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 ...
I'm sure someone's already said it, but there's no such thing as reverse evolution. Fitness allows for greater survivability of offspring and allows genetic material to be passed on at a greater rate. This is true whatever environment the population is adapting to.
That's just a slur. There are many unanswered questions. What science has is an approach and a methodology that produces reliable knowledge. What ID has is a statement that some processes were probably the result of invisible pink unicorns. The identities, characteristics, motives, strengths, weaknesses and methods of the unicorns is unknown, but whatever they did, it isn't variation and selection.
So cave fish that have lost eyesight isn't reverse evolution? I read about an experiment with them where they implated new corneas in them (some scientists obviously have too much time on their hands) and they expected them to be able to see again. And I would think extinction was a type of reverse evolution.
"Cows of the Corn"?
No. losing eyesight in cave fish is not reverse evolution. What would give you that idea?
With eyes like that, they can start to evolve into deep sea creatures!
caves aren't really that old.
They are a very recent addition (Subtration?) from the landscape.
E would have to work REALLY fast to come up with these eyes!
Didn't they evolve to have eyes to begin with or have they always had eyes since the beginning?
Its approach and methodology so far does not seem to reach to all aspects of the Universe. The Universe contains noncorporeals as well as corporeals. The scientific method only deals with tle latter.
It is equally a slur to say that ID is looking for Pink Unicorns.
That's not the question. The question is why you would call it reverse evolution. The fish would not have passed through this stage previously.
Passed through which stage?
The current condition is not a stage in the evolution of eyes, so why would this be reverse evolution?
Okay, let me see if I can explain it.
Did eyes evolve in fish or did fish always have eyes? What were fish before they were fish and was there a time when they (whatever they were) didn't have eyes developed yet? Once they have eyes, if they lose their eyes, is that reverse evolution?
IDer: 'This phenomenon must be the result of ID, because we can't explain it by known physical processes!'
Scientist: 'Well, yes we can.'
IDer: OK, *that* one, maybe not. But all *these remaining ones, definitely ID!'
(repeat ad nauseum)
And no physical evidence for ID in any form has been found, I'll focus on more rewarding debates, like counting angels on pinheads.
Like everything else,
one person's silly joke is
another's crusade:
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
"Phasing out the human race
by voluntarily ceasing to breed
will allow Earth's biosphere
to return to good health.
Crowded conditions and resource shortages
will improve as we become less dense."
Them first.
Perhaps that's because the "evidence" being sought isn't physical. Information isn't physical, for instance.
"Information is physical -- Charles Seife has not been the first to proclaim that the most fundamental entity in the universe is "information". Physicist John Wheeler, David Bohm, and Tom Siegfried among others have held this view as well, but no other author I've read has gone to such lengths to establish this idea as an undeniable conclusion."
Eyes would have evolved before fish. And the "loss" of sight in cave fish is an adaptation, not simply a loss.
http://loom.corante.com/archives/2005/02/15/eyes_part_one_opening_up_the_russian_doll.php
http://loom.corante.com/archives/2005/02/16/eyes_part_two_fleas_fish_and_the_careful_art_of_deconstruction.php
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml
I'd like to see you try to give an example of information that isn't embodied.
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.