Posted on 05/08/2006 1:17:07 PM PDT by mlc9852
Human interaction with animals could be causing evolution to go into reverse, says a report by the Royal Society, Britain's science academy.
A study of finches on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific – finches are the same birds that were said to have inspired Charles Darwin's groundbreaking work on evolution - has shown that some could be losing their distinctive beaks in response to living near humans.
Finches on the islands have developed different sizes of beak - but when people live in close proximity to the birds, their beaks revert to an intermediate size, the report says.
Andrew Hendry, a professor at McGill University in Montreal who led the study, told the Independent newspaper that the evolutionary split within the species was being reversed.
(Excerpt) Read more at english.aljazeera.net ...
Nah, you promote Godless atheism.
'Godless atheism' isn't inherently anti-American, like your Islamist pals.
You should. Google 'Sharia'. It'll probably seem like paradise to you.
I love Sharia - can't wait for the Muslims to take over here. Of course, I know we will have a fight with the ACLU but I think they can be defeated. And then we can finally get evolution out of schools!
Not a surprise by any means.
You are exactly correct. The birds didn't change, just the observations.
I understand that fully, and I understand the 'hopeful monster' theory pretty well too, Gould was one of the best scientific authors at explaining things in lay terms.
Notice, though, when I talked of the archaeoteryx, I described it as A transitional species... One of many whose predecessors-and origin-are not known, and probably never will be. However, the "chicken from a lizard's egg" (Gould's playful description of punctuated equilibrium) is the idea that eventually the 'compound interest' of all the changes equals a new and different species, then, eventually, a different type.
So, using your description:
Microevolution = a change within a species, usually by means of mutation or population shift of the species, that changes the genetic characteristics or population trend of said species.
Macroevolution = the 'compounded interest' of the above described changes which, over an unspecified yet outrageously long amount of time, changes the characteristics of one species into a seperate subspecies. When given more time, the said species may change to a different type.
That makes sense according all I have studied on the evolution of species. The question I still have, though, is: Which of these above definitions represents good empirical science? Microevolution is observable. Small changes happen. But in the end, a dog is a dog, a cat is a cat, a bird is a bird, a lizard is a lizard, and a man is a man. None contain the genetic ability to become the other.
Ex: When subspecies of the species canine (type mammal) are crossbred, you eventually breed out a new subspecies of the dog (i.e., the rottweiler, the dacshund, etc). However, one will never get closer to breeding the dog outside of it's species into, say, a horse. Not in a million years, no matter the what traits you try to breed out of the dog. Thus, empirically, a dog can never become a horse. Good, observable science.
To say that a rat-like creature, over a matter of many million years evolved into a deer like creature with three toes, which in turn over many million years evolved into the modern horse is bad science. O.K., O.K., the fossil record shows that 'transitional' species existed. However, many of these fossils are contested as transitional creatures simply because the like traits are often so slim that they can be interpreted as similar, yet different traits. Also, using what one can observe, there are many creatures surviving today which have like traits that are used completely differently from species to species yet do not closely relate the species. Also, as eveyone knows, the gaps in the fossil record, the inaccuarcy of dating fossil to stone without using preconcieved notions of the age of the strata (i.e. archaeoteryx lived during such and such a time because we found this fossil [which we KNOW is so old] in the same strata), and the constant change of scientific ability makes the fossil record hard to use empirically, anyhow.
Extrapolation beyond what can be reasonable understood and observed is bad science. The idea that evolution is the means by which the species of today are as they are is fine. Trust that if you must. However, it has too many holes to be accepted as fact. The vast amount of evidence, as it is in any court case, can be interpreted in at least two different ways. What it comes down to is that evolutionists believe in that which they cannot observe, thus making it a matter of faith.
So, keep on beleiving it if it makes you feel better.
But that is not what evolution does. The genetic code of all organisms fits neatly on a tree structure that matches the structure produced over the centuries by specialists in morphology.
When you are doing forensics, you look not only for patterns that match; you also look for errors and anomalies that match. In the case of typewriters, you look for matching damaged keys. In the genomes of animals we have an abundance of matching defects and scars.
It is always possible that God poofed all this into existence, but that doesn't qualify as a theory. There is no alternative theory to common descent, and even the ID supporters admit that common descent is a fact.
really?
"In the 1970s, the American lepidopterist Ted Sargent highlighted serious problems with Kettlewell's experiment[the study]. But no one wanted to know: his research was ignored by the scientific community and his career stymied. The peppered moth experiment was "sacred"; critics were "demonised", their views dismissed as "heresy"...According to Sargent, one thing is certain: the famous photos of moths on tree trunks were faked, using dead moths and a log. In the wild, peppered moths don't hang around on exposed tree trunks long enough to be eaten, preferring the shady undersides of branches. And then there's the nagging question of whether birds actually eat moths on tree trunks. Several experts claim that it does not happen in the wild. By placing moths on the tree trunks, Kettlewell was effectively laying out a smorgasbord for the watching birds, who soon learned when it was feeding time. This was not natural but unnatural selection."
-'Darwinism in a flutter', The Guardian (UK), May 11, 2002 (related to the book 'Of Moths and Men: Intrigue, Tragedy & the Peppered Moth' by Judith Hooper (W. Norton & Company)
"The story of the peppered moth, as Hooper shows, is not what it seemed. Nor is it settled. The dark moths have now nearly disappeared, but the debate continues. 'At its core lay flawed science, dubious methodology and wishful thinking,' Hooper writes. 'Clustered around the peppered moth is a swam of human ambitions, and self-delusions shared among some of the most renowned evolutionary biologists of our era.'"
--'The Moth That Failed', The New York Times, August 27, 2002 (review of the book 'Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale: The Untold Story of Science and the Peppered Moth' W. (W. Norton & Company)
the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not 'evolution in action'
-L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species
CarolinaGuitarman: What's embarrassing is how anti-evos...have no trouble lying through their teeth about what this study showed.
really?
Well stated - bravo!
The best we can say is evolution is possible as well as creationism or intelligent design is possible.
I guess were all gonna eventually find out which one is true.
Yes we will.
Actually the (broken) link from post #55 DOES talk about common ancestry.
"Darwin's finches are a prime example of an adaptive radiation. Fourteen or perhaps 15 species, all derived from a common ancestor, occupy individual ecological niches to which they are adapted, principally because of the size and shape of their beaks in relation to the food they eat."
The gaps in understanding talked about are gaps in the specific early relationships; there is no misunderstanding that the species all derived from a common finch species.
It uses a tree diagram to show the species branching off from the
Not true. There ARE separate species of finches identified, all from a common ancestor. Read the link from post #55.
Says you. Base on most of the imfomration I have found (including that which I cited), Kettlewell was bad science. Once again I think you are wrong. Can you present any supporting evidence to support your position or is it based solely on faith?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.