Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Scrub jays too weird for Wired mag?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

That’s, like, weird. From Wired:

As she gathered more and more data on different populations of the birds around the island, Langin had a revelation: The birds, members of one single species, had split into two varieties in different habitats. Island scrub jays living in oak forests have shorter bills, good for cracking acorns. Their counterparts in pine forests have longer bills, which seem better adapted to prying open pine cones. That may not appear to be something you’d consider a “revelation,” but it really is—if you believe in evolution. Ever since Darwin and his famous finches, biologists have thought that in order for a species to diverge into two new species, the two populations had to be physically isolated. Those finches, for instance, each live on a different Galapagos island, where their special circumstances have resulted in specialized bill shapes. Yet the two varieties of island scrub jay (they haven’t technically speciated—yet) live on the same tiny island. If they wanted to meet each other for a brunch of acorns and/or pine nuts and perhaps later some mating, they could just fly right over.

This is very, very weird. It’s an affront to a sacred tenet of evolution you probably learned in school: Isolation drives speciation. Well, speciation can also come about in a broadly distributed population, with individuals at one end evolving differently than individuals at the other, but nothing kicks evolution into overdrive quite like separation. Without it, two varieties should regularly breed and homogenize, canceling out something like different bill shapes (though rarely the two types of island scrub jay will in fact interbreed). And the island scrub jay isn’t alone in its evolutionary bizarreness. In the past decade, scientists have found more and more species that have diverged without isolation. Langin’s discovery with island scrub jays, published last week in the journal Evolution, is perhaps the most dramatic illustration of this yet. More.

Okay, first, knock out the bong pipe. Shower and put on some shoes. Have a look at the job board.

Darwin was wrong about everything except the fact that you could make a living somewhere, high in California. Turns out you can. About the rest, we dunno.

The birds had to be smarter than you. Not so hard.

By the way, all that Darwin’s finches stuff is nonsense too.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Curly Cue, we are 100% certain that you are an insipid troll. All you can do is attack people with ideas because you don't have any. You are a bane and an embarrassment to humans.Joe
March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Joey, I am 100% certain that if you had actually read or done any of those things, you wouldn't have understood a single thing. You are the worst type of keyboard warrior; one that knows absolutely nothing about what you are taking about. The best part is, apparently you think that the things you say are actually intelligent. It's quite funny. In fact, you're probably my favorite commenter here! Unfortunately I have to start breaking this habit I've developed of arguing with the idiots here on UD, so see ya!Curly Howard
March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Curly Cue, you are a clueless loser- I used the same language. I read the books, took the courses, read the papers- there isn't anything that supports unguided evolution. The premise doesn't have any entailments. Now how about a link to that alleged theory of evolution- unless you are too much of a coward to post it.Joe
March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT
Well I'm glad you've changed your wording, Joey. You're learning at least! I already told you to take a look at the thousands of research articles and hundreds of books, or maybe take a course somewhere. Yeah, right, when pigs fly right?Curly Howard
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
Curly Cue, you can't link to the alleged theory of evolution. Dawkins, Mayr, Darwin, Coyne, et al.- they all know/ knew what is meant by unguided evolution. Why are you such a blathering troll?Joe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Well Joey, I told you about the evidence behind the regular ol' theory of evolution. Nobody but your friends here at UD know what you are talking about when you say "unguided evolution," but its safe to assume it's something you've concocted in that peabrain of yours that has no basis in reality.Curly Howard
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
Oh wittle curly cue, I asked for papers that support UNGUIDED evolution. Do you think that your ignorance means something? Do you think your equivocation means something? You are just another clueless troll. You have no idea what ID says nor what it is arguing against yet you feel compelled to spew away. Pathetically priceless.Joe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
Oh little Joey, there are thousands of research papers behind evolution, hundreds of books to read; pick any of them. The problem is, you won't understand a word of it. But I'm sure that won't stop you! Bye bye Joe!Curly Howard
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
Hey Curly Cue, how about a paper, one that supports unguided evolution. We cannot find a mistake in non-existent research.Joe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Hey Timey, how bout that paper/mistake combo? It didn't actually happen, huh.Curly Howard
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Darwin’s been dead more than century, and the scientific understanding of evolution has advanced considerably.
True, now we know that natural selection and drift are impotent.Joe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Timaeus: Other modern evolutionary theory is also quite speculative, but the broadly Darwinian approach is speculation taken to the point of wishful thinking, or even drug-induced fantasy. Seems that the common descent of people and pufferfish is a non-trivial finding.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Original Darwinian and later neo-Darwinian theory alike, plus all later versions of evolutionary theory which are heavily dependent upon their basic notions, are highly speculative. To put this in terms of examples, evolutionary theory as advocated by Larry Moran, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Myers, Eugenie Scott, Nick Matzke, Robert Pennock, Richard Dawkins, and Ken Miller is highly speculative. Other modern evolutionary theory is also quite speculative, but the broadly Darwinian approach is speculation taken to the point of wishful thinking, or even drug-induced fantasy. Nothing wrong with speculation, of course, as long as it is recognized for what it is. A dose of speculation plays a positive role in good science. But when a science is almost all speculation, it can't claim the same kind of intellectual authority that more rigorously empirical sciences can claim. Thus, evolutionary biology and cosmology are at the bottom of my hierarchy of scientific studies. Which does not mean that these things should not be studied, but that their practitioners should be more modest in what they claim as "known." Ironically, however, you find more intellectual modesty among organic chemists, solid-state physicists, professors of civil engineering, etc. -- practitioners of sciences with amazing track records -- than among either evolutionary theorists or cosmologists. I suppose the psychological/sociological explanation for this is something like the explanation for why little dogs often bark louder and are more aggressive than larger dogs.Timaeus
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
No, really Timaeus, what errors were you supposedly able to pick out of this scientific paper? Instead of all the question dodging, wouldn't it be easier to actually answer the question?Curly Howard
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Curly (285): It was toilet paper, and what was wrong with it was that it had the biological and pedagogical ideas of the NCSE smeared all over it. But I flushed out all the errors.Timaeus
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Hey Timaeus, what was the paper and what was wrong with it again?Curly Howard
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Timaeus: I said “*Darwinian* evolutionary theory”. Yes. Timaeus: Do you not understand the limiting character of adjectives? Darwin's been dead more than century, and the scientific understanding of evolution has advanced considerably. The term has multiple meanings. If you mean evolution by natural selection, natural selection is still considered a primary mechanism of adaptation. If you mean neodarwinism, it too has multiple meanings. The synthesis of evolution by natural selection and Mendelian genetics happened eighty years ago. If you mean variation and selection, then that is still considered a primary mechanism of evolution. None of this is "highly speculative". There are also mechanisms of speciation, such as allopatry. Then there is contingency, such as the occasional cosmic impact.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Zachriel (279): I said "*Darwinian* evolutionary theory". Do you not understand the limiting character of adjectives? I would say that before improving the American biology curriculum, we need to improve the American English curriculum. The number of sloppily-reading and/or badly-reasoning science grads that I meet on the internet is astounding.Timaeus
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Zachriel the lying loser strikes again- There isn't any theory of evolution and nested hierarchies are the anti-hero of evolutionism. Darwin, Mayr, Denton and Wagner all say evolutionism is too messy to produce a pristine nested hierarchy. Zachriel is just a little liar and nothing more.Joe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Feel free to offer your subjective opinions here any time. There is substantial objective support for the Theory of Evolution. You might start with the nested hierarchy.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Z
Evolutionary theory is strongly supported by the scientific evidence.
Feel free to offer your subjective opinions here any time.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Timaeus: Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Evolutionary theory is strongly supported by the scientific evidence.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
Shouldn't be too hard to name a paper and say how it supports unguided evolution, Curly.Joe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
Presumably if you’re going to teach it to children, there should be at least tentative empirical support, so a citation would be in order.
That is exactly what we say about evolutionism.Joe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
That turned out wellvelikovskys
March 29, 2015
March
03
Mar
29
29
2015
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
Shouldn't be too hard to just name the paper and what was wrong with it Timaeus, no?Curly Howard
March 29, 2015
March
03
Mar
29
29
2015
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
Curly: Beat it. I've already said I've quit. I don't care whether you believe my story or not. I don't get my self-esteem from what people on the internet think of me.Timaeus
March 29, 2015
March
03
Mar
29
29
2015
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Stuff yourself. I said I was done. I've given you far more time than you deserve. And it's time wasted, as even when I get specific, and cite you references and exact page numbers from the writings of a man who knows 100 times as much about evolution as you ever will know (Shapiro), you just take cheap shots (without understanding) at his thought. Why should I subject Newman and Wagner and others to more treatment of the same kind, from someone who isn't fit to polish their boots? Good-bye. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative.Timaeus
March 29, 2015
March
03
Mar
29
29
2015
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Timaeus: And they have explained such dramatic evolutionary changes in terms of different approaches, such as evo-devo. And evo-devo is often discussed in introductory biology, certainly by the second year. Timaeus: One such mechanism would be the self-engineering of the genome by the organism. Be specific. Presumably if you're going to teach it to children, there should be at least tentative empirical support, so a citation would be in order. Timaeus: I cannot give you instant article citations, which I don’t have at my fingertips It's been nearly two weeks, and in the interim, you've posted thousands of words, while we've read an entire book at your suggestion; but you can't dig up a single scientific citation concerning a phenomenon that's so important to biology that it needs to be taught to children in their first year of biology.Zachriel
March 29, 2015
March
03
Mar
29
29
2015
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
What paper supports your claim and what was that support, Curly?Joe
March 29, 2015
March
03
Mar
29
29
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply