Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wired: “Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists”
AiG ^ | November 21, 2009

Posted on 11/21/2009 9:59:49 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

Scientists have watched as a new species is “born”—or is that “evolved”?—on one of the Galapagos Islands, home of Darwin’s famous finches...

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Kentucky; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: abiogenesis; atomsdonotexist; baptist; belongsinreligion; bible; biology; catholic; christian; christianright; createdkinds; creation; crevolist; darwin; darwinsfinches; dna; electricityisfire; evangelical; evolution; galapagos; genesis; genetics; geneticvariation; genome; god; godsgravesglyphs; gravityisahoax; intelligentdesign; jesuschrist; judaism; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; protestant; religiousright; science; spammer; speciation; variation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

1 posted on 11/21/2009 9:59:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So what species gave birth to this new species?


2 posted on 11/21/2009 10:03:24 AM PST by NeoConfederate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NeoConfederate

Genetic variation within the bird kind, then reproductive isolation.


3 posted on 11/21/2009 10:05:19 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


4 posted on 11/21/2009 10:06:54 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NeoConfederate
What dreamer darwinists are. Where is a picture of this bird, I think that is what the meandering explanation was about. When the drought is over things will evolve back again.
5 posted on 11/21/2009 10:14:47 AM PST by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Deceptive headline. The “new” finches appear to be some sort of mutation, and they had trouble reproducing.


6 posted on 11/21/2009 10:15:57 AM PST by smokingfrog (I'm from TEXAS -- what country are YOU from?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NeoConfederate

They bred two finches from a different island. The offspring interbred, because the local finches wouldn’t breed with them. So they had several generations of inbred finches. Nothing remarkable about them. No evolution. No new species. Non-story.


7 posted on 11/21/2009 10:20:32 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Ʋ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Variation within species has been observed again. That’s nice.


8 posted on 11/21/2009 10:21:30 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

will the new species taste good with drawn butter? “Heck, I’d eat my own head with drawn butter” (Crow T. Robot)


9 posted on 11/21/2009 10:22:59 AM PST by isom35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
They bred two finches from a different island.

From what the article implied, although it wasn't clearly stated, it sounded like the scientists played a role in this breeding.

That would merely be intelligent design all over again.

Of course, with the definition of *species* being so elastic and vague, it's easy to *prove* that a *new species* has *evolved*.

10 posted on 11/21/2009 10:25:21 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Obviously, there was something genetically or visually wrong with the first bird because the females didn’t want to breed with him. They refused to pollute the gene pool.

That or birds are racist!


11 posted on 11/21/2009 10:26:44 AM PST by bgill (The framers of the US Constitution established an entire federal government in 18 pages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If inbreeding amongst abnormal specimens is the key to creating a new species then it might explain some people I have met from back in the hills. It might also explain why Pakistani politics are so confusing to the rest of the world.
12 posted on 11/21/2009 10:29:42 AM PST by dog breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill

13 posted on 11/21/2009 10:30:20 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Ʋ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: metmom

This is all true. Of course, it keeps coming back to the fact that there was no new species.


14 posted on 11/21/2009 10:32:20 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Ʋ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Even if this were true, which I doubt, it would be Micro Evolution, and nobody denies that, not Macro Evolution of which there is no proof what so ever.


15 posted on 11/21/2009 10:34:20 AM PST by fish hawk (It's sad that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. Isaac Asimov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The snappers and growlers will be ‘evolving’ in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .


16 posted on 11/21/2009 10:35:06 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Prove it.

I foresee a startling discovery in the near future. There have been thousands of these “new” finches inhabiting some valley someplace for thousands of years.

Like the difference between a greater and lesser prairie chicken.


17 posted on 11/21/2009 10:36:57 AM PST by mamelukesabre (Pray for Obama...Psalms 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

I’m not sure exactly what it is you asking me to prove.


18 posted on 11/21/2009 10:42:25 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: metmom
That would merely be intelligent design all over again.

Not that intelligent, unfortunately. Intelligent design would allow for the evolution of viable species. I realize that the "science" of Intelligent Design does not allow for evolution, but I see no reason why it shouldn't. The idea that a divine entity could design a plan that, once set in motion, could evolve into a universe of almost infinite complexity, only makes the concept of that Creator even more awesome.

19 posted on 11/21/2009 10:43:30 AM PST by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: giotto
"Intelligent design would allow for the evolution of viable species. "

So cars aren't intelligently designed because man didn't allow for their evolution.

20 posted on 11/21/2009 10:48:37 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

LOL...No worries, there tends to be less of them on Saturday mornings :o)


21 posted on 11/21/2009 10:48:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"there tends to be less of them on Saturday mornings :o)"

OK. I have not made it a point to conduct a close study of the species.

22 posted on 11/21/2009 10:54:17 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

There is no easier species to study. All you have to do is post a Creation link, and next thing you know they are everywhere!...although, less so on the weekends :o)


23 posted on 11/21/2009 10:58:00 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Read the title of this article. THen prove that ridiculous statement.


24 posted on 11/21/2009 10:59:08 AM PST by mamelukesabre (Pray for Obama...Psalms 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NeoConfederate

a sparrow gave birth to a hawk without the benefit of an egg...New species...:O)


25 posted on 11/21/2009 11:09:13 AM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: giotto
I realize that the "science" of Intelligent Design does not allow for evolution, but I see no reason why it shouldn't.

That's news to me. I never heard that ID excluded evolution. Basically what ID states is that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

It's about the cause not the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

26 posted on 11/21/2009 11:11:12 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
So cars aren't intelligently designed because man didn't allow for their evolution.

But man did allow for the evolution of cars. You're not driving a Ford Model A are you?

27 posted on 11/21/2009 11:18:04 AM PST by TigersEye (Sarah Palin 2010 - We Can't Afford To Wait)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Call me when the finch ‘evolves’ a blow hole, tentacles or a 4 chambered heart.


28 posted on 11/21/2009 11:19:19 AM PST by Doc Savage (SOBAMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
OK. I’ll leave that to you. I find them of no use other than an occasional divertimento.
29 posted on 11/21/2009 11:24:11 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
"But man did allow for the evolution of cars. You're not driving a Ford Model A are you?"

That's not the result of evolution, that's additional intelligent design. The model A didn't respond to it's environment and change in response, with only the fittist model A's surviving and reproducing. No Man put more intelligent design into the automobile and came up with new models.

It's a bad argument to say something is not intelligently designed because the designer didn't design it the way you would have, or with all the features that you would have, or if it's not superior in all respects to something else.

30 posted on 11/21/2009 11:36:13 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Cars most certainly have evolved since their initial invention.


31 posted on 11/21/2009 11:49:58 AM PST by Julia H. (Freedom of speech and freedom from criticism are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
That's not the result of evolution, that's additional intelligent design.

And the difference is? Remember, you said...

So cars aren't intelligently designed because man didn't allow for their evolution.

Now, obviously, the design of cars has evolved regardless of how you describe the causes of it.

32 posted on 11/21/2009 11:54:00 AM PST by TigersEye (Sarah Palin 2010 - We Can't Afford To Wait)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
The model A didn't respond to it's environment and change in response, with only the fittist model A's surviving and reproducing.

It's a bad argument to say something is not evolving because it didn't change in the manner you would have it change.

33 posted on 11/21/2009 11:58:20 AM PST by TigersEye (Sarah Palin 2010 - We Can't Afford To Wait)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; DannyTN
Now, obviously, the design of cars has evolved regardless of how you describe the causes process of it.

That is how I should have said that. I think we can agree on the cause of car design. Some man wanted to design one.

34 posted on 11/21/2009 12:04:40 PM PST by TigersEye (Sarah Palin 2010 - We Can't Afford To Wait)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I think I observed the formation of a new species of humans at a wedding I attended. Yes, I know what you might say but some of the females had developed new mating habits and even a new plumage since splitting with their former species years before. Even their feeding habits and song preference had changed until they were completely different and unintelligible to each other.

Since many of the males had developed physical characteristics that made mating with the females of the new species impossible or very unlikely this could be termed a ring species.

Not being the first to observe this new species I don't have the opportunity to name them but everyone has their own nomenclature they apply anyway.

And best of all....I got free drinks and was able to do the arduous work sitting down!

35 posted on 11/21/2009 1:11:39 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
"That's not the result of evolution, that's additional intelligent design."

Actually, it is natural selection.

36 posted on 11/21/2009 1:28:11 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NeoConfederate
So finches have evolved into...well, finches. Reminds me of a couple newspaper stories I read touting the discovery of a missing link. The first was the missing link between carnivorous and herbivorous dinosaurs. The second was the missing link between salt water and fresh water fish. Now that we have these missing links I am absolutely convinced that dinosaurs evolved into dinosaurs and fish evolved into fish, just as these finches have evolved into finches.
37 posted on 11/21/2009 5:35:49 PM PST by Teotwawki (Hey! someone is wee weeing all over our Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

And all those model A’s didn’t gradually grow super chargers and fuel injection and become 4 and a 1/2 cylinders then 5, then 6 with some devolving into 1 cylinder models again by themselves.

Intelligent design? Yes, but looking at the designs I won’t venture how intelligent.


38 posted on 11/21/2009 6:14:10 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN; GodGunsGuts
It's a bad argument to say something is not intelligently designed because the designer didn't design it the way you would have, or with all the features that you would have, or if it's not superior in all respects to something else.

Needs to be repeated loudly and often to the evos.

One of their big arguments against God being the intelligent designer is that very issue.

They mock Him and/or the concept by calling it *Incompetent Design* as if they're so smart and capable that they could have done a better job, and then go on to praise to the heavens the splendid job that evolution did producing the very same creature that they condemned as not a good example of intelligence or design, as if evolution were superior than intelligent design.

39 posted on 11/21/2009 9:01:39 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"They mock Him and/or the concept by calling it *Incompetent Design* as if they're so smart and capable that they could have done a better job"

Exactly, and yet they can not even yet produce a single living cell from scratch.

But if even if they could come up with a better design, it would not be proof that we were not intelligently designed. We know that we were created lower than the angels. We know that we were subsequently cursed with mortality, illness and disease as a result of the fall. We don't have the eyesight of an eagle, the speed of a cougar, the strength of a lion, and yet we dominate the earth as instructed to by our Designer. We are designed the way He wanted us, nothing more and nothing less.

40 posted on 11/21/2009 9:11:49 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

See post 40.


41 posted on 11/21/2009 9:13:31 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Exactly, and yet they can not even yet produce a single living cell from scratch.

They expect us to believe that something happened by accident that they can't even do on purpose, and then when they can do it on purpose, continue to insist that intelligent design is not how life came into existence but it arose by itself, when they still never demonstrated that it could on its own.

42 posted on 11/21/2009 9:21:33 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


43 posted on 11/21/2009 9:31:57 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk

When I was a creationist, eventually I admitted that “microevolution” could happen. I figured that changes could happen within species, but it could never turn into a new species.

The problem is, as Carl Zimmer once said, “If you accept microevolution, you get macroevolution for free.” Macroevolution is just microevolution over time. Eventually, enough genetic and/or geographical drift occurs that they become new species — organisms that no longer breed with one another.

So if you believe in microevolution: Congratulations! You’re almost there!

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/08/12/microevolution/


44 posted on 11/22/2009 2:05:54 AM PST by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Genetic variation within the bird kind, then reproductive isolation.

Whoa! "the bird kind?" All birds represent a single created kind? So a hummingbird, an ostrich and a penguin are all related by common ancestry!? But humans and apes aren't?!

45 posted on 11/22/2009 5:58:43 AM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

Good eye, I should have said finch kind.


46 posted on 11/22/2009 8:01:21 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
Fine if you believe “time” is a creator. Not a very substancial God though. Send me the proof just as soon as you get it so I can evolve.
47 posted on 11/22/2009 8:40:50 AM PST by fish hawk (It's sad that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. Isaac Asimov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
Nice attempt at setting up the straw man, but the evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life..

“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421

however, Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.

48 posted on 11/22/2009 9:05:39 AM PST by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
Let me point out a fact. Many, and I mean many scientist that are a lot smarter than you, believe in God and creation. From astronomers to chemist to etc. etc. If Darwins theories were true one would think that these smart people would all believe in evolution. 100% of them. What do they know that you haven't found out yet? I read about one doctor who dropped Darwin and took up God after studying the human eye. But even easier than that, “matter cannot create matter”. (but God can)
49 posted on 11/22/2009 9:23:38 AM PST by fish hawk (It's sad that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. Isaac Asimov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
Your belief depends on the definition of micro evolution. The term was introduced as an explanation for the variation in kind. Others have used the term to explain other events seen in nature. If you believe that micro evolution is variation in kind then there is not macro evolution as per the definition of micro evolution. In order to understand your leap from micro evolution to macro evolution we will need to understand your definition of micro evolution. I believe we can all agree that macro evolution is materialism through natural selection. The term micro evolution is more problematic. Thanks,tk
50 posted on 11/22/2009 9:51:14 AM PST by tongass kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson