Another case of observed speciation

[Polymath257]

Interbreeding of a native species and an intruder species has produced a new species. It is genetically isolated, has distinct behaviors, etc.

So, once again, we have evolution in process actually observed, crossing species barriers.

'But they are all just finches', I am sure the creationists will say, thereby ignoring the whole point.

Bird seen becoming new species

 

[Revoltingest]

Interbreeding of a native species and an intruder species has produced a new species. It is genetically isolated, has distinct behaviors, etc.

So, once again, we have evolution in process actually observed, crossing species barriers.

'But they are all just finches', I am sure the creationists will say, thereby ignoring the whole point.

Bird seen becoming new species

If I may be so bold & annoying, anticipating & dissing an objection not yet made is rather
combative. I recommend letting the faux pas happen, & only then mercilessly attacking.

I wonder though....is this really evolution, or just an introduced species expanding?

 

[Bear Wild]

Interbreeding of a native species and an intruder species has produced a new species. It is genetically isolated, has distinct behaviors, etc.

So, once again, we have evolution in process actually observed, crossing species barriers.

'But they are all just finches', I am sure the creationists will say, thereby ignoring the whole point.

Bird seen becoming new species

Yes creationists will say they are still just finches because the do not want to see how this clearly demonstrates evolutions. They do not understand reproductive rate and time frame as factors to see changes in genus or species ( which is a man made idea for organization anyway). And will ignore another amazing piece of evidence of evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

If I may be so bold & annoying, anticipating & dissing an objection not yet made is rather
combative. I recommend letting the faux pas happen, & only then mercilessly attacking.

I wonder though....is this really evolution, or just an introduced species expanding?

That would be fine except in another thread creationist are stating that because there is not a new genus forming then there is not enough evidence for evolution. Yes this is how evolution works. The misunderstanding is in how fast it progresses. We see much more rapid changes in bacteria and other organisms with high populations are rapid reproduction rates. Finches are much slower but it shows they are changing.

 

[Polymath257]

That would be fine except in another thread creationist are stating that because there is not a new genus forming then there is not enough evidence for evolution. Yes this is how evolution works. The misunderstanding is in how fast it progresses. We see much more rapid changes in bacteria and other organisms with high populations are rapid reproduction rates. Finches are much slower but it shows they are changing.

If anything, I am surprised at how much change can happen in so few generations. We get reproductive isolation that quickly? And then people wonder why it isn't captured in the fossil record?

 

[Revoltingest]

That would be fine except in another thread creationist are stating that because there is not a new genus forming then there is not enough evidence for evolution. Yes this is how evolution works. The misunderstanding is in how fast it progresses. We see much more rapid changes in bacteria and other organisms with high populations are rapid reproduction rates. Finches are much slower but it shows they are changing.

I agree about bacteria, fruit flies, & other rapidly reproducing critters.
But I'm skeptical about these particular finches.

 

[David T]

Interbreeding of a native species and an intruder species has produced a new species. It is genetically isolated, has distinct behaviors, etc.

So, once again, we have evolution in process actually observed, crossing species barriers.

'But they are all just finches', I am sure the creationists will say, thereby ignoring the whole point.

Bird seen becoming new species

Are we using science to disprove bigfoot?, seems desperate.

 

[Skwim]

I have to

Interbreeding of a native species and an intruder species has produced a new species. It is genetically isolated, has distinct behaviors, etc.

So, once again, we have evolution in process actually observed, crossing species barriers.

'But they are all just finches', I am sure the creationists will say, thereby ignoring the whole point.

Bird seen becoming new species

Boy, I don't see it at all. From the article:

"This new finch population is sufficiently different in form and habits to the native birds, as to be marked out as a new species, and individuals from the different populations don't interbreed."

(crossed out because it is not an indicator of different species) So the question is, just what is his definition of "species"? Maybe it's a case of "I know one when I see it" kind of thing.

"We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere, said Prof Butlin."

Exactly! Yet, he goes on to give just such an example: behavior.--see below-- Evidently if two similar groups of organisms behave differently they should be considered to be different species.

"What we are saying is that this group of birds behave as a distinct species. If you didn't know anything about [Daphne Major's] history and a taxonomist arrived on this island they would say there are four species on this island," said Prof Andersson."

Which raises the question, what are those characteristics that would lead a taxonomist to say there are four species on this island? Would they come to the same conclusion about the members of Canis lupus if they stumbled across the following examles:

?....... Supposedly so.

​

.
,

 

[Bear Wild]

I agree about bacteria, fruit flies, & other rapidly reproducing critters.
But I'm skeptical about these particular finches.

Actually it is this location that makes this finding so interesting. Since being identified by Darwin the Galapagos finches have been observed in detail with careful records. To find anything new on these well studied islands is clearly related to change in genetics which is predicted by the theory of evolution. Their reproductive rate however is slower than simpler organisms and their populations are low so you would not expect to see much change so this makes the finding even more impressive.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If I may be so bold & annoying, anticipating & dissing an objection not yet made is rather
combative. I recommend letting the faux pas happen, & only then mercilessly attacking.

I wonder though....is this really evolution, or just an introduced species expanding?

I think fish serves as a better example.

Especially when you observe lung fish that can actually get out of water and travel on land.

Still peaks my curiosity as to what birds will change into eventually on the next step of the evolutionary ladder.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Interbreeding of a native species and an intruder species has produced a new species. It is genetically isolated, has distinct behaviors, etc.

So, once again, we have evolution in process actually observed, crossing species barriers.

'But they are all just finches', I am sure the creationists will say, thereby ignoring the whole point.

Bird seen becoming new species

You should check this evolutionary marvel out.

The snail kite.....

How long does evolution take? Just 2 generations for some bird species, scientists say | CBC News

 

[Bear Wild]

You should check this evolutionary marvel out.

The snail kite.....

How long does evolution take? Just 2 generations for some bird species, scientists say | CBC News

Very interesting article. We know that many of the genes associated with alterations of physical features seem capable of rapid change. New species in 2 generations is unlikely but rapid changes in features is and Darwin actually made not of this as well as the problem of differentiating species and variation of a species.

 

[Skwim]

I think fish serves as a better example.

Especially when you observe lung fish that can actually get out of water and travel on land.

Still peaks my curiosity as to what birds will change into eventually on the next step of the evolutionary ladder.

My guess

 

[Deeje]

Interbreeding of a native species and an intruder species has produced a new species. It is genetically isolated, has distinct behaviors, etc.

So, once again, we have evolution in process actually observed, crossing species barriers.

'But they are all just finches', I am sure the creationists will say, thereby ignoring the whole point.

Bird seen becoming new species

Well, to me the whole point is just that Polymath.....they are still finches and will never be anything else. This is adaptation, not an indication of macro-evolution. If you look at the two pictures in your link, these finches are almost identical. Any wonder that mating was not a problem. You guys appear to get excited over very little. Much ado about nothing IMO.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, to me the whole point is just that Polymath.....they are still finches and will never be anything else. This is adaptation, not an indication of macro-evolution. If you look at the two pictures in your link, these finches are almost identical. Any wonder that mating was not a problem. You guys appear to get excited over very little. Much ado about nothing IMO.

Again, there are some big points here:

1. Reproductive isolation of the new species
2. The short time it took to get reproductive isolation and speciation
3. This *is* how evolution happens: the only difference between this and 'macroevolution' is time and the number of generations.
4. Creationists don't understand even what the theory of evolution says or else they would understand the significance of this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually it is this location that makes this finding so interesting. Since being identified by Darwin the Galapagos finches have been observed in detail with careful records. To find anything new on these well studied islands is clearly related to change in genetics which is predicted by the theory of evolution. Their reproductive rate however is slower than simpler organisms and their populations are low so you would not expect to see much change so this makes the finding even more impressive.

I agree that (evolution or not) it's still interesting.
(Poly is good at finding such things.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Still peaks my curiosity as to what birds will change into eventually on the next step of the evolutionary ladder.

Evolution takes a hard to predict course.
As the great biologist Allen Bundy theorized,
women will develop a 3rd breast on the back.
(For dancing.)

 

[Deeje]

Again, there are some big points here:

1. Reproductive isolation of the new species

You speak of a new species as if it's different from its family members. What does it matter what colour, how tall or short, what shape the beak is....? They are all members of the finch family. You guys get all excited over adaptive features when all that did was created a new variety of the same bird family.

2. The short time it took to get reproductive isolation and speciation

"Speciation" seems to carry a connotation that is misleading IMO.
In all the speciation examples that I have seen, the one thing that stands out is the fact that all we saw was new varieties of creatures in the same taxonomic family.
You guys make it sounds like a new "kind" of creature is created, when in fact it is just a new variety of finch....or a new variety of fruit fly or fish......regardless of reproductive isolation, the taxonomy remains the same. They will only mate with their own "kind". Nature ensures their survival because of the way they are designed. Adaptation is all part of the design, as I see it. If one thing stands out in nature....it's infinite variety.

3. This *is* how evolution happens: the only difference between this and 'macroevolution' is time and the number of generations.

Science has absolutely no proof that time will make varieties of creatures into completely new creatures. If macro-evolution is true, then single celled organisms found a way to make themselves into all the life forms we see on earth, both past and present.
Show us how it happened with substantiation for this assumption, Polymath. This whole theory is assumed, with no way to prove that it is even possible. Why should we believe science's suggestions if it can't really prove what it assumes?

Is it a case of science having the evidence....or is it simply to get rid of all notion of an Intelligent Designer because it's beneath their dignity to even entertain such a thought?

Why can't an intelligent life form exist that is powerful enough to create the universe? He is not some big wizard in the sky "proofing" things into existence....he is a Creator, taking all the time he needs to get things just right.

4. Creationists don't understand even what the theory of evolution says or else they would understand the significance of this.

There is no real significance when science cannot prove that all life evolved from single celled organisms, millions of years ago.
Where is the data....the real evidence that does not depend on assumption, assertion, educated guessing and suggestion?

All I see is diagrams and graphs and very clever computer generated graphics.....these are not proof, but produced with the intention of convincing people that it's a foregone conclusion....when it is nothing of the sort. I think you have a belief system, just like I do, one that is more based on faith than you are willing to admit.

I asked you before Polymath.....are we humans related to bananas? Did dinosaurs really morph themselves into chickens? I have had scientists tell me that with a straight face. If you believe that is true, then please produce the evidence.

Tell us how life could possibly be an unplanned accident?

 

[Jose Fly]

You speak of a new species as if it's different from its family members.

But let's never forget, evolution denialism is fundamental to Jehovah's Witness doctrine....

"If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose." ​

 

[Jainarayan]

This is adaptation, not an indication of macro-evolution.

Do you know the difference between micro- and macro-evolution?