The researchers who have been working for 36 years in the Galapagos Islands and who also star in the book "The Origin of the Prosh" discovered that a new species was created as a result of a mating between a male Prosh from a neighboring island and a local female and within 4 generations their offspring began to breed only among themselves The research was published this week in Sect at the time of PNAS
During the last 36 years, Peter and Rosemary Grant have dedicated their lives to studying the process of evolution and they have chosen one of the most symbolic places to do so - the Galapagos Islands. The Grants follow a group of birds calledDarwin's PhariseesThis is because the observations made by the young Darwin on the Galapagos Islands, during his journey on the Beagle, were a significant part of the development of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution holds that species are created from other species and over the years a large number of processes have been noted that may lead to the separation of a group of animals into two separate groups. In a study published this week in the journal PNAS, the Grants describe the process of the formation of a new species of Pharisee. In the most common sense of the definition, a biological species is a group of individuals that are similar to each other, capable of reproducing (naturally) and producing fertile offspring.
In 1981, the Grants' nets caught a new immigrant on the island they were conducting their research on. It was a medium plot of land of the species Geospiza fortis who came from the neighboring island. The exotic alien soon found a mate and they produced five male offspring. According to family tradition among the Pharisees, the male offspring learn the courtship song from their father. But the immigrant father sang with an "accent" that led to changes in the song itself, which led to the separation of the boys from the local Pharisees. Although the five sons found spouses, it took a few generations before the locals began to ignore the new dynasty and the members of the dynasty began to multiply within themselves. It is difficult to determine exactly when the reproductive separation between the local Pharisees and the immigrant children was carried out, but after four generations since the father's arrival, the island experienced a severe drought and only two Pharisees, a male and a female, siblings, survived. They bred with each other and so did their offspring.
There are no clear rules about when exactly a new species is created. This question hardly ever arises since scientists rarely actually observe the creation of a new biological species, with the exception of bacteria and a few other simple creatures. After three generations of breeding separated from the rest of the island's inhabitants, the Grants felt comfortable calling the species "new".
The future of the species is far from clear. It is possible that they will lose the competition for food and territory to the other Christians on the island. Their initial gene pool may contain errors that will increase over time. Even an occasional natural disaster may wipe out the species. It is also possible that they will start mixing with the local Pharisees and merge with them. No matter what happens, they have made their impact: new species can be created very quickly - and sometimes all it takes is a song.
More details about the research of Peter and Rosemary Grant can be read in the book they authored "The Origin of the Pharisee" which also contains comprehensive explanations of the theory of evolution as it is reflected in modern studies.
"The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches." By Peter R. Grant and B. Rosemary Grant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106, no. 46, Nov. 16, 2009.
On the same topic on the science website
23 תגובות
You are actually saying that a mule was born from the hybridization of a horse and a donkey...
Truly a fascinating discovery from the XNUMXst century...
Crazy genius!
And I find this whole discussion to be our trailing off after a conditioned reflex of vaping triggered by the word "evolution"
I find response 18 stupid, pretentious, and rude.
Of course I don't find Edi Lida's answer in it.
This time the anonymous user is me (-:
I find that there is no point in arguing about Kotsu Yod. Accuracy is indeed important, but since there is no agreed scientific definition for the actual moment when a species can be called by a 'new' name, the whole debate (and especially the accompanying slime) seems unnecessary and a waste of time. The truth is that the so-called 'new species' is probably a little exaggerated, and on the other hand, the likelihood that it will really become a new species is extremely high (you can compare this to the mechanism of the appearance of the peacock's tail: the females carry genes for attraction to the particular song of the Pharisees/the longer tail of the peacock, and the males carry the The genes for the particular song of the Pharisees/of the long tail of the peacock - delete the unnecessary - and both pass the genes to their offspring, thus the phenomenon differentiates the population from the environment with a strong potential to overcome).
I'm sorry, but I find the obsession with inventing a 'new species' of vertebrates that supposedly exists in practice, and this only after reproductive isolation of only four generations(!), with quite limited genetic differentiation, and with the possibility of fertile mating with others and a fairly reasonable possibility of this - as something which has very little intelligence and intellectual honesty.
On the other hand, there is a lot of pseudo-scientific pretension in this.
The result is measured in values of nonsense, as a portion of the division of pretension (say - in tons) by the bit of intelligence (say - microintelligence).
Anyone who does not understand this is suffering from a 'new species' of nonsense, for which a suitable vaccine must still be sought.
I find the fact that when there is an article that does not dispute its content and there is no claim that it hid any fact - people still find it appropriate to argue about the degree of exaggeration or restraint in the title - a joke.
It is interesting - if the title is exaggerated - how many decimozam are we talking about - is it only slightly exaggerated (one decimozam) or very exaggerated (say - kilomozam)?
It is also interesting when it is permissible to use the phrase "new species".
After all, if you are ready to crown a reproductively isolated population as a new species only after a million years - Yada (the opposite of Mad) will come and claim that it is excessive (perhaps even a kilometer excessive) to call something a million years old "new"
The anonymous user on 15 is me, Eddie.
Asaf,
Eddie in response 8 is not Eddie in response 1,9 (which is me). So your criticism at the beginning of your response (12) does not concern me.
For everyone, including Assaf:
I just read the original article. It turns out that there are genetic differences. But genetic differences between individuals in themselves do not necessarily create a classification of a new species. I agree with Assaf that "as soon as there is a mating between a new and a local and it turns out that the offspring are not fertile, they will enter the (old) definition of a separated species". But this stage has not yet happened; Therefore, it is premature to declare that a 'new species' was born here. At this stage, of the passage of only 4 generations - it is a 'possibility' for the creation of a new species - no more. It is still not allowed to talk about the actual formation of a new species.
Even a more lenient definition with the creation of a new species, to say: "a group of organisms in nature that are actually reproductively isolated" (a definition that Michael Rothschild finds a lot of sense in), in my opinion does not change the result. This is because reproductive isolation of only 4 generations is not long-term isolation enough, certainly not to create a situation in which it is not possible to produce offspring at all or fertile offspring as a result of matings with individuals outside the group, or even a situation in which there will be no attempts or practical possibilities for such matings.
That's why the article's statement that "they discovered that a new species was created as a result of a mating between a foreign male from a neighboring May and a local female and within 4 generations their offspring began to breed only among themselves" is exaggerated and premature, and this is where my criticism comes from.
It should be noted that in biology (and in other scientific fields) the use of professional terms is sometimes confusing because they sound like everyday terms to us, such as species, type, strain, breed (and these are several examples of terms on the subject of the article).
For those involved in the field, these concepts are completely clear in their scientific definition. On the other hand, these terms are used by every person in their daily life.
As my predecessor said, the term "sex" must be considered in the poet's original intention.
Friends:
First of all, I would like to register to hold after Yigal c.
I actually wanted to write a similar response to his as soon as I saw Eddie's response but I thought it wasn't important enough to start another debate (and I knew there would be a debate because not only the scientific facts are at play here).
A separate biological species can be defined in several ways that do not always give the same classification.
See the following link in this regard:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
Therefore - when reading an article - one must refer to the same definition of the term "sex" that the author of the article used.
One of the definitions is "a group of organisms that in nature are actually reproductively isolated".
This is the definition used in the article and as Yigal said - the reason for the isolation is of no importance - the very isolation is what is important.
There is a lot of logic in this definition because such a situation will also usually lead, over many years, to the impossibility of reproducing outside the group.
It may take so long that today there is not even confidence that a human and a chimpanzee cannot breed together. What is known is that they do not and that is enough to define them as separate species.
to Eddie
Those who try to visit, it is better to at least know the correct terminology, yes: in the entire Galapagos archipelago
There is one type...Pharisees, a type that differentiates into right-wing numbers,
The father is not "mythological", there is a father who has been identified and followed since his arrival on the island,
to solder
It was correct to add the "Saifa" of the study, below.
As a matter of fact, the researchers note (in the source) morphological differences - thickness of the beak - differences in gestures
courtship and courtship, differences in food gathering and most importantly there is no reproduction between the "new" and the locals,
As soon as there is a mating between a new and a local and it turns out that the offspring are not fertile, they will enter
For the (old) definition of a separate species, you can alternately test the genetic differences.
What is unique and special about the researchers' observations is:
A - a situation in which there is a possibility of the formation of a new species without geographical separation, without environmental differences
And without the existence of different conditions that differentiate populations.
B - the possibility to see in an indirect way how (even in vertebrates) within a few generations a separate species can develop, (so far there have been such observations only in "poor" animals),
And again... it's too common to be easily visited by people without understanding... too bad.
And again, Eddie, the importance of discovery lies, in my opinion, not in the details you dwell on, but in what I mentioned in my previous response.
Eddie,
In the original article there is also a reference to genetic differences between the two groups. The father and mother who founded the dynasty were both hybrids, so their characteristics differ from the other Pharisees not only in poetry.
There may have been a place to elaborate on this in my report as well.
Yigal G.:
I spoke about the mechanism that causes separations only in relation to the only difference - which emerged from the article - regarding the Pharisee family in question and the 'foreign' Pharisees. I didn't mean to hang the question of defining the species as a new species on that.
My main criticism of the article (and in fact - of the study) was the pretentious haste to declare one family that sings with a different accent - as a new species, when no point was made about any genetic characteristics unique to its individuals compared to the individuals of the 'foreign' Pharisees, and when it is clear that there is no obstacle in principle for the cultural ties with them. And all this, when the article itself does not mention in the statement any criteria according to which a species is judged as a 'new species' and in fact it admits that "there are no clear laws regarding when exactly a new species is created".
Scientific studies/articles are allowed and can be expected to be more professional and less ostentatious/communicative noise.
It sounds a bit absurd to me to call the offspring a "new species"
From the beginning we had two types of Pharisees, different types perhaps
But since both were spread out, it makes more sense to say that these two types
Evolved from that mythological "father" of theirs
And only the bloodlings treated them as two different species
So everything observed is perhaps a move of two individuals from different families and not of a different species
More Romeo and Juliet style than werewolf
Oh and it is better to change the link to Wikipedia in English where there is more information
Why didn't they intervene in the drought?
Nahum V., no one "decided to define". That's how it is in reality, just like if you throw a stone in the air it will come back to you and not fly into space.
Lanhum- Now, if your human population on Mars reproduces independently regardless of the Earth over a given period of time (thousands of years, most likely) and then emerges back to visit our precious globe, it is very possible that they will already be an independent species. It is likely that they are more adapted to the lighter gravity of Mars, more resistant to the harsh conditions and radiation, and who knows what else..
Beauty. You decided to define a "new species" in a certain way and then you discovered the formation of a "new species" according to the definitions you chose. I too can migrate to Mars and create a new human race there that will breed only among itself. What's the big deal?
Eddie, the mechanism that causes separation in terms of reproduction from the mother group is not important, the main thing is that such separation increases the amount of genetic differences between the groups that ultimately lead to the inability to reproduce with the mother group. This is the point, in my opinion, where the new group can be called a 'new species'. The main thing, in my opinion, in this knowledge lies in two matters: one is that not only physical separation between the two groups can lead to the creation of a new species, but also other forms of separation can lead to this. The second, which is probably one of the first times that scientists have documented the beginning of the process that can lead to the creation of a new species.
The title: "new (biological) water born" sounds a bit exaggerated.
It is not clear to me why a family that has begun to reproduce among itself is considered by the researchers to be a 'species' that stands on its own, when it is clear that the reason for this is only - singing in an 'accent' different from what is accepted in the local Pharisee society. What's more, even in the article itself, the possibility of reproduction with individuals foreign to the family is brought up - as possible from a factual and genetic point of view.