'Darwin's finches' revert to type

english.aljazeera.net ^ | May 4, 2006

[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.

[mlc9852]

My daughter's best friend goes to State so it's okay. LOL

Just so long as you didn't go to Duke! Just kidding - I work for a Duke alum and he is a great guy.

[js1138]

They are the last major religion to reject evolution.

[ml1954]

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.

No, they don't 'evolve' their way out. Some do and some don't. As for whether or not that's God's plan, the Theory Of Evolution cannot say. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it's not. That's where religion enters in, and science has nothing to say about that.

[mlc9852]

I don't reject evolution. I just reject that humans descended from some unknown ape-like creature. Adaptation is how God designed life to survive. It's really quite ingenious I think.

[js1138]

Rejecting common descent places you squarely in alliance with the Muslims.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"My daughter's best friend goes to State so it's okay. LOL"

I am so relieved. :)

"Just so long as you didn't go to Duke!"

BOOOO!!! Never!! (I didn't have the money either, but that's a different story... lol)

[mlc9852]

Well, then I better go get a burqua!

[ml1954]

Yeah, sometimes extinction is just the best thing for a species, right?

What's *best* for a species and what is not is a subjective human abstract construct. Environmentalists often wish humans beings to change their behavior in a way that is not beneficial to humans in order to prevent extinction of a species. In such cases, do you think they are right or wrong?

[js1138]

You already have one on your mind. I think if I found myself agreeing with the AQs on something as important as science, I would ask myself why a major part of my brain is frozen in the fourteenth century.

[metmom]

*Nice try?* There were two different answers to her question. How do we decide which one was right?

[ml1954]

*Nice try?* There were two different answers to her question. How do we decide which one was right?

Both were right. They were not different.

[raynearhood]

As far as the 'dog' and 'canine' thing, I could have used the scientific classification of a dog from the kingdom to the sub-species, and even used a high speed Latin trinomial name for a specific breed. I chose not to, I was in a hurry to fishing and decided that my point would be made without doing so much. However, if you would like, in order to make you feel better about reading my side, I'll go ahead and use as many scientific names as possible. On second thought, I won't, simply because I don't like anything I write being called "Absolute cod-swaddle."

Sorry.

I was using the breeding of dogs as an example and being just a bit outrageous using the horse as the end result of the breeding. Still, one could breed and breed and breed domestic dogs and the end result would still be a member of the family Canidae. Change it's environment and still a member of the family Canidae...A dog.

Now let's ask some evolutionary scientists about my 'absolute cod-swaddle.'

"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools... Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence..."
· Fix, William R. (1984)
The Bone Peddlers
New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, p.150

"Moreover, within the slowly evolving series, like the famous horse series, the decisive steps are abrupt and without transition."
· Goldschmidt, Richard B. (1952)
"Evolution, As Viewed By One Geneticist"
American Scientist, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 84-94

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.
· Gould, S.J. (1977)
"Evolution's Erratic Pace"
Natural History, vol. 86, May

[Sofa King]

Both. I described something that doesn't happen, so there is, in fact, no such thing.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"As far as the 'dog' and 'canine' thing, I could have used the scientific classification of a dog from the kingdom to the sub-species, and even used a high speed Latin trinomial name for a specific breed. I chose not to, I was in a hurry to fishing and decided that my point would be made without doing so much."

Which made your point really silly.

"I was using the breeding of dogs as an example and being just a bit outrageous using the horse as the end result of the breeding."

Technically it's called using a strawman.

"Still, one could breed and breed and breed domestic dogs and the end result would still be a member of the family Canidae. Change it's environment and still a member of the family Canidae...A dog."

Depends on how long you do it.

""The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known..."

22 years old and talking about the specific lineages of hominids. The author did not doubt in the slightest that humans evolved from apes.

""Moreover, within the slowly evolving series, like the famous horse series, the decisive steps are abrupt and without transition."
· Goldschmidt, Richard B. (1952)"

An aberration among scientists. Also, it's over 50 years old.

"· Gould, S.J. (1977)"

And yet Gould believed that evolution was true and that speciation took thousands of years.

Do you honestly think that a few quote-mined statements taken out of context is actually evidence for Genesis? How sad.

[raynearhood]

The evidence CAN, in fact, be interpreted in at least two different ways. That is why we have court system that allows both a defense and prosecution.

What happens with juries is that are charged to make the best educated decision that they can according to the evidence before them. Often times, evidence is incomplete, sometimes it's not accurate, sometimes it's tainted and yet a decision must be made. Sometimes a jury is wrong.

I say the evidence is incomplete:

"The oldest human fossils are less than 4 million years old, and we do not know which branch on the copious bush of apes budded off the twig that led to our lineage. (In fact, except for the link of Asian Sivapithecus to the modern orangutan, we cannot trace any fossil ape to any living species. Paleontologists have abandoned the once popular notion that Ramapithecus might be a source of human ancestry.) Thus, sediments between 4 and 10 million years in age are potential guardians of the Holy Grail of human evolution—the period when our lineage began its separate end run to later domination, and a time for which no fossil evidence exists at all."
Gould, Stephen Jay, "Empire of the Apes,"
Natural History, vol. 96 (May 1987), pp. 20-25.

I don't trust carbon, argon, or uranium dating in an open system as there are too many variables over 10,000 years that could taint the evidence. The evidence has been wrong in the past, and proved false, (see http://www.bartleby.com/65/e-/E-Ramapith.html), and the present evidence can be misinterpreted according to preconcieved notions:

"..All of which suggests that it is easier to recognize bias in others than to admit it in oneself. It also probably means that some questions in paleoanthropology may well be impossible to answer with any degree of certainty—and human beings dislike uncertainty, especially when it concerns themselves. Combine these two truths and you get an inevitable result, as noted by Johanson: ‘Anthropologists who deal with human fossils tend to get very emotionally involved with their bones.’
Lewin, Roger, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987) pg.300

Go on believing in an interpretation of the evidence presented you, I'll continue to believe that which I find true in my life. We can both, in the end, live happy with what we believe, then both agree that Americans are over taxed.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The evidence CAN, in fact, be interpreted in at least two different ways. That is why we have court system that allows both a defense and prosecution."

But both interpretations are not equal. That is why we have convictions and acquittals.

The Gould quote just shows that all is not known about human ancestry. And that was 20 years ago.

"I don't trust carbon, argon, or uranium dating in an open system as there are too many variables over 10,000 years that could taint the evidence."

And yet radiometric dating comes up with amazingly consistent numbers. And the world is far FAR more than 10,000 years old.

"Go on believing in an interpretation of the evidence presented you, I'll continue to believe that which I find true in my life."

But what you *find true* goes against all the evidence. It's OK for you to have this delusion, just don't expect everybody else to have it too.

"We can both, in the end, live happy with what we believe, then both agree that Americans are over taxed."

Well of course the are. Most of the federal budget is unconstitutional.

Be that as it may, evolution is true. :)

[RobRoy]

"That's called a change in the allele frequency. In other words, evolution."

Not even remotely so.

[RobRoy]

"Most evos know it was fake by now and like to sweep it under the rug, it is embarassing for them to mention it."
So it's sort of one of those "Piltdown man" thangs? 8^>

[raynearhood]

10,000 was an intentionally small number.

I don't expect everyone to fall in on my 'delusion', I just enjoy the debate.

Oh yeah... evolution MAY be true, I don't know for sure, I just don't trust the evidence.