Darwinism Intelligent Design speciation

Species barrier? Hawks jump genus lines

Spread the love

That this is rare is beside the point. It shouldn’t happen if the Darwinian idea of species is clear enough to be a valid science concept.

She was a common black hawk. He was a red-shouldered hawk. They weren’t in the same genus, let alone the same species, and they normally don’t even live in the same part of the continent. But in a strange twist of fate, none of that mattered: It was love at first screech.

Researchers have discovered that two hawks from surprisingly distant perches on the tree of life have mated, resulting in rare hybrid chicks…

Their cross is more akin to a human interbreeding with a gorilla or a house cat mating with a jaguar. “Intergeneric hybridization” is exceptionally uncommon in general, and it’s only been recorded in wild hawks and eagles three other times.

Jake Buehler, “Hawks’ Forbidden Love Results in a Rare Hybrid” at Gizmodo

In other words, it’s happened before. And it happened here despite the fact that there is roughly “three to four times the amount of genetic separation” between these and other crossbreeding species.

When things are happening that shouldn’t be happening, we had better take a look at the concept of “species” as in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. “Isn’t that cute?” will only take us so far. Admittedly, it is much safer.

Paper. (open access)

Note: The recent absence of a News service is due to computer failure in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis. Apologies for interruption.

12 Replies to “Species barrier? Hawks jump genus lines

  1. 1
    aarceng says:

    Cross genera hybrids aren’t all that uncommon, such as the Wholpin, a whale dolphin cross. Within cats there is a chain of reported hybrids from tabby to tiger. This shows that the divisions into genera and species is a poor reflection of biological reality.

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    Note: The recent absence of a News service is due to computer failure in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis.
    Oh dear, I hope it’s all fixed. it’s a relief to see you’re back, though.

  3. 3
    Denyse OLeary says:

    Thanks for good wishes, Bob O’H. A computer breakdown in the midst of a pandemic is a direr experience than usual. I hope it proves uncommon.

  4. 4
    Truthfreedom says:

    So good you’re back, Denyse! 🙂

  5. 5
    PaV says:

    Aarceng:

    Are you new here? If so, welcome.

    It is often said that “we’ve seen this before,” and “we’ve known about this for a longtime.” This is always used as a “Get-Out-of-Jail” card. So, this kind of comment carries little weight on this site.

    Isn’t the reality here (including “wolphins”) that this is NOT what Charles Darwin envisaged?

    As I ask this question, I would ask that you look at the “only” diagram included in “Orginin of Species”: the “Tree of Life” diagram.

    Darwns says that species diverge and that gives rise to genera, and general give rise to families, families to orders and orders to classes. Why he stops there is up for grabs. Why doesn’t he say that classes should give rise to phyla? Isn’t that where logic leads you, unless you stop for some reason?
    (What was Darwin’s reason for not extending this divergence? The sheer folly of suggesting such a thing?)

    Well, getting back to the Tree of Life diagram, look at the top of this diagram. Do you seen any indication that the genera at the top (species at the bottom) interbreed? I don’t see any.

  6. 6
    Pearlman says:

    still same base founding (family? order?) kind, so not macro-evolution.
    so no nothing like a human and ape.
    interesting the Talmud expounds on the Ayah, Raaya and Daaya kinds. are they to be understood as one, two.or three founding kinds?
    either way within a couple of thousand years of the genetic bottleneck with 3 max founding pairs, there were over a thousand ‘species’ there from.
    references in volume III of the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah and science alignment.

  7. 7
    AaronS1978 says:

    I really think this type of event is actually a bigger player than gradual natural selection

    Better explains the sudden emergence of new species

    Good to see your post again Denyse

  8. 8
    ET says:

    It looks like these 2 hawks were different species in the same sense the different races of humans are different species- cuz they look different, s’all. 🙄

  9. 9

    But if I am not mistaken, genera of birds/mammals are not established genetically, but morphologically. Wouldn’t cross-genera hybrids be more likely when clades are large and hence genera separate large groups whose genetic difference is as small as cross-species hybrids in smaller clades? In fact, there’s a difference between hybrid-infertility due to morphological differences (chihuahuas and great danes) rather than genetic differences (cats and dogs). In the first case, in vitro fertilization still works even if barriers exist in vivo.

    So I guess what I am advocating is that the definition of species as fertile-crosses with members the same species should include “in vitro” rather than “in vivo” testing. In which case, this story isn’t so much a violation of Darwin, but a refinement of the concept of species.

  10. 10
    PaV says:

    ET:

    How is Darwinism proven wrong? You’ve just told us: “Don’t believe your lying eyes.” Well, if you ‘hand-wave’ away every discovery that refutes Darwinian notions, then how can it ever–ever, be replaced?

  11. 11
    PaV says:

    Robert Sheldon:

    Where I see this story refuting Darwin’s ideas is in the area of Darwin’s Principle of Divergence, which, it appears, is nowadays called “characteristic divergence.” Darwin considered this Principle the “keystone” of his theory. That is, if this principle fails, his theory falls apart.

    Now, when “species” interbreed, ‘species’ which taxonimists would consider separate genera, then we have a genetic mixing up of the genetic inheritance of ‘species’ that are thought to have drifted apart from one another over geologic time. This, then, would consitute a reversal of the supposed evolutionary process. Darwin envisioned differences reaching a point where descendant ‘species,’ having diverged to a large degree, being more ‘fit’ than the ancestral ‘species,’ and that they would then ‘displace,’ or, rather, ‘replace’ the original species–with the original species now becoming extinct and the ‘diverged’ ‘species,’ the descendant species, taking over the niche.

    Interbreeding reverses this divergence. We see this happening in the Galapagos Islands where the famous “Darwin’s Finches,” studied so closely, their differences analyzed to the nth degree, eventually, given the right conditions (lots of rain and later vegetation) these supposed different ‘species’ interbreed.

    Or, take the study where they took domesticated dogs and let them interbreed at will: they reverted to wolves. The divergence brought about through animal breeding (intelligent design) was erased in nature. Darwin didn’t think this kind of reversion could take place. But, as we know, he was wrong bout a lot of things.

  12. 12
    Truthfreedom says:

    @11 PaV

    But, as we know, he (Darwin) was wrong bout a lot of things.

    True.

Leave a Reply