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
You want me to read more about speciation? Why?
If might save you from saying silly things, but it really appears nothing will.wd400
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
ppolish, ID theory would only tag a specific sympatric speciation event as "Designed" if a novel, irreducibly complex or specifically complex feature was identified. I don't believe anyone has found such a feature in the diverging spalax species. Until they do, this is simply a case of natural (material, 'unintelligent') evolution (whether you call it Darwinian or not, I don't care).rhampton7
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
I’m still waiting for you to give an answer as to how those Adriatic lizards changed so quickly and so dramatically. You’ll never give one, because there is no answer population genetics can give. But it lends itself quite easily and quite evidently to some sort of environmental triggering.
Funny. Some time ago I discussed the Mrc^ara lizards with a Polish cdesign proponentist, and his argument was that the caecal valve they had evolved was a trivial microevolutionary change not really worth a comment. Still lizards, you know. You can surely explain why environmental triggering produced the valve in the immigrant Podarcis sicula population on the island, but not in the local P. melisellensis population (a closely related species), which evidently needed it as well: after all, it was driven to extinction by the more successful valve-equipped competitor. And why haven't other populations of P. sicula on very similar Adriatic islands been affected by the (practically identical) environment in the same way? Why should it be a problem for population genetics?Piotr
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Sympatric Speciation is a marvel of ID. Purposeful, guided, and maybe a dash of NS & RM. Maybe not.ppolish
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
wd400: You want me to read more about speciation? Why? It's utter nonsense. Why should I waste my time? It is the ultimate in "just-so" stories. I'm still waiting for you to give an answer as to how those Adriatic lizards changed so quickly and so dramatically. You'll never give one, because there is no answer population genetics can give. But it lends itself quite easily and quite evidently to some sort of environmental triggering. Instead of rejecting anything that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived ideas of how nature works, why not turn it around and, noticing how nature works, look for a sensible answer? As to epigenetics not at work here, you don't know that. You don't know every way in which epigenetics might work with an organism and within populations. It's an emerging area of discovery. But, alas, anything that doesn't fit into your patterned view of things must be rejected. So much for scientific curiousity.PaV
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
ppolish, You're welcome. That's a paper from 1999, showing that concept of sympatric speciation is not new, and should have been known to Wired's writer had they done some basic research. This paper from 2013 Possible incipient sympatric ecological speciation in blind mole rats (Spalax) is about may favorite example an animal "caught" in the act of evolving. Eviatar Nevo Ph.D., founder of the Institute of Evolution in Israel, has been documenting this fascinating speciation event for decades.rhampton7
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
OK, (a) inventing your owl acronyms and not defining them amkes understanding you hard work and (b) the recent swing towards more examples of ecological speciation has almost nothing to do with genomics. You ought to read some more about speciation, as your potted history of the field was very inaccurate. I have indeed heard of epigenetics, but it doesn't seem to be relevant here.wd400
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Rhampton, from your link..."When assortative mating depends on a marker trait, and is therefore not directly linked to resource competition, speciation occurs when genetic drift breaks the linkage equilibrium between the marker and the ecological trait. Our theory conforms well with mounting empirical evidence for the sympatric origin of many species10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18." Thanks.ppolish
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
wd400: WGA is "whole genome analysis." Yes, I've read all sorts of things on speciation, none of which I find intellectually rigorous in the least. Finally, you have heard of epigenetics, right?PaV
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
But where is the "ecological competition driving divergence". Where is competition? Pine nuts and acorns are prolific. Enough for birds and squirrels and plenty left over. Ecological ingenuity driving divergence matches the evidence better than competition. Why are Darwinists so gung ho about competition? grrrr?ppolish
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
I'm a bit puzzled at the researchers' puzzlement. While textbook examples of geographic separation are often the "perfect" or "ideal" variety, with some impassable river or mountain range, that's hardly necessary for speciation. They even acknowledge that you don't really need separation at all: "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." And in this example, you do have a kind of separation: Separate forests with separate food sources, which ought to limit gene flow. Is it limited enough for speciation? Maybe, maybe not, but they even say that they are a single species. So we have somewhat of a geographic separation, and two populations within a single species that have somewhat or partially differentiated. Wow, shocker.goodusername
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
This is called sympatric speciation. Sounds like the writer from Wired did not know the basics.rhampton7
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
PaV, (1)What's WGA? (2) Have you read anything about speciation? The importance of geographic isolation in speciation has been a central argument in evolutionary biology since the 1940s (3) These traits are heritable, over and above what habitat ta bird finds itself in, so it's hard to see how these results can be explained by "environmental triggers"wd400
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
PAV:
All of this suggests ‘environmental’ triggers, and not RM
Absolutely. The species are obviously intelligently designed with a toolbag of many important (and thus conserved) genes, the expression of which is indirectly controlled by the environment.Mapou
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
From the linked paper:
Physical barriers to gene flow were once viewed as prerequisites for adaptive evolutionary divergence. However, a growing body of theoretical and empirical work suggests that divergence can proceed within a single population.
Let me translate: "Due to WGA, previous neo-Darwinian expectations have been overturned, with WGA demonstrating that the same species can, indeed, diversify without becoming 'geographically separated.'" This suggests 'environmental' triggers. Shapiro's NGE. All of this suggests 'environmental' triggers, and not RMPaV
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Darwinists: We discovered (long after hunters and farmers, apparently) that species adapt. Therefore, Darwinian evolution is true. You guys need to get a life. Smoke some weed or something.Mapou
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
BTW, Wd, a pistachio beak jay would be evidence for "Emergence of a Good Design" not "Survival of the Fittest". That is a tautology that needs to be retired. Retired because it is wrong not because it is old. Plenty of old ideas are doing just fine. Mountains of evidence for Emergence of a Good Design. Squat for Survival of Fittest.ppolish
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Wd, The evidence I use for "Nature is Intelligent" is the same evidence you use for "Nature is Competitive". You see competition in the oak & acorn jays, I see ingenuity. Here is a test. Plant some pistachios on the isle and pistachio beaked jays will emerge. Sure, a lot of jays will live and die as a new beak is formed. But they won't die from starvation with all the acorns and pine nuts around. That is ingenuity not competition.ppolish
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
PPolish, The paper answers you questions We've been round and round on this in the past with regard Darwin's Finches. You are welcome to your "nature is intelligent" line , but it's clear enouhg to me that it is untestable, and you've demonstrated in other threads that you incapable or unwilling to understand these topics ,so I'm not going to waste any time trying.wd400
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Wd400 - Where is this vaunted "ecological competition" you speak of? If you're born with an acorn beak, hang out in the oaks, born with a pine beak, hang out in the pines. Why no pine/oak beaks and a skinny jay with a coconut beak? Because that is stupid talk. Nature is not stupid. Nature is intelligent. Guided.ppolish
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Okay, first, knock out the bong pipe. Shower and put on some shoes. Have a look at the job board.
WTF are you on about?
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.
Darwin was wrong about many things, and right about a good deal more. For the most part he was wrong about speciation precisely because he down-played the role of geographic isolation and emphasised ecological competition driving divergence in a continuous population. Like this.wd400
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
1 8 9 10

Leave a Reply