News: Biologists Catch Evolution in the Act.
Ye Old One
On the Galapagos Islands, where Charles Darwin’s observations led to
his evolutionary theory, scientists are now reporting that they’re
witnessing a single species splitting into two, according to a new
paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
A husband and wife team, Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton
University, have spent the past 36 years studying Darwin’s finches,
technically know as tanagers. Darwin’s observations of the birds
during his voyage to the Galapagos on the HMS Beagle helped him arrive
at the idea of evolutionary divergence: when different populations of
a single species become geographically isolated, and evolve in
different directions. The Grants have pushed that work further, with
decades of painstaking observations providing a real-time record of
evolution in action. In the PNAS paper, they describe something Darwin
could only have dreamed of watching: the birth of a new species
[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action]. The
process has been taking place with the help of a little bit of chance
and a special song.
The split began in 1981 when an unusually large male finch from Santa
Cruz island arrived on the island where the Grants were based, Daphne
Major. The biologists tagged the bird number 5110, and followed him
and his offspring through seven generations total. In the fourth
generation a drought killed off all the descendants except one male
and one female. These offspring became isolated because they have the
avian equivalent of a strange accent. These finches learn their songs
from their father, and the Grants suggest that 5110 sang the songs
from his birth home of Santa Cruz then modified his come-hither ballad
by roughly copying the Daphne Major birds’. This imperfect copying,
they suggest, has over time acted as a barrier to interbreeding
[Nature News]. So the immigrant bird’s descendants have bred only with
each other for three generations.
The Grants say there’s no clear rule for when to declare a
reproductively isolated population a new species, and also note that
the birds descended from 5110 could still die out. But whatever
happens, their legacy will remain: New species can emerge very quickly
— and sometimes all it takes is a song [Wired.com].
The Grant’s are currently in Japan accepting the Kyoto Prize in basic
science for their life’s work.
--
Bob.
All-Seeing-I
> In Galapagos Finches, Biologists Catch Evolution in the Act
>
"a strange accent."
BWAHAHAHAH!!!!
The male birds got the song wrong so the females ran for cover!
ROFLMAO!!!
I have two dogs. They are the same breed. They each have distinctive
barks and howls. Each produced a litter and ALL of the dogs had their
own distinctive bark. So they are seperate species?
OH! Hahahahaha!!!
Is the creature in the study still a finch. Yes. Each after his own
kind.
I wish I could lay up for a few decades with grant money on a tropical
island. Hell, I may even tell you I SAW evolution too!
Gigabytes! of laughter!
Those that do not question everythin g will fall for anything
---the evolutionist motto.
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> On the Galapagos Islands, where Charles Darwin’s observations led to
> his evolutionary theory, scientists are now reporting that they’re
> witnessing a single species splitting into two, according to a new
> paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Yeah, but they're still finches. Not frogs, earwigs, elephants, or even
penguins.
[...]
IAAH
There's the inevitable sign that you don't
understand the ToE and therefore can't
realistically criticize it.
>
>
> I wish I could lay up for a few decades with grant money on a tropical
> island. Hell, I may even tell you I SAW evolution too!
>
> Gigabytes! of laughter!
>
> Those that do not question everythin g will fall for anything
> ---the evolutionist motto.
>
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
Burkhard
Rise finches (half rose, half finch)
and Tibetan finches (you get the picture...)
As for Elephants, there is this by A Finch:
As Merc'ry travell'd thro' a Wood,
(Whose Errands are more Fleet than Good)
An Elephant before him lay,
That much encumber'd had the Way:
The Messenger, who's still in haste,
Wou'd fain have bow'd, and so have past;
When up arose th' unweildy Brute,
And wou'd repeat a late Dispute,
Steven L.
Don't laugh.
Behe has retreated similarly.
He now accepts that species evolved naturally,
but he believes that the genera were specially designed.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
hersheyh
Did their bark result in reproductive isolation, like the bird song
did? The most common definition of species relies on reproductive
isolation in the wild. No surprise that some addicted to kindergarten
taxonomy who really does think that evolution proposes a dog giving
birth to a cat would be this ignorant of what the term "species" means
and why this particular example is relevant. It doesn't have the
requisite drama of a cat giving birth to a dog that you think
(erroneously) should be there.
>
> OH! Hahahahaha!!!
>
> Is the creature in the study still a finch. Yes. Each after his own
> kind.
A new *species* of finch is a new *species*.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>"a strange accent."
>
>BWAHAHAHAH!!!!
>
>The male birds got the song wrong so the females ran for cover!
IOW don't confuse me with the facts i've got my mind made up...
no rebuttal. no analysis...
just the typical anti-intellectualism of the barren creationist
>
>ROFLMAO!!!
>
>I have two dogs. They are the same breed. They each have distinctive
>barks and howls. Each produced a litter and ALL of the dogs had their
>own distinctive bark. So they are seperate species?
>
>OH! Hahahahaha!!!
>
>Is the creature in the study still a finch. Yes. Each after his own
>kind.
yeah and apes and humans are primates. hate to see what his wife
looks like
>Those that do not question everythin g will fall for anything
>---the evolutionist motto.
he just demonstrated ANOTHER reason why creationism isn't science
and why it's failed for 2000 years to tell us anything about nature
heekster
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
Your dogs hump your leg.
Are they separate species?
>OH! Hahahahaha!!!
>
Moron.
Eric Root
Come back when you grow up. You'll know because you will be ready to
admit that creationism is a bunch of childish hooey.
Eric Root
rmj
Are we talking of a new species, or are we starting with two species?
There is nothing here to suggest that the descendants of 5110
significantly differ from either 5110 or his mate. (And if 5110 could
pick up a chick, why can't his descendants?)
This sounds like scientists trying to make there observations seem
more important than they are.
hersheyh
A species is defined as a reproductively isolated population. It is
not necessary that a new species look, to our eyes, as different from
the parent population. Take the case of Hyla chrysoscelis and Hyla
versicolor (http://wwknapp.home.mindspring.com/docs/
gray.tfrogs.html). The main difference is their mating calls (not a
fossilizable feature) and that versicolor is polyploid (which is the
reproductively isolating feature and also not a fossilizable
feature). And, in fact, it would be surprising for the descendants of
5110 to look significantly different from their parents. But they
*are* reproductively isolated from the stock that 5110 came from.
Kermit
So, once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what the words
you just read actually mean.
Why do you think they mentioned the accent?
What is the most common definition of species in a sexually dimorphic
organism?
>
> Is the creature in the study still a finch. Yes. Each after his own
> kind.
As we are still apes.
>
> I wish I could lay up for a few decades with grant money on a tropical
> island. Hell, I may even tell you I SAW evolution too!
You wouldn't get the grant, because you wouldn't be able to say
anything intelligible about evolution.
>
> Gigabytes! of laughter!
Fortunately, there are still many TB of empty space on the hard drive,
so they'll fit.
>
> Those that do not question everythin g will fall for anything
> ---the evolutionist motto.
Well, you got that right anyway. Perhaps you can learn... Hmmm. We
might have to fix your broken epistemology first, though.
Wait, let me do a preliminary check:
Do you understand that questioning something means neither "rejecting
out of hand" nor "rejects no matter what evidence is presented"?
Now let's calibrate the epistemology meter:
How can you tell the difference between your special perceptions and
psychosis?
Kermit
Nashton
>
> The split began in 1981 when an unusually large male finch from Santa
> Cruz island arrived on the island
I rest my case.
rmj
This does not answer my questions regarding the value or reasoning of
the report's assertions.
All-Seeing-I
You have shown variation, and not shown species divergence.
What you do not seem to be able to wrap your mind around is the damn
thing is still a finch. With or without reproductive isolation, the
species may be classified as new by man, but it still a finch.
It will only give rise to a variation of another finch.
And the thousands of preceeding generations that may develop
R.Isolation as well, will still be finches.
Nothing has actually been observed diverging into something so new it
is no longer like the original, such as fish giving rise to Homo.S.
.
All-Seeing-I
Not to mention the thing is STILL a Finch.
The evolutionist must have an additional lobe in the brain that allows
them suspend their disbelief beyond normal limits.
I must do a theory on that soon.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you so blinded by science that you cannot see the obvious?
It is STILL A FINCH Kermit.
Nothing has changed that fact, not even R.Isolation.
It will only give rise to another variation of a finch. Nothing beyond
that has ever been observed.
richardal...@googlemail.com
How can something be a new species unless it has diverged from its
parent stock?
>
> What you do not seem to be able to wrap your mind around is the damn
> thing is still a finch.
Quite so. However, it is a new species of finch. What do you think
evolutionary theory predicts?
> With or without reproductive isolation, the
> species may be classified as new by man, but it still a finch.
...but it is a new species of finch.
>
> It will only give rise to a variation of another finch.
Yes, as evolutionary theory predicts. Do you think that evolutionary
theory predicts that a speciating population of finches will become
dogs?
>
> And the thousands of preceeding generations that may develop
> R.Isolation as well, will still be finches.
Quite so. However, they will be new species of finches.
>
> Nothing has actually been observed diverging into something so new
Which part of "new" in the term "new species" do you find so hard to
understand?
> it
> is no longer like the original, such as fish giving rise to Homo.S.
If you talk to a strict cladist they will tell you that humans *are*
fish. They are also apes, mammals and all the rest. It's a simple
concept, a nested hierarchy, but evidently too complex for someone of
your evidently limited intelligence.
RF
>
> .
hersheyh
Yes it does. The usual biological definition of a "species" involves
reproductive isolation, NOT necessarily morphological difference.
[And I would be the first to recognize that this definition has some
fuzzy boundaries and some difficulties in actual implementation in
some cases.] Species formation is a process, not an event where one
radically different species simply poofs into existence from the loins
(or eggs) of another. What the Grants show is the formation of a new
*species* of finch, all derived from a single variant parent finch
5110 to generate a population that does not interbreed with other
finches in the wild. In the Grant's discussion they are using the
*standard* scientific definition of species, not the creationist
strawman idea of a non-finch (however that is defined) popping out of
a finch egg. There are, after all, quite a number of different finch
species. Evolution actually would *predict* that a new species that
arose from a finch parent would be a new species of finch (with many
of the properties of its parent species as well as new ones, but
specifically including the feature of significant reproductive
isolation from the parent species).
Davej
>[...]
> The split began in 1981 when an unusually large male finch from Santa
> Cruz island arrived on the island where the Grants were based, Daphne
> Major. The biologists tagged the bird number 5110, and followed him
> and his offspring through seven generations total. In the fourth
> generation a drought killed off all the descendants except one male
> and one female. These offspring became isolated because they have the
> avian equivalent of a strange accent. These finches learn their songs
> from their father, and the Grants suggest that 5110 sang the songs
> from his birth home of Santa Cruz then modified his come-hither ballad
> by roughly copying the Daphne Major birds’. This imperfect copying,
> they suggest, has over time acted as a barrier to interbreeding
> [Nature News]. So the immigrant bird’s descendants have bred only with
> each other for three generations.
This sort of thing has been my personal theory for why intermediate
fossils are rarely if ever found. Other people have said that it can't
work this way because such a "bottleneck" would cause such a degree of
inbreeding that the lineage could not then be healthy. What is the
truth of the matter? How small can a population get?
hersheyh
No. The Grants have shown how reproductive isolation of a population,
which *is* species divergence, can be due, in this case, to a series
of basically chance events. This is NOT variation within a species.
It is the formation of reproductively isolating barriers preventing or
greatly inhibiting hybrid formation. That *is* species divergence.
>
> What you do not seem to be able to wrap your mind around is the damn
> thing is still a finch. With or without reproductive isolation, the
> species may be classified as new by man, but it still a finch.
Of course. *Any* new species that arises from an ancestral finch will
be classified as a finch cladistically. That would be true whether
the new *species* (defined by the common measure of being
reproductively isolated population in the wild, in this case due to
difference in response to mating calls) looked like its ancestor or,
instead, say, was a new neotenous featherless non-flying adult. Finch
is NOT a species. It is a group of species given a common name.
> It will only give rise to a variation of another finch.
>
> And the thousands of preceeding generations that may develop
> R.Isolation as well, will still be finches.
I think you are confusing "preceeding" and "future" here. The answer
depends. If, after many speciation events, the future surviving
progeny species derived from this new species has become divergent
enough in form from the clade that contains the other finches, we may
give it a different genus name and it may also be given a different
common (or kindergarten taxonomy) name. At that point, we will still
recognize these progeny as being very similar to the finches, but will
call them by a different name. OTOH, if the future surviving progeny
species derived from this new species do not signficantly diverge in
form from the ancestral finch and the surviving species in another
clade differs, that other clade will become the new genus and get the
new name(s). If all the progeny remain similar to the ancestral
finch, then they will still be included in the genus of finches.
All the current group of species collectively called "finches" in
popular taxonomy (to the extent that this matches with real taxonomy;
popular taxonomy is not necessarily co-equivalent with real taxonomy,
witness the terms "evergreen" or "fruit" or "nut" or "fruitfly") did
arise by *speciation* from an ancestral finch. That ancestral finch
was probably *named* and grouped with some different birds. But that
is simply due to the arbitrary nature of and necessities of naming
things that are necessarily variable.
> Nothing has actually been observed diverging into something so new it
> is no longer like the original, such as fish giving rise to Homo.S.
There is no such thing single "original" ancestor. There are a whole
long chain of ancestors, most of which are lost to history. Draw a
branching tree with a number of ends reaching the top of the page.
Each of the nodes of branching is an ancestor. None is an "original"
ancestor save the last common ancestor of all living organisms. We do
not, however, and never will have a complete tree with all the
intervening specimens. That does not mean we cannot trace the general
pattern nor that we cannot, when and where the evidence is best,
observe the finer-grained pattern.
>
> .
hersheyh
> On Nov 19, 4:15 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > Ye Old One wrote:
>
> > > The split began in 1981 when an unusually large male finch from Santa
> > > Cruz island arrived on the island
>
> > I rest my case.
>
> Not to mention the thing is STILL a Finch.
You really are addicted to kindergarten taxonomy, aren't you? Every
speciation event will produce a new species that is like its immediate
ancestor. That is, a finch ancestral species will produce a finch
progeny species. The naming of the broader group by a single common
name is not saying that they are all the same species.
hersheyh
Depends. We have a number of examples of exotic species pests that
have gotten their start from a single individual that has been
transported to a new environment where they had no competitors and a
competitive advantage over the native species, which they then drove
to extinction. That said, if the population remains small, there can
be inbreeding problems that can lead to extinction.
hersheyh
Humans are NOT derived from modern fish. Nor are they derived from
modern apes. Nor other modern mammals. Evolution does not posit that
a chimp must have given birth to a human.
>
> RF
>
>
>
> > .
rmj
You are not addressing my point. Finch 5110 is not considered a
separate species but his descendants are, even though apparently, his
descendants have the same song as 5110. If 5110 could find a mate, his
descendants should occasionally breed with the original species,
especially in times when there is an imbalance between the number of
females and males.
One can also consider the possibility (probability?) that over time
the songs of the 5110 descendants and the original finches would become
more similar since they hear the songs of the others daily.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Well, no. However, they are derived from fish, and therefore are,
technically, still fish.
> Nor are they derived from
> modern apes. Nor other modern mammals. Evolution does not posit that
> a chimp must have given birth to a human.
>
What on earth gave you the idea that I thought that?
RF
>
>
>
>
> > RF
>
> > > .
hersheyh
Finch 5110 is the "founder" of a population on this island that has,
by chance, become reproductively isolated from the other finches on
this island.
> but his descendants are, even though apparently, his
> descendants have the same song as 5110.
And that song is neither the same as that of the finches from the
island he came from nor of the main finch population on the island he
came to.
> If 5110 could find a mate, his
> descendants should occasionally breed with the original species,
> especially in times when there is an imbalance between the number of
> females and males.
That certainly is possible, since the reproductively isolating feature
is not (yet) based on such features as chromosome rearrangements. But
the definition of species recognizes that, under some circumstances,
hybrids do and can form between closely related species: witness a
whole series of such hybrids when man interferes (ligars, tigons,
various zebra and horse and ass hybrids and many more in plants) as
well as in nature (ring species, certain bird species, many plant
species) while still largely inhibiting gene flow between the two non-
hybrid parents. Take native sunflowers in the U.S. West as an
example.
Again, speciation is a process, not an event. It certainly may be
possible that this particular speciation event will collapse, that the
distinct *species* will go extinct (that one will become extinct is
particularly likely if both species are competing for the same
ecological niche) or that conditions will lead to so much
hybridization that the distinctive reproductively isolating song will
be lost. OTOH, the founder was also distinctive in being large. To
the extent that that trait is hereditary and that a niche exists that
favors larger finches, then the reproductive isolation because of the
song will be reinforcing by isolating the other morphological
features.
> One can also consider the possibility (probability?) that over time
> the songs of the 5110 descendants and the original finches would become
> more similar since they hear the songs of the others daily.
Birds, obviously, hear all kinds of bird songs, but they learn the
song of their parents. Bird songs do change, but often in a cline of
traits and locally in ways that still allow gene transfer. That is,
the songs of northern birds may not be identical to those of southern
birds of the same species and that may lead to a partial reproductive
isolation due to failure to really recognize the song as being from
the same species. This localization (which can be due to chance
alone) can (but need not) lead to fragmentation of species into
geographical races, which are often the precursor phase to species
formation. This is particularly relevant for species that are
geographically isolated on ecological "islands".
Reddfrogg
If it's a new species, then species divergence has occurred.
Variation is what leads to divergence.
>
> What you do not seem to be able to wrap your mind around is the damn
> thing is still a finch.
Which is exactly what would be predicted by evolutionary theory.
>With or without reproductive isolation, the
> species may be classified as new by man, but it still a finch.
As would be expected. No one expects the descendant of a finch to be
a "non finch", especially not in one or two generations.
>
> It will only give rise to a variation of another finch.
Yes, and many of those talking to you here are trying to get you to
understand that. All life is a variation of it's parent
populations.
>
> And the thousands of preceeding generations that may develop
> R.Isolation as well, will still be finches.
Yes, until they reach a point where someone decides that they aren't
"finches" any more. That point is entirely arbitrary.
>
> Nothing has actually been observed diverging into something so new it
> is no longer like the original, such as fish giving rise to Homo.S.
As has been pointed out before, humans do share traits of their
ancient fish ancestors. Humans have not become something entirely
different from ancient lobe finned fishes. Why do you have so much
trouble with that simple concept??
DJT
Reddfrogg
of course it's still a finch. What would you expect?
>
> Nothing has changed that fact, not even R.Isolation.
What has changed is that it's a new species of finch. There's been a
change in the population, and the members of that population don't
interbreed with the members of the older population.
>
> It will only give rise to another variation of a finch. Nothing beyond
> that has ever been observed.
"finch" of course is simply a word used to describe a group of bird
species. It's not a single category, or an exclusive grouping. You
can call the new species by another name, if that will make things
easier for you to understand.
The fact is that divergence is cumulative. The longer divergence
goes, the more dissimilar the species will become. However, they will
always retain some genetic link to their past.
DJT
Stuart
> On Nov 19, 4:15 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > Ye Old One wrote:
>
> > > The split began in 1981 when an unusually large male finch from Santa
> > > Cruz island arrived on the island
>
> > I rest my case.
>
> Not to mention the thing is STILL a Finch.
And we're still vertebrates.
Fancy that.
Stuart
Stuart
Well, in the case of polyploidy, one. allopolyploidy requires two; in
other words single generation speciation mechanisms are known, and
these
mechanisms are common in plants, much less so in animals..
Stuart
Ye Old One
A new species has evolved.
>
>What you do not seem to be able to wrap your mind around is the damn
>thing is still a finch. With or without reproductive isolation, the
>species may be classified as new by man, but it still a finch.
Just as, at one point in its history, the ancestor of the finch was
not a finch, it wasn't even a bird.
>
>It will only give rise to a variation of another finch.
>
>And the thousands of preceeding generations that may develop
>R.Isolation as well, will still be finches.
>
>Nothing has actually been observed diverging into something so new it
>is no longer like the original, such as fish giving rise to Homo.S.
But we do have the observations. That has been explained to you a lot
of times.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
And it is still a bird.
But its ancestors were not finches, going back further its ancestors
were not birds, even further back and they were not air breathers...
Do you get the idea moron?
>
>Nothing has changed that fact, not even R.Isolation.
>
>It will only give rise to another variation of a finch. Nothing beyond
>that has ever been observed.
Liar!
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
In theory, down to one - a pregnant female.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Though some spineless creationists turn up as well.
>
>Fancy that.
>
>Stuart
--
Bob.
Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
population?
bpuharic
>
>Are you so blinded by science that you cannot see the obvious?
>
>It is STILL A FINCH Kermit.
>
and jellyfish are sharks because both are sharks?
is that what creationists think?
bpuharic
>>
>
>You have shown variation, and not shown species divergence.
sure he has. non-interbreeding populations are, by DEFINITION, new
different species
>
>What you do not seem to be able to wrap your mind around is the damn
>thing is still a finch.
doesn't matter. he's shown SPECIES variation...just like you said
above.
With or without reproductive isolation, the
>species may be classified as new by man, but it still a finch.
and man is an ape. so we're the same as gorillas?
>
>It will only give rise to a variation of another finch.
>
>And the thousands of preceeding generations that may develop
>R.Isolation as well, will still be finches.
>
>Nothing has actually been observed diverging into something so new it
>is no longer like the original, such as fish giving rise to Homo.S.
how is a new species not a new species? do you really think humans are
gorillas?
>
>.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 19, 4:15 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>
>> > The split began in 1981 when an unusually large male finch from Santa
>> > Cruz island arrived on the island
>>
>> I rest my case.
>
>Not to mention the thing is STILL a Finch.
and a jellyfish is a shark because both are fish?
gee. who knew
Earle Jones
<b2d75e8d-1444-4f84...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Davej <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
How small can a population get?
I am not a biologist, but I work with Mirounga angustirostris (the
northern elephant seal.) In the 1800s they were hunted for their
blubber, which rendered to a high grade of oil, used in machinery and
lamps. They were hunted until they were, for all practical purposes,
extinct. The hunters stopped hunting when there were no more to be
found.
From about 1850 to about 1880 no seals were hunted. In 1880 a small
group were found -- 30 to 50 (?) animals -- on Guadalupe Island, about
200 km off the coast of Baja California. The Mexican government passed
a law to protect them. Later the American government did the same.
Today, the estimated population is about 180,000 in colonies on the
western Pacific coast from Baja to slightly north of San Francisco.
Many large colonies are on islands especially the Channel Islands near
Santa Barbara.
As far as I know, no animals were translocated. The spread was natural.
Evidently, when a particular beach gets overcrowded, a group will move
out and find another beach. The mainland colony at Piedras Blancas
(just north of San Simeon on the California coast) is now the largest
mainland colony with about 4,000 pups born every year. The first
elephant seal seen there was in 1990.
This "genetic bottleneck" can spell trouble. One might expect birth
defects, widespread viral diseases, etc. But I guess the situation is
"so far, so good."
earle
*
As far as I
Christopher Denney
> In article
> <b2d75e8d-1444-4f84-a5a1-a13856c0a...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
One wonders if they are cross fertile enough with their cousins the
southern elephant seal to get some helpful genetic diversity back into
the population.
I know that half breed dogs tend to be a bit more robust than some of
the purebred ones, due to all the inbreeding. But I have no
information on these guys, surely there is someone that has thought of
such things already anyway. It's an interesting thought in any case.
Earle Jones
<17e7c175-41e1-4bf1...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Christopher Denney <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One wonders if they are cross fertile enough with their cousins the
> southern elephant seal to get some helpful genetic diversity back into
> the population.
> I know that half breed dogs tend to be a bit more robust than some of
> the purebred ones, due to all the inbreeding. But I have no
> information on these guys, surely there is someone that has thought of
> such things already anyway. It's an interesting thought in any case.
*
Interesting thoughts, yes.
Unfortunately, the range of the northern elephant seal and the southern
cousin do not overlap. In fact they are separated by about five
thousand miles. The southernmost wandering of the northern species is
at about Baja California and the southern species is really an antarctic
animal, rarely seen as far north as New Zealand.
The southern elephant seal outnumbers the northern by about 600,000 to
180,000. Perhaps because the northern animals were hunted for their
blubber until the mid 1800s.
I suspect that they would be indeed cross-fertile, but they never cross
paths.
earle
*
Walter Bushell
<5accfb9c-7e53-4294...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > What you do not seem to be able to wrap your mind around is the damn
> > thing is still a finch. With or without reproductive isolation, the
> > species may be classified as new by man, but it still a finch.
>
> Of course. *Any* new species that arises from an ancestral finch will
> be classified as a finch cladistically. That would be true whether
> the new *species* (defined by the common measure of being
> reproductively isolated population in the wild, in this case due to
> difference in response to mating calls) looked like its ancestor or,
> instead, say, was a new neotenous featherless non-flying adult. Finch
> is NOT a species. It is a group of species given a common name.
If the finches should throw up a new line that developed tool use and
language to the point of technology comparable to 5 century BC Greeks
they would still be finches.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
> that explains everything.
Hey that's my line. Not that it isn't an attractive idea in meme space.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>In article <v4idg5pnuogp9m1qv...@4ax.com>,
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>> When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
>> that explains everything.
>
>Hey that's my line. Not that it isn't an attractive idea in meme space.
I had no idea that David was creating trolls for us.
Ye Old One
>In article <v4idg5pnuogp9m1qv...@4ax.com>,
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>> When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
>> that explains everything.
>
>Hey that's my line. Not that it isn't an attractive idea in meme space.
I did say I was pinching it. Far swap after all, you got the chocolate
cake sig :)
--
Bob.
A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest
imaginary friend.
Christopher Denney
Well, humans would have to intervene in some fashion; either
artificial insemination or just transplanting some individuals.
I can't say as I'd care to be the one doing either activity, in all
honesty.