Damn!
I thought I was going to see a man that evolved from a monkey.
Maybe next time.
Judge Dread
Evolution in Action: Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists
by Elsewhere 39 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
hecouldbewrong
"But after at least three generations of reproductive isolation, the Grants felt comfortable in designating the new lineage as an incipient species." Shit, well if the Grants say so...heheh. I don't know what it will take to quiet the creationists, but its probably not what the Grants feel comfortable with.
-
The Scotsman
Yep, those pictures of birds that appear to have made more birds has convinced me utterly that evolution must be true!!!!!!!!
This is yet another example of variation "within" a species being punted as "proof" for the adult fairytale that is evolution.
-
SixofNine
Masai/Rothschild's
This produces extremely tall, fabulously wealthy offspring with an amazing vertical leap.
-
TD
I wasn't referring to inability to produce a zygote, but inability of the child to itself produce a child... Although I've heard that ligers can occasionally breed with tigers.
Then I guess I'm confused. (Not hard to do...)
It is considered a different species if the offspring of the two similar animals is not viable, similar to a mule.
When the offspring of an interspecies union are viable, that is very close to a real, bonafide speciation event. All that remains is for them to form a separate breeding population that survives in the wild, which is what appears to have happened with the Tanagers in the OP. Did you mean to say, "It is not considered a different species....."?
-
sir82
This is yet another example of variation "within" a species
Err, that's rather the point, isn't it? It's not "variation within a species"....it's a whole new species.
Now, imagine this processing repeating for a far longer time than you'd be able to observe it, 10's or hundreds of thousands of years. Compare the bird at the beginning of that time span to the bird at the end of that time span, and they'd look nothing alike, nor act alike, nor be alike in any way.
and if you say "but it'd still be a bird!" so help me I'll sock you one!
Evolution is a series of incredibly small steps, leading to big changes. To illustrate, imagine if you have a vehicle that travels one inch per year. If you were to observe it, even for months on end, you'd never notice its movement. If it were moving on a featureless surface, you'd never even be able to tell it had moved at all. But come back to that vehicle a 1,000,000 years from now, and it will be 16 miles from where it started.
Likewise with evolution. The changes that you'd be able to observe in your lifetime are incredibly small - a finch remains a finch, although genetically different enough to be considered a new species of finch. But give it a million or 10 million years, and the right conditions, and that finch, bit by bit, will have evolved into....something-as-yet-unnamed-that-is-not-a-finch.
-
undercover
If a finch evolved into an actor named Peter, would that be enough proof?
-
TD
This is yet another example of variation "within" a species
To be a true creationist, you would have to use the Biblical term, "Kind" --Variation within a kind.
What does and does not constitute a "Species" today is decided by those Godless biologists.
-
hooberus
What more do the creationists want?
"Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will ‘floor’ creation apologists with examples of ‘new species forming’ in nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation . . . ." http://creation.com/speciation-conference-brings-good-news-for-creationists
-
Judge Dread
But come back to that vehicle a 1,000,000 years from now, and it will be 16 miles from where it started.
Would it then have become a boat..................or maybe a train?????!!!!!
Judge Dread