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 ...
Let's leave it at that. :)
Or... we can leave on something we can both agree on:
Ted Kennedy is a bloated idiot. :)
Hear, Hear!
How do we decide which is right?
It all depends on which "cracked skull"
they are looking at, at the time.
:)) I love to read Carolina banjo players' posts....they are quite entertaining......can't be taken serious. B_sharps answers are educated and thought out. They make me think and are logical whether we agree or not.....but carolinabanjo player is funny....
Can you give a specific example? I don't like to answer vague questions.
Well, there were several other links of the same story from what you would probably consider more reputable sources. Would you like me to hunt the other sources for you? Or do you just not believe the story?
Can you give a specific example? I don't like to answer vague questions.
It's not a vague question. It's a question of principle.
Why... by following the edict that E Central puts out, silly!
But they COULD be!
--EvoDude
It appears so...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=just+needs+killin&btnG=Google+Search
Redundant!
*Even a stopped clock is right twice a day*
Evo answer to the objection about having the backing of the ACLU. I guess it can apply to other groups as well.
So you can't give an example? Then how can I answer?
So you can't give an example? Then how can I answer?
Having trouble with questions of principle? I'm sure you can come up with many examples, as could I. But the principle is whether or not human interests supersede the possibility of a species going extinct. Is it right or wrong for humans to engage in behavior that is beneficial to human beings if the result is a species going extinct?
At any rate, I'm soon out the door for the day.
How much human interaction will be required before they can swim away from the island?
I would put the needs and well-being of humans before animals, if that is your question.
LOL - maybe they can just build little boats after they have evolved some more.
CarolinaGuitarman, you are like a caricature.
This is from your link: " The 'design flaws' in some of the experiments, if you want to call them that were primarily a result of practical expediency because Kettlewell wanted to be able to see birds taking moths, and to film them."
design flaws = bad science
practical expediency = faking results
The evo fanboys try to spin it, but it is what it is.
Kettlewell was not all wrong, but it was bad (incomplete/inventing results to fit one's desired outcome)
Open your eyes and then open your mind.
talkorign.org is an evolution fanboy site fulled lots of opinion.
Funny, you can't find anything wrong with the book 'Of Moths and Men: Intrigue, Tragedy & the Peppered Moth' by Judith Hooper (W. Norton & Company) and you can't admit it. In psychology that is referred to as projection
Ya know - when I read those posts I could swear I hear "Dueling Banjos" faintly in the distance - Deliverance was filmed in South Caralina - now it makes sense.
:-)
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.