digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at utexas.edu

Scientists find butterflies splitting into two species

utexas.edu — Breaking up may actually not be hard to do, say scientists who've found a population of tropical butterflies that may be on its way to a split into two distinct species.

Who dugg this? Made popular 23 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

51 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ParadiscaCorbas, on 11/05/2009, -0/+20The Evolution will not be televised -- it's on the internet!
  • ftc08, on 11/06/2009, -3/+19You need /s boy. Otherwise people will think you mean it. People are that dumb.
  • Sogladtobehere, on 11/06/2009, -2/+17Deny this one Creationist cuckoos. Strong evidence happening right before our eyes and cameras.
  • SLuM, on 11/06/2009, -6/+20This is just proof GOD did it. What else could have caused this change? Surely not some sort of evolution by natural selection...
  • captspaulding, on 11/06/2009, -0/+12Since when did those nuts care about evidence?
  • Lunarparcel, on 11/06/2009, -1/+11Ha! Science FTdarW.
  • TaintBrush, on 11/06/2009, -1/+10I find it ironic being reported on a Texas website.
  • PricklyPoo, on 11/06/2009, -0/+8Didn't get the memo about respect being automatically granted to idiotic beliefs...
  • nyx210, on 11/06/2009, -1/+7Get used to it.
  • Dougman82, on 11/06/2009, -0/+5I wouldn't define myself as a fundamentalist, but I am definitely a Christian. That said, I also believe that the universe is ~13 billion years old and that life on earth came to the point it is today through evolution over millions of years. The science is there, and nobody with a right mind can knock it.

    It kills me to see other Christians try to take the Bible word for word, and thereby impose limitations and boundaries and who God is and how He operates.
  • Bodhinature, on 11/06/2009, -1/+5"adding significantly new DNA etc"

    Obviously you don't know anything about DNA. It doesn't take much altering of DNA to create an entirely new species. Chimpanzees share 98% of our DNA arrangement. Even distantly related species share huge percentages of DNA with other species.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

    Microevolution and macroevolution describe the same thing. The only difference is time scale. They are "so-called" scientists because they have dedicated their lives to the furthering of knowledge through scientific experimentation rather than sitting in the sidelines thumping a 2000 year old mistranslated collection of desert dweller books poo-pooing incredible achievements while using the very technology that follows scientific achievements.

    Now, if you want to see a butterfly become an entirely different animal you'd better ask your super duper god to make you live a whole lot longer than you deserve.
  • drex8, on 11/06/2009, -1/+5Someone above you just did. Although I've a feeling that he missed the /s tag.
  • Bodhinature, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3I'm getting tired of Christians bashing science and reason.
  • gkiltz, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3Evolution goes on.
  • topgigmedia, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3Why is evolution treated like a counter balance to religion? I don't worship evolutionary theory. I just accept it as the most plausible explanation of how life came to be and where it is headed.

    that said - any Fundies out there? - curious what your thoughts are on this... would love to hear them.
  • Ramble, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3Any idiot can tell that 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' are the same thing over different timescales. It's the sort of science that is covered in primary schools.
  • digitalArtform, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3Since there aren't any Creationists in here, I'll fill in.

    They are still butterflies!

    :P
  • jeolmeun, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3Because religions are also explanations of how life came to be and where it is headed?
  • simonn, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3You forgot...

    Until I see butter and fly mate mate and produce a butterfly I will believe nothing but the book.
  • DOCNM, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3sounds like sexual selection
  • topgigmedia, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2I do not worship Darwin. There is a difference.
  • neutron7, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2wut?
  • jeolmeun, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2Do you mean the same evolution by natural selection that created evolution by natural selection?
  • Rain12913, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2This man speaks truth....albeit very strange truth.
  • jeolmeun, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2Darwin didn't evolve and naturally select you either. Religious people shouldn't worship their religious clergy.
  • magibeg, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2but but... it's the same thing... :(

    Actually I never heard of or read anything about macro vs micro evolution in any biology text books. It only started popping up since creationism and now intelligent design.
  • magibeg, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2You are probably a better example of what Christians are supposed to be than the ones following the bible word for word. That actually sounds kinda funny if you think about it.
  • sgtbutterscotch, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2Oh wow, I completely left out the word 'wonder' between the 'I' and the 'what.' I guess that's what you were talking about neutron...
  • cruelsniper, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2Well, it's from UT, which is a is a fairly liberal university, especially in Texas' terms.
  • digitalArtform, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1Amen!
  • Bodhinature, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1Christians will say evidence of "microevolution" is in no way indicative of "macroevolution."
  • amirman, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1texas has the internet now?
  • sgtbutterscotch, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1The three comments above this one are all the same. The second one under this is practically the same as well. People should realize how boring and unoriginal they are. That's wutsup.
  • Rain12913, on 11/06/2009, -1/+2...an *****. Before editing, his comment simply said "Evolution is a lie."
  • kjlw, on 11/06/2009, -1/+2Creation indeed is a miraculous thing! So full of wonder and beauty.

    So dynamic.
  • jeolmeun, on 11/06/2009, -1/+2@magibeg,

    [quote]
    CreationWiki response:
    Evolutionists seem rather obstinate in defining evolution as any change in 'gene frequencies' among a population. If evolution is defined so broadly then creationists might as well be known as theistic evolutionists. Macroevolution and microevolution should be put into their respective categories. Microevolution in itself isn't sufficient to establish that macroevolution has occurred because every single observation that is made, is in accord with the created kinds.

    Microevolution: the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution”

    Macroevolution: the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years.
    [/quote]

    Continued at http://www.creationwiki.org/Microevolution_is_dist ...
  • Naumadd, on 11/06/2009, -1/+2Ignorance of the time scales needed for those changes you so casually dismiss doesn't exactly help your case. Just like the term "butterfly", "dog" is an overly simplistic label for what is an incredibly diverse population of similar but not same organisms which, as it happens, become less and less similar to one another by the day. It's to be expected populations of similar organisms genetically isolated from one another would eventually give rise to separate species. Given the right conditions and a million years more, it's likely they'd be greatly different from one another to your satisfaction. Of course, human culture is far too young to see changes on that scale and retain them in cultural memory. As human culture goes, thus far it's rare for anything crafted by man to survive even 10,000 years, let alone a million. Only those far in the future will know for certain.

    If you didn't already know a wolf, a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua were "dogs", would you in fact consider them the "same" animal?

    Exactly how much visible change is needed in your mind for them to be "entirely different"? As it turns out, chimpanzees and human beings look something akin to "entirely different", but genetics tells us the real difference is only something like 6-8%. Is there only 6-8% visual difference between the St. Bernard and Chihuahua?
  • jeolmeun, on 11/06/2009, -2/+3"Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.
    A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists themselves."
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp
  • homer524, on 11/06/2009, -2/+2Not so lazy of a troll now, am I?
  • chrisdohrm, on 11/06/2009, -1/+1Neat-o.
  • rrwest, on 11/06/2009, -0/+0The IDers and creationists will undoubtedly use this to their advantage, forgetting one important fact; insects have shorter lifespans than mammals, reptiles, lizards and other vertebrates.

    This enables them to evolve a faster rates since their genetic patterns will change at similar rates as their lifespans.

    This does NOT mean that butterflies will eventually become spiders or moths or even fish, since the profound genetic changes that would need to occur happen across timespans of millions of years.

    And, yes, we may be able to engineer such radical changes in the future, but engineering is not the same as letting things change on their own. Evolution works through countless factors like changes in habitat, predation levels, food sources, population, the introduction of new competitors for living space and food and also disease. You don't need an "engineer" outside of these influences to create speciation. Genetics and time can do it for you.
  • noahhoward, on 11/07/2009, -1/+1You have a fundamental misunderstanding of time, change and evolution.
  • climbaesthetic, on 11/06/2009, -1/+0sex is natural...
  • climbaesthetic, on 11/06/2009, -1/+0Proof? I see know proof of god. The only 'proof' of god is in that book that was compiled two thousand years ago. Oh yea, and not to mention, which was derived from other creation myths. They are all the same...labeling something as 'good' and something else as 'bad'.
  • simonn, on 11/06/2009, -2/+1There are not 10,000 different "species" of dog. Gawd.
  • Rain12913, on 11/06/2009, -3/+1Lazy troll is...
  • RabidCapitalist, on 11/06/2009, -7/+2Woop-de-do. More evidence of MICRO-evolution only. I'll get excited when I see butterflies evolving into an entirely different animal, adding significantly new DNA etc.

    From this, our so-called scientists dare to extrapolate the idea of MACRO-evolution, suggesting that all life came from a common ancestor.

    There are 10,000 different species of dog in the world today, and I bet they also had one common ancestor. But that ancestor was a DOG, not an amoeba, or a toad, or a salamander, or a dinosaur.
  • sgtbutterscotch, on 11/06/2009, -8/+3If fundamentalist Christians didn't hate evolution so much, I what this comment section look like instead.
  • ThatNeilDude, on 11/06/2009, -10/+4Eat it, Christ Punchers!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.