Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Convergent Evolution Upends Honeyeaters' Taxonomy

Posted by kdawson on from the whole-new-family dept.

grrlscientist writes in with a beautiful piece of science, beautifully explicated. The poignant bit is that the birds in question are all extinct. "Every once in awhile, I will read a scientific paper that astonishes and delights me so much that I can hardly wait to tell you all about it. Such is the situation with a newly published paper about the Hawai'ian Honeyeaters. In short, due to the remarkable power of convergent evolution, Hawai'ian Honeyeaters have thoroughly deceived taxonomists and ornithologists as to their true origin and identity for more than 200 years."

9 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Similarly found in West Virginian coal miners by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 0, Troll

    This type of non-linear genetic branching is also found in some areas of the Appalachians.

    Maliki liki Maka you crazy genetic rebels!

  2. Predictive power of evolution! by ChuckSchwab · · Score: -1, Troll

    Ah, nothing like the predictive power of evolution for ya! Despite the fact that it's basically just a theory at this point, it can be used to "prove" pretty much anything you want! The birds are the same? Evolution! They're not the same? Uh, convergent evolution. That's it!

    A while ago there were two papers I remember, where one of them observed that women dress sexier when fertile, while another observed women walk sexier when *not* fertile. Ah, inconsistent results that need more study, right? Nope! Evolution explains BOTH of them! Everything's consistent with evolution!

    It really is just a theory folks. How about some warnings for the textbooks?

    1. Re:Predictive power of evolution! by CannonballHead · · Score: -1, Troll

      am I supposed to be shocked or dismayed that a textbook contained an error?

      Well, if you want me to take what is in the next textbook seriously, yeah. Or at least, if you want me to believe in evolution as firmly as most scientists believe it (and I attribute that to having no alternative that matches their religious views or social pressures).

      As for micro evolution, I decline to take the bait. But I will say that the delineation between micro- and macro- evolution appears to come down to a philosophical, rather than observable, difference.

      And, lastly, the evidence of evolution thing... refer back to the interpretation-of-evidence comments that I made. Data does not support this or that theory by simply existing. Data is interpreted into evidence. The question of whether or not evidence is being interpreted correctly appears to be a very poignant consideration in light of the numerous errors that have been latched on to in support of evolution.

      As much as I'd like to get into a discussion about evidence for evolution or other theories and against evolution and other theories, I unfortunately don't have time nor is slashdot the best place anyways, hehe... so I'm constraining myself more to the philosophy of science side of things.

    2. Re:Predictive power of evolution! by CannonballHead · · Score: 0, Troll

      Good for you. There is no observable difference, which is why it's not considered a difference by biologists, and only part of the "philosophy" of deniers who think that's a way to drive a wedge between theory and observed fact. The "trap" involves showing how it is logically impossible to believe in one but not the other.

      As you no doubt know, that wasn't my point... as far as I know, there has not been any observed macro-evolution, thus the debate is less observation and more philosophy. And then, of course, we start arguing about what defines "micro" and "macro," what defines a "species," etc...

      Of course when this doesn't happen, it's because the religious cabal rejected your "truth" for their own "religion", and not that your idea fails scientific rigor.

      Actually, I might be slightly different from what you are expecting. Obviously you've guessed my position on evolution and probably on what Christianity calls 'special creation.' I actually do not object to what I believe in not being considered a scientific theory. It's not. I would argue that something, on the other hand, can be supported BY science and scientific observation and yet not be a scientific theory.

      What I more object to is that 'science' has ruled out anything supernatural, and in doing so, has decided that everything can be explained without the supernatural. In other words, science has defined itself as dealing with the natural alone - ok, I can go with that so far - but has then decided that the natural alone can explain everything. Including origins, oftentimes (atheistic evolutionists appear to want to argue scientifically about the origin of matter, for example).

      It must be that you are Galileo and science is the Catholic Church.

      Interestingly, creationists are often compared the other way around... Science is Galileo and the Catholic Church is the Christian Church. Most people make no distinction between evangelical Christians and Catholics, simply because the claim the same title, "Christian."

      Semantics aside, I simply make these two claims. Let's see if Slashdot can handle the html.

      • Science has come to be defined as dealing solely with the natural.
      • Scientists have decided that science should be able to explain anything, and that anything non-natural is in the realm of belief, and cannot be even supported by science
      • When it comes to origin, then, science either claims it is the only one that CAN have the answer, or that the answer must entirely be based on belief and cannot be supported by science in any way.

      There are some other outworkings of this, IMO, which directly affect evolution - e.g., evolution is accepted as being true because scientific evidence supports it, and scientific evidence that could point to a, shall we say, "supernatural" explanation (creation) is disregarded on the premise that the theory it supports (creation) is not a scientific theory.

    3. Re:Predictive power of evolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      population ratios:

      puddle of goo: 1
      puddle of bacteria: 0

      -> millions of years ->

      puddle of goo: 0
      puddle of bacteria: 1

      look everyone! evolution!

  3. The author... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll


    The author is obviously a Godless, Satanist, anti-Christian, elitist, feminist, nazi, communist pinko!

    Don't turn your backs on Jesus! Quit reading "science" and "facts" All the answers you need are in this dusty Iron age book!

  4. Re:Get a life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Nope, he's just gay. Maybe a gay nigger...

  5. Question for grrlscientist: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    My friend had a parrot but one time I fed it Alka-Seltzer and it felled down and fizzy stuff was coming out of its mouth and butt and it never got up again.

    What happened?!

  6. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    This, of course, is why most things ending in *ology aren't real science.