Evolution of new species of finch observed

[SteveH]

...and yet you just know that some fundy fuckwit will say, on some facebook group or other, that no-one has ever seen one species change into another next week or the week after. (One such has just said it in a facebook group I'm a member of.) That's because they are wilfully ignorant idiots who don't even know what "species" means.

https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

[Grace of God]

...and yet you just know that some fundy fuckwit will say, on some facebook group or other, that no-one has ever seen one species change into another next week or the week after. (One such has just said it in a facebook group I'm a member of.) That's because they are wilfully ignorant idiots who don't even know what "species" means.

https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

is it still a finch??

[SteveH]

is it still a finch??

Yes, but a new species.

[Grace of God]

Yes, but a new species.

so if it's a new species why is it a finch..??

[Rhiannon]

You know that there are numerous species of finch, right?

[Sassy]

Yes, but a new species.

Cross breed does not make it a NEW SPECIES just a new variety of the same species.
But what no idiot could possibly think is that a new species came from absolutely NOTHING.
No evolution of a New species because Evolution is just a theory of how all things began without any critical evidence.

You can insult people all you like but a new species was not the case. A new species would be something that never existed before.
Finches have always existed. Till a black person made a baby with a white person half cast did not exist.


Nothing observed and evolution is a kids game for those who believe two things can exist as one but both being completely different.

Stop insulting people, it isn't intelligent, it isn't clever and it isn't nice. It is simply the height of ignorance when people try and make one example into something completely different.

[SteveH]

so if it's a new species why is it a finch..??

Because there are many species of finch. They belong to the family fringillidae, which contains more than one genus, and each genus contains many different species.

[Harrowby Hall]

Sassy

For someone who has explained how she managed - as an adult - to climb the precipitous pathway up the mountain to achieve the intellectual summit that is "O" level English, you do show surprising gaps in your understanding of the language. I suspect that you have been reading too much by Arthur Conan Doyle - the meaning of "theory", as used in the Sherlock Holmes stories, is erroneous.

Theory has a very clear and well-understood meaning for scientists. You obviously do not know what that meaning is, nor do you understand its application in evolutionary science.

You are clearly a well-meaning and caring individual. Stop giving other people the opportunity to dismiss your contributions.

[Maeght]

Cross breed does not make it a NEW SPECIES just a new variety of the same species.
But what no idiot could possibly think is that a new species came from absolutely NOTHING.
No evolution of a New species because Evolution is just a theory of how all things began without any critical evidence.

You can insult people all you like but a new species was not the case. A new species would be something that never existed before.
Finches have always existed. Till a black person made a baby with a white person half cast did not exist.


Nothing observed and evolution is a kids game for those who believe two things can exist as one but both being completely different.

Stop insulting people, it isn't intelligent, it isn't clever and it isn't nice. It is simply the height of ignorance when people try and make one example into something completely different.

Shows once again you don't understand the science if the theory of evolution by natural selection, the meaning if the word theory or, well, science at all. You accuse people if ignorance when they comment on religion yet are happy to display your ignorance on evolution. Best not to comment on stuff you don't understand.

[Grace of God]

Cross breed does not make it a NEW SPECIES just a new variety of the same species.
But what no idiot could possibly think is that a new species came from absolutely NOTHING.
No evolution of a New species because Evolution is just a theory of how all things began without any critical evidence.

You can insult people all you like but a new species was not the case. A new species would be something that never existed before.
Finches have always existed. Till a black person made a baby with a white person half cast did not exist.


Nothing observed and evolution is a kids game for those who believe two things can exist as one but both being completely different.

Stop insulting people, it isn't intelligent, it isn't clever and it isn't nice. It is simply the height of ignorance when people try and make one example into something completely different.

well said ...

It seems to go unnoticed that every creature seems to have parameters set in to their changes ...

[SteveH]

Cross breed does not make it a NEW SPECIES just a new variety of the same species.
But what no idiot could possibly think is that a new species came from absolutely NOTHING.
No evolution of a New species because Evolution is just a theory of how all things began without any critical evidence.

You can insult people all you like but a new species was not the case. A new species would be something that never existed before.
Finches have always existed. Till a black person made a baby with a white person half cast did not exist.


Nothing observed and evolution is a kids game for those who believe two things can exist as one but both being completely different.

Stop insulting people, it isn't intelligent, it isn't clever and it isn't nice. It is simply the height of ignorance when people try and make one example into something completely different.

Where on this thread have I insulted anyone? I was sorely tempted to, after reading the alarmingly ignorant and stupid posts of some other people, but I resisted the temptation.
I am not going to argue any more about evolution. It is a fact, and those who deny it are wilfully ignorant, closed-minded, superstitious idiots. (NOW you can accuse me of being insulting, if you like!)

[Stranger]

well said ...

So you approve of breathtaking ignorance.

It seems to go unnoticed that every creature seems to have parameters set in to their changes ...

And this is supposed to mean what, exactly?

[Grace of God]

So you approve of breathtaking ignorance.

And this is supposed to mean what, exactly?

how come we don't see flying pigs for example?? flying humans, that would be a great evolutionary advance..

[SteveH]

how come we don't see flying pigs for example?? flying humans, that would be a great evolutionary advance..

How come we don't see intelligent fundies?

[Grace of God]

How come we don't see intelligent fundies?

We do, it's just they are so far ahead of you, you don't recognise them....

so no answer to wingless humans..lol

[SteveH]

We do, it's just they are so far ahead of you, you don't recognise them....

so no answer to wingless humans..lol

Vertebrates are constructed on a basic four-limbed pattern. To have wings, we'd have to do without arms or legs, which would not be much of an improvement. [Edit] Actually, it'd have to be arms we'd have to do without, as they, not legs, are analogous to birds' wings. Legs are in the wrong position.

[Stranger]

how come we don't see flying pigs for example?? flying humans, that would be a great evolutionary advance..

Is this actually a serious question?

[SteveH]

how come we don't see flying pigs for example?? flying humans, that would be a great evolutionary advance..

Don't you just love it when a fundy asks what they think is a killer question, that could in fact be answered by any reasonably bright 12-year-old?

[SteveH]

And another thing, GoG: stop using two question marks at the end of questions. It's bloody annoying.

[Stranger]

how come we don't see flying pigs for example?? flying humans, that would be a great evolutionary advance..

If this is a serious question, I'm fascinated as to what bizarre misunderstanding has led to you ask it. Please do tell as to why you think evolution would have produced flying pigs or humans.

[jeremyp]

Actually, on this occasion, I think Sassy has a point. This new "species" came about by birds from two other species breeding. Since these two birds successfully mated and produced fertile young, is there any justification for claiming they really were of two different species in the first place?

Also, although the hybrid offspring seem to have bred only amongst themselves so far, presumably they could interbreed with either of their ancestors' species. How, therefore is this a new species?

[Maeght]

Actually, on this occasion, I think Sassy has a point. This new "species" came about by birds from two other species breeding. Since these two birds successfully mated and produced fertile young, is there any justification for claiming they really were of two different species in the first place?

Also, although the hybrid offspring seem to have bred only amongst themselves so far, presumably they could interbreed with either of their ancestors' species. How, therefore is this a new species?

If that was the only point she was making then I wouldn't have commented - since I had doubts about the headline but do not feel qualified enough to discuss it. Sassy then went on to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of ToE by Natural Selection, the meaning of the word Theory and so on - hence the post.

[Stranger]

Actually, on this occasion, I think Sassy has a point. This new "species" came about by birds from two other species breeding. Since these two birds successfully mated and produced fertile young, is there any justification for claiming they really were of two different species in the first place?

Nature (specifically evolution) tends to thwart classification systems. See, for example: What Does It Mean to Be a Species? Genetics Is Changing the Answer

Perhaps the most classic definition is a group of organisms that can breed with each other to produce fertile offspring, an idea originally set forth in 1942 by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. While elegant in its simplicity, this concept has since come under fire by biologists, who argue that it didn’t apply to many organisms, such as single-celled ones that reproduce asexually, or those that have been shown to breed with other distinct organisms to create hybrids.

[jeremyp]

Nature (specifically evolution) tends to thwart classification systems. See, for example: What Does It Mean to Be a Species? Genetics Is Changing the Answer

Perhaps the most classic definition is a group of organisms that can breed with each other to produce fertile offspring, an idea originally set forth in 1942 by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. While elegant in its simplicity, this concept has since come under fire by biologists, who argue that it didn’t apply to many organisms, such as single-celled ones that reproduce asexually, or those that have been shown to breed with other distinct organisms to create hybrids.

So what is the basis of the claim that these finches are a new species?

You can understand why people who are sceptical of evolution might look at things like this and come to the conclusion that the "evilutionists" are making it up as they go along.

[Stranger]

So what is the basis of the claim that these finches are a new species?

I don't know - but the article in the OP says this:

The birds had a different song from G. fortis, as well as different beak size and shape, and these are what the finches use to attract mates. Reproductively, the new species was completely isolated, and had to mate within its own kind to survive.

So I'd hazard a guess that that had something to do with it.

You can understand why people who are sceptical of evolution might look at things like this and come to the conclusion that the "evilutionists" are making it up as they go along.

Frankly, people who are that position have already decided to totally ignore copious amounts of evidence, so some debate about the exact definition of the word 'species' is hardly going to tip the balance. In any case the difficulties in drawing neat lines around different groups of organisms is a direct consequence of evolution, and actually constitutes (yet more) evidence against the fixed and distinct 'kinds' that many such fantasists favour.