Wired: “Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists”

AiG ^ | November 21, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Scientists have watched as a new species is “born”—or is that “evolved”?—on one of the Galapagos Islands, home of Darwin’s famous finches...

[NeoConfederate]

So what species gave birth to this new species?

[GodGunsGuts]

Genetic variation within the bird kind, then reproductive isolation.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[mountainlion]

What dreamer darwinists are. Where is a picture of this bird, I think that is what the meandering explanation was about. When the drought is over things will evolve back again.

[smokingfrog]

Deceptive headline. The “new” finches appear to be some sort of mutation, and they had trouble reproducing.

[BykrBayb]

They bred two finches from a different island. The offspring interbred, because the local finches wouldn’t breed with them. So they had several generations of inbred finches. Nothing remarkable about them. No evolution. No new species. Non-story.

[metmom]

Variation within species has been observed again. That’s nice.

[isom35]

will the new species taste good with drawn butter? “Heck, I’d eat my own head with drawn butter” (Crow T. Robot)

[metmom]

They bred two finches from a different island.

From what the article implied, although it wasn't clearly stated, it sounded like the scientists played a role in this breeding.

That would merely be intelligent design all over again.

Of course, with the definition of *species* being so elastic and vague, it's easy to *prove* that a *new species* has *evolved*.

[bgill]

Obviously, there was something genetically or visually wrong with the first bird because the females didn’t want to breed with him. They refused to pollute the gene pool.

That or birds are racist!

[dog breath]

If inbreeding amongst abnormal specimens is the key to creating a new species then it might explain some people I have met from back in the hills. It might also explain why Pakistani politics are so confusing to the rest of the world.

[BykrBayb]

[BykrBayb]

This is all true. Of course, it keeps coming back to the fact that there was no new species.

[fish hawk]

Even if this were true, which I doubt, it would be Micro Evolution, and nobody denies that, not Macro Evolution of which there is no proof what so ever.

[YHAOS]

The snappers and growlers will be ‘evolving’ in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

[mamelukesabre]

Prove it.

I foresee a startling discovery in the near future. There have been thousands of these “new” finches inhabiting some valley someplace for thousands of years.

Like the difference between a greater and lesser prairie chicken.

[GodGunsGuts]

I’m not sure exactly what it is you asking me to prove.

[giotto]

That would merely be intelligent design all over again.

Not that intelligent, unfortunately. Intelligent design would allow for the evolution of viable species. I realize that the "science" of Intelligent Design does not allow for evolution, but I see no reason why it shouldn't. The idea that a divine entity could design a plan that, once set in motion, could evolve into a universe of almost infinite complexity, only makes the concept of that Creator even more awesome.

[DannyTN]

"Intelligent design would allow for the evolution of viable species. "

So cars aren't intelligently designed because man didn't allow for their evolution.