Darwins Finches evolve

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8IR8MEG1.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping confirm it - by evolving.

A medium sized species of Darwin's finch has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds just two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for its original food source.

The altered beak size shows that species competing for food can undergo evolutionary change, said Peter Grant of Princeton University, lead author of the report appearing in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
Grant has been studying Darwin's finches for decades and previously recorded changes responding to a drought that altered what foods were available.

It's rare for scientists to be able to document changes in the appearance of an animal in response to competition. More often it is seen when something moves into a new habitat or the climate changes and it has to find new food or resources, explained Robert C. Fleischer, a geneticist at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and National Zoo.

metta,

~v

[flowperson]

Hooray for reality! I wonder if the news has gotten to Kansas yet.

No offense intended Earl, Okieinexile !

flow....

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8IR8MEG1.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping confirm it - by evolving.

A medium sized species of Darwin's finch has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds just two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for its original food source.

The altered beak size shows that species competing for food can undergo evolutionary change, said Peter Grant of Princeton University, lead author of the report appearing in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
Grant has been studying Darwin's finches for decades and previously recorded changes responding to a drought that altered what foods were available.

It's rare for scientists to be able to document changes in the appearance of an animal in response to competition. More often it is seen when something moves into a new habitat or the climate changes and it has to find new food or resources, explained Robert C. Fleischer, a geneticist at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and National Zoo.

metta,

~v

Not that I don't believe in Evolution or anything, but these changes (from a creationist point of view) only serve to prove "micro-evolution" as opposed to "macro-evolution".

Cretionists seem to believe that evolution 'within' a species is possible, but evolving from one species into a completely new species is another matter.

.

[juantoo3]

Hmmm, a divergence from other hot threads? A fresh start on an old topic? Do I dare take the bait?

How about Homo Floresiensis? Now that is an intriguing discovery! Or perhaps the connection between the Solutrean and Clovis cultures and the implications? Or the long history behind the Wild Man tradition? Or the Neandertal / Cro-Magnon hybrid child? These finds have a direct impact on modern human society, with possible religious ramifications as well.

More so I would think than denoting yet another new "species" by the size of their nose. Or by the color of their skin, I.Q. or shoe size, for that matter.

'Nuf said on my part, I've spoken my piece on the old threads about this subject. I think I'll leave this one alone for now, and leave it for the newbies.

[I, Brian]

Actually, I have to be a canker here, and point out that indeed we're only seeing small adaptions within a species, rather than development of completely new species.

Humans have been manipulating the physical form of dogs for thousands of years, and despite an incredible range of adaptations, I don't believe we've actually created any new species of dog - merely variations on a theme.

So the finches shows that species can adapt - but we've seen this before. What we've not seen is a clear transistion between species.

No, I'm not downplaying evolution - I'm just trying to downplay expectations that the finches article can serve as a strong proof.

[wil]

Tis my understanding that is what Darwin and Origin of a Species never did... find the origin of a species.

Ok 123, do we have to search high and low or will you provide links to what you alluded to?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

Biological Evolution = Change in Allele frequencies in a population over time.

that is certainly what happened with the finches.

i really don't understand the hang up.

moreover, the idea of "micro" and "macro" are really unusual. how long does it take for "micro" to become "macro"? this is a CreationISM gambit that is not based on anything but a desire to denigrate the theory.

i should point out that Darwin was a Christian when he developed the theory, however, there were others before him that had, independently, come up with the same sort of thing. none of them, however, had the luxury of seeing the Galapagos Islands.

one wonders how people think that modern medicine works if evolution isn't valid. you've heard of the "super bugs" like MSRA and MSRE, i am certain.

metta,

~v

[wil]

I'm not denying evolution...just wondering out of all the fossils we've discovered...out of the thousands of species...all we ever see is interspecies change...in every single case we have a missing link...we can never get from a-z on any species change because we always have a hole...

Doesn't seem like scientfic proof to me...I personally would like to see the gaps filled.

[I, Brian]

I'm not trying to knock evolution.

I simply think there are flaws in the "conventional" Dawkian view that needs to take more on board from people like Gould. Trouble is, with the Creationist argument being aggressively pushed, it's pushing people into polarised camps.

I subscribe to evolutionary theory, but I think there are serious flaws in some key mechanisms that are being overlooked in the rush to combat Creationism - and hence we get an unbalanced view of one of the most important ideas in modern science.

I'll try and write a book about it...

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by wil

I'm not denying evolution...just wondering out of all the fossils we've discovered...out of the thousands of species...all we ever see is interspecies change...in every single case we have a missing link...we can never get from a-z on any species change because we always have a hole...

Doesn't seem like scientfic proof to me...I personally would like to see the gaps filled.

Namatse wil,

science doesn't deal in "proofs" those are properties of math and other formal systems like logic.

science deals in evidence and the evidence for a change in allele frequiences in a population over time is quite strong, in my view.

do you know what retrovirii are?

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Brian,


"Dawkian" do you mean Dr. Dawkins?

his approach is quite aggressive and it isn't an approach that i perfer. though i understand the motivation and reasoning behind it.

to be frank with you that is precisely why science doesn't deal in proofs nor does it have laws, it has evidence and theories... when new evidence is introduced, the theory must change.

was it Eldridge and Gould that came up with Punctuated Equilibrium? that is one of the more compelling theories, in my view.

it should probably also be said that the debate in science is not if evolution happened. it has. the debate is over the mechanisms for such and i think that is often confusing to us non-scientist types.

metta,

~v

[wil]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

....do you know what retrovirii are?....it has evidence and theories... when new evidence is introduced, the theory must change.

lol now that is the definition of micro to macro...I'd like to see one, just one mouse, a roach even, some species where we have something and we are going to go microscopic for our proof...and then it is ok, if it is proven wrong at some point in the future no big deal....we said it was only a theory...

Seriously those are some of the best arguments I've ever heard, a. we have proof...except it doesn't have arms, legs, or eyes, any of that tricky stuff that presents a problem....and b. it doesn't really matter, we don't say it is a fact, we call it a theory, we just demand you bow down and accept our theory completely until we get a new one for you...

I'm not seeing the difference between science and religion...seems both take a leap of faith.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste wil,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by wil

lol now that is the definition of micro to macro...I'd like to see one, just one mouse, a roach even, some species where we have something and we are going to go microscopic for our proof...and then it is ok, if it is proven wrong at some point in the future no big deal....we said it was only a theory...

i have no idea what you are talking about.

science deals in theory. perhaps you've heard of the Theory of Gravity?

Seriously those are some of the best arguments I've ever heard,

then you should do more investigation on this subject since those are not agumentations that i am making, simply correcting the oft expressed misconception that science deals in proof rather than evidence.

a. we have proof...

that is not something which i have advocated so i'm unclear why you attributing things which i did not say to me.

except it doesn't have arms, legs, or eyes, any of that tricky stuff that presents a problem....and b. it doesn't really matter, we don't say it is a fact, we call it a theory, we just demand you bow down and accept our theory completely until we get a new one for you...

let me have Dr. Gould explain this:

“Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”

— "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton, 1994, p. 254.

I'm not seeing the difference between science and religion...seems both take a leap of faith.

let me introduce you to the Scientific Method:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy...AppendixE.html

metta,

~v

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'll try and write a book about it...

Hey Brian, are you serious about this? I wish you would. I've always appreciated the balance, as well as open-mindedness, you bring to these conversations. Anyway, good posts above.

luna

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Wil!

Ok 123, do we have to search high and low or will you provide links to what you alluded to?

Only because you asked:

Homo Floresiensis:
The Evolution Conflict
post 261

Solutrean-Clovis connection?
post 5 and 7

the Solutrean and Clovis cultures:
Solutrean-Clovis connection?

the Wild Man tradition:
Santa Theory
post 31 and beginning at post 38

Gawain and the Greene Knight

the Neandertal / Cro-Magnon hybrid child:
The Evolution Conflict
post 121 and 122

The Neandertal-Human hybrid question

Old discussions of the evolution debate:
The Evolution Conflict

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ution+creation

Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

Should be enough reading to keep one occupied for quite a while.

Enjoy!