The Birth of a New Species?

[Rose]

Galapagos Scientists May Have Witnessed The Birth Of A New Species


"It's been nearly 20 years since the publication of The Beak of the Finch. Now, author Jonathan Weiner has an update. The husband-and-wife biology duo that the book follows, may have witnessed the birth of a new species, Weiner reports for the New York Times."


In Darwin's Footsteps

"Their goal, as they relate in their new book, “40 Years of Evolution,” was to study finches in the genus Geospiza — the birds that gave Darwin some of his first inklings of evolution by natural selection — and to try to reconstruct part of their evolutionary history. Instead, they made an amazing discovery.

After several years of meticulous measurements, the Grants and their students realized that the finches’ dimensions were changing before their eyes. Their beaks and bodies were evolving and adapting from year to year, sometimes slowly, sometimes strikingly, generation after generation. The researchers were watching evolution in real time, evolution in the flesh."

[David M]

Galapagos Scientists May Have Witnessed The Birth Of A New Species


"It's been nearly 20 years since the publication of The Beak of the Finch. Now, author Jonathan Weiner has an update. The husband-and-wife biology duo that the book follows, may have witnessed the birth of a new species, Weiner reports for the New York Times."


In Darwin's Footsteps

"Their goal, as they relate in their new book, “40 Years of Evolution,” was to study finches in the genus Geospiza — the birds that gave Darwin some of his first inklings of evolution by natural selection — and to try to reconstruct part of their evolutionary history. Instead, they made an amazing discovery.

After several years of meticulous measurements, the Grants and their students realized that the finches’ dimensions were changing before their eyes. Their beaks and bodies were evolving and adapting from year to year, sometimes slowly, sometimes strikingly, generation after generation. The researchers were watching evolution in real time, evolution in the flesh."

Hello Rose
No wonder no-one has replied to your new thread. I am replying just to show that I have read it. Why post this old rubbish as if it is something new? Dr David Berlinski, a molecular biologist, mathematician, philosopher and atheist, does not go a long with this as an argument for Evolution.

All the best
David

[L67]

Hello Rose
No wonder no-one has replied to your new thread. I am replying just to show that I have read it. Why post this old rubbish as if it is something new? Dr David Berlinski, a molecular biologist, mathematician, philosopher and atheist, does not go a long with this as an argument for Evolution.

All the best
David

Why would you call it old news? This is a recent discovery.

David Berlinski is NONE of those except philosopher.. He only holds a PHD in philosophy and he works for the Christian think tank the Discovery Institute.. He has made not a single significant contribution to science or mathematics. Berlinski is not a biologist so his views cannot be cited as authoritative in the field. Not only do biologists in the field know Berlinski is wrong, but the evidence says hes wrong. Why should anyone concerned with the truth care what he has to say?

Why do you keep listening to unqualified pseudo science hacks and ignore the REAL qualified people who can educate you?

[Rose]

Hello Rose
No wonder no-one has replied to your new thread. I am replying just to show that I have read it. Why post this old rubbish as if it is something new? Dr David Berlinski, a molecular biologist, mathematician, philosopher and atheist, does not go a long with this as an argument for Evolution.

All the best
David

Hey David

What are you talking about? Why would you dismiss verifiable evidence, painstakingly recorded over 40 years as "old rubbish"? This shows your extreme bias against evolution in favor of anything an anti-evolutionist like David Berlinski says. A true scientifically minded person looks at all the evidence with an open mind, without preconceived conclusions, letting the facts speak for themselves.

Evolution is a fact ... the only reason fundamentalist Christians deny this is because the Bible says that god created everything in their current forms ... not a good reason!


Kind regards,
Rose

[David M]

Hey David

What are you talking about? Why would you dismiss verifiable evidence, painstakingly recorded over 40 years as "old rubbish"? This shows your extreme bias against evolution in favor of anything an anti-evolutionist like David Berlinski says. A true scientifically minded person looks at all the evidence with an open mind, without preconceived conclusions, letting the facts speak for themselves.

Evolution is a fact ... the only reason fundamentalist Christians deny this is because the Bible says that god created everything in their current forms ... not a good reason!


Kind regards,
Rose

Hello Rose

40 years is nothing in the time scale of Evolution as we have been told repeatedly took millions of years. If there has been no discernible evolution in man for the last 6,000 years how can you expect finches to have evolved significantly in 40 years? Small adaptations and variations are not proof of Evolution. Of course these stories have to be released every once in a while to keep the research funding going so people keep their jobs.

The theory of Evolution is like the invisible Emperor's clothes. Even some highly respected atheist scientists can see the Emperor is naked.

If you listened to Berlinsky as I have, you would know that he does not hold with the Theory of Evolution. He is an atheist debunking Evolution on scientific principles.

Of course it appears bias on my part for bringing up this type of evidence against Evolution. This is no different to you pushing your own agenda against God and male bias and lack of human rights in the Bible. I give my opposite view. I present you with facts and it is your prerogative to put your head in the sand and not take them into account.

You fail to see the many atheist scientists who disagree with the Evolution theory because there is not the real evidence to back it up. The subject of DNA is probably too big at this stage for what is known about it to be used reliably to support Evolution and so it is wishful thinking that the answers to Evolution are going to be found in DNA. The complexity is so great we are still scratching at the surface. All the theory of Evolution is doing is using similarities of design to support a theory that these things came about by chance and developed into more complex forms.

All the best
David

[L67]

Hello Rose

40 years is nothing in the time scale of Evolution as we have been told repeatedly took millions of years. If there has been no discernible evolution in man for the last 6,000 years how can you expect finches to have evolved significantly in 40 years? Small adaptations and variations are not proof of Evolution. Of course these stories have to be released every once in a while to keep the research funding going so people keep their jobs.

Wow, just wow. The amount of misinformation in this entire post is truly stunning. And then David feels qualified to say evolution has no evidence to back it up. I'm only replying so people don't get sucked into your mindless drivel.


The reason evolution can be observed in finches is because of natural selection.

Natural selection is the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment.

Environmental changes such as drought, wetter conditions, and shortage of food etc.. all play a role in natural selection.

Evolution is still occurring in humans and always will be. Humans have not been affected the same way because modern technology, medicine, and civilization enable many people to live that would not have.

The theory of Evolution is like the invisible Emperor's clothes. Even some highly respected atheist scientists can see the Emperor is naked.

Notice how David didn't cite one scientist to support his position? Very typical.

If you listened to Berlinsky as I have, you would know that he does not hold with the Theory of Evolution. He is an atheist debunking Evolution on scientific principles.

Berlinsky is no atheist. He is a shill for the Discovery Institute, which is a Christian think tank. Also, Berlinski hasn't debunked anything pertaining to evolution. 99% of all biologists KNOW he is a quack. The only ones who listen to him are the uneducated.

And it gets better. Berlinski doesn't even have the credentials to debunk evolution. In fact, he has been caught fraudulently claiming to have a PHD in mathematics.

Post 26 here http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblo...ski-in-turkey/

This is what Berlinski says. I have a Ph.D. in PHILOSOPHY from Princeton University. I have never claimed otherwise; my resume does not claim otherwise; my eleven published books do not claim otherwise; my twenty or so published essays do not claim otherwise; my ex-wives do not claim otherwise; and the DI does not claim otherwise either.

The back of his book Newtons Gift says this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743...17#reader-link “David Berlinski is an essayist, philosopher, and mathematician.” He hold a Ph.D. from Princeton and has spent many years in various academic positions across America and abroad.

Here is another link that claims Berlinski has a PhD in mathematics. http://www.arn.org/infopage/berlinsk.htm

Here is another that claims Berlinski has a PhD in mathematics. http://web.archive.org/web/200709271...berlinski.html

And another. http://www.arn.org/odesign/od181/about181.htm

Where did these websites get the idea that Berlinski had a PHD in mathematics? Gee, I wonder.

Of course it appears bias on my part for bringing up this type of evidence against Evolution. This is no different to you pushing your own agenda against God and male bias and lack of human rights in the Bible. I give my opposite view. I present you with facts and it is your prerogative to put your head in the sand and not take them into account.

Let the record show that David has NEVER presented any evidence that debunks evolution. Posting bullshit from Berlinski hardly qualifies as evidence to anyone concerned with the truth.

You fail to see the many atheist scientists who disagree with the Evolution theory because there is not the real evidence to back it up. The subject of DNA is probably too big at this stage for what is known about it to be used reliably to support Evolution and so it is wishful thinking that the answers to Evolution are going to be found in DNA. The complexity is so great we are still scratching at the surface. All the theory of Evolution is doing is using similarities of design to support a theory that these things came about by chance and developed into more complex forms.

Once again, there is no scientists posted that confirms David mindless assertions.

It's painfully obvious David hasn't a clue about evolution or any of the science he rejects. He listens to unqualified hacks to fill his head with lies, instead of actually going directly to source of qualified biologists.

[L67]

Here is a great video with Sean Carroll and the people who studied the finches for 40 years. This was just posted a few days ago.

[David M]

Re the recent video about finches on the Galápagos Islands

This video will naturally please supporters of Evolution, but it does not convince the skeptic. An appraisal from someone who is genuinely not pro Creation, or not pro Evolution would be welcome on this forum so as to remove cognitive bias.

Like most of these types of videos, we are left with questions that arise which are not answered in the video

The beak modification is due to to selective breeding, which is caused by climatic changes and change in food supply. That is understandable and does not show Evolution at work, but adaptation by mating of birds with similar physical features. It follows that the more birds of a particular variety survive, because of their ability to crack nuts for example, the more those features will be seen in the offspring. Whilst species numbers fluctuated, in the study over 40 years, the same number of species remained the same. We are not told that one species became extinct and a new species evolved. Different species is not different Kinds.

Of course, Evolutionists do not like to use the word 'Kind' for different species that cannot interbreed. The word species is used to link everything, and that is confusing and deceptive. It is obvious that birds remain birds and are not evolving into any other Kind.

The experiment that shows one finch mating with a stuffed bird of the same appearance does not prove much except that the bird is not showing much intelligence to know that the bird is stuffed. Selecting according to appearance is no different to humans preferring to mate with others of similar race. We do not say that the different races are different Kind. What the Grants did not prove was that the different "species" they were saying were different Kinds could not mate, only that there was a preference to mate with similar species, therefore, the results are inconclusive. Selective breeding which is man-influenced or due to natural bias in breeding produces similar results. We could find different varieties of dogs, which because of physical size would not naturally inter-breed to produce another variety. That does not prove there are different species (Kinds) of dog. A dog remains a dog, and a cat remains a cat and they are distinctly two different kinds.

Tracing the ancestry of finches is like tracing the human ancestry to a common ancestor. That would show that birds are birds and humans are humans and our ancestry does not take us back to birds or whatever.

Once again at the end of the video, we hear the Evolutionists' speak of uncertainty of these findings in the language used; (quote) "the most likely scenario is ...." What other scenarios are there? My scenario is that proof of Evolution is not demonstrated by these findings and the findings of beak size changes only shows adaptation.

There is vested interest by those people who do such research being funded by the tax-payer. For 40 years the Grants have been funded to return to the Galápagos Islands for their summer vacation. Nothing of great significance has been proven as a result. "Nice work if you can get it", so the lyrics of the song goes.

[David M]

One must read the whole bio at the following link before deciding what is true and not true about Berlinski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

If Wikipedia has got some things wrong, and you know better, then you are free to correct the Wikipedia entry. I notice some things are waiting clarification, but what is lacking hardly makes any difference.

If Berlinksi is not persuaded by the Evolutionists into believing their theory, what fills the void for him? Berlinski does not claim to fully support the idea of Intelligent Design and having an association with its proponents does not alter the situation regarding Berlinski's position on the subject. One could say that Berlinski is not persuaded by Evolution theory, or ID, but that the theory of Evolution has no greater position than ID. ID is a more recent explanation than Evolution theory and ID has come about by recent scientific discoveries.

DNA is used to support the idea of Evolution and ID, yet DNA is such a large complex molecule that with all the acquired knowledge of it, only a tiny fraction of what it all means is understood. Maybe we have to wait till a lot more is found out about DNA to see which way the scales will tip before we reach a conclusion.

[L67]

Re the recent video about finches on the Galápagos Islands

This video will naturally please supporters of Evolution, but it does not convince the skeptic. An appraisal from someone who is genuinely not pro Creation, or not pro Evolution would be welcome on this forum so as to remove cognitive bias.

You're not even a skeptic. A skeptic would at least be educated enough to understand the science of evolution and have evidence to the contrary. You are NOTHING like that. You are radically ignorant of evolution as you have demonstrated in this whole post and you reject it because it contradicts what you want to believe.

The beak modification is due to to selective breeding, which is caused by climatic changes and change in food supply. That is understandable and does not show Evolution at work, but adaptation by mating of birds with similar physical features. It follows that the more birds of a particular variety survive, because of their ability to crack nuts for example, the more those features will be seen in the offspring. Whilst species numbers fluctuated, in the study over 40 years, the same number of species remained the same. We are not told that one species became extinct and a new species evolved. Different species is not different Kinds.

Selective breeding? What an ignorant thing to say. It's obvious you don't even know what selective breeding is. Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans breed other animals and plants for particular traits.

The Grants did NOTHING like that. It's natural selection at work. Your assertion that this is not evolution at work is patently FALSE. Many adaptations are NECESSARY for evolution to work. Evolution is the change in a population over time. The environment impacts the natural selection process. If beak size is dependent on the environment, then those adaptations will be necessary for survival, and will be more likely to be passed on to offspring. Hence, when the beak sizes changed due to the environment that means evolution has occurred because the species changed over time.

Also, species do NOT have to go extinct in order for evolution to occur. You would know this if you actually picked up a book about evolution, instead of filling your head with garbage from creationists.

Of course, Evolutionists do not like to use the word 'Kind' for different species that cannot interbreed. The word species is used to link everything, and that is confusing and deceptive. It is obvious that birds remain birds and are not evolving into any other Kind.

It's not confusing or deceptive if you actually understood what it is you are rejecting.

The experiment that shows one finch mating with a stuffed bird of the same appearance does not prove much except that the bird is not showing much intelligence to know that the bird is stuffed. Selecting according to appearance is no different to humans preferring to mate with others of similar race. We do not say that the different races are different Kind. What the Grants did not prove was that the different "species" they were saying were different Kinds could not mate, only that there was a preference to mate with similar species, therefore, the results are inconclusive. Selective breeding which is man-influenced or due to natural bias in breeding produces similar results. We could find different varieties of dogs, which because of physical size would not naturally inter-breed to produce another variety. That does not prove there are different species (Kinds) of dog. A dog remains a dog, and a cat remains a cat and they are distinctly two different kinds.

The creationist garbage that fills your head is spewing forth like a geyser.

Once again at the end of the video, we hear the Evolutionists' speak of uncertainty of these findings in the language used; (quote) "the most likely scenario is ...." What other scenarios are there? My scenario is that proof of Evolution is not demonstrated by these findings and the findings of beak size changes only shows adaptation.

Your scenario is one of ignorance and conspiracy theories. You have proven that in spades.

There is vested interest by those people who do such research being funded by the tax-payer. For 40 years the Grants have been funded to return to the Galápagos Islands for their summer vacation. Nothing of great significance has been proven as a result. "Nice work if you can get it", so the lyrics of the song goes.

Bullshit David. Don't drag two respectable biologists down to your level of ignorance and dishonesty. Their findings are SIGNIFICANT to science.