Butterfly Unlocks Evolution Secret

Anonymous Coward writes "The BBC has an article about a dramatic discovery in the quest for understanding evolution. From the article: 'Why one species branches into two is a question that has haunted evolutionary biologists since Darwin. Given our planet's rich biodiversity, "speciation" clearly happens regularly, but scientists cannot quite pinpoint the driving forces behind it. Now, researchers studying a family of butterflies think they have witnessed a subtle process, which could be forcing a wedge between newly formed species.'"

Comments

Dogs

[truckaxle]

After reading the the article I wonder why dogs, for example, do not fracture into mutliple species? Great Danes for example do not repoduce with say Boston Terriers. Their genetic line are continously reinforced and isolated.

scientists personal data

[pintomp3]

i wonder how long before the creationists demand the scienctists personal data:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/24/00 2224&tid=158

Re:Remember, evolution is just a theory.

[datafr0g]

Evolution isn't a "theory" in that sense of the word, any more than the theory of gravity is "just a theory". Both are fact as far as the scientific community is concerned.

If evolution is "fact" then why the need to study it further?
To me, a confirmed fact would mean that we know (that we know) 100% of everything about the theroy to be correct - therefore, why study it further?

Don't get me wrong, my beliefs sway strongly towards evolution as there is a lot of evidence associated with it. But it is still a theroy - it's just a lot more plausible than many others.

Re:Yes!!!

[Ziggurat Dan]

It's interesting that the above post was modded as Insightful. The sweeping generalities ("God did it! now go pray"), very ironic blind faith ("I am sure that given enough time, scientists can plug the holes in the theory of evolution..."), intelligent design bashing (calling it a "rant"), and not-sure-where-you're-going-with-this sayings (the whole ipod thing, although I think I know what you're trying to say, you seem to have picked a rather absurd example) all make for a one-sided bash instead of sharing any real insight.

I have often seen people use the provable/unprovable argument against ID. ID states that life arose from an intelligent designer instead of from natural, random (unintelligent) processes. Here is an intelligent design claim:

There is NO natural/random unintelligent process that could produce a living organism (because, for non-ID evolution to be true, you would have to have life from nonlife).

To falsify that, you would have to come up with just ONE unintelligent process that created a living organism. Now, here's a Darwinist claim:

SOME unintelligent natural/random process created a living organism.

To falsify THAT, you would have to rule out an infinite number of natural/random processes.

Now, which one sounds falsifiable?

I, too, love science and the new and exciting discoveries that come about with regularity. That's not in contradiction with believing in intelligent design.