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

[Carl in Michigan]

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

Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys like marmosets. All of us anthropoids. But humans aren’t monkeys.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Oh, the stupidity in that post is overwhelming!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys like marmosets. All of us anthropoids. But humans aren’t monkeys.

Amd apes are not monkeys. And gibbons are apes, but not great apes, like humans.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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 can define the primordial type of "creature" simply by following back the "tree of life" as we know it. Until we can't follow any longer for lack of evidence.

Abiogenesis sucks as an answer for where life came from. Because EVERY form of life in that tree of life contains DNA. And every creature shares a significant portion of that chemical design.

The biochemistry for even CONSTRUCTING that "substance" is still in it's scientific development phase. And it's a simple 4 protein recipe. BUT you gotta ask how many TIMES did that abiogenesis happen? Why does every thing share SIGNIFICANT fractions of the coding. ??

Seems to point to the fact that this happened just ONE TIME under exceptional conditions. OR by cosmic or other unworldly intervention.. Why JUST those 4 proteins? They have no special significance to the universe of proteins. Why aren't there alternate cell building structures that evolved under abiogenesis? It seems abiogenesis is a fancy name for a "One Trick Pony"..

 

[MarkDuffy]

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..

We use the response we are apes to those who deny we are descended from apes or even monkeys (both true). Apes are too heavy to swing from trees.

We are apes, but we are not gorillas, chimps nor bonobos.

Here's another that will blow your mind

We are also mammals! However, we are not horses

We are also vertebrates, but we are not lizards.

Pretty cool, no?

 

[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!

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

The history of evolution is very long periods of stasis followed by the rapid radiation of new species when something in the environment changes, more or less.

 

[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!

Yeah, no shit, dumbass. You get a cookie.

Ooh! What kind?

You asked a stupid question, so I gave you the answer!

 

[MarkDuffy]

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.

It is taxonomic

Hominidae - Wikipedia

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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 can define the primordial type of "creature" simply by following back the "tree of life" as we know it. Until we can't follow any longer for lack of evidence.

Abiogenesis sucks as an answer for where life came from. Because EVERY form of life in that tree of life contains DNA. And every creature shares a significant portion of that chemical design.

The biochemistry for even CONSTRUCTING that "substance" is still in it's scientific development phase. And it's a simple 4 protein recipe. BUT you gotta ask how many TIMES did that abiogenesis happen? Why does every thing share SIGNIFICANT fractions of the coding. ??

Seems to point to the fact that this happened just ONE TIME under exceptional conditions. OR by cosmic or other unworldly intervention.. Why JUST those 4 proteins? They have no special significance to the universe of proteins. Why aren't there alternate cell building structures that evolved under abiogenesis? It seems abiogenesis is a fancy name for a "One Trick Pony"..

"I can define the primordial type of "creature" simply by "

That's not what was asked, though. It is being asked to define "creature". Or, better, "life". You have pointed out "earliest observed creature". Not the same. Another way: if you followed that treee of life backwards, without constraint, where would you stop?

Personally, I think the idea of "first life" is nonsensical. It's a continuum. We could arbitrarily ascribe a definition and use that as the standard of life/not life, but even then we would have trouble with the intermediates.


I can see what you are trying to say about abogenesis, but I would argue against it thusly:

There is only so much available organic mass on the planet. It would only make sense that one type of life would come to dominate others, if that one were very successful before other types flourished as well. Perhaps there is some truth to the idea that different types of life formed through abiogenesis and were then absorbed by or made extinct by competition. Maybe some of it even still exists.... but, would we even know it, if we saw it? So, knowing that the only life WE know of is DNA-based in no way necessarily makes abiogenesis a "one trick pony".

And then there's the idea that the only alternative to abiogenesis is magic, which is nothing but a white flag and not worthy of consideration in a discussion of explaining the origin of life. So we're stuck with abiogenesis. You casting dispersion at it is appeal to emotion.

And, to be clear: Abiogenesis is not "an explanation of the formation of life", it IS the formation of life. An explanation of of how abiogenesis occurred would be an explanation of the formation of life.

"Why just those 4 proteins"

You should google that. There has been plenty of scientific discussion on exactly why, and I don't think it's a mystery. I think it's a selection issue dealing with efficiency. I'll go read up, too...

Why does DNA only use 4 nucleotides?

 

[S.J.]

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!

Yeah, no shit, dumbass. You get a cookie.

Ooh! What kind?

You asked a stupid question, so I gave you the answer!

Ever hear of the word "sarcasm", genius? You make my case about teachers.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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!

Yeah, no shit, dumbass. You get a cookie.

Ooh! What kind?

You asked a stupid question, so I gave you the answer!

Ever hear of the word "sarcasm", genius? You make my case about teachers.

As if teachers are something to be disparaged...

 

[S.J.]

Or if they did, why are apes still around?

Same answer to the last post:

We are not descended from apes, dumb ass!

Yeah, no shit, dumbass. You get a cookie.

Ooh! What kind?

You asked a stupid question, so I gave you the answer!

Ever hear of the word "sarcasm", genius? You make my case about teachers.

As if teachers are something to be disparaged...

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Didn't have what it takes to make it in the real world so they seek employment with the government, where they won't be fired for their incompetence. You know I'm right.

 

[flacaltenn]

Perhaps there is some truth to the idea that different types of life formed through abiogenesis and were then absorbed by or made extinct by competition. Maybe some of it even still exists.... but, would we even know it, if we saw it? So, knowing that the only life WE know of is DNA-based in no way necessarily makes abiogenesis a "one trick pony".

Actually it does if science has no fucking clue what "alternate life" looks like formed by the process. Never seen it. MAYBE PRIONS?? Dunno if it's even speculated on much. The only other use of the term abiogenesis that I'm aware of is a mostly discounted tale of predominantly Russian scientists claiming that most or a large fraction of the Earth's petrol supply came to be thru Carbon chemistry --- not dinosaurs droppings and fossilized plants. Which is a FAR cry simpler than the chemistry of any single living cell.

THAT kind of hydrocarbon chemistry (origins of oil) we can speculate on.

All I can say is we KNOW the common ACTG base pairing is just ONE of a myriad of possible solutions to producing this self-replicating structure with specific "numerical" combinatorial properties. . In fact, what is referred to "alien DNA" has been created in the lab by ADDING additional bases or using alternates to the four ACTG. HENCE -- the "One Trick Pony" comment. ALL life likely started in ONE place with ONE set of extraordinary circumstances if either God did it or abiogenesis did it. I have no clue how competition or adaptation or survival of the fittest would play ANY role in this chemical construction being declared the winner over a multitude of other KNOWN random chemical experiments.

The thread is off in at least 2 directions.ONE is the vested interest in how life is created. This one doesn't interest me as much as getting "tree of life" straight and explaining some of the very rude and crude "transistions" of species. THAT issue is more in line with the OP and my interests.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Same answer to the last post:

We are not descended from apes, dumb ass!

Yeah, no shit, dumbass. You get a cookie.

Ooh! What kind?

You asked a stupid question, so I gave you the answer!

Ever hear of the word "sarcasm", genius? You make my case about teachers.

As if teachers are something to be disparaged...

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Didn't have what it takes to make it in the real world so they seek employment with the government, where they won't be fired for their incompetence. You know I'm right.

You're not right...you sound foolish...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Perhaps there is some truth to the idea that different types of life formed through abiogenesis and were then absorbed by or made extinct by competition. Maybe some of it even still exists.... but, would we even know it, if we saw it? So, knowing that the only life WE know of is DNA-based in no way necessarily makes abiogenesis a "one trick pony".

Actually it does if science has no fucking clue what "alternate life" looks like formed by the process. Never seen it. MAYBE PRIONS?? Dunno if it's even speculated on much. The only other use of the term abiogenesis that I'm aware of is a mostly discounted tale of predominantly Russian scientists claiming that most or a large fraction of the Earth's petrol supply came to be thru Carbon chemistry --- not dinosaurs droppings and fossilized plants. Which is a FAR cry simpler than the chemistry of any single living cell.

THAT kind of hydrocarbon chemistry (origins of oil) we can speculate on.

All I can say is we KNOW the common ACTG base pairing is just ONE of a myriad of possible solutions to producing this self-replicating structure with specific "numerical" combinatorial properties. . In fact, what is referred to "alien DNA" has been created in the lab by ADDING additional bases or using alternates to the four ACTG. HENCE -- the "One Trick Pony" comment. ALL life likely started in ONE place with ONE set of extraordinary circumstances if either God did it or abiogenesis did it. I have no clue how competition or adaptation or survival of the fittest would play ANY role in this chemical construction being declared the winner over a multitude of other KNOWN random chemical experiments.

The thread is off in at least 2 directions.ONE is the vested interest in how life is created. This one doesn't interest me as much as getting "tree of life" straight and explaining some of the very rude and crude "transistions" of species. THAT issue is more in line with the OP and my interests.

"Actually it does if science has no fucking clue what "alternate life" looks like formed by the process. "

No it doesn't. That's ridiculous. Just because we only understand DNA life doesnt mean other types can't or didn't form here or elsewhere. This is an overwrought, irrational point.

And there are excellent reasons we only have four nucleotides in our DNA. Did you read?

"All life likely started in one place"

By what evidence, theoretical or otherwise? By what method were you divined this knowledge? What you are saying is vague. Componemts of early life could very well have formed all over the planet. One model came to dominate. If this is what you mean, fine. But again , it would only make sense that a very successful model would dominate due to becoming very successful before any other model.

You have no idea how competition would lead to one model dominating? Via selection , of course. That's not comllicated. In fact, it's one of the easier things about the formation of life on a planet to grasp.

You have two choices : abiogenesis or nothing. If you choose to wave the white flag and choose "magic" as your "nothing", you do yourself a disservice.

 

[S.J.]

Yeah, no shit, dumbass. You get a cookie.

Ooh! What kind?

You asked a stupid question, so I gave you the answer!

Ever hear of the word "sarcasm", genius? You make my case about teachers.

As if teachers are something to be disparaged...

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Didn't have what it takes to make it in the real world so they seek employment with the government, where they won't be fired for their incompetence. You know I'm right.

You're not right...you sound foolish...

Define "right".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ooh! What kind?

You asked a stupid question, so I gave you the answer!

Ever hear of the word "sarcasm", genius? You make my case about teachers.

As if teachers are something to be disparaged...

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Didn't have what it takes to make it in the real world so they seek employment with the government, where they won't be fired for their incompetence. You know I'm right.

You're not right...you sound foolish...

Define "right".

"The universal declaration you make is always true"

It isn't, and you're wrong.

Now, define "life". Go ahead snarky, thought you would play gotcha, now you stepped in it.

Or bow out and slink away. Whatever.

 

[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 can define the primordial type of "creature" simply by following back the "tree of life" as we know it. Until we can't follow any longer for lack of evidence.

Abiogenesis sucks as an answer for where life came from. Because EVERY form of life in that tree of life contains DNA. And every creature shares a significant portion of that chemical design.

The biochemistry for even CONSTRUCTING that "substance" is still in it's scientific development phase. And it's a simple 4 protein recipe. BUT you gotta ask how many TIMES did that abiogenesis happen? Why does every thing share SIGNIFICANT fractions of the coding. ??

Seems to point to the fact that this happened just ONE TIME under exceptional conditions. OR by cosmic or other unworldly intervention.. Why JUST those 4 proteins? They have no special significance to the universe of proteins. Why aren't there alternate cell building structures that evolved under abiogenesis? It seems abiogenesis is a fancy name for a "One Trick Pony"..

I actually agree we don't know where the first life came from on earth. We may never know- unless finding life on other planets gives us some clues to cross reference.

But we don't need to know how life started on earth- to see that Evolution(in the most overreaching and basic sense of the term) is the reason for the variety of life here on Earth- and for much of the reason of the distribution of life on earth.

There is a reason why there are kangaroos in Australia and galapagos tortoises in the Galapagos.

There is no theory I have seen- other than evolution- that fits the facts we do know- of life on earth.

 

[S.J.]

But we don't need to know how life started on earth- to see that Evolution(in the most overreaching and basic sense of the term) is the reason for the variety of life here on Earth- and for much of the reason of the distribution of life on earth.

Does evolution not claim there is a common ancestor? In order for the theory to be given credibility you first have to address the origin of life. You have to be able to credibly trace man back to the very beginning of life on earth if you expect us to believe we evolved from that first living thing. Until you can put it together you cannot credibly call evolution fact. It's still, and will always be a theory, nothing more. Someone's imagination. It's simply what you want to believe, and even flawed science will be enough proof for you.

 

[Syriusly]

But we don't need to know how life started on earth- to see that Evolution(in the most overreaching and basic sense of the term) is the reason for the variety of life here on Earth- and for much of the reason of the distribution of life on earth.

Does evolution not claim there is a common ancestor? In order for the theory to be given credibility you first have to address the origin of life. .

Nope- actually the theory has amazing credibility and never once describes how life began.

Whether life somehow came into being on Earth, whether microbes from other planets 'seeded' earth, or whether some sky fairie planted microbes on earth- all immaterial to the theory of evolution.

As I said before- I don't need to know where the water came from, when I look at a river, to know that the river is flowing past me.

As always- this is your straw man to divert attention away from the topic of evolution.

So now- as asked before- what is the theory that you believe accounts for life on earth as we know it?