Now evolution arguments can be settled by linking this article. Nice.

Unfortunately, this very article also allows for discrediting the mutations that cause evolution as the result of unnatural, sinful(!!!!!1) inbreeding among siblings.


:X

They wouldn't see it that way, after all, Alabama people do it, Noah's arc animals used to do it...

Unless they contest the criteria for calling it a new species or simply variation within one.

I've had arguments where the criteria for separating a species was called into question, in that the borders don't seem clearly defined.

This quote from the article seems to leave a lot of room for that turn in the conversation:

God is just upgrading the animals. He does that every 2000 years...

Ok, I haven't been keeping up...is this XP or Vista? Or something completely new?

Long-term evolution. If Micro-evolution goes on long enough it turns into Macro-evolution. Which usually has a major effect on a species' appearance or habits, etc..

Congratulations finchkind!

Dunno, are the birds slow but look nice?

OK, so after 4 generations a bird turned into a...bird. I don't think this is going to help in the whole people and monkeys came from the same ancestor debate. The bird didn't gain or lose a chromosome, it didn't grow an opposable thumb, just the appearance changed to the point where it was given a new species name. Come get me when a mouse evolves into a hamster.

Somewhere in Heaven, Darwin is sitting back with a J and laughing to himself.

Evolution does not work that way.
It will allways remain a bird, but a new species of bird. So technically, a bird is also a dinosaur, reptile, amphibian etc...

This is oversimplified, because to call on the exact lineage would take forever.

I think the problem is that even the people who believe in evolution don't know exactly how it works. They don't even have an inkling of how it works. They want to argue that it exists and there is lots of evidence, but when you ask for that evidence in laymans terms, it can't be provided. I'm not sure what I believe, adaptation, ok...survival of the fittest, fine...every animal on earth, every species, all came from one single celled organism millions of years ago, that's a bit hard to swallow.

The truth doesn't need your agreement with it to remain the truth.

You are so very right...which means you can be so very wrong. Did you ever think that you can use the same argument on either side? Some say God doesn't exist so evolution is the truth, others say God does exist and creation is the truth. Only one can be the truth (according to a theological stance...not a scientific stance) and that will remain truth no matter what is said by either side. So I agree.

Oddly enough, I know pretty exactly how it works, according to the current understanding (which, also oddly enough, is subject to change and re-evaluation of findings all the time).
The problem with evidence in "layman's terms" is that molecular biology and such aren't exactly "layman's fields" of studies.

You probably know how a nuclear power plant works, in layman's terms. Yet if you look at those layman's explanations closely, you'll find them to be pretty innacurate and inconsistent. You do, however, notice there's electricity coming out of one end of the power station. Flip the light switch for a more vivid illustration. You do not doubt the concept of a nuclear power plant, do you? Same for evolution: The actual workings are incredibly complicated, therefore explanations in layman's terms will inevitably be flawed. But if you ask an expert, or spend a few years studying (in an academic sense, not googling) it, it'll become more clear.

Or you just go to the zoo for a more vivid illustration.

I think a parallel problem is that even the people who believe in gravity don't know exactly how it works. Even some top physicists don't even have an inkling of how it works. They argue that there is tonnes of evidence (granted, there isn't much opposition to this argument), but when you ask for an explanation of how gravity works, or if you ask a simple question obvious to even laypeople - Why doesn't gravity have a repelling force like electrostatic and magnetic forces??? - the answer can't be provided. A physicist's head might even explode.

Things sticking to the planet, okay; gravity bending light, a bit mind-blowing but I'll buy it. No repelling force as one sees with electrostatic and magnetic forces? That could be a bit hard to swallow. Or not, if the prospect of learning new things about the universe and testing theories and exploring is the kind of thing you love to do.


I'm not trying to be mocking here, but evolution is FAR from being the "only" not understood theory in science. Gravity is something most people won't even question, yet it leaves science with even more questions than evolution.

Weird.

Species is a well defined and precise term with no room for question or confusion.

To qualify as member of a species members must be able to breed successfully, successfully meaning that their offspring are also viable.

I'd not take Wired's word for anything - they're populist and barely researched.

Me, I know science. You can trust me on this.

From the detail in the article alone there's not enough information to say whether or not this is a new species. It seems to me more likely that this new variant of finch hasn't mated with members of the older established variant, not that they can't.

It is an example of evolution though.

I think you've been talking to the wrong people. The mechanism is well understood. If you want me to, I'll explain it to you. In layman's terms if you want.

I say this not to disabuse you of your own ideas and ideology, just to give you a more accurate take on the situation.

See, I used the same criteria in the argument. The thing is though, when I brought up the examples of observed evolution in the lab in the experiments to do with bacteria, they started saying "well, is it?" because bacteria doesn't breed like animals do. So what's the criteria for species differentiation in bacteria?