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

November 23, 2017, Princeton University
The breeding of two distinct parent species gave rise to a new lineage (termed "Big Bird" by the researchers). This lineage has been determined to be a new species. This image is of a member of the Big Bird lineage. Credit: Copyright P. R. Grant

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.

"The novelty of this study is that we can follow the emergence of new species in the wild," said B. Rosemary Grant, a senior research biologist, emeritus, and a senior biologist in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. "Through our work on Daphne Major, we were able to observe the pairing up of two birds from different species and then follow what happened to see how speciation occurred."

In 1981, a graduate student working with the Grants on Daphne Major noticed the newcomer, a male that sang an unusual song and was much larger in body and beak size than the three resident species of birds on the island.

The bird is a member of the G. fortis species, one of two species that interbred to give rise to the Big Bird lineage. Credit: Copyright B.R. Grant

"We didn't see him fly in from over the sea, but we noticed him shortly after he arrived. He was so different from the other birds that we knew he did not hatch from an egg on Daphne Major," said Peter Grant, the Class of 1877 Professor of Zoology, Emeritus, and a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, emeritus.

The researchers took a blood sample and released the bird, which later bred with a resident medium ground finch of the species Geospiz fortis, initiating a new . The Grants and their research team followed the new "Big Bird lineage" for six generations, taking blood samples for use in genetic analysis.

In the current study, researchers from Uppsala University analyzed DNA collected from the parent and their offspring over the years. The investigators discovered that the original male parent was a large cactus finch of the species Geospiza conirostris from Española island, which is more than 100 kilometers (about 62 miles) to the southeast in the archipelago.

The remarkable distance meant that the male finch was not able to return home to mate with a member of his own species and so chose a mate from among the three species already on Daphne Major. This reproductive isolation is considered a critical step in the development of a new species when two separate species interbreed.

The offspring were also reproductively isolated because their song, which is used to attract mates, was unusual and failed to attract females from the resident species. The offspring also differed from the resident species in beak size and shape, which is a major cue for mate choice. As a result, the offspring mated with members of their own lineage, strengthening the development of the new species.

Researchers previously assumed that the formation of a takes a very long time, but in the Big Bird lineage it happened in just two generations, according to observations made by the Grants in the field in combination with the genetic studies.

A member of the G. conirostris species, this bird flew from roughly 100 kilometers away to establish a new home on the Galapagos island of Daphne Major. There, the bird mated with a member of the G. fortis species to give rise to the Big Bird lineage. Credit: Copyright B. R. Grant

All 18 species of Darwin's finches derived from a single ancestral species that colonized the Galápagos about one to two million years ago. The finches have since diversified into different species, and changes in beak shape and size have allowed different species to utilize different food sources on the Galápagos. A critical requirement for speciation to occur through hybridization of two is that the new lineage must be ecologically competitive—that is, good at competing for food and other resources with the other species—and this has been the case for the Big Bird lineage.

"It is very striking that when we compare the size and shape of the Big Bird beaks with the beak morphologies of the other three species inhabiting Daphne Major, the Big Birds occupy their own niche in the beak morphology space," said Sangeet Lamichhaney, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University and the first author on the study. "Thus, the combination of gene variants contributed from the two interbreeding species in combination with natural selection led to the evolution of a beak morphology that was competitive and unique."

The definition of a species has traditionally included the inability to produce fully fertile progeny from interbreeding species, as is the case for the horse and the donkey, for example. However, in recent years it has become clear that some closely related species, which normally avoid breeding with each other, do indeed produce offspring that can pass genes to subsequent generations. The authors of the study have previously reported that there has been a considerable amount of gene flow among species of Darwin's finches over the last several thousands of years.

One of the most striking aspects of this study is that hybridization between two distinct species led to the development of a new lineage that after only two generations behaved as any other species of Darwin's finches, explained Leif Andersson, a professor at Uppsala University who is also affiliated with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Texas A&M University. "A naturalist who came to Daphne Major without knowing that this lineage arose very recently would have recognized this lineage as one of the four species on the island. This clearly demonstrates the value of long-running field studies," he said.

It is likely that new lineages like the Big Birds have originated many times during the evolution of Darwin's finches, according to the authors. The majority of these lineages have gone extinct but some may have led to the evolution of contemporary . "We have no indication about the long-term survival of the Big Bird lineage, but it has the potential to become a success, and it provides a beautiful example of one way in which speciation occurs," said Andersson. "Charles Darwin would have been excited to read this paper."

Explore further: A gene that shaped the evolution of Darwin's finches

More information: "Rapid hybrid speciation in Darwin's finches" Science (2017). science.sciencemag.org/lookup/ … 1126/science.aao4593

Related Stories

A gene that shaped the evolution of Darwin's finches

February 11, 2015

Researchers from Princeton University and Uppsala University in Sweden have identified a gene in the Galápagos finches studied by English naturalist Charles Darwin that influences beak shape and that played a role in the ...

Evolution in action detected in Darwin's finches

April 21, 2016

The most characteristic feature of Darwin's finches is the diversification of beak morphology that has allowed these species to expand their utilization of food resources in the Galápagos archipelago. A team of scientists ...

Darwin's finches highlight the unity of all life

April 3, 2015

When Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands in October 1835, he and his ship-mates on board HMS Beagle collected specimens of birds, including finches and mockingbirds, from various islands of the archipelago.

The world's largest canary

June 21, 2017

Biologists at Lund University, together with their colleagues from Portugal and the UK, have now proven that the endangered São Tomé grosbeak is the world's largest canary – 50 per cent larger than the runner-up.

Darwin's finches have reached their limits on the Galapagos

June 23, 2015

The evolution of birds on the Galápagos Islands, the cradle of Darwin's theory of evolution, is a two-speed process. Most bird species are still diversifying, while the famous Darwin's finches have already reached an equilibrium, ...

Recommended for you

Duplicate genes help animals resolve sexual conflict

February 19, 2018

Duplicate copies of a gene shared by male and female fruit flies have evolved to resolve competing demands between the sexes. New genetic analysis by researchers at the University of Chicago describes how these copies have ...

55 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

leetennant
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2017
Having come back from the Galapagos this year I'm a bit disappointed I wasn't aware of this research before I went. This is truly nature's laboratory and this research is very interesting.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2017
Awaiting #evilutioncranks in 3... 2... 1...

Meanwhile, gee, look there, new species. I think the #evilutioncranks claimed this can't happen.

#wrongagaineviutioncranks.
JoeMarine1990
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2017
So, two birds who were not actually a different species mated, and now their offspring can successfully mate with other birds on the island which apparently are not from different species either....how is that speciation? The original pair and their offspring can mate with other birds from either original group or their new group as far as we know. The article states outright that the old classification was based on the lack of observed breeding as the basis of their seperate identification, which was incorrect because the birds were ABLE to breed. Rather than supporting evolution by natural selection, this story seems to undermine Darwin's original classification of all these finches as different species when many of them never were a different species, they just had some different traits and apparently have PREFERENCES in mating. These are not a different species, they are new breeds at best.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2017
So, two birds who were not actually a different species mated, and now their offspring can successfully mate with other birds on the island which apparently are not from different species either....how is that speciation? The original pair and their offspring can mate with other birds from either original group or their new group as far as we know. The article states outright that the old classification was based on the lack of observed breeding as the basis of their seperate identification, which was incorrect because the birds were ABLE to breed. Rather than supporting evolution by natural selection, this story seems to undermine Darwin's original classification of all these finches as different species when many of them never were a different species, they just had some different traits and apparently have PREFERENCES in mating. These are not a different species, they are new breeds at best.


Everything you just said is wrong. Did you even read the article?
cosmic_collisions
5 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2017
This is an honest question.
If ability to mate is not the differential for species, which I never thought was a valid statement i.e. large domestic dogs and wolves; what is the definition of a species, versus the definition of a breed?
Ojorf
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2017
There is no single definition of a species. Biology is messy.
No physical rule exists to determine such a thing. It's a spectrum, from two animals that definitely cannot interbreed, to ones that genetically can, but 'choose' not to, or are obstructed from doing so by other means but will when artificially combined, or where genetic difficulties only allow occasional success, or ring species etc.
And animals are a walk in the park compared to what things like bacteria and archaea get up to.
A species just is not a clear-cut concept.
isengrim
3 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2017
This is RACIATION, not speciation.

Apparently, Darwin's Finches are actually different races of the same species, if genes can still flow between the different groups.

At least be consistent, and start overhauling taxonomy, so that the term "race" and "species" are no longer interchangeable in the silly public mind.

Just because two groups won't normally mate with one another if they have a choice doesn't make separate species, it just makes two races that don't like one another - ie, racism is one of those things nature uses to help speciation along by keeping healthy population groups separate.

Cripes, under the normal, Linnean criteria, applied to humans with the same coldness as animal groups, would mean that humans are a "ring species" by nature - and Englishmen and Japanese would be considered two different "species", rather than races. Which would be, of course, patent nonsense, whether Japanese or English ever decided to get it on with one another or not.
leetennant
4 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2017
Let me guess "species can't interbreed" is the lesson you learned in highschool biology, I call this "lies we tell children to teach" like "the size of the brain is proportional to intelligence", and "the solar system looks like an atom".

These are actually mostly true. They get simplified for highschool because it's hard to teach a 14 year old when you need to explain 15 caveats. If species couldn't interbreed as a hard rule then humans would never have bred with Neanderthals. And yet I have Neanderthal DNA so what are you gonna do?

Englishmen and Japanese would be considered two different "species", rather than races. Which would be, of course, patent nonsense, whether Japanese or English ever decided to get it on with one another or not.


Firstly, races don't actually exist. They're merely a human social construct. And secondly, why worry about biology when you can revert to old-school xenophobia?

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2017
This is an honest question.
If ability to mate is not the differential for species, which I never thought was a valid statement i.e. large domestic dogs and wolves; what is the definition of a species, versus the definition of a breed?
Worth noting that lions and tigers can not only mate but produce offspring. They're called "ligers."

Like @Ojorf said, biology is messy.
mackita
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2017
The bird is a member of the G. fortis species, one of two species that interbred to give rise to the Big Bird lineage
If the species interbred - how we can get sure, they're a new species - and not just local/seasonal varieties, for example?
julianpenrod
2 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2017
The definition of a "species" is that it cannot successfully mate with a member of a different species and produce a breeding progeny. Any mating, if any occurred, had to have been with the same species. It could have been between two phases of the same species. Otherwise, with a new species occurring so suddenly, it can be said this has the appearance of the sudden creation of a new species by God.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2017
@juliTROLL
The definition of a "species" is that it cannot successfully mate with a member of a different species and produce a breeding progeny
Hmm... lets check that out! Merriam-Webster states

d (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name
(2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species
what about wiki?
https://en.wikipe.../Species

nope. nothing there either! see also:
While this definition is often adequate, when looked at more closely it is problematic. For example, with hybridisation...
also see:https://en.wikipe.../Species#Attempts_at_definition

and: https://en.wikipe.../Species#Change
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2017
The bird is a member of the G. fortis species, one of two species that interbred to give rise to the Big Bird lineage
If the species interbred - how we can get sure, they're a new species - and not just local/seasonal varieties, for example?
@zeph
see links in above post to juli

copy/paste the last two
mackita
2 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2017
There is no single definition of a species. Biology is messy. ... A species just is not a clear-cut concept.

So again - how we can get sure, that the above study doesn't belong into 90% of scientific research, which has been already proven wrong in the name of some temporal ideology? I presume, this is completely legitimate (if not "scientific") question.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2017
sigh - this crap again? @zeph
So again - how we can get sure, that the above study doesn't belong into 90% of scientific research, which has been already proven wrong in the name of some temporal ideology?
1- you can actually examine other studies in the same category and see that the science, references or data is the same (start with the validated references in said study and check similar studies)

2- no opinion article anywhere is equivalent to a scientific study. ever. period. full stop.

3- you can wait for validation, or actually test it yourself to either validate or debunk it

.

last thing: you have a bad habit of ASSuming that all googled pages have the same veracity
they don't

just because it's on the internet (or published in a book/newspaper) doesn't mean it is factual

if you can't differentiate between BS and reality you should stick with your pseudoscience reddit page and leave the science to those who can
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2017
Cap'n
... just because it's on the internet (or published in a book/newspaper) doesn't mean it is factual

Does that mean you're NOT a French model...?!?
julianpenrod
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2017
If there is no firm, unquestioned definition of "species", then, "scientifically", there is no such thing as a species. That means that to perpetuate the term "species" in biology is illegitimate. The concept, then, can be called invalid. There are those who might try to "argue" that it's not the collection of phenotypical manifestations that should be dealt with but, rather, the genomic structure of the individual. That some groups may have genomes particularly open to stable combinations with other genomes to produce creatures that breed true. Others may have genomes that do not combine even with similar genomes. That quality, then, should be included as a characteristic of a form. It isn't, however, and that suggests that that does not exist.
julianpenrod
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2017
It should be noted that there is a level of classification in biology below that of species. It's called the "phase". A number of species of animal can have different phases within the species, so two animals might be called different species when, in fact, they are simply different phases of the one species. Brown bears, for example, can have colors that range from black to "blonde", and black bears can vary from white to brown to blue. Also, note the reference to a lack of study on long term persistence of inherited traits indicating speciation. That means that, in fact, "evolution" has not been shown to exist. There is no indication that eventual inability to breed true will not be seen in such cases or that the original form of bird might inevitably emerge.
leetennant
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2017
Person commenting on evolution doesn't understand evolution.
Must be Tuesday.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2017
These are not a different species, they are new breeds at best
Dweeb doesn't know the difference between natural and artificial and yet expects us to take his opinions seriously?
It's called the "phase". A number of species of animal can have different phases
Did you make this up all by your lonesome or do you have a link you'd like to share? Like perhaps some godder think tank that gets their insight from gang-prayer? Note: creation museum will only invite abuse-
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2017
@idiot illiterate juli
If there is no firm, unquestioned definition blah blah blah misinterpretation blah
It should be noted that there is a level of classification in biology blah blah argument from ignorance blah
perhaps you should at least read the abstract?
Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example from its origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin's finch to Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male that originated on Española >100km from Daphne. ...
http://science.sc....aao4593

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2017
@juli cont'd
The final stage in speciation is the development of reproductive isolation from the parent population. In Darwin's finches a premating barrier to interbreeding is established by a difference in song and morphology (12,13). The test of reproductive isolation requires sympatry with the parental population(s) or a surrogate experiment, for example with finch models and/or playback of tape-recorded song (27). The new population on Daphne is reproductively isolated from one of the parental populations, G. fortis, but whether it is reproductively isolated from the other, G. conirostris on Española, is unknown because experiments have not been done there. Nevertheless, it is likely that the founder population has already become reproductively isolated from G. conirostris as bill size has changed in relation to body size (Fig. 3A). Together these traits are used as cues in the choice of mates arising from cultural, non-genetic, imprinting...
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2017
@juli last
That means that, in fact, "evolution" has not been shown to exist
this last part is the most idiotic thing any semi-literate like yourself has ever uttered - it speaks of fanatical religious cult beliefs, not science

in case you actually believe that tripe: refute the linked and referenced studies here
http://www.talkor...comdesc/

there is a reason pseudoscience by people like you should be debunked
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

Brown bears, for example, can have colours that range from
not even going to point out how freakin' stupid this is given your religious undertones

religion isn't science
humy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
This is RACIATION, not speciation.

isengrim

No, it's clearly speciation by any reasonable definition of speciation.
Merely shouting the contrary isn't even an 'argument'.
Try using some intelligence when speaking.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2017
That means that, in fact, "evolution" has not been shown to exist
The progression of genetic development from one closely-related species to the next is unequivocal. You can decide that some lying god who wrote a book about people who never existed and events that never took place nevertheless made this progression happen... or you can assume that it happens by itself.

Which do you think is the more plausible Julian?

I admit it would be in character for such a lying god to go to the trouble of leaving SO MUCH evidence to try to convince us that evolution is real while creationism is not. I mean, look how hard it is for you guys to try to reconcile all this evidence with your fantasies. It gets harder every day doesnt it? Strains the bounds of self-deception for even the most devout I would guess.

Even more reason to doubt his promises of wishes granted and life foreverafter though, wouldn't you say?
donaldsauter
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
Finches begetting finches? Pretty thin gruel for anyone wondering how Darwin's impossibly long chain of incredibly fortuitous birth defects could craft even the first hair follicle. Or tooth. Or little toe. Or smile. And on and on and on and on... Never mind how the life-saving cough could have been in place before a species that needs it choked itself out of existence.
leetennant
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
Finches begetting finches? Pretty thin gruel for anyone wondering how Darwin's impossibly long chain of incredibly fortuitous birth defects could craft even the first hair follicle. Or tooth. Or little toe. Or smile. And on and on and on and on... Never mind how the life-saving cough could have been in place before a species that needs it choked itself out of existence.


Person commenting on evolution doesn't understand evolution.
This Tuesday is interminable.
lengould100
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2017
Hey, religion fanatics. If you're looking for an improbable, WHY would a god creating everything FROM SCRATCH AS WE SEE IT NOW have put 50,000 separate genes into a rice plant and only 20,000 into a human? Isn't it far more rational that at some point in the past some multi-celled living entity accidentally discovered the gene, and it has been used ever since as the basis for complex life?

Rational? (Yeah, I know, "mysterious ways" and all that). Just don't try to argue "It's not rational" after buying into that.) LOL.
mackita
3 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2017
"Creationism is wrong, but we technically can't prove that, says this article. The similarity with so-called simulation hypothesis (which is frankly just a creationism in disguise) comes on mind here. But I think, if not creationism, then at least evolutionary theory is easily testable. The classical example is apparent construction mishap of vagus nerve placement. The other thing is, if the evolution was really the only mechanism of terrestrial speciation (compare the panspermia hypothesis, for example). Unfortunately the proponents of evolution are as bigot as proponents of creationism in this matter, as if their life would depend on it.
mackita
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
Thanks to the University of Cambridge Digital Library, you can (electronically) thumb through a copy of Bible of Evolutionary theory: "On the Origin of Species" that belonged to Darwin himself. It was the first copy he received from the publisher.
Bart_A
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
If scientists can't even define what a species is, everyone should stop using the term.

But, if we use the definition of Species in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition (1992), which is:

1. Biology. a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

Then, what this article says is completely bogus.

Any real scientist would have to admit that.
If you don't want to admit it, then give me a "1".

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
Any real scientist would have to admit that.
If you don't want to admit it, then give me a "1".
But the people who conducted the study are 'real scientists' so we find that your reasoning skills are fundamentally flawed.

Of course for religionists like yourself, logic is superfluous.

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
Martin Luther

-I should think that even attempting to use it would in Luther's eyes constitute a sin.

It's at least embarrassing for you people.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017
@zeph
"Creationism is wrong, but we technically can't prove that
but also in that same article it says
Saying that the world was created 10,000 years ago with everything in place is unfalsifiable but also useless. It is quantifiably not simple: you need to put a lot of data into the initial condition. A much simpler, and thus scientifically better, explanation, is that planet Earth is ages old and Darwinian evolution did its task
occams razor and all that

the problem is that the basis for the belief in creationism is a flawed source that has been proven to be not only unreliable as far as accuracy, but also completely false WRT anything scientific (creating plants before sun and much worse faux pas)

therefore its far more logical to accept proven scientific principles than the guesses of a xenophobic violent sheepherding culture
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
@barf
But, if we use the definition of Species in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition (1992)
wrong

you cannot assume that a technical definition is the same as a colloquial definition
- if you want to know what the technical definition is you must reference the technical lexicon, which I've already linked above
Then, what this article says is completely bogus
you cannot assume that anything is wrong in the study without referencing the specifics of the study, which you have not even read

considering you cannot point to any specifics then we can conclude that you're ignorant of the data, which makes your argument null
Any real scientist would have to admit that
any real scientist ignores your stupidity and relugious fanaticism because you've not even read the study or pointed to any factual data, let alone referenced any applicable sources
donaldsauter
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017
me>> Finches begetting finches? Pretty thin gruel for anyone wondering how Darwin's impossibly long chain of incredibly fortuitous birth defects could craft even the first hair follicle. Or tooth. Or little toe. Or smile. And on and on and on and on... Never mind how the life-saving cough could have been in place before a species that needs it choked itself out of existence.

leetenannat> Person commenting on evolution doesn't understand evolution. This Tuesday is interminable.

The development of new body parts and functions has nothing to do with evolution? That makes things very easy for evolution believers since nothing better than Darwin's childish theory of everything-from-nothingism has come along.

Does it surprise anyone that the Grants see evolution in the Galapagos, since that's all they will allow themselves to see? Plug - donald sauter beak of the finch - into google.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
@donaldsauter
Does it surprise anyone that the Grants see evolution in the Galapagos, since that's all they will allow themselves to see? Plug - donald sauter beak of the finch - into google
1- just because you can post a web page doesn't mean you know anything about the scientific method

2- if you feel you have enough evidence and knowledge to refute the study you should have written up the critique in the requisite format for publication to SCIENCE and allowed it to pass peer review

2a - scientists will not recognize your post as being even semi-relevant given that you are not adhering to the scientific method

3- if you can produce evidence for a refute, posting it on a web page peppered with religious belief is not the way to do it

4- religion never trumps evidence-based science

feel free to rant in your web page all you want - it doesn't make it science (or a refute to science) any more than standing in a garage makes you a Toyota
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
I'm pretty sure, if the new finches varieties would be removed from island isolation, they would interbreed with original species pretty quickly. The mystery of species formation isn't in their different morphology (after all races of dogs are way more diversified than the Galapagian finches) - but in fact they cannot interbreed even when given full opportunity to it. Without actually proving it the interpretation of above study as an example of speciation remains just a wishful thinking.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017
I'm pretty sure, if the new finches varieties would be removed from island isolation, they would interbreed with original species pretty quickly. The mystery of species formation isn't in their different morphology (after all races of dogs are way more diversified than the Galapagian finches) - but in fact they cannot interbreed even when given full opportunity to it. Without actually proving it the interpretation of above study as an example of speciation remains just a wishful thinking.
Lions dont mate with tigers although they are able to.

Why do you think that is?

The environment makes the species. Removing them from their environment and placing them in a new one changes them in many ways. This is what evolution IS no?

And dogs arent evolved - theyre domesticated. Designed intelligently. Just like we are.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017
Lions don't mate with tigers although they are able to. Why do you think that is?
They live on different continents. But we know about many species of zebras, which don't interbreed despite they're literally indistinguishable each other and they even share the same territory. This is where the questions begin..
Designed intelligently. Just like we are.
Are we designed? Which evidence do you have for it? Dogs come in many varieties, people don't.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017
Are we designed? Which evidence do you have for it? Dogs come in many varieties, people don't.

Of course we do. At least 3, at last count... (not counting all the various regional differences.)
And did you know - a Chihuahua can interbreed with a Great Dane?
Not that it would be easy, by any measure of the word...
You think dogs don't like a little "strange", once in a while?
Anyway, I think he meant we have been designed by past Humans in the giant Eugenics effort called "religion"...
leetennant
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
races of dogs are way more diversified than the Galapagian finches.


Since your biological knowledge seems to be taken by eyeballing an animal and reading the dictionary, I'm afraid I'm not going to take your word for it. I will point out that there is only a 0.5 of a percentage point difference between dogs and wolves so the genetic variation within Canis familiaris is not as varied as you seem to think.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
races of dogs are way more diversified than the Galapagian finches.


Since your biological knowledge seems to be taken by eyeballing an animal and reading the dictionary, I'm afraid I'm not going to take your word for it. I will point out that there is only a 0.5 of a percentage point difference between dogs and wolves so the genetic variation within Canis familiaris is not as varied as you seem to think.

Prob'ly bout the same (or even less) for the finches being discussed.
And, what is it - bout 1% tween Great Apes and Humans?
leetennant
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
races of dogs are way more diversified than the Galapagian finches.


Since your biological knowledge seems to be taken by eyeballing an animal and reading the dictionary, I'm afraid I'm not going to take your word for it. I will point out that there is only a 0.5 of a percentage point difference between dogs and wolves so the genetic variation within Canis familiaris is not as varied as you seem to think.

Prob'ly bout the same (or even less) for the finches being discussed.
And, what is it - bout 1% tween Great Apes and Humans?


Between us and chimps/bonobos, yes. About 1%. About 2% between us and gorillas.
mackita
not rated yet Nov 27, 2017
I will point out that there is only a 0.5 of a percentage point difference between dogs and wolves so the genetic variation within Canis familiaris is not as varied
I didn't talk about genetic variations within dogs, about their difference from wolves the less. My point was completely different: these two animals can interbreed, these ones cannot
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 27, 2017
And, what is it - bout 1% tween Great Apes and Humans?
depends on what numbers you want to use - technically, we are great apes
Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

... From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one.
http://humanorigi...genetics
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017
How many generations of ten thousands years of dog selective breeding were insufficient for creation of different species in their population? How the Galápagos finches could handle it just during two years?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017
How the Galápagos finches could handle it just during two years?
if only there were a way to see

"Rapid hybrid speciation in Darwin's finches" Science (2017). http://science.sc....aao4593
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
They live on different continents
No they live together in India and probably elsewhere in the past

"...overlap includes only India, and they were hunted out elsewhere (Pakistan could have been another such country)"
How many generations of ten thousands years of dog selective breeding were insufficient for creation of different species in their population?
Chihuahua bitches cannot bear great Dane puppies.
https://www.quora...-species

-Ring species are especially interesting.

The question is why members in overlapping groups resist the urge to interviewed, why animals possess this 'urge to diverge' and why are they so covetous of their hard-won niche adaptations?

This is the source of prejudice and bigotry among human tribes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
Yeah spellcheck thinks 'interbreed' is 'interviewed,' actually the same thing with different degrees of intensity according to Harvey Weinstein.

I doubt spellcheck appreciates the irony.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
I will point out that there is only a 0.5 of a percentage point difference between dogs and wolves so the genetic variation within Canis familiaris is not as varied
I didn't talk about genetic variations within dogs, about their difference from wolves the less. My point was completely different: these http://www.guinne...8402.jpg

Wow, Mack!
I can't believe you found that pic showing my earlier point!
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
And did you know - a Chihuahua can interbreed with a Great Dane?
I do not believe this has been confirmed experimentally although one does hear of exploding toy dogs from time to time.
Are we designed? Which evidence do you have for it?
What evidence do you have for natural selection since we have been systematically eliminating all natural attritive elements for the last 300k years and more?

Ever since we first became able to hunt the animals that were keeping our numbers in check, humanity congealed into tribes.

Man became the principal enemy of man. And tribal life began selecting for behaviors and attributes which were distinctly unnatural. Like surrendering reproductive rights and believing in evil spirits and becoming proficient swordsmen.

The size and complexity of our brains are unnatural and unsustainable. We were bred for bigger brains in the same way that strawberries or chihuahuas were selected for their size and color
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
Astronauts find bacteria on the hull of the ISS that's not from Earth announced by Russian cosmonauts, which makes whole stuff a bit suspicious..
Compare for example Influenza from Space?
ScottAndrews
not rated yet Dec 03, 2017
There's been some dancing around this, but I'd like to ask this question for clarification. I've seen some debate over whether the finches are really species or "races" of finches. If they are indeed species after two or three generations because of a slightly varied physical characteristic, then are "humans" also multiple species? For example, a Japanese man and a Nigerian man have varying characteristics - you could even say different "songs" - that result from not a few generations, but thousands of years of geographical isolation.

If we are to be intellectually honest and allow that the aforementioned finches are different species, don't we absolutely have to allow, even insist, that various races of humans are also different species? Are there any mental or verbal gymnastics by which we can justify differing standards?

I'm not promoting racism. I believe that the Japanese man and Nigerian man are of the same species as each other and myself. The article seems to disagree.
leetennant
not rated yet Dec 03, 2017
I'm sorry, ScottAndrews. I don't believe this is a genuine question. I think you're trolling and pretending to be reasonable while a) denying evolution and b) promoting racism. If you don't understand why these finches are different species then do some research on them. Don't hang around posting racist anti-scientific comments while pretending to be oh so reasonable about it and using statements like "intellectual honesty" when you clearly can't be bothered understanding the basics of evolution.

We've discussed in detail what a species is. It's obviously not going to be an adequate substitute for a proper biological assessment of the issue and it's not mean to be.

These finch species do not interbreed. If they did, they wouldn't have developed unique morphologies.
ScottAndrews
not rated yet Dec 03, 2017
If you don't want to answer it, let someone else answer it. I mentioned racism only because a statement or question involving race is easily misinterpreted and I didn't want my intentions confused.

It's not an easy question. I read the article. There are differences in morphology resulting when populations are geographically separated. Other articles have mentioned that geographically separated groups develop distinct songs.

I'll make my position clear again. I don't believe that humans of varying appearances are different species. I think that distinction is absurd and dangerous.

But if one were to apply the same criteria used to distinguish these "species" of finches they absolutely must conclude that varying "races" - geographically distinct groups with much more distinct physical characteristics - are different species. You just can't have it both ways. In fact, wouldn't humans make a much better example to illustrate this sort of speciation?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.