jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (56 posts)

Evolution has produced a most amazing new strain

  1. aka-dj profile image75
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    Here is the newest stain of parakeet (or Budgerigar, for Aussies)

    http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y173/DestroyahDes/RedBudgie.jpg

    1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think that one is photoshopped, but f you are interested in the evolution of birds - especially budgies which are closely related to fig parrots, here are some interesting articles:

      http://10000birds.com/parrot-bio-geogra … lution.htm
      http://www.theguardian.com/science/grrl … 2/sep/19/1
      http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/5/544.full.pdf
      http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2 … gin-of-pa/

      Enjoy. smile

      1. aka-dj profile image75
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What makes you say it's photoshopped?

        Evolution should be able to produce this, no problem. Considering all the controlled breading that's been done for decades by hundreds of enthusiasts.

        1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
          Righteous Atheistposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh - is it a real strain then? I have no idea if this one is possible or not. I see you were not interested in learning anything. Shocker! lol

          1. aka-dj profile image75
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, I clicked each of your links.
            W - A  - Y too long articles. Not my cup-a-tea, this late at night.

            1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
              Righteous Atheistposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes - I imagine they were way too long for you. Unfortunately, to understand science, it takes work. Which is why you don't understand. wink

              Goodnight.

              1. aka-dj profile image75
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                NO it's not complex. Requires little effort, see?

                http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7023/images/nature03150-f3.2.jpg

                Child's play.

                1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                  Righteous Atheistposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah - you think looking at that will help? No wonder you don't believe in scientific facts if you think looking at that will help you understand.

                  Goodnight. wink

                  Here is an interesting new species found last year:

                  http://i1.treknature.com/photos/8197/pruimkopparkiet.jpg

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Evolution could produce that bird.  Your point?

  2. aka-dj profile image75
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    This ones is even simpler. big_smile
    http://mappingignorance.org/fx/media/2013/03/archosaurs.jpg

  3. aka-dj profile image75
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    Here are all the colours of budgies, in one place.

    Beautiful, aren't they?
    http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/rainbow-row-of-budgies-sat-on-a-branch-walker-and-walker.jpg

  4. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Both your picks are shopped.  Red is very hard to introduce into a line of birds where it was not in the wild type.  Humans don't "evolve"--we select.  You can only select for genes that are there.  Red is not in the budgie population so there is currently no red budgie. It would take a very unusual mutation or cross-breeding to get it in there.

    1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 3 years ago in reply to this
      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The budgie is Melopsittacus undulatus.

        That picture is not a budgie.

        So... yeah... I'm right.  There is no red budgie.

        here are all the pretty colors they do come in: http://www.budgieplace.com/colorsguide.html

        p.s. what the holy heck is this thread actually about?

        1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
          Righteous Atheistposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not what you said. sad

          Mr DJ is attacking evolution.

    2. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 3 years ago in reply to this
  5. profile image0
    MysticMoonlightposted 3 years ago

    OK. Was this thread started to genuinely discuss this bird or was it started to only seem to be talking about the bird but in all actuality it's talking about something else entirely? I'm confused a bit. I honestly cannot tell, sorry.

    1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No - it was a thread to attack evolution. wink

      1. profile image0
        MysticMoonlightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, I see. Thank you, Righteous Atheist. smile

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This thread is a diligent effort to prove the stereotype that Christians only believe in God because we don't understand science. It is also proof that our debate tactics need some work...

      But, at least this one has pretty pictures. That's new.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's successful, too.  Depending, of course, on your definition of "Christian".  People educated in the sciences, and that understand them, aren't considered "true" Christians, no matter WHERE their love and belief lies.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Science is scary. It has big words in it. God is a little word. I like God.

          (Am I a true Christian now?)

          1. aka-dj profile image75
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well, according to RA, all you have to do, is say, "I'm a Christian", and you are one.

            At least, that's how Hitler is cited as becoming one, in another thread. big_smile

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And according to most of the Christians on these boards, all you have to do is disagree with them... on anything really, and you aren't one. So I guess it works out.

              1. aka-dj profile image75
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I recon you are right.

                The truth is, only God knows the true status of a person's heart. He knows those who are His.

                We all make judgements based on natural evidence and observation.

        2. aka-dj profile image75
          aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not sure which side you are on here.

          There are many Christian scientists, who understand science, AND, love God. No conflict there.

      2. profile image0
        MysticMoonlightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Indeed, the pretty bird pictures are a rare treat on the forums. They are lovely smile

      3. aka-dj profile image75
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks. I thought so, too!

    3. aka-dj profile image75
      aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This thread is my, tongue-un-cheek sense of humour, expressing itself.

      I don't deny that its intent is to question the constant assertions that evolution is fact.

      So, why is there no red in the budgie species?

      Evolution should be able to give us one, considering how many people have attempted to breed one.

      So, here we have one commenter saying it can't happen, and one(s) who say it can.

      Which of you, hardened evolutionists, is correct?

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So, why is there no red in the budgie species?
        --Why would there be?

        Evolution should be able to give us one, considering how many people have attempted to breed one.
        --Evolution is what happens in nature, not what is done by people.  If people really wanted to breed a red budgie they possibly could.  They made a red canary by outbreeding to a closely related species with red genes. Of course if no closely related species has red genes, well then they can't.

        So, here we have one commenter saying it can't happen, and one(s) who say it can.
        --No one said it can't happen.  Only that it hasn't.  Which is true.  And has bugger all to do with evolution.

        Which of you, hardened evolutionists, is correct?
        --What?

        So you argument is:
        1) Artificial selection has not made a pointlessly red-colored budgie
        2) Ergo natural selection (the process of animals adapting to their natural environment) is not true.

        Forgive me for having no idea what #1 has to do with #2.  I have tried.  If you have a point, I have missed it.  Entirely.

        Perhaps you could start by telling me why you think evolution could only be true if budgies were red? From where I sit evolution could be true if budgies were pretty much any color, or didn't exist at all.

        1. aka-dj profile image75
          aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this


          Indeed, you have.

          For a red budgie to arise, new genetic information has to be added, since a gene for the colour red, does not exist.

          So, no matter how much breeding goes on, red will never be a colour that emerges.
          Even you admit that it would take cross breeding with another similar species (none) to introduce the gene.

          The whole concept of evolution hangs ENTIRELY, on the premise, that new genetic information is added, for species to evolve.
          (NEVER been demonstrated). .
          This says to me, that you believe evolution to be true, despite evidence to the contrary. Thereby, making the point that it's faith based. You believe, NO MATTER what. (Which is fine by me!)

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Spontaneous mutation.  It has been very widely demonstrated.  Indeed it is 50% of the entire theory.

            1) Mutation
            2) selection
            =evolution

            And all I am trying to do is understand your point.  You think mutation never occurs?

            1. aka-dj profile image75
              aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Staying with the budgie, the red "mutation" is not possible!
              As for mutations, ABSOLUTELY, they occur.

              The original, as we all (should) know, is green. All other types around today are directly mutated from these.

              The other major point to be made, is that they ate ALL recessive to the (dominant) green.

              If evolution can't give us red, why believe it can give us a new species? Faith in the "possibility"? No. Just faith!

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Your proof that a red mutation is impossible?  Please, show us the genetic DNA code that would cause red, and then prove it is impossible to produce.

                "If evolution can't give us red, why believe it can give us a new species? "  First you must prove the statement that it can't give red.  Not "hasn't" - "can't".

                1. aka-dj profile image75
                  aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Saying "it can" holds no more credibility!

                  Until I'd DOES, we both stand on the foundation of faith.

                  In fact proving it can, carries the burden of proof, because, to date, all we have is, well, nothing.

                  Asking to prove the negative is illogical, as atheists continually point out. (As in the case of the existence -or not- of God). You can't have it both ways.

                2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Just as an aside, there is a violet  budgie. It is a dominate trait. Selective breeding of the most red of the violet budgies would likely eventually produce a red budgie. It's a very blue violet from what I saw, but regardless it takes red to make violet.

                  Just as an aside.

          2. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "For a red budgie to arise, new genetic information has to be added, since a gene for the colour red, does not exist"

            Have you ever heard the word "Mutation"?  Do you know what it refers to?  (Hint - it is not a re-arranging of existing genetic information)

            As far as never being observed, do you know how old the AIDs virus is?  Not very - it appeared less than 100 years ago.  Do you know the first recorded case of Hemophilia?  The Queen of England - it did not exist until her gene was mutated.

            "This says to me, that you believe evolution to be true, despite evidence to the contrary"  What evidence would that be?  I have never seen nor heard of any evidence that species cannot evolve, even unto a new and different species.  Just claims by theists, from the rambings of their Good Book.

            1. aka-dj profile image75
              aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Please.
              Whose intelligence are you trying to insult?

              All these mutated virus "this & that" drivel. Each example EVER cited begs the fact, that it's STILL a virus, not a more complex species.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You know, the last time I debated evolution with a theist, it ended with her saying that when she saw cats giving birth to dogs, on every streetcorner, she would believe in evolution.

                This is the beginning of how that foolish statement came about; you said no new genetic material was ever produced, and when shown to be false want another proof.  So did she.  First virus/bacteria, then small animal life, then bigger life, and finally cats giving birth to dogs.  You've started out well.

      2. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is a little embarrassing. Evolution didn't produce all those fancy coloured budgies. People did. Evolution didn't produce the Great Dane or the Chihuahua. People did.

        Sorry you are unable to understand evolution. Evolution has also not produced a fluorescent person, but people have produced fluorescent pigs.

        1. aka-dj profile image75
          aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly!

          Now, I can rest my case. Thanks.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Rest your case? You have none. You don't understand anything about evolution.

          2. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What?  How does natural selection for color morphs (general by degrees of inbreeding knocking out pigments and revealing lighter colors underneath) prove anything about evolution?

            You point continues to elude me.  It is like saying the tower of Pisa disproves erosion.

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Gene splicing maybe?

          It's highly unlikely that people produced the first green, or yellow or whatever budgie.  What they DID do is bring different birds together in the hopes they would breed (as far as I know, artificial insemination has not progressed to the point of birds yet).  People then, were the environmental factors that brought about the colors by allowing the specific birds to find each other.

          This is not unusual in evolution, and is well documented.  Environment can and does both separate and bring together groups of differing genetic details, which often changes the species into something it wasn't or might even produce a new species altogether.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So if we left the wolf alone for long enough we end up with a Teacup Chiwawa?

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe.  Or maybe a whale or squid.  Whales did migrate back to the ocean, you know, from a four legged land beast.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sure, I get that, but when humans alter things like dogs or cows they do so to make them easier to handle and for specific purposes. A cow to a whale is easy to understand and the evidence as well as animals in transitional states is evident. A hippo being just one example.

              2. aka-dj profile image75
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Or maybe a flying pink unicorn!

                I love evolution! It can do anything!

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Close.  Most changes that do not violate natural laws are available to the forces of evolution.

                  (The pink unicorn, though, violates too many natural laws to be considered possible.)

                  1. aka-dj profile image75
                    aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What natural laws limit just what IS possible?

                    I would assume, based on the incredible diversity of life forms, that anything is possible.

                    As reason for this train of thought, if a single cell (first) life form can can diversify into plant, insect, vertebrate, invertebrate, mammal, bird, man. etc. I don't see "laws" limiting, virtually any outcome.

                2. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It can only do one thing.  Describe how animals with beneficial mutations have more babies. If a mutation caused a horse to grow a horn, and that horse out-competed hornless stallions, evolution could mean he had a herd f horned horses within a few hundred years.  However it probably could not get to flight for a mammal that size and a pink horse would probably be hairless and die before reaching sexual maturity due to skin damage.

 
working