Birth of a new species

[Omar B]

I saw this and thought some of you might be interested. It's a new species of finch. More specifically it's a new species within the group called Darwin's Finches. F-ing awesome.

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.
In many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer who’d already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path. But playing an unexpected part was chance, and the newcomer singing his own special song.
This miniature evolutionary saga is described in a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It’s authored by Peter and Rosemary Grant, a husband-and-wife team who have spent much of the last 36 years studying a group of bird species known collectively as Darwin’s finches.
The finches — or, technically, tanagers — have adapted to the conditions of each island in the Galapagos, and they provided Darwin with a clear snapshot of evolutionary divergence when he sailed there on the HMS Beagle. The Grants have pushed that work further, with decades of painstaking observations providing a real-time record of evolution in action. In the PNAS paper, they describe something Darwin could only have dreamed of watching: the birth of a new species.


More of the story and pictures - http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/?npu=1&mbid=yhp

 

[Rich Parsons]

I found the article frustrating and making mad.

They stated a new species was found and they knew the moment of the split.

Then they stated it occured with a hybrid and could not determine until at least 4 generations later.

The conflicting points and statements make this article to sensational for me to try to be pleased with this.

I thought it was cool but they over promised more than they could deliver and coutered themselves within the same article.

 

[Cryozombie]

It's interesting. But there are numerous examples of these types of Microevolution in nature. I'd like to be floored by something truly amazing, like a fish that sprouts wings and a beak and starts living in trees. Some form of Macroevolution that goes beyond a small population of Mutants such as the Giraffes and Finches cited as "proof". Things like this have happened, even amongst humans in the past, but to me rather it seems, as in the case of the Tiktaalik, Evolutionsits are desperate to go "See See we have found proof!" When all they have at best is some evidence of what we already know... Species evolve and adapt within their own kind all the time.

Personally, from a Science aspect, there are Two things I'd love to see: I wanna see Nothing Suddenly explode and turn into everything, and I wanna see an Amoeba turn into a Monkey. From a Religious Aspect, I'd like to see a God show up and say "Hey, this is what it's all about."

As far as all that goes... I tend to look at the creation of the Universe and the Creation of species from the perspective of Occam's Razor: The simpilist answer is someone put everything there. Does that make it the RIGHT answer? No, of course not, but it makes the most sense to me. I mean, after all, If you walk into a room and a screwdriver is laying on the table that wasn't there when you left, do you go "WHOA! The Molecules in the air suddenly formed the right plastoid chains just as charged particles of metal ions came together and a freak electrical discharge hit them all, and it formed a craftsman tool on my table!" or "Hmm, someone left their screwdriver here."

 

[Rich Parsons]

It's interesting. But there are numerous examples of these types of Microevolution in nature. I'd like to be floored by something truly amazing, like a fish that sprouts wings and a beak and starts living in trees. Some form of Macroevolution that goes beyond a small population of Mutants such as the Giraffes and Finches cited as "proof". Things like this have happened, even amongst humans in the past, but to me rather it seems, as in the case of the Tiktaalik, Evolutionsits are desperate to go "See See we have found proof!" When all they have at best is some evidence of what we already know... Species evolve and adapt within their own kind all the time.

Personally, from a Science aspect, there are Two things I'd love to see: I wanna see Nothing Suddenly explode and turn into everything, and I wanna see an Amoeba turn into a Monkey. From a Religious Aspect, I'd like to see a God show up and say "Hey, this is what it's all about."

As far as all that goes... I tend to look at the creation of the Universe and the Creation of species from the perspective of Occam's Razor: The simpilist answer is someone put everything there. Does that make it the RIGHT answer? No, of course not, but it makes the most sense to me. I mean, after all, If you walk into a room and a screwdriver is laying on the table that wasn't there when you left, do you go "WHOA! The Molecules in the air suddenly formed the right plastoid chains just as charged particles of metal ions came together and a freak electrical discharge hit them all, and it formed a craftsman tool on my table!" or "Hmm, someone left their screwdriver here."

So if tall people mate with tall people and get tall people and they do it for a few generations is that a new species? The same goes for short, or over weight or thin, or ... , .

I understand mutation and I understand variation within a species, but to always cry NEW and NEVER BEFORE SEEN on every little report takes away from what they have found.

 

[Omar B]

It's interesting. But there are numerous examples of these types of Microevolution in nature. I'd like to be floored by something truly amazing, like a fish that sprouts wings and a beak and starts living in trees. Some form of Macroevolution that goes beyond a small population of Mutants such as the Giraffes and Finches cited as "proof". Things like this have happened, even amongst humans in the past, but to me rather it seems, as in the case of the Tiktaalik, Evolutionsits are desperate to go "See See we have found proof!" When all they have at best is some evidence of what we already know... Species evolve and adapt within their own kind all the time.
Personally, from a Science aspect, there are Two things I'd love to see: I wanna see Nothing Suddenly explode and turn into everything, and I wanna see an Amoeba turn into a Monkey. From a Religious Aspect, I'd like to see a God show up and say "Hey, this is what it's all about."
As far as all that goes... I tend to look at the creation of the Universe and the Creation of species from the perspective of Occam's Razor: The simpilist answer is someone put everything there. Does that make it the RIGHT answer? No, of course not, but it makes the most sense to me. I mean, after all, If you walk into a room and a screwdriver is laying on the table that wasn't there when you left, do you go "WHOA! The Molecules in the air suddenly formed the right plastoid chains just as charged particles of metal ions came together and a freak electrical discharge hit them all, and it formed a craftsman tool on my table!" or "Hmm, someone left their screwdriver here."

Nothing's gonna suddenly sprout wings and fly, and if it did it would take thousands of years to get there and we would never see it happen. Just like how snakes still have hips or penguins still have wings or how we still have appendixes.

Nothing's gonna ever sprout into everything all of a sudden like you would love to see. It's millions of years of growth. I always wonder if creationists who say things like "I've never seen a monkey turn into a human" truly understand how absurd it sounds. We didn't evolve from moneys, we had a common ancestor but the lines diverged millions of years ago.

Speciation is a funny thing. With evolution so slow, when does one officially call a creature "new." A new adaptation? Moving into a new environment? Changing it's food source resulting in a size change? Every individual born is a transitional creature so it's hard to point out the exact point of the change, but retroactively we can look back and say that Dolly's quite different from the creatures that lived before.

I find that as you said, the simplest answer is not always right. Many times it's a logical cop out "god did it" and look no further for proof.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

The media blurb is not very informative. If anyone is interested in reading the original PNAS article, but does not have access to a University library, you can PM me and I'll email you a pdf. That way you can read it and decide for yourself if the evidence is convincing or not.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Nothing's gonna suddenly sprout wings and fly, and if it did it would take thousands of years to get there and we would never see it happen. Just like how snakes still have hips or penguins still have wings or how we still have appendixes.

Nothing's gonna ever sprout into everything all of a sudden like you would love to see. It's millions of years of growth. I always wonder if creationists who say things like "I've never seen a monkey turn into a human" truly understand how absurd it sounds. We didn't evolve from moneys, we had a common ancestor but the lines diverged millions of years ago.

Speciation is a funny thing. With evolution so slow, when does one officially call a creature "new." A new adaptation? Moving into a new environment? Changing it's food source resulting in a size change? Every individual born is a transitional creature so it's hard to point out the exact point of the change, but retroactively we can look back and say that Dolly's quite different from the creatures that lived before.

I find that as you said, the simplest answer is not always right. Many times it's a logical cop out "god did it" and look no further for proof.

might want to follow up on some of the recent findings of the appendix before you write it off as a "leftover".... misunderstood, and useless are not the same

 

[Cryozombie]

Nothing's gonna suddenly sprout wings and fly, and if it did it would take thousands of years to get there and we would never see it happen. Just like how snakes still have hips or penguins still have wings or how we still have appendixes.

Omar, I know... that was an off-the-cuff response, I don't ever actually expect to see it, even IF I concede to the fact that Macroevolution were possible to begin with.

I always wonder if creationists who say things like "I've never seen a monkey turn into a human" truly understand how absurd it sounds. We didn't evolve from moneys, we had a common ancestor but the lines diverged millions of years ago.

I could even concede to the fact we did in fact micro-evolve from an ape like species... but let me put to you this: Where did that ape like species come from? Remember the basis for the Evolutionary theory (as its taught in school at least) is that conditions were JUST RIGHT for life to suddenly spring up on earth as microorganisms and over the course of millions of years conditions allowed for the mutation and selective breeding to create species. At the same time, I have to ask myself mathematically, if this is truly what happend, the odds are astronomically low that not only did it occur, but it occured on such a grand scale that we have not 100, 200 1000, 10000 forms of life that "evolved" from said event/events but BILLIONS. The numbers are, in reality, overwhelming, especially if you stop to wonder how many species DIDN'T make it. The odds are so overwhelmingly against that, that if this were ANY other topic, I think most rational scientific minds would scream that the person who believed it could be true was mad.

I find that as you said, the simplest answer is not always right. Many times it's a logical cop out "god did it" and look no further for proof.

I'm certainly not saying "Don't look for proof", but I think the searchers need to search for the evidence/proof with an open mind... when you have people like the group who went in search of "proof" who said "we know we will find it in this area, and then they discovered the Tiktaalik" and said "See, a fish with legs, clear proof!" when what they really had was a fish with a jointed bone similar to an ankle, or, more realistically, the common Mudskipper. *I* consider that "evidence" tainted, because they knew what they would find before they found it, and made the results fit what they wanted instead of remaining objective and making their find match what they found instead.

 

[Omar B]

I could even concede to the fact we did in fact micro-evolve from an ape like species... but let me put to you this: Where did that ape like species come from? Remember the basis for the Evolutionary theory (as its taught in school at least) is that conditions were JUST RIGHT for life to suddenly spring up on earth as microorganisms and over the course of millions of years conditions allowed for the mutation and selective breeding to create species. At the same time, I have to ask myself mathematically, if this is truly what happend, the odds are astronomically low that not only did it occur, but it occured on such a grand scale that we have not 100, 200 1000, 10000 forms of life that "evolved" from said event/events but BILLIONS. The numbers are, in reality, overwhelming, especially if you stop to wonder how many species DIDN'T make it. The odds are so overwhelmingly against that, that if this were ANY other topic, I think most rational scientific minds would scream that the person who believed it could be true was mad.

I don't know, nor do I claim to know. But I do know that "god did it" is just a lazy answer that fails to recognize that it creates a question about the origins of god ... and which god it is. It's been proven that carbon, and a couple other elements when exposed to radiation (like would be prevalent on early, thin ozoned earth) they can form amino acids, the building blocks of life.

 

[Cryozombie]

I don't know, nor do I claim to know. But I do know that "god did it" is just a lazy answer that fails to recognize that it creates a question about the origins of god ... and which god it is. It's been proven that carbon, and a couple other elements when exposed to radiation (like would be prevalent on early, thin ozoned earth) they can form amino acids, the building blocks of life.

It's a long stretch from an Amino acid to a person. Let alone to over a billion forms of life on earth. And you do realize that there are, and have been since the earliest times Philosophers and yes, even some scientists who do study and question the origins of god/the gods/divinity etc.

I truly believe its a question we will not see answered in our lifetimes, but may see the answer for after our deaths.

 

[cdunn]

Billions of years times scores of sextillions of stars, or possibly septillions of planets, makes even the lowest probabilities of abiogenesis and evolution very, very likely to occur in the singular. If you flip a coin 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times a day, some day, it is going to land on its edge and stay there until something else knocks it down.

 

[Omar B]

It's not that long a stretch from amino acids in a solution such as water to an organism. I think the whole religion angle is just a shortcut just like telling children babies come from storks.

The questions need not be answered, but I know I'll never accept a theist answer. But that's not the purpose of the thread, it's about a new species of bird. Bringing up god, especially the christian god who's quite a new guy on the block is just a smokescreen that attempts to change the subject ... after all, this is about biology, not theology.

 

[Cryozombie]

Bringing up god, especially the christian god who's quite a new guy on the block is just a smokescreen that attempts to change the subject ... after all, this is about biology, not theology.

So... why did you bring him up? *I* said someone. *YOU* mentioned the Christian god.

 

[Omar B]

Well it's the other alternative since you seemed skeptical of biology.

 

[Cryozombie]

Well it's the other alternative since you seemed skeptical of biology.

No. It could have been Aliens. Osrius, Zeus and the Titans, Allah, or the Queen of the Demonweb pits. There are hundreds of options INCLUDING random hapenstance... *YOU* decided if its not random happenstance, it must be the Christian god.

 

[Omar B]

Nah, I musta assumed that's where you were gonna go with all the Jebus-heads on here.

 

[Ramirez]

At the same time, I have to ask myself mathematically, if this is truly what happend, the odds are astronomically low that not only did it occur, but it occured on such a grand scale that we have not 100, 200 1000, 10000 forms of life that "evolved" from said event/events but BILLIONS. The numbers are, in reality, overwhelming, especially if you stop to wonder how many species DIDN'T make it. The odds are so overwhelmingly against that, that if this were ANY other topic, I think most rational scientific minds would scream that the person who believed it could be true was mad.

I have a degree in statistics mathematics and I would like to know how you modeled the probability of this to come up with your odds.

I see a lot of creationists arguing statistics and probability and most have no idea what they are talking about. Not saying you are a creationist but if you are going to use a statistical argument, then please present it as statistics is a precise and rigorous mathematics.

 

[Cryozombie]

as statistics is a precise and rigorous mathematics.

LOL. Yeah. Depending.

I'm sure 100% of all people you ask would agree with that... provided you asked the right people.

 

[Ramirez]

LOL. Yeah. Depending.

I'm sure 100% of all people you ask would agree with that... provided you asked the right people.

You are the one trying to support your position with a statistical argument. So you were talking ***** all the time?

 

[Cryozombie]

You are the one trying to support your position with a statistical argument. So you were talking ***** all the time?

Sure, Why not.

Seriously... the only Numbers I recall using, and never mentioned statistics, only my perception of the odds, were that there are Billions of types of lifeforms on the planet.

If your my "statistical argument" as you put it is in relationship to those odds... with your degree, I would think you can understand they are not calculable without more data... and that "The odds are so overwhelmingly against that" is a broad general statement of my opinion. Now, if I said "You know the odds are 365 Million to 3 against that" I could see where you are coming from in wanting the list of my statistics

As it is, you are coming across to me as deliberately obtuse because I'm presenting a contrary opinion to yours.

But lets just call it me talking ****... it's easier that way.