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

[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 ******* day new evidence comes in to support evolution!

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

You are right, it isn't.

 

[MadChemist]

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 ******* 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.

Are you joking? Of course it has.

Only in your fantasy world.

 

[TNHarley]

Asking "why are apes still around if evolution is real?" Means you don't understand it to begin with.
We are both hominoids.
Think about this guys : genetically, we are only 2 percent different from chimps.
We are each .01 percent different from each other.

 

[TNHarley]

The word ape is not consistently used. It would help if people didn't say "we are apes" when discussing this issue.
It sounds dumb to a lot of people..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Asking "why are apes still around if evolution is real?" Means you don't understand it to begin with.
We are both hominoids.
Think about this guys : genetically, we are only 2 percent different from chimps.
We are each .01 percent different from each other.

The word ape is not consistently used. It would help if people didn't say "we are apes" when discussing this issue.
It sounds dumb to a lot of people..

But it is accurate. And it's even more accurate is to say we are great apes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 ******* day new evidence comes in to support evolution!

You are confusing cross species breeding with evolution. ....

What is evolution?

 

[TNHarley]

Asking "why are apes still around if evolution is real?" Means you don't understand it to begin with.
We are both hominoids.
Think about this guys : genetically, we are only 2 percent different from chimps.
We are each .01 percent different from each other.

The word ape is not consistently used. It would help if people didn't say "we are apes" when discussing this issue.
It sounds dumb to a lot of people..

But it is accurate. And it's even more accurate is to say we are great apes.

But it sounds dumb to most people. They will automatically be biased. the word isn't consistently used.. It's not taxonomic. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Asking "why are apes still around if evolution is real?" Means you don't understand it to begin with.
We are both hominoids.
Think about this guys : genetically, we are only 2 percent different from chimps.
We are each .01 percent different from each other.

The word ape is not consistently used. It would help if people didn't say "we are apes" when discussing this issue.
It sounds dumb to a lot of people..

But it is accurate. And it's even more accurate is to say we are great apes.

But it sounds dumb to most people. They will automatically be biased. the word isn't consistently used.. It's not taxonomic. That's all I'm saying.

So, hominoid? I have no problem with that. But when someone asks, "what's a hominoid", you will have to say, "what we commonly call apes". And then they ask, "so you're saying humans are apes?", and you say "yes". So you've just delayed the inevitable.

 

[Syriusly]

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 ******* 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.

Evolution is a known and proven mechanism.

And no theory for the origin of humankind- fits the known facts better than evolution.

As i said before

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.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Or if they did, why are apes still around?

You realize that both statements just demonstrate your ignorance of both the facts- and the theory of evolution.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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.

Tell us how life started.

The Theory of Evolution- is a theory- just like the Theory of Gravitation.

Tell us how gravity started.

Go.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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.

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.

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.

Do I need to prove where water came from in order to prove that water is flowing down the river?

Nope. The water is flowing down the river regardless of where the water came from.

Where life came from is not part of the Theory of Evolution. No more than where water comes from is part of the Theory of Hydroelectricity.

So what is your theory of where life came from? What supports your theory?

 

[Syriusly]

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- no- you will always despise the opinions of anyone who confronts your bizarre evolution denial posts.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

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 have any). I'm done wasting my time with you. Bye.

If only that were true. If only that were true.

What is your theory of how life came to be?

What is your theory that accounts for the disbursal of life around our globe?

 

[Syriusly]

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 ******* day new evidence comes in to support evolution!

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

Actually- not exactly true
Are there some animals that have stopped evolving?

But that doesn't make it a true living fossil. A second study, also published in 2013, examined coelacanth fossils and DNA. It found that the two living species are significantly different to their dinosaur-era ancestors, both in their genes and in the design of their bodies.

"The phrase [living fossil] implies that evolution has not acted on the organism over these long timescales," say Chris Amemiya and Mark Robinson of the Benaroya Research Institute in Seattle, Washington, who worked on the coelacanth genome project. "That is clearly shown not to be true for coelacanths."

Quite simply, their skeletons have changed. A second dorsal fin has transformed from spiny to lobed, and they have lost bones around the rim of the mouth and around their scales. Coelacanths living 400 million years ago were not identical to the fish that live on in 2015. So are there other animals that really haven't changed their bodies?
Tadpole shrimps look even more prehistoric than coelacanths. Each one has a carapace that resembles a sequin. This protects a long tail-like abdomen ending in two long, thin appendages that look like antennae.

It seems the key to the tadpole shrimps' survival may be how they reproduce

Tadpole shrimps are found as far apart as China and Scotland, and have survived for 300 million years. That means they survived the Permian extinction, often known as the Great Dying, which wiped out almost every other animal species.

Given that, you might think tadpole shrimps have evolution all figured out. But genetics says otherwise. According to a 2013 analysis, tadpole shrimps have evolved and diversified significantly over millions of years. "There is clear evidence of evolution," says study leader Africa Gómez of the University of Hull in the UK.

In fact it seems the key to the tadpole shrimps' survival may be how they reproduce. A single tadpole shrimp can reproduce without a partner, because they are both male and female.

 

[TNHarley]

Asking "why are apes still around if evolution is real?" Means you don't understand it to begin with.
We are both hominoids.
Think about this guys : genetically, we are only 2 percent different from chimps.
We are each .01 percent different from each other.

The word ape is not consistently used. It would help if people didn't say "we are apes" when discussing this issue.
It sounds dumb to a lot of people..

But it is accurate. And it's even more accurate is to say we are great apes.

But it sounds dumb to most people. They will automatically be biased. the word isn't consistently used.. It's not taxonomic. That's all I'm saying.

So, hominoid? I have no problem with that. But when someone asks, "what's a hominoid", you will have to say, "what we commonly call apes". And then they ask, "so you're saying humans are apes?", and you say "yes". So you've just delayed the inevitable.

Excellent point

 

[Carl in Michigan]

For one, humans are apes

No, humans are NOT apes.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

We still a

Tell hat to the next black guy you meet.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

We are not descended from apes, dumb ass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Or if they did, why are apes still around?

Same answer to the last post:

We are not descended from apes, dumb ass!