upsets that apple cart.

Comments?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

New Species of Galapagos Finch Observed Evolving

Some folks like to claim evolution has never been observed. But the recent discovery of a new, fast emerging species of Galapagos finch upsets that apple cart.

Comments?

It’s still a finch. Evidence of MICRO evolution.
Heck, each and every one of us, with all of our differences, is evidence of that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s still a finch. Evidence of MICRO evolution.
Heck, each and every one of us, with all of our differences, is evidence of that.

And you are still an ape. You are still a primate. You are still a mammal. You are still a tetrapod. You are still a vertebrate. And you are still a eukaryote.

Once again you have only shown that you do not understand evolution. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. That is a creationist claim and a false one. No matter how much they evolve the offspring of finches will still be finches. Just as any of your offspring, no matter how distant will still be human, they will still be apes, they will still be primates etc..

 

[sun rise]

We've seen over and over how logic and evidence won't convince people who have a serious emotional investment in not believing your evidence.

To me the story illustrates how fast evolution can happen under the right conditions. That is a significant finding.

 

[idav]

New Species of Galapagos Finch Observed Evolving

Some folks like to claim evolution has never been observed. But the recent discovery of a new, fast emerging species of Galapagos finch upsets that apple cart.

Comments?

That's pretty fascinating, those evolutionary branches sure can get messy. A whole viable species even.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Once again you have only shown that you do not understand evolution.

Gimme a break. That’s your favorite phrase...”you don’t understand.” I understand the nature of evidence, better.

There is no "change of kind" in evolution. That is a creationist claim and a false one.

Really? See below....

No matter how much they evolve the offspring of finches will still be finches

Now on that, I agree.

Just as any of your offspring, no matter how distant will still be human, they will still be apes, they will still be primates etc..

Let’s trace backwards.... Apparently, my 170,000th G-Grandma was a lemur-like primate, not hominid. But I am. So, her descendants changed classification, but mine won’t? Or are you saying that other taxonomic classifications lower than species are developing?

Again, gimme a break!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gimme a break. That’s your favorite phrase...”you don’t understand.” I understand the nature of evidence, better.

Nope, you don't. If you want to discuss evidence that is fine with me. But I did not even bring up the topic this time.

Really? See below....

Yes, it is. And why are you rudely breaking up my post excessively? You can't seem to handle it. This is a dishonest tactic.

Now on that, I agree.

Yes, but only because you have no clue.

Let’s trace backwards.... Apparently, my 170,000th G-Grandma was a lemur-like primate, not hominid. But I am. So, her descendants changed classification, but mine won’t? Or are you saying that other taxonomic classifications lower than species are developing?

Again, gimme a break!

No, you are of course mistaken again, at best. Your umpteenth grandma was a lemur-like primate. That does not mean that she was a lemur. That only describes what she looked like in terms of today's species. What you ignored was the fact that she was a primate, as are you. You almost got it right, so keep trying sooner or later you may understand. There was no change in classification. You merely misunderstood the description of her. Please note that they did not say that she was a lemur, they only said that she was like one. But she was definitely classed as a primate. There was no change in classification.

Do you understand your error yet?

ETA: As to you not understanding. You should not complain about that observation. You either did not understand or you are a lying ..... well let's just leave it at that without any other descriptive terms. I find that a person not understanding something is a curable fault. But if one is a liar there is no hope for that person. Calling someone a liar, even if true, can be seen as a very strong insult. Pointing out that you need to learn a lot is merely an attempt to begin to change that situation. If you understood evolution you would be much less likely to oppose it. Your arguments show that your understanding is extremely limited to say the least. Education cures ignorance. Why not learn?

 

[Valjean]

Gimme a break. That’s your favorite phrase...”you don’t understand.” I understand the nature of evidence, better.

No, you really don't understand evolution.

Let’s trace backwards.... Apparently, my 170,000th G-Grandma was a lemur-like primate, not hominid. But I am. So, her descendants changed classification, but mine won’t? Or are you saying that other taxonomic classifications lower than species are developing?

Again, gimme a break!

It's gradual; a continuum. Where biology draws the line between species, genera, families &c is arbitrary.

 

[Altfish]

The problem with creationists is that until they see a croco-duck born from a crocodile egg, it is all a myth. Made up by god hating atheists.

 

[Sunstone]

It’s still a finch. Evidence of MICRO evolution.
Heck, each and every one of us, with all of our differences, is evidence of that.

So far as I know, creationists have never been able to identify any mechanism which would prevent "micro evolution" from becoming "macro evolution" (to use their terms), which renders their distinction between micro and macro evolution rather silly.

 

[Altfish]

So far as I know, creationists have never been able to identify any mechanism which would prevent "micro evolution" from becoming "macro evolution" (to use their terms), which renders their distinction between micro and macro evolution rather silly.

Exactly, multiple micro = macro.

The creationists weigh in with, "It's still a finch"; if it hadn't been a finch, they'd have said, "But it is still a bird"

 

[Vee]

New Species of Galapagos Finch Observed Evolving

Some folks like to claim evolution has never been observed. But the recent discovery of a new, fast emerging species of Galapagos finch upsets that apple cart.

Comments?

I love it how the press comes up with this exciting headlines and when you read the content, it's not that exciting after all. So the finch evolved into... a finch. We already knew that. It's been observed before. When the finch evolves into a flying turtle, please let me know. I really want to see that.

 

[Skwim]

Gimme a break. That’s your favorite phrase...”you don’t understand.”

But it's truth is indisputable.

I understand the nature of evidence, better.

HIGHLY questionable, as is your understanding of taxonomy, which is evident by your.

Let’s trace backwards.... Apparently, my 170,000th G-Grandma was a lemur-like primate, not hominid. But I am. So, her descendants changed classification, but mine won’t? Or are you saying that other taxonomic classifications lower than species are developing?

I can only suggest bringing yourself up to date.

.

 

[Kemosloby]

If the parents were both birds the apple cart is fine. But if two monkeys made the finch, lets see the youtube video.

 

[Skwim]

I love it how the press comes up with this exciting headlines and when you read the content, it's not that exciting after all.

To each his own:
"Finally, proof that Jesus died on a stake made of 1,000 year-old olive wood grown just outside the vineyard of Benjamin Steinwood and Sons in Jerusalem.

So the finch evolved into... a finch. We already knew that. It's been observed before. When the finch evolves into a flying turtle, please let me know. I really want to see that.

Again another fundie with absolutely no understanding of evolution other than that their church says it's bunk. Sad. Very sad.

.

.

 

[sayak83]

I love it how the press comes up with this exciting headlines and when you read the content, it's not that exciting after all. So the finch evolved into... a finch. We already knew that. It's been observed before. When the finch evolves into a flying turtle, please let me know. I really want to see that.

That would disprove evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I love it how the press comes up with this exciting headlines and when you read the content, it's not that exciting after all. So the finch evolved into... a finch. We already knew that. It's been observed before. When the finch evolves into a flying turtle, please let me know. I really want to see that.

A "change of kind" is a creationist strawman of the theory of evolution. There is no change of kind in evolution. For example you share a common ancestor with other apes, you are still an ape. You share a common ancestor with other mammals, you are still a mammal. Etc. and so on. Amazingly when one goes over the list all the way back to eukaryotes the only one that creationists disagree with is the most obvious one. Creationists will even admit that they are mammals and yet they can't stand the simple truth that they are an ape.

 

[SalixIncendium]

We've seen over and over how logic and evidence won't convince people who have a serious emotional investment in not believing your evidence.

To me the story illustrates how fast evolution can happen under the right conditions. That is a significant finding.

Unfortunately, those that reject evolution will likely continue to do so, as is already evidenced in this thread.

Initially their argument was that they refuse to buy into the theory because they were unable to witness evolution in action. Sadly, even though they can now witness evolution, it's just not going to be a big enough change for them, and because of their emotional investment in what they believe, they will continue to reject evolution until they witness an amoeba become a human in a single generation, or unless their godform either tells them to accept evolution personally or puts it in a book.

 

[shunyadragon]

Gimme a break. That’s your favorite phrase...”you don’t understand.” I understand the nature of evidence, better.

No break given. It is more likely that you do understand, but your religious agenda, and intentional ignorance keeps you in the prevents you from accepting science.

This discovery does not really 'upset the apple cart.' and it is in reality nothing new, but it represents an observed evolution in process for a new species of a Finch. There are actually a number of cases over recent history where this has been observed.

 

[Altfish]

I love it how the press comes up with this exciting headlines and when you read the content, it's not that exciting after all. So the finch evolved into... a finch. We already knew that. It's been observed before. When the finch evolves into a flying turtle, please let me know. I really want to see that.

You've really no idea what evolution is, or how it works.
Please read a proper science book on the subject before making Comfort and Cameron style dumb statements.