Evolution Observed

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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?

The author seems to use the word species in a manner other than the one I learned, which says that what makes a group of birds two species rather than one is that half of can produce viable offspring together, and the other half can do the same, but members of the two groups cannot successfully interbreed:

"In this week's issue of the journal Science, researchers from Princeton University and Uppsala University in Sweden report that the newcomer belonging to one species mated with a member of another species resident on the island, giving rise to a new species that today consists of roughly 30 individuals."

"The researchers took a blood sample and released the bird, which later bred with a resident medium ground finch of the species Geospiz fortis, initiating a new lineage"

 

[David T]

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?

Evolution experienced, and then observed is the proper order. Evolution observed and then explained is just confusion. In pre literate culture evolution was experienced, and then those experiences where clothed into expressive narrative of how they were experiencing what we call evolution today. Since today we are a cult of explanatory language, that whole reality became invisible over time. Darwin is a cultural problem. A dog is an evolutionist it big deal.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Voluntary self imposed ignorance of evolution based on a religiously apparent based on a religious agenda is grossly apparent.

 

[Altfish]

Must admit, I'm not sure if it is me but you do write in riddles.

Evolution experienced, and then observed is the proper order. Evolution observed and then explained is just confusion.

Like it or not scientists work by first observing something then trying to explain why it happens.
I think it is you who are trying to cause confusion.

In pre literate culture evolution was experienced, and then those experiences where clothed into expressive narrative of how they were experiencing what we call evolution today. Since today we are a cult of explanatory language, that whole reality became invisible over time.

Again you talk in gibberish. How do you know what they believed in pre-literate times? They couldn't write, so couldn't record what they experience or believed??
The whole sentence (s) just doesn't make any sense.

Darwin is a cultural problem. A dog is an evolutionist it big deal.

Darwin is a person who died 130 years ago. Why is he a cultural problem? What are you talking about?
A dogs is what?

Is English your second language?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The author seems to use the word species in a manner other than the one I learned, which says that what makes a group of birds two species rather than one is that half of can produce viable offspring together, and the other half can do the same, but members of the two groups cannot successfully interbreed:

"In this week's issue of the journal Science, researchers from Princeton University and Uppsala University in Sweden report that the newcomer belonging to one species mated with a member of another species resident on the island, giving rise to a new species that today consists of roughly 30 individuals."

"The researchers took a blood sample and released the bird, which later bred with a resident medium ground finch of the species Geospiz fortis, initiating a new lineage"

There is more than one definition of species and due to the nature of life and because life is a product of evolution it is hard to nail down a definition for "species". Ernst Mayr first formalized the interbreeding definition of species, but it quickly ran into problems. Ring species shows the weakness of that definition. In a Ring Species species A can breed with species B which can breed with species C, but C cannot still breed with A. By the interbreeding definition of species A and B are the same species and so it B and C, but A and B are no longer the same species.

Take the ensatina salamander for example. As it moved south through California it split into two groups. One group spread south on the west side of the Central Valley and another went on the east side. When they met up again they could no longer breed with each other, though they could all breed with their intermediaries to the north until they met in one species again. Ring species shown speciation in action:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_02

 

[shunyadragon]

Evolution experienced, and then observed is the proper order. Evolution observed and then explained is just confusion. In pre literate culture evolution was experienced, and then those experiences where clothed into expressive narrative of how they were experiencing what we call evolution today. Since today we are a cult of explanatory language, that whole reality became invisible over time. Darwin is a cultural problem. A dog is an evolutionist it big deal.

The process missing here is predictability in the science of evolution. Since Charles Darwin proposed the overall theory scientist have made predictions as to the physiology and genetics in intermediates between species and genera, and these predictions have been confirmed over time.

 

[ChristineM]

More evolution observed

http://reptileapartment.com/reptile-evolution-the-langkawi-bent-toed-gecko/

 

[james dixon]

It appears to be nothing more than cross-breading to me. -

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

It’s still a finch. Evidence of MICRO evolution.

And then there's the evolution of the communication meme merging
art, advocacy, and utility
such as

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Adapted from Polymath:

• Do you have a collar bone, opposable fingers, five digits per hand, lack of claws, scales, horns and hooves, a flat nail on fingers and toes, eye sockets made from bone, stereoscopic vision, an enlarged cerebral cortex? Then you are a Primate.

• Are you tail-less with a narrow nose and downward pointed nostrils, convoluted cerebral hemispheres, a large brain for your size of mammal, color vision, a lack of cheek pouches, and a fused frontal bone? Then you are an Ape, a type of primate.

• If you are all of these things and are also bipedal, relatively hairless, and possess language, then you are a human being, a type of ape.

 

[David T]

The process missing here is predictability in the science of evolution. Since Charles Darwin proposed the overall theory scientist have made predictions as to the physiology and genetics in intermediates between species and genera, and these predictions have been confirmed over time.

Well that's only in context to creationism responses. It's only a singular aspect a kind of look this doesn't happen creationism statement and science says yes it does happen in responsponse. I said at the beginning evolution experienced. Science observes it, that's experience. A undersea dish can rise to shallower and shallower depths over time and develop ability to visualize. It sacrifices capacity to visualize in the dark as it develops capacity to visualize in the light. If visual is the ONLY reality experientially as being factual that places contemporary existence at the defining apex of evolution. It cannot be true based on logic that's circular. I see x to be true as I understand x to be therefore x is true. That's Coequal to I believe x to be true as I understand x to be true, therefore x is true. It really doesn't matter how we word it emperically or conceptually it falls out as circular. I bring this very moment the thoughts we have the thoughts we express this fabric literacy into y the discussion evolution itself.

Through all thing by all things of all things be it organic inorganic thoughts ideas facts fiction feelings everything and state evolution is bigger than the brain it manifests the brain. It's objective the cranial statements about it are even determined by it. So reductive determinism vs free will are Co equal nonsense in belief of independence. Nature is the great dictator. We can call it god we can believe God is independent there is no God it does not change what is objective, nature what is subjective us to nature. Again I might sound word saladish. I know that already. But we are not talking about a car engine either. I totally respect how you think things through. I am not blasting science I am frustrated it does not recognize its limitations and fallacies that arise when taking about evolution. I was a marine biology major at one time. So I take a very hard view of evolution as yes it's true but even dogs are evolutionists so big deal. and I am willing to Chalenge the narrative without religion which tends to not even understand its own text. I am extremely hard core science on this. We have a serious interpretive understanding.

 

[David T]

Must admit, I'm not sure if it is me but you do write in riddles.

Like it or not scientists work by first observing something then trying to explain why it happens.
I think it is you who are trying to cause confusion.

Again you talk in gibberish. How do you know what they believed in pre-literate times? They couldn't write, so couldn't record what they experience or believed??
The whole sentence (s) just doesn't make any sense.

Darwin is a person who died 130 years ago. Why is he a cultural problem? What are you talking about?
A dogs is what?

Is English your second language?

And your response is laughably predictable. How southern baptist of you. God, can religion get the hell out of science playing make believe it understand evolution!!! Apparently not.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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?

This isn't new. We observe evolution all the time when we see bacteria resisting antibiotics and viruses mutating.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Am I missing something?

Two different finches breeded and another different finch was the result. Isn’t that what dog breeders have done for ages?

I admit I didn’t read the ENTIRE article, since it was rather boring.

I believe evolution, so don’t try to convince me of that concept, I just don’t see how evolution comes into play here.

 

[shunyadragon]

It appears to be nothing more than cross-breading to me. -

Ignorance of the science of evolution multiplied exponentially.

 

[shunyadragon]

Am I missing something?

Two different finches breeded and another different finch was the result. Isn’t that what dog breeders have done for ages?

I admit I didn’t read the ENTIRE article, since it was rather boring.

I believe evolution, so don’t try to convince me of that concept, I just don’t see how evolution comes into play here.

No, It is a population of finches arising within a population of finches that is adaptive to an environment. This how evolution is observed to work.

Actually, research in tropical rain forests is the best evidence of this, because of the abundant environment you have related species, among plants, birds, and other life documented as populations of varieties, sub species, and closely related species that are adapting to different environments in the rain forests. When they have become isolated by adaption the genetic drift generates new species.

The extensive detailed fossil evidence for the evolution of horses and whales is probably the best evidence of this over millions of years. Example: in horses we have tracks of herds and fossil evidence of different hoves in the same population, and later fossils show distinct species fossil evidence of one hoof type being better adapted to the environment. This chain of evidence among horses shows more ancient species that are clearly not horses.

Another example of evolution from genetics is the existence of dormant ancestor DNA such as the dormant genes for teeth in birds. Also it is found the genes for feathers related to scale/skin DNA in crocodiles and alligators.

 

[sayak83]

Adapted from Polymath:

• Do you have a collar bone, opposable fingers, five digits per hand, lack of claws, scales, horns and hooves, a flat nail on fingers and toes, eye sockets made from bone, stereoscopic vision, an enlarged cerebral cortex? Then you are a Primate.

• Are you tail-less with a narrow nose and downward pointed nostrils, convoluted cerebral hemispheres, a large brain for your size of mammal, color vision, a lack of cheek pouches, and a fused frontal bone? Then you are an Ape, a type of primate.

• If you are all of these things and are also bipedal, relatively hairless, and possess language, then you are a human being, a type of ape.

I prefer to call them "forest humans" which is close to how they are referred to in India and East Asia and also consistent with the scientific term (Hominoidae).

 

[ChristineM]

It appears to be nothing more than cross-breading to me. -

If it works, it works

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is more than one definition of species and due to the nature of life and because life is a product of evolution it is hard to nail down a definition for "species". Ernst Mayr first formalized the interbreeding definition of species, but it quickly ran into problems. Ring species shows the weakness of that definition. In a Ring Species species A can breed with species B which can breed with species C, but C cannot still breed with A. By the interbreeding definition of species A and B are the same species and so it B and C, but A and B are no longer the same species.

Take the ensatina salamander for example. As it moved south through California it split into two groups. One group spread south on the west side of the Central Valley and another went on the east side. When they met up again they could no longer breed with each other, though they could all breed with their intermediaries to the north until they met in one species again. Ring species shown speciation in action:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_02

Thanks for that.

And ring species are also a powerful biogeographical argument for speciation occurring - so called macroevolution, although I think that the definition of that word varies according to context so that it never occurs.

One familiar creationist poster on RF likes to point out that all finches are still in the same family, which is correct even in the technical (taxonomical) sense of family (family Fringillidae). In her case, the goalpost has been moved from speciation to generating new biological families.

There are also problems defining species when it comes to creatures that don't reproduce sexually such as bacteria. I believe that bacterial have to be classified according to morphology, gram staining characteristics, and nutritional requirements.

 

[Altfish]

Must admit, I'm not sure if it is me but you do write in riddles.

Evolution experienced, and then observed is the proper order. Evolution observed and then explained is just confusion.

Like it or not scientists work by first observing something then trying to explain why it happens.
I think it is you who are trying to cause confusion.

In pre literate culture evolution was experienced, and then those experiences where clothed into expressive narrative of how they were experiencing what we call evolution today. Since today we are a cult of explanatory language, that whole reality became invisible over time.

Again you talk in gibberish. How do you know what they believed in pre-literate times? They couldn't write, so couldn't record what they experience or believed??
The whole sentence (s) just doesn't make any sense.

Darwin is a cultural problem. A dog is an evolutionist it big deal.

Darwin is a person who died 130 years ago. Why is he a cultural problem? What are you talking about?
A dogs is what?

Is English your second language?

And your response is laughably predictable. How southern baptist of you. God, can religion get the hell out of science playing make believe it understand evolution!!! Apparently not.

Southern Baptist? is that a rock band?