'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.

[blowfish]

So what do we look for? Dreams? Feelings? Thoughts expressed in bad poetry?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Some IDers may say this, CG -- by that's not what the ID hypothesis says. As already mentioned, all ID says is that “certain features [not all features] of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.”"

That's not different than what I said, except what I said is a more honest appraisal. The *intelligent cause* is still unknowable, unobservable, doing unknowable, unobservable things to matter in untestable ways at an undetermined time. ID adds absolutely nothing to our knowledge of the world, though it does hinder incentives to go beyond *God did it*.

"You seem to be very impressed with an idea of "progress" (including scientific progress) which basically suggests that people living today are smarter than people who lived in earlier times."

No, I never even implied that. What I said was that knowledge about the world has increased through science. I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. :)

"But I find you are inconsistent in the application of this principle: For it seems you think there is no more "progress" to be made in evolution theory, because Neodarwinism already has all the answers."

That's a patently dishonest answer, as I specifically said that I don't believe that. In fact, I asked YOU to back up your claim that *NeoDarwinists* say that there is nothing more to be learned about evolutionary theory. Just ONE scientist who makes that claim.

All I got was distortions of what I said, and evasions.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"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."

There are claims that *noncorporeals* exist, yet there has been no evidence for them. It's an untestable assertion. What objective methodology do YOU know of that allows for the examination of *non-corporeals*?

If there is none, it's all mystical mumbo jumbo, on the same plane as Scientology and reading tea leaves.

[theFIRMbss]

>So what do we look for? Dreams? Feelings? Thoughts expressed in bad poetry?

Just for the record,
I don't run the universe,
just this spiral arm . . .

[betty boop]

I'd like to see you try to give an example of information that isn't embodied.

Well js1138, for openers I’d say: all the information pertaining to all existents in the Universe in the past (much of which still lives in human consciousness); and all the information pertaining to the not-yet-realized possibilities of the Universe that will manifest in the future. I imagine that we denizens of the present time do not see let alone “embody” in language all the (astronomically huge) amount of information, realized or yet-to-be realized, that is floating all around us (so to speak).

All of which probably sounds pretty useless to you. So let me try to relate aspects of the insight to certain important lines of modern scientific thought.

Superposition (more specifically quantum superposition) is the situation that obtains when an object simultaneously possesses two or more values for an observable quantity such as the position or energy of a particle. According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, it is impossible to see both values at once. And this is a problem when setting up an experimental design, for one must decide which one wants to see, particle or wave. The experiment cannot in principle be set up to test both mass and velocity at once.

So it seems to me, we have an “observer problem” here — or not “problem” exactly, but issue. For the experimenter must decide in which “mode” of the superposition he wants to work, particle or wave.

Now I figure FWIW the “information” contained in the eclipsed part of the superposition — the part of the complementary duality that the observer didn’t choose to focus on — contains information that is not “embodied.” Only the part the observer intended can give an informational report.

This “report” is a second issue of the observer problem: It already suffers from perspectival limits of observation. Yet usually it is intended for a public audience.

Now if all this still sounds pretty nutz, we can take our problem up to Schröedinger’s perspective. It was he who took the quantum superposition problem up to the “Newtonian level,” so to make it visible to human beings walking around in the 4D universe that Newtonian mechanics so ably describes. He did it by means of a thought experiment that was meticulously arranged to “mimic” actual technical capabilities available at the time.

His question was: Is the cat dead or alive or both? [Please Google “Schröedinger’s Cat” for details of the set-up of the experiment.]

As it turned out, all of these states are superposed states; the cat is all of them. But the cat that is “real” for us is decidedly not the cat we do not and maybe cannot see.

So this would be a third issue of the “observer problem”….

But I digress. My point is that there may be non-observed, non-actualized informational components that may become actualized and observable as the Universe evolves. In which case, our definition of Reality would have to be expanded to comprehend both “existent” and “non-existent” modes.

Wheeler joked about his friend Bohr in so many words: Niels says if it isn’t observed, it doesn’t exist.

I gather this is the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Funny thing is, I find a lot to admire in it, and first and foremost Niels Bohr himself.

Thanks for writing, js1138!

[js1138]

You've written a lot of words but haven't mentioned anything that isn't physical.

[betty boop]

Hey JC! Meant to ping you to #225, for you were the one who first brought up Schroedinger. And I think you're right about Shannon too.

Thanks so much for the original ping! Hope to hear from you further.

[betty boop]

You've written a lot of words but haven't mentioned anything that isn't physical.

Oh really???

I don't know what to say, js1138. Put your eyeglasses on??? Or maybe take them off???

Uncle. I give up. You've got me totally stumped.

[cookcounty]

"Actually the moths themselves have always been the same color. Its just the NUMBER of moths of "each" color that had changed. Just like these birds.

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

No, it's change, but it isn't "evolution." For "evolution" you need (at a minimum) the introduction of new genetic material, not simply the elimination of some characteristics in some individuals. Check your dictionary, see de-vol-u-tion, n. It's interesting that loss of specific traits is so much easier to document than addition of traits, A fact that lends support to the ID folk.

The biologists love to tell us about fish that lost their eyes, moths that lost their color, horses that lost their toes, hippos that lost their legs, birds that lost their teeth, Aunt Sally losing her appendix etc., etc., all to convince us that "little by little, the accumulation (!) of changes has lead to the structures we see today."

What these biomissionaries need is a Freshman Logic course.

[js1138]

You could use a freshman biology course. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in populations.

It is a fact that additional genetic material is sometimes added or subtracted from genomes, but the most common form of evolution is the change in allele frequency. New alleles are introduced all the time by mutation. Animal and plant breeders have been observing this for centuries. Mutations used to be called sports.

[csense]

Now I figure FWIW the “information” contained in the eclipsed part of the superposition — the part of the complementary duality that the observer didn’t choose to focus on — contains information that is not “embodied.” Only the part the observer intended can give an informational report

But unless the information is coherent, which at the point you are arguing, it is not...then what distinguishes it from noise?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I'll read the post and thread but, a post from Al-jazeera!? What were you thinking?

What should we expect from the Harun Yahya supporters, not to mention BAV.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Superposition (more specifically quantum superposition) is the situation that obtains when an object simultaneously possesses two or more values for an observable quantity such as the position or energy of a particle.

This is reading more into superposition than is there. The object does not simultaneously posses two (or more) values of a measurable. The same experimental setup, with the same inputs, may yield more than one value if repeated. It may seem a subtle point, but the measurables do not behave as if they were "possessed." In particular, quantum systems violate Bell's inequalities.

[hosepipe]

[ Now I figure FWIW the “information” contained in the eclipsed part of the superposition — the part of the complementary duality that the observer didn’t choose to focus on — contains information that is not “embodied.” Only the part the observer intended can give an informational report. ]

On being asked how can God be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. by an observer once.. It came to me that I was then, a Son, a Father, a Grand Father(and more) all at the same time.. What was I then?.. Depended on the observer, still does.. I pray that many/some get lifted in their observation(s) to see more.. Indeed many have a low vantage point to observe from.. but not all.. The observer problem(issue) has very much benefit to observer considering it..

[Conservative Texan Mom]

My cows aren't angry! They've just evolved nightvision. Pretty cool huh!

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Mini horses are great! We went out to the breeders that we bought them from the other day. They had three newborns at their place. So CUTE! The babies actually resemble a regular horse more than the full grown miniatures. The babies legs are longer, they're thinner, and their head is more in proportion. I swear it looks like someone took a normal horse and shrank it to the size of a poodle.

[JCEccles]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You are always a delight to read.

[blowfish]

Well js1138, for openers I'd say: all the information pertaining to all existents in the Universe in the past (much of which still lives in human consciousness); and all the information pertaining to the not-yet-realized possibilities of the Universe that will manifest in the future. I imagine that we denizens of the present time do not see let alone "embody" in language all the (astronomically huge) amount of information, realized or yet-to-be realized, that is floating all around us (so to speak).

(I'll assume this makes sense to you.)

Perhaps there are legions of spirits, phantoms, faeries, ghosts, angels and garden gnomes spinning about our heads. Clouds of virtual entities, all undetectable by banal, humdrum physical methods. Vast realms of scientific possibilities, all (alas) undetectable by hidebound, prosaic physics.
Fine and dandy, but there's no point in claiming them as a legitimate fields of physical study until you propose some means to verify or invalidate their existence. Otherwise it's just so much intellectual wankery. And trying to invoke said entities in a discussion about the evolution of bird beaks, as if these alleged entities are somehow causing changes in the little birds eating apparatus is...um...be diplomatic here...not a credible hypothesis at this time.
Although I like the 'clouds of flying garden gnomes' image', personally.

[js1138]

clouds of gnomes placemarker