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 ...
You must be a very selective reader (see faith)
Your info is dead wrong.
Once again - says you. And once again it looks like you are wrong. Did you actually read the link you posted? It points out problems with Kettlewell's methods.
I did present evidence.
An opinion piece from talkorigns.org. Do you ever venture into the scary world of information beyond the womb of the evolution-faithful?
I'll read the post and thread but, a post from Al-jazeera!? What were you thinking?
What would an example of "reverse evolution" be?
There is no such thing.
Then why don't all species evolve for survival? Shouldn't evolution prevent extinction?
Species evolve into other species for survival.
*A* (Post 32)A specie becoming less adapted to it's environment (and not because the environment itself is changing faster than it can keep up).
*B* (post 124)There is no such thing.
But science is not done by popular vote, so there seems to be a problem here. How do we decide which is right?
You can't find anything wrong with the talkorigin piece and you can't admit it.
I believe it's far beyond reasonable dispute that natural selection plays an important role in how animal species develop over time to better fit environmental niches.
I think you believe wrongly. BTW, what's your hypothesis about how 'species develop over time to better fit environmental niches'?
The same story has been linked to other sources. Hey, don't you think it's good to get info from different sources? I want to know what Al-Jazeera is saying. I don't believe in burying my head in the sand. I try to keep an open mind.
"Species evolve into other species for survival."
You may want to think about that. What would cause extinction if species could just "evolve" their way out? And species don't really change - they just adapt to their conditions as God planned.
that's my conclusion too
Well the Muslims are your natural ally.
Actually I am not very fond of Muslims at all. If I had my way, they would not be allowed in the US. But believe what you want - I do.
"What would cause extinction if species could just "evolve" their way out?"
I already told you:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1628747/posts?page=88#88
"And species don't really change - they just adapt to their conditions as God planned."
And *is* isn't really *is*.
It's you who believe as they do.
Too bad two Tarheels can't get along.
The finches were still and are still finches.
Really? What do "they" believe?
But science is not done by popular vote, so there seems to be a problem here. How do we decide which is right?
Picky, picky. Nice try, but not a very good one. 'Reverse' is the important word here. Reverse implies a direction with, *usually*, a negative connotation. If I reverse (or change) the direction my car is traveling in car to avoid an accident, however, it's not so negative.
A species becoming less adapted to it's environment is not a 'reversal', obviously. In fact, wonder of wonders, that's sometimes what drives a species to evolve into another species, or become extinct. And whether or not the former is and advance and the latter a reversal is a subjective human abstract construct.
"And whether or not the former is and advance and the latter a reversal is a subjective human abstract construct."
Yeah, sometimes extinction is just the best thing for a species, right?
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.