Scientists directly observe evolution occurring

[Walt Starr]

Evolution has now been independently verified:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

Scientists have observed a new species of fly being born for the first time. This is incontrovertible evidence that evolution is a fact.

[mmonk]

1. devolution exists also

Check out the Republican party.

[cheezus]

22. ha. but I must make the factual correction

there's no such thing as devolution. Nor is it the case the evolution = progress or betterment. Just change.

/husband of a geneticist

[DNA]

2. And yet

our presidents keep evolving toward the least fit.

[treepig]

16. actually, evolution has no direction

there is nothing in evolutionary theory that specifies that improvements are good or desirable, and that apparent regressions are bad or undesirable.

instead, evolution in a nutshell is that genetic change does occur, and the resulting phenotypes are selected by the environment (i.e., are most fit).

hence, i believe i must sadly disagree that our "presidents" are evolving toward the least fit. instead, by looking around at the 40-50% of completely brain-dead americans, i'd have to present the hypothesis the a person like mr. g. w. bush is highly "fit" to be president.

[DNA]

21. I'm not that pessimistic

50% of our citizens don't vote. Maybe 25% of the population is braindead. 39% tops. Cheer up. The times they are a-changin'.

[treepig]

23. ok, on the cheerful side . . . (or is it?)

[newyawker99]

27. LMAO!!

:thumbsup: treepig!

[derby378]

3. New development in story

The new species of fruit fly still possesses more intelligence than 98% of the folks at the Institute for Creation Research. :evilgrin:

[mmonk]

4. yes

Evolution works. The fruit fly is evolving, the creationists haven't.

[BigMcLargehuge]

19. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

that was great!

[HawkerHurricane]

5. Channalling my inner creationist (again)

Since the Bible says things were created as they are, there can be no evidence that supports evolution, so there is no new species of fly. You are wrong, because you cannot be right. Any evidence that says you are right is to be discounted, most likely by refering to something that's a different subject, like the laws of thermodynamics, which I don't know except that I've been told that they make evolution imposible. If pressed, I will say that it is a example of micro evolution, which I've been told means variations within a 'kind' of animal (a term that has no scientific meaning).

Any further references to the subject of evolution will result in me repeating myself again, using the same arguements, even if they've already been disproved.

[Walt Starr]

6. You forgot the <sarcasm> tag

for the humor impaired, doncha know!

[Sinistrous]

12. That is why I stopped participating in creto/evo boards.

The same set of creationist nonsense assertions made over and over and over; totally refuted, then rephrased and regurgitated again.

I admire those still soldiering in the battle for truth and sanity.

[Philostopher]

15. God did that.

Like he hid those dinosaur bones -- it's to separate the good Christians from the heretics. Don't you know that? He made that fly so he could peel off a few more 'lukewarm Christians' because he was gonna spit anyway. Those damned scientists, always insisting on eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ... they'll burn in hell, you know.

[Kid_A]

7. The problem is that the truth

is biased towards those who believe in evolution. If we ignore the truth, we'll be fine.

[Walt Starr]

8. LOL

You've got the creationsim arguments pegged!

[stopthegop]

9. ummm...

"Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists."

may not be totally nailed down yet...

[Walt Starr]

10. That's why it's so important

This is direct observation of speciation. I wouldn't expect everybody to agree two species exist.

[stopthegop]

11. ahh..thanks

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

:evilgrin:

[treepig]

14. many speciation events have been observed

CREATIONIST ARGUMENT: Evolution has a fatal flaw, in that it predicts speciation events but scientists have never observed any; therefore it is just a bunch of prodigious wrist-breaking hand-waving on the part of biologists.

BIOLOGIST REPLY: Bull! The scientific literature is rich with examples of speciation in action or complete that WE HAVE OBSERVED! For example (see http://www2.eou.edu/~jrinehar/bio102/specevnt.htm for the examples)

[Devils Advocate NZ]

17. I'm not a creationist by any stretch of the imagination...

But what you just posted is totally misleading!

Evolution has now been independently verified:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

Scientists have observed a new species of fly being born for the first time. This is incontrovertible evidence that evolution is a fact.

Here is the FIRST paragraph of the article:

Scientists at the University of Arizona may have witnessed the birth of a new species for the first time.

"May" does not mean "incontrovertible evidence" no matter how much you want it to.

However, the University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species.

So even those who support the findings suggest that it is only the early stages and that they haven't actually separated into two species.

Finally:

Laura Reed maintains that such limited capacity for interbreeding indicates that the two groups are on the verge of becoming completely separate species.

So in other words, the scientists that are making this claim ARE NOT making the claim you suggest. They are NOT saying they have observed one species become two, they are saying they have found a species that they believe is on the VERGE of becoming two.

That is FAR from "incontrovertible evidence"!

What if they are "on the verge' but never actually do?

Making claims like yours is just as bad as saying that evolution is a lie because the Bible says so.

[Walt Starr]

20. Everything you pointed out is WHY this demonstrates evolution

This is direct observation of speciation. You need to take the blinders off and realize, there is no direct point that can be marked as specifically the moment it occurs.

That's the creationist mindset. Suddenly "Gawd" creates a species and it appears. Evolution is not that direct nor that clearcut.

This is perhaps the most incredibly important event in the history of theorectical evolution. It is incontrovertable precisely because it is not cut and dried.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

24. Bollocks! What a lame attempt at explaining away your error.

You are now trying to say the fact that this claim is NOT proven is PROOF that it is correct! What utter bollocks.

The scientists involved say they MAY be seeing a species ON THE VERGE of becoming two seperate species, and this is supposedly proof that evolotuion has taken place? Not even close, my friend.

Until this species ACTUALLY becomes two seperate species incapable of breeding with each other, then we have NOT seen evolution occuring. It is that simple.

All this finding tells us is that we have to watch this species to see if the seperation does in fact occur.

On edit: Just had to add a reply to this:

This is direct observation of speciation. You need to take the blinders off and realize, there is no direct point that can be marked as specifically the moment it occurs.

Actually, once again you are wrong. The delimiting factor, as pointed out in the article, is the ceasing of the ability to interbreed.

At the moment these two variants can breed successfully, but only when the female is Drosophila mojavensis and the male Drosophila arizonae. If this is reversed, the male offspring are sterile.

However, they CAN still interbreed which is NOT evidence of speciation. As the article says:

The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.

When the two groups can no longer interbreed they cease exchanging genes and eventually go their own evolutionary ways becoming separate species.

So, who is it that is wearing blinders? Perhaps if you read the article you posted, you might avoid making silly mistakes.

[Walt Starr]

26. Read the article

"Another finding that adds support to that idea is that in a strain of Drosophila mojavensis from southern California's Catalina Island, mothers always produce sterile males when mated with Drosophila arizonae males.

Because the hybrid male's sterility depends on the mother's genes the researchers say the genetic change must be recent. "

We are on the brink here. I would call this speciation, as would many in the scientific world.

The only thing others are waiting for is female sterility as well in the hybrid. I don't know what you know about fruit flies, but we could see that occur within a year easily due to the timeline between genrations in fruit fly populations.

Look at the evidence. This is clearly speciation occurring right before opur eyes.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

30. Once again you are over-extending.

We are on the brink here. I would call this speciation, as would many in the scientific world.

No, we are ON THE BRINK of seeing speciation - no speciation has yet occured. It is that simple. Speciation is the point at which the two populations can no longer interbreed, resulting in different evolutionary paths.

As the article states, these two populations of fly CAN interbreed and in the wild sometimes do, albeit rarely. The fact is, speciation has NOT occured YET. When it does, we will indeed have proof of evolution, but it has not. Claiming soemthing has happened when it hasn't is the kind of bad science that creationists indulge in.

So, let me recap - this is NOT yet proof of evolution, but it seems it may become such proof. Scientists will have to study these populations closely to see if speciation actually occurs. Until then this is merely our most likely chance of finding proof of evolution in the short term. All we have at the moment, though, is speculation on what MIGHT happen.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

31. Self-delete - accidental multiple post N/T

[Walt Starr]

32. Read the article in post 29

Direct observation of speciation.

[Walt Starr]

29. Here's an even better article on the same topic

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031208141435.htm


Again, direct observation of speciation.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

33. You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension:

Second paragraph of that article:

The altered gene also changed the flies' pheromones, chemical signals that influence mating behavior. As a result, the researchers show in the Dec. 5 issue of Science, the two groups of flies are not only fit for different environments but may also be on their way to sexual isolation, a crucial divide in the emergence of a new species.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031208141435.htm

So, once again speciation - sexual isolation - has NOT occurred, but is described as being on the way. It is also said to be "a crucial divide in the emergence of a new species".

When that sexual divide is actuualy confirmed, THEN we can say proof has been found. Until then, all we can claim is that it is POSSIBLE that such division MAY take place, which is where we have been at for a long time.

[psychopomp]

25. Thank you

for taking the time to post basically reservations that I, too, had held.

And Walt's post #20 is only an example of seeing the glass half-full.

I am not yet in awe of this finding, though it is potentially very exciting.

[Roaming]

28. You're right--I noticed this too--headline and actual text don't agree

[Arugula Latte]

18. What are those scientists going to believe?

Their own eyes, oodles of facts, a mountain of evidence, common sense and rationality OR a book written 2,000 years ago by some desert dwelling folks?

HMMMMM?