Slashdot Mirror
Study Catches Birds Splitting Into Separate Species
webdoodle writes "A new study finds that a change in a single gene has sent two closely related bird populations on their way to becoming two distinct species. The study, published in the August issue of the American Naturalist, is one of only a few to investigate the specific genetic changes that drive two populations toward speciation."
. . . for intelligently designing these species to evolve.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
I know Slashdot has a reputation for late articles, but this was discovered by Darwin over a hundred of years ago, it's called natural selection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
This result contradicts the Wholly Scientific Theory of Baraminology! The facts must be wrong.
There is no such thing as evolution noted in the Bible. Clearly this is a heretical claim.
Will you say we landed on the Moon as well?
This is so obviously a case of God himself reaching down and dividing these species, and none of this "evolution" tripe! Open your minds, Atheists, and see the truth. Do not be misled by these Satanic, Atheist scientists who would deny His hand in our creation! God not only cares about and intervenes in your personal problems (hence we pray), he also really cares about separating species of birds. He truly works in Mysterious Ways.
Great Intellect...
Keep in mind that the criteria for speciation is, itself, somewhat arbitrary and there exist few fine borders in nature for classifying things. These birds CAN produce offspring, but behaviorally, don't. This may be where some creationists get confused, thinking of dogs and cats and fish, etc in terms of some sort of central "essence" of an animal, when in reality the borders exist mostly in human minds.
Post this under your name, AC!
This was observed with the Eastern Rosella several decades ago, when the Murrumbidgee Irrigation scheme split the population in two. There are now two distinct species, that will not mate to produce fertile and viable offspring under natural conditions.
That is almost entirely wrong. The overwhelming historical difference between different peoples is one of technology, and ensuing positive feedback effects. It took thousands of years to develop farming (for example), and once you have farming, then it is possible to develop cities, schools, and civilization. How quickly (or even if) a society develops technologies depends primarily on environmental factors, not intelligence per se. The stone age, for example, began about 2.5 million years ago and only culminated in the development of farming on around 7000BC. If the rate of technological progress on another continent was only 1% different, then they would not yet have discovered farming! That doesn't imply anything about intelligence, just that very small changes can have big effect.
It would be interesting to put the AC parent poster in the wilds with no equipment, and see how quickly he/she develops some descent farming tools (as a precursor to rediscovering the microchip ;-)
Then explain Obama, dickhead.
If blacks and whites were 2 different species, he wouldn't exist.
Where were the creationist "scientists" with cameras, catching scientific evidence of the "intelligent designer" at work?
So, the difference comes down to the birds wanting to have sex with other birds with the same belly color? First parrots taught us birds can talk, and ravens taught us birds can use tools, now we find out birds can be racist! Forget the AI Singularity, birds will be the death of us all as soon as they invent their own laser weapons!
It is not speciation occurring ...YET. It is two related bird populations not seeing each other as sexual rivals, apparently because of feather colour. The article is clear. This MAY lead to speciation if other genetic changes occur in one or both bird populations.
These birds CAN produce offspring, but behaviorally, don't.
;) can be considered a different species?
Therefore then isolated human communities that don't often intermarry, such as in parts of the southern USA
The only difference is in the gene responsible for melanin production, a gene that varies in different colored people, too.
So if speciation has occured (according to the article) when the two populations no longer mate, does that mean if white people and black people stopped mating they would be different species?
Read TFA, dickhead, the darwinist whackjobs are not talking about where mating is not possible, but where a population no longer wants to mate with certain of its members. Like if everyone who wasn't black stopped mating with anyone black. They're saying then that that would be the start of blacks becoming their own separate species. Like I said, whackjobs.
You can see it in the change of a single gene in the human males. One male has the dominant jock gene, whereas the other does not, allowing the recessive geek gene to dictate behavior.
The question of whether these two populations are on the road to speciation comes down to sex. When two populations stop exchanging genes-that is, stop mating with each other-then they can be considered distinct species. We wanted to see if these two types of humans were heading in that direction.
It would be all but impossible to try to catalog every occasion on which an jocks mated with a geeks. So we used another test. We made human form androids in both Jock and Geek models. We used the models to invade mating territories in each population. As expected, when jocks were presented with the jock android, they attacked. But when jocks encountered the geek androids, they were much less likely to go on the offensive. The same scenario held for the geeks.
That males from the two populations no longer view the other as a reproductive threat is a good indication that not much mating is taking place between the two groups. Their evolutionary paths are diverging - all because of a change in testosterone and diminished brain capacity.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
My father happened to tell me last week that cuckoos put their eggs in the nests of birds of the same kind in which they were raised, and that their eggs have the same speckle pattern as that of the bird they take advantage off. This could mean that cuckoos will also mate with cuckoos raised from the same type of nest, or the speckle pattern would be messed up. Alternatively, the speckle pattern is entirely female determined. In case of the former, speciation is on its way.
Bert
These birds CAN produce offspring, but behaviorally, don't.
So, you're saying it's like computer geeks and supermodels?
Africans (and African-Americans) are a failure because they lack the IQ to succeed. Affirmative action is wrong because their failure is not due to "oppression" from Asians and Whites. Africans are a failure because they lack the intelligence to succeed.
Try telling that to George Washington Carver while you're eating a peanut-butter sandwich. :D
(Use the Google first before modding me off-topic, please.)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
This is so obviously a case of God himself reaching down and dividing these species
Once again the scientists and the Christians collude to hide the truth. Here, there is a conspiracy to conceal the almost certainly true factoid that significant traces of oregano and Parmesan were detected in these birds' habitat: clear evidence that these species were divided by the mere touch of His Noodley Appendage.
Ramen.
Anybody want to come and picket a Pot Noodle factory (the blasphemers!)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
call me when one of them has hands.
-God
I would argue that Asian culture is a lot richer than European culture. It's well-known how promiscuous and unfaithful white people (especially white women) are (England is the most promiscuous developed country in the world). Asians also have higher IQs (and I would argue higher EQs) than whites. Ashkenazi Jews are the only exception, but even then they seem to have relatively low EQs.
Try telling that to George Washington Carver while you're eating a peanut-butter sandwich. :D
History is a highly mutable thing. (Apparently the inventor of something no longer matters, only who patented it. Is the world ending yet? I want off, but I don't want to miss anything) :P
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The first author's website has the PDF of the original paper: http://jauy.syr.edu/PUBS/Publications.html
It's the first paper on the list: Difference in plumage color used in species recognition between incipient species is linked to a single amino acid substitution in the melanocortin-1 receptor
And here's the abstract if you don't want to read/download the whole paper:
"Many studies demonstrate that differences in mating signals are used by incipient species in recognizing potential mates or sexual competitors (i.e., species recognition). Little is known, however, about the genetic changes responsible for these differences in mating signals. Populations of the Monarcha castaneiventris flycatcher vary in plumage color across the Solomon Islands, with a subspecies on Makira Island having chestnut bellies and blue-black upper parts (Monarcha castaneiventris megarhynchus) and a subspecies on neighboring satellite islands being entirely blue-black (melanic; Monarcha castaneiventris ugiensis). Here we show that a single nonsynonymous point mutation in the melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) gene is present in all melanic birds from one island (Santa Ana) but absent in all chestnut-bellied birds from Makira Island, implicating this mutation in causing melanism. Birds from a second satellite island (Ugi) do not show the same perfect association between this MC1R variant and plumage color, suggesting an alternative mechanism for melanism on this island. Finally, taxidermic mount presentation experiments in Makira (chestnut) and Santa Ana (melanic) suggest that the plumage difference mediates species recognition. Assuming that the signals used in species recognition are also used in mutual mate choice, our results indicate that a single amino acid substitution contributes to speciation."
Animals have been shown in the past to be able to exhibit various adaptions (beaks, spots, hair color, eye color, etc) by turning on a particular gene in their set. What this study adds is some information on how likely the adapted animal will mate with the non-adapted form. But this isn't all that new either, some guys prefer blondes (look at its effect on Iceland). Now an animal without an eye producing an eye and not by activating existing genes would be a neat trick. Basically you would have spontaneous generaiton of complexity (complexity here being different than mere information). Information theory has no problem with adaption but it does have a problem with spontaneous generation of complexity out of a less complex system.
Why the non sequitur about some other black inventor? Apparently, Carver only applied for 3 patents, so that line of thought is also a non sequitur:
http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventors/a/GWC.htm
Nice Job.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
How is it a Non Sequitur? I was just going to comment on another black inventor: existence thereof; however, when I looked for references this time MANY of them tried to discredit him, specifically talking about his lack of a patent. I guess he thought it was obvious, since you could already use a spark gap, and a spark plug is just a disposable gap. So it turned into a diatribe about patents and racism.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Where you don't have to worry about antibodies killing the sperm or the coat of the egg hardening and not allowing the genetic material of the sperm in.
Both of which are means by which shagging sheep does not produce baa-man hybrids.
Despite many southern baptists giving it their best shot.
All to prove that there is no such thing as "species", of course...
That guy's invention of the spark plug has nothing to do with whether George Washington Carver came up with peanut butter or not; it is entirely possible to read your comment without clicking on the link and come to the conclusion that you are arguing that GWC patented peanut butter after someone else had already invented it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
No, information theory does not have a problem with spontaneous generation of complexity. Read some Prigogine or something. And learn something about evolution, too - the "evolution of the eye" thing has been richly studied.
It's a good point; I wonder how different the modern world would be if England had had no coal.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
it is entirely possible to read your comment without clicking on the link and come to the conclusion that you are arguing that GWC patented peanut butter after someone else had already invented it.
It's entirely possible to read the Encyclopedia Britannica and come to the conclusion that gay aliens from Jupiter are stealing our atmosphere. What does that have to do with me?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I hate to feed the trolls, but you're actually right on that one. If two groups of people really did stop mating outside of their groups, they would differentiate over time. However, it would take a long-long time. Certainly much longer than it took for the racial differentiation we see today, which was tens of thousands of years (and a whole lot of geographic separation) in the making. However, the modern trend of fast transportation and mingling global population means it will almost certainly not happen; we're much more likely to form a single quasi-homogeneous genepool over time.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Whatever dude. I mean that a clear headed reader with no other context could easily read your comment and reasonably come to the conclusion that you were making an argument about George Washington Carver (your comment is entirely devoid of the context that you claimed in your first reply; you might have had that context, but you didn't provide it to your readers).
Anyway, if you think that you logically connected your initial comment to the parent comment, know that we disagree.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Just for fun...
The genetic differences between two individuals within a race are far greater than the genetic differences between races.
"Slightness" brings the statistical significance of the study into question. It also raises the question of other factors -- IQ can be improved, with practice, and recent IQ tests are even subject to education. Given the actual situation of these races, and the cultures involved, it's quite arrogant of you to suggest that it's purely genetic.
The "wasteland" that is Africa -- you don't suppose that had anything to do with the domination of whites under things like Apartheid? And certainly, subject to that much discrimination, wouldn't your Einstein effect apply? Never mind that natural selection takes more than just a few centuries to apply, at least to humans.
Here is the bottom line: You're a racist looking for a rational, scientific justification for your racism. But just like creationists, if you're intellectually honest, you'll find that justification at odds with reality.
But if you really want to play this game, blue states have a higher IQ, on average, than red states. Does this mean Democrats are smarter? If so, why would they elect Obama -- if you're right, he should be a "failure" who "lacks the intelligence to succeed."
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
From wiki:
Carver did market a few of his peanut products. The Carver Penol Company sold a mixture of creosote and peanuts as a patent medicine for respiratory diseases such as tuberculosis. Other ventures were The Carver Products Company and the Carvoline Company. Carvoline Antiseptic Hair Dressing was a mix of peanut oil and lanolin. Carvoline Rubbing Oil was a peanut oil for massages.
A patent medicine, a hair oil, and a massage oil. None of which are peanut butter.
It's a good point; I wonder how different the modern world would be if England had had no coal.
And in stead would have (had) moral standing.
Please note roughly the same is valid for most leading nations of the past millennia.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Why whenever we observe speciation people make such a big deal about it. We've observed speciation in plants for almost a hundred years and observed it in insects since the 1960s. Speciation in birds and mammals have also been repeatedly observed. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.
At this point the evidence for speciation is so overwhelming that even many young earth creationists acknowledge that it occurs. See http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use. At this point anyone who is who thinks that speciation doesn't occur is so colossally ignorant that discussing matters with them should probably be done only if one is amused by talking to people under mass delusions by people so estranged from reality that reality probably got a restraining order against them.
Evidence of modern peanut butter comes from US patent #306727 issued to Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Montreal, Quebec, in 1884, for a process of milling roasted peanuts between heated surfaces until the peanuts reached "a fluid or semi-fluid state." As the product cooled, it set into what Edson described as "a consistency like that of butter, lard, or ointment."
and
George Washington Carver (January 1864[1][2] â" January 5, 1943)
means that, if GWC did "invent" peanut butter, it was as a teen. And then some Canadian guy found out and patented it.
Everyone knows he isn't going to get laid but him.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
A summary of an adaptation of a press release is just that-- a press release and not necessarily news.
So if a gene change causes the species of bird to stop mating due to feather color, thus causing "science" to predict eventual new species, Why hasn't this "science" been extrapolated to humans? If humans with certain traits stop breeding with other humans of certain traits (by nature or design), would not science say that those humans where on course for "speciation"? Likewise, if humans with distinct traits breed together, wouldn't that be argued by "science" as a process of "de-speciation"?
Science can explain how things exist and work as we observe them. Science can explain a car, but science cannot explain why a car exists or why it came to be. Either the existence of a car was a random event in nature or was not a random event in nature, in either case for cause, the same science of a car is equally valid (assuming we have the "science" right). One could look at a car and say it was created, others may look at a car and say, hey, science can explain this, therefore it was not created (we can document snapshots of various "cars" evolving from a horse drawn carriage to the car of today as proof).
The real question is can it be proven that everything we can see, hear and feel toady came into existence and coexists together in balance via a string of completely random and unrelated natural events? Or do you "choose" to "believe" science will be able to prove this one day?
Cheers.
Why was this modded down? The poster asks some questions very valid for discussion. Science forbids we hold anything but a one-sided discussion? Do we just mod anybody down we don't agree with out of existence?
The poster makes a valid point. I'm personally annoyed by all the mouth breathers who are SO anxious to prove Intelligent Design people wrong, so much so that they don't use good science and claim ridiculous things as being evolution. I heard a discussion one day about how big corn is now compared to in the past. They said something about people meddling with corn genetics and that was somehow evolution because the corn "changed". Ugh! Bad science is WORSE than no science at all. Can we stop the madness?
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
" Study Catches Birds Splitting Into Separate Species"
Jezze! that must hurt.
I don't like big words..., does that make me anti-semantic?
Why was this modded down? The poster asks some questions very valid for discussion. Science forbids we hold anything but a one-sided discussion? Do we just mod anybody down we don't agree with out of existence?
It was probably modded down because his question has been answered on this page and his car argument makes little sense. How in heaven's name can it be said that because science can explain a car it was not created and instead "evolved". The amount of ridiculous thinking in the post hints that the poster will not listen.
The poster makes a valid point. I'm personally annoyed by all the mouth breathers who are SO anxious to prove Intelligent Design people wrong, so much so that they don't use good science and claim ridiculous things as being evolution. I heard a discussion one day about how big corn is now compared to in the past. They said something about people meddling with corn genetics and that was somehow evolution because the corn "changed". Ugh! Bad science is WORSE than no science at all. Can we stop the madness?
Well evolution means change, look it up in the dictionary. The theory of evolution attempts to explain how this change occurs (and more). Therefore to say by human selection of the biggest corn kernels over many years the corn has changed to become bigger is absolutely right. Substitute the word evolution for the word change and it is still right.
Evolution if fact! It is the fact that over time the life on Earth has changed!
The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how life changed over time and is not proved, nor will it ever be proved, because that is not how the Universe works.
Why are such simple things so easily misunderstood?
The most dangerous drug
Prigogine's belief that determinism is no longer a viable scientific belief is at odds with quite a few other scientists - including Darwin. But more interesting... You or someone you know now has proof that isolated simple systems can produce complex systems in universe time scales? Do tell.
Why was this modded down? The poster asks some questions very valid for discussion. Science forbids we hold anything but a one-sided discussion? Do we just mod anybody down we don't agree with out of existence?
It was probably modded down because his question has been answered on this page and his car argument makes little sense. How in heaven's name can it be said that because science can explain a car it was not created and instead "evolved". The amount of ridiculous thinking in the post hints that the poster will not listen.
The poster made a bad analogy, but that dismisses the validity of the post all together? I believe Slashdot discussions are here to add to the discussion.
The poster makes a valid point. I'm personally annoyed by all the mouth breathers who are SO anxious to prove Intelligent Design people wrong, so much so that they don't use good science and claim ridiculous things as being evolution. I heard a discussion one day about how big corn is now compared to in the past. They said something about people meddling with corn genetics and that was somehow evolution because the corn "changed". Ugh! Bad science is WORSE than no science at all. Can we stop the madness?
Well evolution means change, look it up in the dictionary. The theory of evolution attempts to explain how this change occurs (and more). Therefore to say by human selection of the biggest corn kernels over many years the corn has changed to become bigger is absolutely right. Substitute the word evolution for the word change and it is still right.
"Evolution" in the context of the conversation was referring to Darwinian evolution. The point was they did not understand what qualifies. And apparently you do not read things in context. I was talking about people who are too eager to prove the other "supreme being" type believers wrong, then going on to cite an example. I believe the next statement in their discussion would be "chew on that, Creationists!".
Evolution if fact! It is the fact that over time the life on Earth has changed!
Evolution is not "fact". Look it up in the dictionary, and then the scientific requirements for a theory to be called fact. Just because it may not be possible to prove it in a lifetime does not give the science community the go-ahead to just label it as scientific fact. This is one of the things I'm talking about when I say "bad science".
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.