Galapagos study finds that new species can develop in as little as two generations

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fort's proof is a hypothesis. And that's all it'll ever be.

Actually, it could become a strong theory, and likely will. And I was not offering proof, and it's impolite to misrepresent me that way. Essentially, it's a lie, on your part.

I clearly answered your question in the very first sentence of of my response to it: "I don't know". Then you misrepresent this? You are making it clear that you have no intention of learning anything or of seeking honest responses to honest questions.

As I predicted.

You clearly know very little about any of these topics. You clearly aren't willing to expend even the most minimal effort to educate yourself on them. Then you come here and demand others expend this effort for you? That is embarrassing behavior, for a grown man.

Also: again, you can stop calling it "my hypothesis". It's no more "mine" than any other prevailing hypothesis in the global scientific community.

 

[MarkDuffy]

If evolution, why aren't apes still turning into people?

Apes are very happy being apes

You're welcome!

 

[MarkDuffy]

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.

We still are apes

 

[MarkDuffy]

If evolution, why aren't apes still turning into people?

Or if they did, why are apes still around?

Species split, they do not end

 

[S.J.]

I clearly answered your question in the very first sentence of of my response to it: "I don't know".

Ok, you don't know. Let me know when you do.

 

[S.J.]

If evolution, why aren't apes still turning into people?

Or if they did, why are apes still around?

Species split, they do not end

Stop stating hypotheses as facts. I would respect your opinions a lot more if you didn't insist they are facts when they clearly are not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I clearly answered your question in the very first sentence of of my response to it: "I don't know".

Ok, you don't know. Let me know when you do.

Why?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If evolution, why aren't apes still turning into people?

Or if they did, why are apes still around?

Species split, they do not end

Stop stating hypotheses as facts. I would respect your opinions a lot more if you didn't insist they are facts when they clearly are not.

That wasn't a hypothesis. It is a predicted and confirmed result of the strongest scientific theory we've ever had, and it is considered established fact.

 

[MarkDuffy]

If evolution, why aren't apes still turning into people?

Or if they did, why are apes still around?

Species split, they do not end

Stop stating hypotheses as facts. I would respect your opinions a lot more if you didn't insist they are facts when they clearly are not.

LOL, I am an evolutionary biologist & just trying to help

 

[S.J.]

It is a predicted and confirmed result of the strongest scientific theory we've ever had, and it is considered established fact.

First you call it a theory, then you call it a fact, both in the same sentence. Good one.

 

[S.J.]

If evolution, why aren't apes still turning into people?

Or if they did, why are apes still around?

Species split, they do not end

Stop stating hypotheses as facts. I would respect your opinions a lot more if you didn't insist they are facts when they clearly are not.

LOL, I am an evolutionary biologist & just trying to help

Then you should not say something is fact when you know it's only theory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is a predicted and confirmed result of the strongest scientific theory we've ever had, and it is considered established fact.

First you call it a theory, then you call it a fact, both in the same sentence. Good one.

The word "theory" has special meaning in science. You are incorrectly conflating it with the word "hypothesis", and/or with the colloquial use of the word "theory".

Here is where you admit your error and try to avoid it in the future... but I never see this behavior from you deniers. This is a sign that you are not being rational.

yes, well-supported theories are considered settled fact, like the theory of electromagnetism, or of gravity. We may still tweak some of the predictions of these theories, given new information. But their basis is, indeed, considered fact. Of course, you are free to stick a fork in a glowing toaster 1,000 times, and see if you can make one of these theories fail.

yes, the theory of evolution is a fact. It is absurd not to proceed as such.

 

[Votto]

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!

But I thought that your existence disproved that species were evolving and improving.

 

[S.J.]

It is a predicted and confirmed result of the strongest scientific theory we've ever had, and it is considered established fact.

First you call it a theory, then you call it a fact, both in the same sentence. Good one.

The word "theory" has special meaning in science. You are incorrectly conflating it with the word "hypothesis", and/or with the colloquial use of the word "theory".

Here is where you admit your error and try to avoid it in the future... but I never see this behavior from you deniers. This is a sign that you are not being rational.

yes, well-supported theories are considered settled fact, like the theory of electromagnetism, or of gravity. We may still tweak some of the predictions of these theories, given new information. But their basis is, indeed, considered fact. Of course, you are free to stick a fork in a glowing toaster 1,000 times, and see if you can make one of these theories fail.

yes, the theory of evolution is a fact. It is absurd not to proceed as such.

Sorry, but a theory is not a fact. BTW, you sound like Bill Clinton. "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Always a good distraction when you've run out of argument. Let's see: The definition of "creature", the definition of "theory", the definition of "hypothesis". That really is all you have. No answers, just arguing over the meaning of words.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is a predicted and confirmed result of the strongest scientific theory we've ever had, and it is considered established fact.

First you call it a theory, then you call it a fact, both in the same sentence. Good one.

The word "theory" has special meaning in science. You are incorrectly conflating it with the word "hypothesis", and/or with the colloquial use of the word "theory".

Here is where you admit your error and try to avoid it in the future... but I never see this behavior from you deniers. This is a sign that you are not being rational.

yes, well-supported theories are considered settled fact, like the theory of electromagnetism, or of gravity. We may still tweak some of the predictions of these theories, given new information. But their basis is, indeed, considered fact. Of course, you are free to stick a fork in a glowing toaster 1,000 times, and see if you can make one of these theories fail.

yes, the theory of evolution is a fact. It is absurd not to proceed as such.

Sorry, but a theory is not a fact. BTW, you sound like Bill Clinton. "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Always a good distraction when you've run out of argument. Let's see: The definition of "creature", the definition of "theory", the definition of "hypothesis". That really is all you have. No answers, just arguing over the meaning of words.

"Sorry, but a theory is not a fact."

wrong. the theory of electromagnetism, for instance, is a fact. Yes, it's a fact that running a current through a wire will produce a magnetic field. You clearly have no sense of the use of the word "theory" in the realm of science. And your ignorance of this is YOUR fault, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeatedly demanding that something false is true, even after being corrected.

Again, define "creature". you asked the question, so it is incumbent upon you to define your terms. this is a basic responsibility expected of rational adults who ask questions. But for some reason, you think you are endowed with some special right to whine like a baby when this basic responsibility is asked of you.

No answers, eh? I said "I don't know" already. Good grief, what are you whining about?

 

[binder]

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 say BS. Most scientists don't even know what constitutes a separate species. But that aside, I would consider mulattos to be a separate species. Negroes themselves are even more so.

 

[S.J.]

It is a predicted and confirmed result of the strongest scientific theory we've ever had, and it is considered established fact.

First you call it a theory, then you call it a fact, both in the same sentence. Good one.

The word "theory" has special meaning in science. You are incorrectly conflating it with the word "hypothesis", and/or with the colloquial use of the word "theory".

Here is where you admit your error and try to avoid it in the future... but I never see this behavior from you deniers. This is a sign that you are not being rational.

yes, well-supported theories are considered settled fact, like the theory of electromagnetism, or of gravity. We may still tweak some of the predictions of these theories, given new information. But their basis is, indeed, considered fact. Of course, you are free to stick a fork in a glowing toaster 1,000 times, and see if you can make one of these theories fail.

yes, the theory of evolution is a fact. It is absurd not to proceed as such.

Sorry, but a theory is not a fact. BTW, you sound like Bill Clinton. "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Always a good distraction when you've run out of argument. Let's see: The definition of "creature", the definition of "theory", the definition of "hypothesis". That really is all you have. No answers, just arguing over the meaning of words.

"Sorry, but a theory is not a fact."

wrong. the theory of electromagnetism, for instance, is a fact. Yes, it's a fact that running a current through a wire will produce a magnetic field. You clearly have no sense of the use of the word "theory" in the realm of science. And your ignorance of this is YOUR fault, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeatedly demanding that something false is true, even after being corrected.

Again, define "creature". you asked the question, so it is incumbent upon you to define your terms. this is a basic responsibility expected of rational adults who ask questions. But for some reason, you think you are endowed with some special right to whine like a baby when this basic responsibility is asked of you.

No answers, eh? I said "I don't know" already. Good grief, what are you whining about?

I trust you know what you can do with your doubletalk. Define this, define that. That's all you've got.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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!

Yes some species remain unchanged over tens of millions of years....evolution must not be uniform

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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 say BS. Most scientists don't even know what constitutes a separate species. But that aside, I would consider mulattos to be a separate species. Negroes themselves are even more so.

Who cares what yyou think? You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is a predicted and confirmed result of the strongest scientific theory we've ever had, and it is considered established fact.

First you call it a theory, then you call it a fact, both in the same sentence. Good one.

The word "theory" has special meaning in science. You are incorrectly conflating it with the word "hypothesis", and/or with the colloquial use of the word "theory".

Here is where you admit your error and try to avoid it in the future... but I never see this behavior from you deniers. This is a sign that you are not being rational.

yes, well-supported theories are considered settled fact, like the theory of electromagnetism, or of gravity. We may still tweak some of the predictions of these theories, given new information. But their basis is, indeed, considered fact. Of course, you are free to stick a fork in a glowing toaster 1,000 times, and see if you can make one of these theories fail.

yes, the theory of evolution is a fact. It is absurd not to proceed as such.

Sorry, but a theory is not a fact. BTW, you sound like Bill Clinton. "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Always a good distraction when you've run out of argument. Let's see: The definition of "creature", the definition of "theory", the definition of "hypothesis". That really is all you have. No answers, just arguing over the meaning of words.

"Sorry, but a theory is not a fact."

wrong. the theory of electromagnetism, for instance, is a fact. Yes, it's a fact that running a current through a wire will produce a magnetic field. You clearly have no sense of the use of the word "theory" in the realm of science. And your ignorance of this is YOUR fault, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeatedly demanding that something false is true, even after being corrected.

Again, define "creature". you asked the question, so it is incumbent upon you to define your terms. this is a basic responsibility expected of rational adults who ask questions. But for some reason, you think you are endowed with some special right to whine like a baby when this basic responsibility is asked of you.

No answers, eh? I said "I don't know" already. Good grief, what are you whining about?

I trust you know what you can do with your doubletalk. Define this, define that. That's all you've got.

That's not doubletalk. That's what an adult is expected to do. That's what scientists would have to do as a first step, to address your question. If scientists were tasked with describing "the first creature", then "creature" woild have to be defined.

But it's kind of a silly question, because scientists don't think of a "first creature".