Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Galapagos study finds that new species can develop in as little as two generations
November 23, 2017
The arrival 36 years ago of a strange bird to a remote island in the Galapagos archipelago has provided direct genetic evidence of a novel way in which new species arise.
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 study comes from work conducted on Darwin's finches, which live on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean. The remote location has enabled researchers to study the evolution of biodiversity due to natural selection.
The direct observation of the origin of this new species occurred during field work carried out over the last four decades by B. Rosemary and Peter Grant, two scientists from Princeton, on the small island of Daphne Major.
Read more at: https://phys.org/new...pecies.html#jCp
Pretty cool. Every fucking day new evidence comes in to support evolution!
Galapagos study finds that new species can develop in as little as two generations
November 23, 2017
The arrival 36 years ago of a strange bird to a remote island in the Galapagos archipelago has provided direct genetic evidence of a novel way in which new species arise.
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 study comes from work conducted on Darwin's finches, which live on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean. The remote location has enabled researchers to study the evolution of biodiversity due to natural selection.
The direct observation of the origin of this new species occurred during field work carried out over the last four decades by B. Rosemary and Peter Grant, two scientists from Princeton, on the small island of Daphne Major.
Read more at: https://phys.org/new...pecies.html#jCp
Pretty cool. Every fucking day new evidence comes in to support evolution!
I'd like to see more political, social and spiritual evolution!
Not a problem there is a ton of political, social, and spiritual evolution. For example it is brand new under the Sun, if there is such as thing, never happened before, so total evolution victory, that bank secrets are traded for automatic national underwriting. Hehe. How do you like evolution?
Galapagos study finds that new species can develop in as little as two generations
November 23, 2017
The arrival 36 years ago of a strange bird to a remote island in the Galapagos archipelago has provided direct genetic evidence of a novel way in which new species arise.
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 study comes from work conducted on Darwin's finches, which live on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean. The remote location has enabled researchers to study the evolution of biodiversity due to natural selection.
The direct observation of the origin of this new species occurred during field work carried out over the last four decades by B. Rosemary and Peter Grant, two scientists from Princeton, on the small island of Daphne Major.
Read more at: https://phys.org/new...pecies.html#jCp
Pretty cool. Every fucking day new evidence comes in to support evolution!
I'd like to see more political, social and spiritual evolution!
Not a problem there is a ton of political, social, and spiritual evolution. For example it is brand new under the Sun, if there is such as thing, never happened before, so total evolution victory, that bank secrets are traded for automatic national underwriting. Hehe. How do you like evolution?
Dear anotherlife
innovations I'd like to see more of
* worker owned and managed coops, campuses and even entire townships
run and funded by self governed economies
* independent currency and credit systems
ex: Washington DC Time Bank
Ithaca HOURS www.ithacahours.com
www.paulglover.org
* democratized health care systems run by party members
using their respective networks as collective institutions for group benefits
Basically by respecting political beliefs of all people and groups as equal choices,
then these groups can organize and manage their own resources, structure and finance their own programs and policies.
The closest terms I was given for such an approach to equal political power or beliefs
is Isocracy or Isonomy.
That's where I believe we are heading as a nation and as a society,
and it's just a matter of progress and planning,
including setting up education and training so people
can even learn and teach the steps it will take to grow
toward full economic and political empowerment and self-government.
This is the first example of speciation that scientists have been able to observe directly in the field. Researchers followed the entire population of finches on a tiny Galapagos island called Daphne Major, for many years, and so they were able to watch the speciation in progress. The research was published in the journal Science.
This is an image of the Big Bird lineage, which arose through the breeding of two distinct parent species: G. fortis and G. conirostris
The group of finch species to which the Big Bird population belongs are collectively known as Darwin's finches and helped Charles Darwin to uncover the process of evolution by natural selection. In 1981, the researchers noticed the arrival of a male of a non-native species, the large cactus finch. Professors Rosemary and Peter Grant noticed that this male proceeded to mate with a female of one of the local species, a medium ground finch, producing fertile young.
Almost 40 years later, the progeny of that original mating are still being observed, and number around 30 individuals. "It's an extreme case of something we're coming to realise more generally over the years. Evolution in general can happen very quickly," said Prof Roger Butlin, a speciation expert who wasn't involved in the study.
What makes a species?
Galapagos study finds that new species can develop in as little as two generations
November 23, 2017
The arrival 36 years ago of a strange bird to a remote island in the Galapagos archipelago has provided direct genetic evidence of a novel way in which new species arise.
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 study comes from work conducted on Darwin's finches, which live on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean. The remote location has enabled researchers to study the evolution of biodiversity due to natural selection.
The direct observation of the origin of this new species occurred during field work carried out over the last four decades by B. Rosemary and Peter Grant, two scientists from Princeton, on the small island of Daphne Major.
Read more at: https://phys.org/new...pecies.html#jCp
Pretty cool. Every fucking day new evidence comes in to support evolution!
Yeah,
Given that 200 years ago, our ancestors were running, we should be flying by now (on our own).
BTW: You think people deny evolution as a mechanism in general....or are you fixed on the idea we came from apes.
LOL- our ancestors were running- and amazingly we are still able to run!
I think that the people who deny evolution get really hung up on saying bizarre crap like evolution would mean that we all came from apes.
I don't know why people deny the theory of evolution- in my opinion it is the only theory that fits the known scientific facts. I suspect most of the deniers have deeply held religious views which interfere with their analysis of the data.
Why is is people feel the need to argue against things that were not said.
Evolution is a known and proven mechanism. That is pretty much a given.
That we evolved from apes or something else has not been proven or shown in any way to be true.
If evolution, why aren't apes still turning into people?
Or if they did, why are apes still around?If evolution, why aren't apes still turning into people?
Tell us how life started.Or if they did, why are apes still around?If evolution, why aren't apes still turning into people?
Humans are Apes. And the other great apes are still around for the same reason that there is more than one species of mammal on the planet. Maybe it would help you understand the fundamental problems in your thinking if you broadened your question to include, say, all vertebrates. Why are fish still around, when we have elephants? Think about that question, and you can apply some the same principles from your answer to your earlier question.
Tell us how life started.Or if they did, why are apes still around?If evolution, why aren't apes still turning into people?
Humans are Apes. And the other great apes are still around for the same reason that there is more than one species of mammal on the planet. Maybe it would help you understand the fundamental problems in your thinking if you broadened your question to include, say, all vertebrates. Why are fish still around, when we have elephants? Think about that question, and you can apply some the same principles from your answer to your earlier question.
Not at all, I'm just trying to cut to the chase. Instead of going through each stage of your theory, let's just go straight to the first link. If everything evolved, what was the first creature and what did it evolve into? If you can't answer that question, you have nothing.Tell us how life started.Or if they did, why are apes still around?If evolution, why aren't apes still turning into people?
Humans are Apes. And the other great apes are still around for the same reason that there is more than one species of mammal on the planet. Maybe it would help you understand the fundamental problems in your thinking if you broadened your question to include, say, all vertebrates. Why are fish still around, when we have elephants? Think about that question, and you can apply some the same principles from your answer to your earlier question.
I don't know how. I can offer a plausible explanation. But that is not the same topic as evolution. Why change lanes so quickly? You asked a question and got an informative answer....then you ignore it and change topics? That's not polite, and such behavior would lead one to believe that you are not asking questions in an honest effort to seek honest answers.
Not at all, I'm just trying to cut to the chase. Instead of going through each stage of your theory, let's just go straight to the first link. If everything evolved, what was the first creature and what did it evolve into? If you can't answer that question, you have nothing.Tell us how life started.Or if they did, why are apes still around?If evolution, why aren't apes still turning into people?
Humans are Apes. And the other great apes are still around for the same reason that there is more than one species of mammal on the planet. Maybe it would help you understand the fundamental problems in your thinking if you broadened your question to include, say, all vertebrates. Why are fish still around, when we have elephants? Think about that question, and you can apply some the same principles from your answer to your earlier question.
I don't know how. I can offer a plausible explanation. But that is not the same topic as evolution. Why change lanes so quickly? You asked a question and got an informative answer....then you ignore it and change topics? That's not polite, and such behavior would lead one to believe that you are not asking questions in an honest effort to seek honest answers.
Yeah, I get it. You can't answer a simple question that is the basis of the whole theory. If you can't explain the origin of life, how do you expect to convince anyone that they evolved? Instead of answering these basic questions you come back with BS like "define creature". Seems like every time you're asked a question you can't answer you throw crap like that out to muddy the waters so you can avoid answering. I think we're done here.Not at all, I'm just trying to cut to the chase. Instead of going through each stage of your theory, let's just go straight to the first link. If everything evolved, what was the first creature and what did it evolve into? If you can't answer that question, you have nothing.Tell us how life started.Or if they did, why are apes still around?
Humans are Apes. And the other great apes are still around for the same reason that there is more than one species of mammal on the planet. Maybe it would help you understand the fundamental problems in your thinking if you broadened your question to include, say, all vertebrates. Why are fish still around, when we have elephants? Think about that question, and you can apply some the same principles from your answer to your earlier question.
I don't know how. I can offer a plausible explanation. But that is not the same topic as evolution. Why change lanes so quickly? You asked a question and got an informative answer....then you ignore it and change topics? That's not polite, and such behavior would lead one to believe that you are not asking questions in an honest effort to seek honest answers.
If you are "trying to cut to the chase", then you need to stop and reconsider the difference between the topics of evolution and abiogenesis. You clearly are not aware of this difference.
The "first creature" is a somewhat meaningless idea, and even more meaningless is your question about it, as stated.. You would first have to define "creature". Can you do that?
Also,, you can stop calling it "my theory". What an odd and absurd thing to say. It's no more "my theory" than is the theory of general relativity.
Yeah, I get it. You can't answer a simple question that is the basis of the whole theory. If you can't explain the origin of life, how do you expect to convince anyone that they evolved? Instead of answering these basic questions you come back with BS like "define creature". Seems like every time you're asked a question you can't answer you throw crap like that out to muddy the waters so you can avoid answering. I think we're done here.Not at all, I'm just trying to cut to the chase. Instead of going through each stage of your theory, let's just go straight to the first link. If everything evolved, what was the first creature and what did it evolve into? If you can't answer that question, you have nothing.Tell us how life started.Humans are Apes. And the other great apes are still around for the same reason that there is more than one species of mammal on the planet. Maybe it would help you understand the fundamental problems in your thinking if you broadened your question to include, say, all vertebrates. Why are fish still around, when we have elephants? Think about that question, and you can apply some the same principles from your answer to your earlier question.
I don't know how. I can offer a plausible explanation. But that is not the same topic as evolution. Why change lanes so quickly? You asked a question and got an informative answer....then you ignore it and change topics? That's not polite, and such behavior would lead one to believe that you are not asking questions in an honest effort to seek honest answers.
If you are "trying to cut to the chase", then you need to stop and reconsider the difference between the topics of evolution and abiogenesis. You clearly are not aware of this difference.
The "first creature" is a somewhat meaningless idea, and even more meaningless is your question about it, as stated.. You would first have to define "creature". Can you do that?
Also,, you can stop calling it "my theory". What an odd and absurd thing to say. It's no more "my theory" than is the theory of general relativity.
I can help.I found stupid easy to cure to those who are willing.
I get it, you don't have an answer. You duck and dodge, that's all we ever get from you guys. You expect us to accept your theory without having to provide any proof or answer any questions (because you don't have any). I'm done wasting my time with you. Bye.Yeah, I get it. You can't answer a simple question that is the basis of the whole theory. If you can't explain the origin of life, how do you expect to convince anyone that they evolved? Instead of answering these basic questions you come back with BS like "define creature". Seems like every time you're asked a question you can't answer you throw crap like that out to muddy the waters so you can avoid answering. I think we're done here.Not at all, I'm just trying to cut to the chase. Instead of going through each stage of your theory, let's just go straight to the first link. If everything evolved, what was the first creature and what did it evolve into? If you can't answer that question, you have nothing.Tell us how life started.
I don't know how. I can offer a plausible explanation. But that is not the same topic as evolution. Why change lanes so quickly? You asked a question and got an informative answer....then you ignore it and change topics? That's not polite, and such behavior would lead one to believe that you are not asking questions in an honest effort to seek honest answers.
If you are "trying to cut to the chase", then you need to stop and reconsider the difference between the topics of evolution and abiogenesis. You clearly are not aware of this difference.
The "first creature" is a somewhat meaningless idea, and even more meaningless is your question about it, as stated.. You would first have to define "creature". Can you do that?
Also,, you can stop calling it "my theory". What an odd and absurd thing to say. It's no more "my theory" than is the theory of general relativity.
You're still making the same mistake. No, the origin of the first single celled creatures is not only not the basis of evolution, it's not even a part of it. Evolution explains the diversity of species, not the origins of the first cells.
And yes, I can provide a plausible explanation. In fact, any 5 year old with google can look up "abiogenesis" to learn where scientists are with that topic today. The key to their explanations is selection. The more persistent molecules persisted. That's about it, in a nutshell.
And I didnt "muddy those waters", they came already muddied. Define "creature". Hard, isn't it? Would you consider a strand of self-replicating DNA inside a primitive cell membrane to be "a creature"? How about, with no membrane?
I get it, you don't have an answer. You duck and dodge, that's all we ever get from you guys. You expect us to accept your theory without having to provide any proof or answer any questions (because you don't any). I'm done wasting my time with you. Bye.Yeah, I get it. You can't answer a simple question that is the basis of the whole theory. If you can't explain the origin of life, how do you expect to convince anyone that they evolved? Instead of answering these basic questions you come back with BS like "define creature". Seems like every time you're asked a question you can't answer you throw crap like that out to muddy the waters so you can avoid answering. I think we're done here.Not at all, I'm just trying to cut to the chase. Instead of going through each stage of your theory, let's just go straight to the first link. If everything evolved, what was the first creature and what did it evolve into? If you can't answer that question, you have nothing.I don't know how. I can offer a plausible explanation. But that is not the same topic as evolution. Why change lanes so quickly? You asked a question and got an informative answer....then you ignore it and change topics? That's not polite, and such behavior would lead one to believe that you are not asking questions in an honest effort to seek honest answers.
If you are "trying to cut to the chase", then you need to stop and reconsider the difference between the topics of evolution and abiogenesis. You clearly are not aware of this difference.
The "first creature" is a somewhat meaningless idea, and even more meaningless is your question about it, as stated.. You would first have to define "creature". Can you do that?
Also,, you can stop calling it "my theory". What an odd and absurd thing to say. It's no more "my theory" than is the theory of general relativity.
You're still making the same mistake. No, the origin of the first single celled creatures is not only not the basis of evolution, it's not even a part of it. Evolution explains the diversity of species, not the origins of the first cells.
And yes, I can provide a plausible explanation. In fact, any 5 year old with google can look up "abiogenesis" to learn where scientists are with that topic today. The key to their explanations is selection. The more persistent molecules persisted. That's about it, in a nutshell.
And I didnt "muddy those waters", they came already muddied. Define "creature". Hard, isn't it? Would you consider a strand of self-replicating DNA inside a primitive cell membrane to be "a creature"? How about, with no membrane?
31 THOUSAND MESSAGES............. give the dork 3 minutes
