A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

How can we convince creationists when they reject observable facts?

sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

Attached: grumpybirb_adjusted-contrast_600.jpg (600x243, 32K)

Other urls found in this thread:

io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558
ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/
seeker.com/how-humans-lost-their-tail-twice-2129791485.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>creationists
What about the anti-white race-deniers?

>The change was god's will.
I agree OP

>All but nine survived to breed - a son bred with his mother,
god i wish that was me

Attached: 1433732212535.jpg (240x232, 6K)

That's a topic for a separate thread.

God is ok with inbreeding? Ah, yes, Eves sons fucked her.

>"evolved"
What new feature does it have that has never been seen before in any species, and does not rely on any previously available genetic information?

>pro tip: none
Evolutionists foolishly believe that new combinations of EXISTING information can lead to entirely NEW information in direct violation of Shannon entropy.

You might as well believe that an ice cube dropped in hot coffee can sometimes get colder as the heat in the ice cube defies SLoT and transfers to the warmer liquid.

>What new feature does it have that has never been seen before in any species, and does not rely on any previously available genetic information?

You have no idea how Evolution works.

Losing the tail granted our ancestors an upright stance, which later led to bipedalism in sahelanthropus and its descendants.

>What makes one defect an atavism and another just a genetic defect?

>In biology, an atavism is a modification of a biological structure whereby an ancestral trait reappears after having been lost through evolutionary change in previous generations.

In biology, an atavism is a modification of a biological structure whereby an ancestral trait reappears after having been lost through evolutionary change in previous generations.

Icthyosis is not an atavism because it is merely named after fish. You should know that by touching the skin of someone with icthyosis and the skin of a fish, they are different.

>Hell, when the dinosaurs died out, all that was left was small mammals and birds, insects and fish, because life was so scarce you needed to have a small diet to survive. Why don't we have more instances of the gene for snouts as opposed to human jaws not being suppressed?

Likely because those are very far off in the evolution timeline. Tails are seen because they are relatively recent in terms of evolutionary time, but having a snout? It can only regress so far.

>less-than-perfect-in-all-situations design is still design.

An All-Knowing, very powerful God wouldn't make imperfections.

One can be observed and studied, one cannot. Don't misunderstand me, I never implied science is all-knowing like a religious person would imply of their god, I'm just putting forward what I know personally. There are many other people way overqualified than me that would've given much better answers and reasons.

But never underestimate genetic drift.

io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558

ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/

Attached: 865b6592edf72231240e972a4db3a7ad--prehistoric-animals-of-late.jpg (564x491, 25K)

>Evolutionists foolishly believe that new combinations of EXISTING information can lead to entirely NEW information

You do realize that genetic material can get duplicated and rearranged, right?
Go back to school.

Attached: f-d fbb7b0182c44213cca95c069b10084c181c648b9f2c27df78ce22e6e IMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY IMAGE_THUMB_P (434x487, 12K)

I'll Combine the informatio RET

And also the information ARD

And get You as a result.

>You have no idea how Evolution works.
Answer the question or be quiet.

>>Evolutionists foolishly believe that new combinations of EXISTING information can lead to entirely NEW information
>You do realize that genetic material can get duplicated and rearranged, right?
Is English your second language? Or are you so stupid that you can't fathom the difference between rearranging the pages in a book and actually writing a new book?

No matter how you combine the letters in A FUCKING LEAF, the day of the rake will come.

>What new feature does it have that has never been seen before in any species
>that has never been seen before in any species
American education

>flag
Checks out.

It's a new phenotype of an established species being observed. If the bird can reproduce with other birds that don't share its phenotype, it is not a new species.

You never went to the university. "Combinatorics" ring a bell?
You have 4 possible options on every single nucleotide and you have around 3 billions bases that can additionally get duplicated. There are more possible combinations than atoms in the Universe.

It can't.

Did you even read the article?
>two of these species that came together in what is called species hybridisation to create an entirely new one
In other words, it's saying mutts are new species.
This is so retarded and obviously meant to be clickbait.

>seeker.com/how-humans-lost-their-tail-twice-2129791485.html

That theory holds up perfectly. An extension of your vertebra that goes beyond your legs would be detrimental in living an ordinary life in the ever changing environment our ancestors were facing. It's better to walk upright and lack a tail on a savannah, while it's better to have a long tail to hold balance on an environment with tall trees.

A tail can also change the centre of mass which is very important to keep on a bipedal or "upright" ape.

>There are more possible combinations than atoms in the Universe.
Only a fraction of those would be viable, and only a fraction of those would be viable in the mothers womb. Still quite a lot of possible mutations

sounds like race mixing propaganda to me.

Attached: 1529428486769.png (470x728, 518K)

Fertile mule is also a new species. Happens so rarely that they can't really reproduce but that one fertile mule is a new species.

about the harvard bacteria video, i'm still not sure if that is really a mutation or just natural selection. the bacteria couldn't cross the line and after the so called mutation/adaptation they could, but what if that was actually natural selection and the more resistent bacteria crossed the line also reproducing far greater than the least resistent bacteria, and the resistent ones needed time to multiply and attack the antibiotics or to arrive at a line and attack the antibiotics and cross it?

Attached: 111Untitled.png (1366x768, 1.08M)

>An All-Knowing, very powerful God wouldn't make imperfections.
You assume the creator(s) of life on Earth is all knowing and "very powerful." You also assume that a being having both traits is able to overcome all engineering trade offs. And you assume that life on this planet is the final draft rather than a test run, an R&D project.

>But never underestimate genetic drift.
Genetic drift cannot cause new information to appear anymore than 52 card pickup can create an ordered deck.

At what point does this process add new information that gives a species a novel trait? What you are showing is rearrangement of DNA already in existence. This process does not add anything that was not already inherent in the genetic code.

I don't assume that, religious people do.

No new information appeared. Deep rooted Ainu ancestral genes caused hirsuitism by genetic drift. I never claimed the thing you wrote.

On a side note, taxonomy in Biology really sucks. The realest redpill is: species don't exist.

It's still a mule. Come back to me when A1 & A2 make something that isn't A.

Are the offspring sterile?

False
Biology 101:
>all organisms within a species must be able to produce viable young
HOWEVER
>simply being able to produce fertile offspring DOES NOT group organisms into the same species

Example- coyotes and grey wolves can and do produce fertile offspring in the wild.

>It's two of these species that came together in what is called species hybridisation to create an entirely new one.
Literally lol. Evolutionists are so fucking dumb it hurts.

You do realize that if evolution cannot produce entirely new, never before seen features then you can't get from first life to a multi-cellular organism.

What was your education again? HS biology? Check.

>There are more possible combinations than atoms in the Universe.
And the overwhelmingly vast majority of them are dead and useless. As with any information system. Which is why information systems follow the laws of entropy just like energy configurations of our universe.

Maybe read up about Shannon entropy and then come back and explain how new information just magically comes to light.

I'm not saying icthyosis is an atavism. I'm saying if we come from fish, and we've had fish DNA in our lineage, why are we not seeing more actual fish scales and fins in our human population?

You made a decent point about only regressing so far, but Sahelanthropus is supposed to have existed about 7 million years ago, and yet we've completely gone from that through 6 or 7 different species that are almost unrecognizable from each other in the meantime.

>very powerful God wouldn't make imperfections
Again, we're still 100% on the fact that the RLN is an imperfection. There could definitely be other purposes it serves, especially considering the length of the giraffe's neck.

Doesn't matter. There are enough viable possibilities to create adaptations for every possible environment on Earth. You also have neutral mutations and mutations that literally change nothing. Some mutations will only create new fuction when present in duplicated silent gene and in presence with other certain mutations in that region. Duplicated regions accumulate mutations quickly because they aren't expressed and don't fuck up normal operations. Mutations in crucial genes are usually lethal. That's why housekeeping genes that allow the cell to live evolve at super slow rate. The lesson is that different parts of genome evolve at different rates.

I have no idea what you are talking about. That is a perfect example of adaptation.

If you want more things to research, beak shape of finches change throughout generations to adapt to their diet depending on the island they are in. That is also adaptation.

It's a far more serious topic than creationism.

There are thousands of species that can hybridize successfully.
You have zero knowledge on taxonomy or biology.

> (You)
>I don't assume that, religious people do.
You did when you cited it. Try again.

> (You)
>No new information appeared. Deep rooted Ainu ancestral genes caused hirsuitism by genetic drift. I never claimed the thing you wrote.
Have I misjudged you? Do you agree that life on Earth was created and repeatedly upgraded by life not of our universe?

>
>On a side note, taxonomy in Biology really sucks. The realest redpill is: species don't exist.
We agree on this at least.

i wonder if they use only a bacteria cell on the right and another one in the left, if they used only 1 in the right, then it would be valid, but if they used more bacteria cells in the right part it wouldn't be valid i think

>sure if that is really a mutation or just natural selection
What's the difference? If the food is finite than it's natural selection.

When you duplicate a part of chromosome you add information.

Yes, a tail is not great for walking upright, yet there are plenty of animals with tails still in existence, and plenty of animals at the time that coexisted with us with tails through those same conditions.

Just going back to the point: WHAT determines what is and isn't detrimental for a species?

Incest wasn't a problem until the there was genetic fuck ups
Then God said "hey stop fucking you family members"
And no, eve did not get fucked by her son's
That's Adams job

How about giving me an example of two lifeforms making a completely different type lifeform instead of assuming what I do or do not know like some jackass?

Survival.

If the offspring survive, it wasn't detrimental. And then those traits are carried on by their offspring.

Its literally that simple.

>When you duplicate a part of chromosome you add information.
Not new information.

Why is this so hard to grasp? Is it because then you have to deal with Shannon entropy and accept that something not of our universe created and guided life within it?

all i'm saying about the video is that i'm not really sure if those are mutants, but i googled it and i've found some articles and i'll do a bit of research about this study

7 millions is nothing compared to the last time our lineage would be classified as "fish."


>Again, we're still 100% on the fact that the RLN is an imperfection. There could definitely be other purposes it serves, especially considering the length of the giraffe's neck.

Then what do hipbones in whales serve for? Or phalanges in a dolphin's "pectoral fins"?

Plenty of those animals didn't live in the same conditions as our ancestors, and if they did, they must've been better to have forced out ancestors to walk upright instead of competing with them for survival.

They refuse to fuck with other birds. If you force them the offspring should be infertile. Someone should force them to fuck with other species in the name of science. Even if it works, their refusal to mate in wild with other species will giarantee the new species status in the future.

I already did.
Coyote X grey wolf.
Lake Malawi cichlids
Various parrot species
Colubrids

I could fill an entire thread just with species I'm aware of.

The environment changes constantly. Which mutations are benefitial and which are not depend on the current state of environment.

if an organism can't breed with another they are different species, but in some cases they can but the offspring is infertile or has problems procreating and in other cases they can have fertile offsrping

crossbreeding is considered evolution now?

nope

True. Forcing two different species to mate and them giving a fertile offspring doesn't mean they belong to the same species. Minus the human factor, the said species would go extinct if the only available mate belonged to a different species. It's also about their natural choice.

Some chimpanzee packs have shown to mate with bonobos in places where the Congo river is less limiting. They leave fertile off springs. Also, previous bonobo DNA was found in chimpanzees that indicates they interbred even before when the river's levels were changing before all the allopatric speciation happened.

They do it by themselves in the wild. Makes me question Biological taxonomy, which I believe is flawed as a biology undergrad myself. I also read that a biologist was preparing new taxonomical rules that are on par with our new knowledge, so that's good to know.

>back and explain how new information just magically comes to light.
Plants get energy from the Sun, animals use that energy to create new DNA. Cosmic radiation creates new information by flipping nucleotides in that newly created DNA. Information is encoded in arrangement of nucleotides just like information in computers is encoded in transistor states and electron spins in HDD.

it was a rhetorical question
OP's article is just an example of crossbreeding and has nothing to do with evolution

All you doing is showing me mutts.
How does any of this get us from prokaryotes to whales?
is right. You can't get something from nothing and all your examples are instances of genetic degradation.

>How does any of this get us from prokaryotes to whales?

With billions of years.

>They do it by themselves in the wild
It depends on species, environment, upbringing, and other factors.
Some will, some won't. Just as humans are.

And this doesnt even account for shit like metilization of nucleotides, deacitilization of gistones and other epiginetic stuff that can happen to dna molecules

It's because bonobos and chimpanzees, despite being a different species, are quite similar physically and even if they weren't, they are still compatible to breed and leave fertile offsprings.

A chimpanzee may look at a bonobo and not understand they are different. Whereas a lion knows a tiger is different naturally and only mates artificially.

Creationists aren't the ones trying to push egalitarian systems that keep giving free money and EXTREMELY easy college access to niggers and wondering why they're still lower class criminals.
Let's solve the big problems first.

I would just like to take this small moment to remind you all that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has had no problem with evolution from the day Darwin published his book, and continues to pump cleric scientists out of her seminaries who actively argue against creationism and for chemical evolution, micro evolution and macro evolution.

That is all

Continue on

Attached: Brother Gregor Mendel.png (300x304, 268K)

>haha this bird is slightly different than this other bird so they’re different species but you and some sub-Saharan nigger are the same

>hey creationist idiots, evolution is real
>but race and genetics somehow aren't

Those birds refuse to mate with each other in the nature, but your white trash sister craves for Tyrone's dick, that's why we are the same species.

>The environment changes constantly. Which mutations are benefitial and which are not depend on the current state of environment.
You still can't distinguish existing from new information, can you? Even with the book analogy which I would think a 6th grader could comprehend?

Since no one here seems to know what Shannon entropy is (which means that fundamentally you don't know what entropy is at all, Shannon or SLoT), let's look at the coin from the other side: the odds against spontaneous new genetic structures (new information).

Odds of abiogenesis (first life): 1 in 10^450
Odds of evolution by mutation/natural selection to the complexity level of a modern mammal: 1 in 10^3,000,000
Number of atoms in the universe: 10^80
Number of potential chemical reactions since the Big Bang: 10^120

If this universe was a sim with true random inputs you would not expect to see abiogenesis even if you ran it 10^100 times.

If this universe was unbounded and infinite you would get abiogenesis. But habitable zones cannot last long enough for evolution to the complexity levels we observe on Earth. In fact, you would likely never reach the first multi-cellular organisms. And that's a constraint governed by physical laws, not randomness.

The odds come from Marcel E. Golay. I've looked up other estimates, but they are WORSE. (For a more current author, Michael Denton pretty much mathematically rapes mutation+natural selection in his works.)

The math is conclusive. Life did not originate in this universe. Something from another universe seeded this universe with life. And bursts in our fossil record (Cambrian explosion) were genetic "upgrades."

What we call evolution is not random nor "natural" as evolutionists define natural. It's a designed system exploring options for survival. A genetic search algorithm. But it can only search among existing, programmed options.

That's your red pill for the day.

what's your opinion about the fact that dogs are considered a subspecies even if they can breed with wolves or nowadays humans that are considered homo sapiens sapiens, a subspecies, i've read that this is because nowadays humans are different from the homo sapiens fossils

/thread

>implying evolution could somehow "disprove" God

It's new information. If you have 4nt you can have 35 possible options. When you duplicate and have 8nt you have 6435 possible options.

Noice. Lets call it cuckus novelis.

>Plants get energy from the Sun, animals use that energy to create new DNA.
The only source evolutionists have ever offered for new DNA is random mutation. Random mutation cannot result in new, functional DNA (information). It's called Shannon entropy. Look it up sometime.

I already said taxonomy is flawed in my opinion. As for Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it's something you use to either differentiate the modern thinking man (~40k years ago) with the physically modern man (~200k years ago). Or in other cases, to call it a subspecies of Homo Sapiens, which also would include Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis because we were able to mate with Neanderthal males.

Yes, your phone keyboard is fucked but I know what you are talking about.
Epigenetics in short.

Not evolution, but rational thinking does.

Well that's a complete non-answer. Do you have any idea how many missing links there are in the fossil record? Forget man and ape, the entire branch of life is missing entire lines of intermediary species. Even animals like crustaceans, which leave excellent fossils, have left nothing showing us the steps between a crab and a lobster.

>he math is conclusive. Life did not originate in this universe. Something from another universe seeded this universe with life. And bursts in our fossil record (Cambrian explosion) were genetic "upgrades."

i also heard about this theory
once i've read an article about the theory that cephalopods got on earth from our solar system

Do you have any idea how hard is it for something to fossilize? Do you think that archeologists just dig two meters of soil and find every "transitional" skeleton next to one another?

>It's new information.
Noise is not information. In the context of DNA changes have to be new and they have to WORK.

>If you have 4nt you can have 35 possible options. When you duplicate and have 8nt you have 6435 possible options.
A 52 card deck has 8.06e+67 possible options. But only one of those is ordered.

You can play 52 card pickup until the heat death of the universe. You will never get an ordered deck.

>believing anything other than God made everything and he did it perfectly
Hell lasts forever heretics

I never said we can't be possibly living in a simulation.

Attached: phenotype.jpg (680x788, 72K)

>The math is conclusive. Life did not originate in this universe.
Dude, you know that physics determine what reactions are possible in given environment right? Most possible arrangements of atoms never happen because they are phyically impossible. Your calculations are retarded because they don't account how physical processes are determined by others.

lol

I believe it to be something like a high dimensional potential energy surface that evolution takes the gradient along. The question is where does it come from? How can the surface be navigable at all by a evolutionary process that proceeds by getting random kicks via mutation? Something made the energy surface navigable.

Attached: PES.gif (558x359, 41K)

>Do you have any idea how hard is it for something to fossilize?
So in your mind this is a valid argument as to why missing links have not been found? Interesting...

The odds against abiogenesis are 1 in 10^450 and that's almost certainly understated. That absolutely blows the fuck out of "how hard is muh fossilization". Yet you think abiogenesis occurred in our universe?

And you have the gall to make reference to "rational thinking" in this post.

>find every
They haven't found a single one. And like I said, crustaceans make excellent fossils. You're basically admitting that your theory is lacking evidence and that you're assuming it's true based on faith now.
If you are a true seeker of knowledge, you should be questioning this instead of accepting what they tell you to believe is true.

>a son bred with his mother
How do the scientists know it wasn't the other way round?

It can. Complexity of the Universe grows in time. A Comlex god at the beginning of the unordered Universe is impossible.

>new species
>just a small change
>STILL A FUCKING BIRD

if you could turn this into a hippo in real-time, I’ll believe it.

Birds are birds.

even darwin said in the origin of species that is very difficult to classify everything using archeology because of some conditions

just ignore the brainlet

>Random mutation cannot result in new, functional DNA (information)
Yes it can. Replication errors cause duplication which creates new information.

Nice work googling those.
Both articles are written by basement dwellers.

>Dude, you know that physics determine what reactions are possible in given environment right? Most possible arrangements of atoms never happen because they are phyically impossible.
10^120 POSSIBLE arrangements. I would think that would be implied.

We do not observe spontaneous new information. Where it appears in the fossil record it's instantaneous. Complete, functional forms requiring massive amounts of new information.

Upgrades.

i had them docx saved with links, i didn't google them right now

>Yes it can. Replication errors cause duplication which creates new information.
Noise != information.

Reminder that the "big bang" needs a God to make it go bang