









Darwin told us so: Researcher shows natural selection speeds up speciation3. Comment #154194 by prolibertas on April 2, 2008 at 8:35 pm
This felt kind of like being told that they've just found fossil evidence for evolution... wasn't this already obvious?4. Comment #154200 by Janus on April 2, 2008 at 9:08 pm
5. Comment #154218 by oriole on April 2, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I found the story fascinating, but the headline and the opening sentence weakened the import of the findings.6. Comment #154277 by rod-the-farmer on April 3, 2008 at 3:10 am
7. Comment #154306 by Adam Morrison on April 3, 2008 at 4:50 am
8. Comment #154317 by flobear on April 3, 2008 at 5:17 am
9. Comment #154319 by Marcus Hill on April 3, 2008 at 5:19 am
If you think this is ammunition against the IDiot "micro" vs. "macro" evolution argument, you're sadly mistaken. They don't accept speciation as the benchmark of what counts as "macro" evolution, they'll claim what you've got is still a bunch of stick insects and when you've seen them evolve into a cow they'll accept that "macro" evolution has occurred. If they're not trying to hide their religious predispositions, they'll even say that what you have is still within its own "kind".10. Comment #154379 by BaldySlaphead on April 3, 2008 at 6:47 am
They don't accept speciation as the benchmark of what counts as "macro" evolution, they'll claim what you've got is still a bunch of stick insects and when you've seen them evolve into a cow they'll accept that "macro" evolution has occurred.
11. Comment #154497 by oriole on April 3, 2008 at 11:15 am
Marcus Hill and BaldySlaphead; you're right, of course, that the fundie spokespeople are never going to be satisfied with any evidence you give them; you could reproduce the transformation from bacteria into primates in the lab and they'd start yammering about where the bacteria came from - or make up some other absurd argument designed to soothe the faithful.12. Comment #154529 by Divineosaur on April 3, 2008 at 12:00 pm
13. Comment #154613 by oriole on April 3, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Actually, divineosaur, if two subgroups of a species become separated, in the classic case by some geographical barrier, then random genetic mutations will, given sufficient time, almost certainly generate sufficient differences in fertilisation mechanisms to make cross-breeding impossible or at least extremely rare. Such speciation would not properly be attributed to natural selection if it truly arose from purely random changes as opposed to those selected by environmental pressures. However, one of the examples cited in the text above (see my comment #5) does indeed seem to be a case of natural selection generating speciation.14. Comment #155131 by Divineosaur on April 4, 2008 at 7:35 am
15. Comment #155519 by oriole on April 4, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Basically, Divineosaur, I'd go along with what you said, although of course there wouldn't necessarily be a "down-time"; environmental influences could well drive significant natural selection in one or both of the sub-groups, so natural selection might well play a role in the speciation; it just wouldn't be essential for it to occur. Also, I'd quibble about the use of "limited" in your second paragraph; I'd prefer "affected."16. Comment #155692 by Border Collie on April 5, 2008 at 9:16 am
Wow! Natural selection ... what a concept! Someone should write a book.
1. Comment #154161 by jo5ef on April 2, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Brilliant - not only can field experiments be performed that support evolution by NS, but you can even do it in your own back yard!Other Comments by jo5ef