New species of finch emerges. Time for the Creationist spin in 3, 2, 1....

[splicedenergy]

I'll tell you exactly what thier gonna say, here it is " It's the same kind"!

[kokobaboko]

I think by calling those duped by the creationists arguments "ignorant,"you give them too much credit.

[99minerkc]

New species of finch emerges? Nope, it was always there since God created it 6000 years ago. The bird was playing hide ans seek with the scientists all these years!! o.O

[robertwc82]

"blah blah micro-evolution, blah blah macro-evolution" lol

[nocturnezero]

The great Creationist misconception is that species are something that are physical and tangible in nature, like each animal has a little tag on it that tells all the information about it's family, species, genus, etc. when in truth these are all human classifications that hold no real weight outside of the scientific world, so they can't say the "absolute" of "there can be no new species," simply because species are a human classification. This also applies to the mi/macroevolution argument.

[dummbatz48]

@nocturnezero

Ya that's the biggest problem I run into when arguing with creationists

[7glitch]

great video . i didnt know they had a new species till i saw this.

[lyco46]

Ignorance rarely begets knowledge

only confidence

[harkying99]

creationist don't understand that they themselves are proof of evolution.Because when they open their mouths you can see a human being evolve into a jackass.

[darkchiron]

The spin will also likely include that this species was one just not seen previously, but it was always there.

I'm sure someone's going to use that one.

[elgostine]

not a totally unreasonable one either, we do often find that hings were there, we just wernt looking hard enough. like in soils my prof in microbiology and statistics (Prof fraser torpy of the Universty of technology, sydney) said that if given the money, he could go out into the nearest egetations, dig up a shovelful of soil and find a dozen new types of bacterium and microorganisms.

[Ansonidak]

Creationist spin is easy on this one. "This proves nothing because It's still the same KIND!!"

[ProfMike789]

Or "The Galapagos is the only place where evolutionism happens because it's a magical place created by the devil to convey EVILutionISM to his puppet Charles Darwin."

[Ansonidak]

God creates new species on the spot and makes it LOOK like evolution to test our faith!

[whaumbatt]

I hope you are smiling when you say that.

[Bigbiber89]

"6000 years ago"

made my day

The earth ist 4.6 Billion years old not 600 its hillarious

[99minerkc]

600 years ago, who said 600? It's more like 4.6 billion years ago! You apparently didn't realize that I was joking(sarcasm)around?

[Bigbiber89]

i obviously didn't get it^^ nobody is perfect nice one traped me :D

[Lyiad]

Another wonderful vid! Nature is truly fascinating!

[heyalun]

The problem creationists have with evolution is with it being used as an explanation for the variety of life on this planet. Evolution itself is real.

Just like humans use the binary code you mentioned to program computers, quaternary code complex enough to put a programmer to shame is used in living cells to direct the formation of life. I don't believe nature is responsible for that anymore than I believe it programs computers.

And I don't think Darwin had a scientific degree.

[SkyDoginthetube]

heyalun

"The problem creationists have with evolution is with it being used as an explanation for the variety of life on this planet. Evolution itself is real"

What?

Evolution is the naturel process that gives us the diversaty of species we have today.

If evolution is real but it doesn't explain the varierty of life, what do you think it does?

Do you even understand what your're arguing against?

Also, Darwin was a scientist. Look it up!

[heyalun]

Yes, I understand it. Evolution is the change in the gene pool over generations. Its real.

The argument is against common descent via evolution and its cousin chemical evolution. Thats not real.

I think life was made with variety and with the potential to change and adapt. The fossil record agrees with the Bible that life started complex and varied.

Darwin was definitely a scientist, but I dont think he had a degree in it. YOU look it up.

[SkyDoginthetube]

heyalun

First, "chemical evolution". What?

Second, evolution is the naturel process that gives us the diversaty of life, it has nothing to do with the origin of life, it is entireley possible life could have formed independantley on multiple ocasions.

But all known life forms share common features of anatomy and genetics that that show relation, if life did form elsewhere it doesn't seem to have been verry successful.

The fossil record shows increased diversaty and complexerty over time.

[SkyDoginthetube]

heyalun

Charles Darwin studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh and biology at Cambridge. He was served as a naturalist on HMS Beagle, which was bound on a long scientific survey expedition to South America and the South Seas where he did much of the research used in his later publication "The Origin of Species"

Do some fact checking before you talk crap!

Even if he didn't have a degree that wouldn't make his work any less valid.

Facts stand by themselves.

[heyalun]

"Facts stand by themselves."

That was my point. Ironically, the video made the claim that you need degrees in science to do science when the "father of evolution", Darwin, had a degree in theology, not science. I did my research.

The fossil record shows increased diversaty and complexerty over time.

Agreed. It also shows that ancient creatures were as complex as modern ones. Even the simplest were more complex than machinery made by human hands. The oldest, cyanobacteria, still lives.

[Swordsage]

it's funny how you guys aren't getting what I said right. My point was that you need a degree to DEBATE scientific principles and theories. If you haven't studied this stuff, you can't really know if it's wrong or not

Darwin did have a degree in theology, but you're leaving out the NATURALIST part. You're also leaving out the part that studies of nature back then was considered by many to be part of theology, since many universities were church run and funded.

[heyalun]

Some of the greatest scientific minds in history didn't have scientific degrees. If you can practice science without a degree then you can certainly discuss it. The ability to understand and manipulate our surroundings is innate. Of course, practice, training, and education contribute to this ability, but to say a degree is necessary shows an ignorance of history and the human experience. It's elitist. You're entitled to your opinion, but mine is that anyone can do or talk about science.

[Swordsage]

While what you say is true, it also isn't very likely. The reason why such people are notable and praised in history is because they are rare.

These days, those that devote their lives to the study of a particular field usually go to the places where such things are taught and nurtured. With regards to science, that would mean universities, hence me saying one needs a degree. It of course isn't an absolute: almost nothing in life is. But it sets the standard, the level one should be at.

[heyalun]

In the instance you gave of computer scientists and others dealing with things we can measure and manipulate, I mostly agree with you. (Although some astonishingly great achievements have been made by amateurs thoughout our history). But in more theoretical and abstract endeavors I have less confidence in folks with degrees to convey truth. There I think interest and perspective are at least as valuable as formal education. The latter may sometimes even stifle the former.

[elgostine]

@Swordsage id say rachel carson is one of those 'rare few' as she had a fairly basic knowledge of chemistry or biology. yet she prodced one of the most earmarked books for environmentalists. (though its technicallyy being a novel means i couldnt reference some of her assertions in a uni report on copperl toxicity

[funincluded]

You don't need a degree in something to debate it.

I see people explaining evolution to creationists all the time, and doing a good job at it... they don't have degrees

[rkyeun]

How many creationists have degrees in Creationism?

[funincluded]

I don't know... but a lot do

obviously they're not real degrees, though.

Would you consider 'apologetics' a degree in creationism?

What's your point?

[rkyeun]

My point is that if they're going to claim the argument is invalid coming from anyone without a degree, they can all shut right the hell up because none of them have one. ;)

[darkcolmar]

hardly, the eldest fossils on record, which are 4.5 billion years old are single celled organisms! Life started simple and then became complex. It's obvious you know nothing of paleontology or any other scientific discipline.

[heyalun]

"hardly, the eldest fossils on record, which are 4.5 billion years old are single celled organisms! Life started simple and then became complex."

darkcolmar, what statement of mine are you disagreeing with? Other than your date looking more like what is believed to be the age of the earth than the age of life, this was already agreed upon.

[darkcolmar]

perhaps my date was off, It's been a while since I read anything on the eldest fossils.

It was your statement that life started complex. I'm sorry but single celled organism and virus' are not complex by any means. Your statement was false.

[heyalun]

Ah, I see. You probably dont know very much about the complexity of life. I think your view would be current 150 years ago. Now we can peer into cells and see complex machinery. Cells can be likened to advanced cities with systems like power generation, management, transportation, and defense. If you had said that single-celled organisms are simple relative to multicellular ones, then youd be right, but to say theyre just simple indicates ignorance.

[darkcolmar]

They are the simplest forms of life next to viruses. I never said the weren't complex in their own way but again, compared to the rest of life save for viruses they are simple. Never call me ignorant son, i've done a lot of reading on this subject pertaining to paleontology. I know what I am talking about here.Besides, evolution through common ancestry is quite real. It explains how there are many different species of very similar animals. All species of tigers evolved from one common animal

[heyalun]

I see now how the comment may have been misunderstood. I meant that cyanobacteria exist as they were in the oldest fossils and they were complex from the beginning. They, like many other forms of life, suddenly appear in the fossil record fully developed and remain largely unchanged. If you know paleontology you should know that.

And I didnt call you ignorant. I said that people who think that any living thing is simple are ignorant.

Also tigers diverging doesn't mean all life does.

[darkcolmar]

look at all life, many different species of the same kinds of animals. All diverged from common ancestors. That is why Darwin came up with his idea of evolution. All life diverges from more simple forms.

As far as life forms that have gone unchanged, it's simply because they are so well adapted for their lifestyle and environment.

Try that on for size.

[funincluded]

"can be linked to"

Are you kidding me? You're talking about analogies as if that's a scientific way to actually thinking about biology.

"We've got transportation mechanisms... cells move stuff.... well gee- that's proof for intelligent design!"

[heyalun]

Analogy is a cornerstone of biology, science, and logic in general. That's why we can assume that one flu shot will work for every one without doing an exhaustive study on every person's physiology.

But my point in bringing up cell machinery was that all life is complex measured by the standard of human manufacture. I didn't say it proved intelligent design.

[funincluded]

Oh shut up you moron.

There's a difference between analogy between particulars and the kind of metaphorical, vague, UNscientific rhetoric you just spewed to make (seemingly) a case for intelligent design

[rkyeun]

No, that's not accurate. When we first tried immunization, we did have to try it on everyone. But it worked on everyone we tried it on. And it kept working. And now unless we're given reason to expect it won't, we don't feel the need to keep testing it because it's already been shown to work. That's not an analogy, that's direct evidence and observation.

[funincluded]

@darkcolmar

Ya, the Earth is older than the first cells you idiot

[darkcolmar]

@funincluded if you had bothered to look further down, you would have seen me admit my dates on the eldest lifeforms was off.

And insulting someone is never smart, it just shows how immature you are.

Watch Richard Dawkins or Thunderf00t, they are certainly educational.

[funincluded]

No, I don't go following threads of someone who makes such errors as that

just laugh it off big guy- being off that far deserves being called 'idiot'... not something that needs any more discussion

Ya, someone on youtube watching something about evolution prooobablly is already well aware of both of those guys haha

[Ansonidak]

It takes more than a degree to make a scientist. Conversely You can be a scientist without any formal schooling. It's not a matter of degrees; it's about methods and attitude.

[elgostine]

no it doesnt

if someone makes an error, so what its an error, if someone realises later and goes... 'well, shit.. i forgot that part' and admts it.. thats fine. whatswrong is someone who even realising they made an error, and being called on it, still tries to deny they did.

[StarbladeEnkai]

For someone so gung ho about science he sure is dismissive about philosophy. Without philosophy we wouldn't have science afterall.

In lieu of what he said, I should probably add this: If you don't understand philosophy you really shouldn't try to criticize it. This includes being as dismissive about it as he is.

[Swordsage]

Hold up... you're accusing me of being dismissive about philosophy? Have you seen some of my other videos???

I also have to wonder about your listening skills. Where in this video did I state that philosophy was a bad thing? If you think that just because I pointed out that there is a difference between debating philosophically and debating something more objective that means I'm dismissive about philosophy, then I don't think you have the mental readiness for philosophy in the first place.

[darkcolmar]

obviously you've not seen sages vids before this one.

[vermanshane]

cool stuff, uh how is the sword review coming?

[mp9yq9tx]

They will say "its still a bird". They have no concept of speciation. They talk of kinds of animals not species. Because, as you say they do not understand evolution and they don't want to. Ignorance is bliss to these muppets.

[clarkmt]

I'm a white dude with a big nose.. am I a new species of white dude? omg look this bird is different. I am not qualified to understand why that bird is different but I got a wide nose am I a new species? stop stealing my nanometers.

[InModiasWeTrust]

I HAD to favorite this SSage. Your explanation of the manner in which creationists peacock their ignorance whilst questioning things they have no knowledge of was spot on. Well done, my friend!

-Modias

[55ella2007k]

Great vid, sword :) Actually though, since the creationists reformulated their bs, called 'intelligent design' - using science-lingo to twist the minds of completely gullible people - they have been making huge headway. These very same people fly on planes to give their next lectures + deny the "theory of gravity" . It's fucking hilarious, but there are so many gullible people out there, who are influenced by these charlatans. 50 years from now 50% of the US population - ok enough said :)

[masterix6]

Swordsage, are you an atheist? Do you believe in evolution and definitely no creation?

[darkcolmar]

watch his "My beliefs...Updated" He explains his views on all of that.

[masterix6]

Thanks a lot

[hgryphon]

I blogged this. What I find amazing is that the new species of finch was discovered on Galapagos 150 years after the publication of Origin of Species, a book on evolution that was pieced together by Darwin after he observed, among other things, FINCHES ON GALAPAGOS! That kind of timing is uncanny.

One counter-argument I hear when I bring up observed speciation is it never happens in complex life forms. Well, now it just has. BAM!

[FredricF]

Electronics and computers use magic smoke to operate. The magic smoke does all the magic work.

If the magic smoke leak out the computer cease to work. That's why all cables are covered with plastic, to keep the smoke in place.

And that's how computers work. Magiic smoke. Every electronics engineer knows this and even recognize the smell of the smoke.

(I mean, common sense tells you it is impossible to fit millions of transistors or anything inside a small computer box).

[WolfgangNightshadow]

the difference between a separate species and a variation or subspecies is not always obvious, that being said, if you are looking you can see clear and definite evidence of natural selection, more or less everywhere. I have studied biology, and evolution at university so I know what I'm talking about.

You need a basic understanding of the mechanics of natural selection before you can start making statements, otherwise you're not going to make sense.

[WolfgangNightshadow]

An important part of natural selection is the sexual selection, so the selection of a mate is definitely a part of it, just the same as mutations.

Animals don't mate randomly, there is a strategy of mating at work in every species on the planet.

[tophtheearthbender76]

"The same idea of selective mating is strongly supported with fruitfly (drosophila) research"

It's been a long time since I've looked at the research, but in it, did a new species of fruitfly emerge from natural mutation without an outside influence or interference? And did the new species of that said fruitfly survive?

[TransitionalApe]

With regards to drosophila, I don't recall that the claim was of a new species, the claim was that within relatively few generations, the two groups would no longer interbreed, thus sexually isolating the two groups. The two groups may have been kept at different temps. That would be, as in this case, the beginnings of speciation. As far as this group of finches being hybrids, that's true, but they are sexually isolated, no longer interbreeding, in time the may diverge, or not. Time will tell.

[darkcolmar]

the Wired article has the succession of photos of the original to the new species. the new species is much different looking and larger than the original.

[BigDickandLittleJon]

Its NOT a new species. Read the article in Nature. It has not speciated.

[TransitionalApe]

They will argue that it hasn't changed kinds. Its still a bird. The same waste of air as their argument against dog diversity. They will say it proves 'micro-evolution' not 'macro-evolution'. Probably throw some other non-words in their. Create a new language to obfuscate the truth.

[TransitionalApe]

'in there' not 'in their'. me no do the english so good today.

[tophtheearthbender76]

"They will argue that it hasn't changed kinds. Its still a bird. The same waste of air as their argument against dog diversity. They will say it proves 'micro-evolution' not 'macro-evolution'. Probably throw some other non-words in their. Create a new language to obfuscate the truth"

Or they'd say that the ppl responsible for the project put this new find of Finch under the category of an "incipient species". Not yet an actual new species.

[TransitionalApe]

Bigdickandlittlejon already did a video to that point. Thanks though.

[tophtheearthbender76]

Isn't bacteria splitting off to make a new type of species of bacteria, different from a hybridization b/w two different species of Finch, that through their offspring creates a new kind of Finch?

I mean, bacteria diverging from itself through adaptation, isn't the same thing as a new offspring being created because two different species of Finch mated is it? This isn't natural selection or evolution, it's just proof that when two different species mate, a new animal is created.

[tophtheearthbender76]

I thought (and I'm probably wrong) that evolution was the diverging of one species into another through natural selection. As I understand it, when the foreign finch mated with the indigenous finch of the galapagos, it created a different type of finch, in which the males had different mating calls because of their foreign father. Then catastrophe hit, and only a male and female of the new type of finch survived, and they mated, and their children only mated with each other.

[Cyrathil]

"As I understand it, when the foreign finch mated with the indigenous finch of the galapagos, it created a different type of finch, in which the males had different mating calls because of their foreign father. Then catastrophe hit, and only a male and female of the new type of finch survived, and they mated, and their children only mated with each other."

Evolution isn't only mutation and natural selection. You just described the "emigration" and "genetic drift" forces of evolution.

[darkcolmar]

@Cyrathil Ignore this guy, he's just a troll who knows nothing.

[tophtheearthbender76]

Which shows that in order for their species to survive, the new types of finch didn't worry about trying to mate with the indigenous finch, but simply mated with each other. Hence the incipient species stage. But what ISN'T shown is the process of evolution in which these new types of finch were created simply because their environment called for such an adaptation. Instead these new finch are the result of the mixed breeding of species, not natural selection. So how is this natural evolution?

[TransitionalApe]

An environment doesn't 'call for such an adaptation' instead a species finds a niche to exploit something in an environment such as a food or climate. Unless you are a Lamarckian? Mutation drives evolution, environment plays a part in selecting, but its not really appropriate to credit environments with calling or causing an adaptation. The same idea of selective mating is strongly supported with fruitfly (drosophila) research. As few as 6 generations of isolation and they may no longer mix.

[tophtheearthbender76]

"Mutation drives evolution"

I see that from the way Bacteria evolves, but these finch didn't evolve through mutation, they came into existence by sexual reproduction of two different sets of DNA from two different species of finch. These offspring decided to keep mating with each other, which would naturally build a wedge b/w the new incipient species' DNA and the indigenous finch species of the galapagos over time. But where is the mutation that caused the new finch to come into existence?

[darkcolmar]

The progenitor was of greater size and had a different sized and looking beak. Those are a slight mutation of the norm. With in 28 years, over 4 generations SINCE the drought they have diverged enough to be called a different species. have you not read the articles???? It was my wife who found it and I sent it to Swordsage.

[320iguy]

that truly IS a remarkable animal.

quite colorful really, is that the new one that they found?

[Domzdream]

All they're going to say is 'see? god is still creating new species. There! Proof of god's existence. ha!'

Stupid people.

[NermalsChannel]

They deny evolution, but they don't deny new types of influenza. Must be the NWO, trying to make money by killing everybody.

[BigDickandLittleJon]

Just reviewed the peer reviewed literature on this. Not a new species. It is a variant from another island, which reproduces separately from the birds on the new island it now finds itself on. Time will tell if the seperated population of immigrant birds speciate, but even the scientists who discovered the birds do not yet consider them to have speciated. They may in the future, but as it stands the birds can probably reproduce with the natives fo the island, they just don't want to.

[WhirlingWolves]

Ah if only this mattered to creationshits...

We all know it won't because it does'nt have gills allowing it to fly underwater.

Also it is missing it's crocodile head and where, pray tell, is it's monkey tail?

OBVIOUSLY this new finch is a sign from lord jesus that the end times are upon us and we need to send all our money to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron so that god's holy "beam-me-up-scotty" rapture ray will save us from the approaching doom of god's wrath/love.

[JustaEropeanGuy]

it be gawd's miricul

[onlywhenprovoked]

Just because your false god scientists were too stupid to notice this breed before doesn't mean your evilution theory is correct, it just means you're a stupid atheist heathen and you will burn in hell for denying HIM. lolz

Cool story, thanks for pointing it out :)

[REBMike1]

Cool yet more proof to back up Darwin's work of genius. Stick that in your crack pipe and smoke it creationists.

[Eopyk]

Creationists will just try to turn this like they do with everything else..

They cannot handle science.

All love from me Jasmine

[Scheckig]

Awesome,I havent yet made use of the links youve posted but on face value this looks like a pretty big deal.The witnessing a speciation event in the wild will have a much stronger effect on the undecided liberal religionist than speciation events witnessed in a laboratory environment.I have doubts as to the effect this will have on fundamentalists however,it seems to me that one more rationalization to add to the heap will make no difference to the people who have extensively partitioned reality

[TerraFirma369]

What amazes me is the low standard of proof that creationists require to prove the existence of god, yet the high standard they require for any evidence that points in another direction. Total hypocrisy! Great vid, man! Peace.

[wonderpope]

You already correctly predicted what creationist are going to say: "It's just another variation of finch. We don't argue about 'Micro-Evolution'". So they won't argue at all.

It's a cool coincidence that a new species of finches is found during the 150th birthday of the orgin of species. Be sure that this will spark some new conspiracy theory type of bull shit.

[ProjectPaladin]

They will say something like: "It's still the same kind, no proof for macroevolution, durpdeedurp!" ;-)

Very predictable...

[TheMysteriousCorner]

LOL "Durpdeedurp".