'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.

[js1138]

I don't know much about cannibalism, so I can't answer, but it's an interesting way to drive a discussion into a ditch.

Are you willing to say that there is no common biological mechanism behind maternal caring?

[Last Visible Dog]

That's just a slur.

You mean like the way you call everybody that does not goose-step to the Neo-Darwinist party line 'creationists'

[js1138]

I don't see where you are contradicting me.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"When did I lie about God's work."

When you twisted Majerus' words to try and make them look like the opposite of what they actually said. Here is his conclusion:

"To end, may I put on record to you, that my view is that the rise and fall of the carbonaria form of the peppered moth has resulted from changes in the environments in which this moth lives. These changes have come about
as a result on changes in pollution levels which have altered the relative crysis of the forms of this moth. The main, if not the only selective actor that has lead to changes in the frequencies of the forms over time is differential bird predation. The case of melanism in the peppered moth IS ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES OF EVOLUTION IN ACTION< BY DARWIN"S PROCESS OF NATURAL SELECTION that we have. In general it is based on good science and
it is sound."

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199903/0312.html

Yet you tied to say that he was really saying it was junk. That's a lie, and as you claim to believe in a God that forbids lying, it places you in the position of being a hypocrite. One of the claims made against evolution has always been that it leads to immorality. Yet, the example of anti-evos argues against that.

"Can you prove God exists?"

Why do I need to prove God exists in order to show that you are a lying hypocrite?

"If you can't, there is no such thing as God's work and therefore your comment is yet more nonsense from CarolinaGuitarman."

Take a class in logic and come back and try that one again.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You are not even close - see what happens when you base your 'science' on faith and propaganda?"

No, it's exactly correct. ID says that an unknowable, unobservable designer did unknowable, unobservable things to matter in untestable ways at an undetermined time. If you ask an ID'er to provide ANY information about the alleged designer, or provide ANY evidence of how or when this alleged ID'er worked, they'll look at you as if you tried to kill their children. It's all a sham.

"ID says the origin of some things can not be described solely via Darwinist processes and design seems to be the most likely explanation."

An yet... their *designer* is unknowable, unobservable, and he did unknowable, unobservable things to matter in untestable ways at an undetermined time. It's a completely useless claim and has led to no new knowledge.

[js1138]

There are all kinds of creationists. I would say that anyone who rejects evolution without proposing an alternative hypothesis that can be researched is, at the least, anti-science.

There are ID advocates that accept common descent and a mainstream age for the earth, but until they identify some researchable characteristics of the designer, they are in the creationist camp.

[YHAOS]

"Are you saying there's no appreciable difference between a man and a rat"

Sure, why not? If, that is, higher and lower orders are defined in purely mechanistic terms.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

On page xii of the same forward, Matthews also said,

During the last fifty years genetics has unraveled many of the extremely complex phenomena of inheritance, and has shown that evolution by natural selection of random mutations, generally of small size, is a logical explanation of the origin of the immense array of organisms now and in the past living on the earth.

It's quote mine #4.7 here.

And why are creationists looking to 1972 for the current state of biology???

[Last Visible Dog]

And no physical evidence for ID in any form has been found

What a silly statement! The bacterial flagellum of E. coli COULD be physical evidence of ID. There are theories to explain the origin of the flagellum (Both ID and Darwinist) but neither has been 'proved' so ID is a possibility.

Your statement is more Neo-Darwinist propaganda. Like I said - one should never base their science on faith.

[2nsdammit]

"The finches were still and are still finches."

Yep, still finches. And still different species (actually, 5 genera, 13 species).

http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/courses/alvarez/1401/1401_1/sld039.htm

[js1138]

Sure, why not? If, that is, higher and lower orders are defined in purely mechanistic terms.

That may or may not be the only way to define differences, but it is the only way accessible to science. If individual scientists want to declare themselves to be philosophical materialists, that is their privilege. But science is methodologically materialistic. When it stops being useful, I suppose that will be its limit.

[blowfish]

The bacterial flagellum of E. coli COULD be physical evidence of ID.

What a silly statement: by those criteria, anything observered anywhere COULD be criteria of ID. Since there are no constraints placed on what ID actually is (just a handwavy philosophical description), the position of a rock lying on the beach COULD be 'evidence of ID'. So could the cubical shape of salt crystals. So could the structure of bones in my hand.

[Last Visible Dog]

There are claims that *noncorporeals* exist, yet there has been no evidence for them.

First of all the term is incorporeal. CarolinaGuitarman are you claiming logic exists in material form? Can you post a picture of logic? Logic is a concept - concepts are incorporeal. The applications of concepts my be corporeal.

Human Rights are also incorporeal.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Donner Party probably is more due to overcrowding than liking. Of course, some religions (Borneo, etc.) practice ritual cannibalism (to show conquest of the spirit of the enemy, etc.) Frazer's "Golden Bough" investigates (in a rather old-fashioned way) these practices in Europe.

[2nsdammit]

"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."

LOL!!

(Oh, wow, dude - that's really profound!)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"First of all the term is incorporeal."

Tell that to BB, she called them *noncorporeals*.

"The Universe contains noncorporeals as well as corporeals."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1628747/posts?page=273#209

You will notice, I referred to the word as *noncorporeals*, in quotes, as a way to question the word. So if you are going to make fun of someone for using that phrase, tell it to her face.

"CarolinaGuitarman are you claiming logic exists in material form?"

Are you claiming it exists somewhere else?

[Last Visible Dog]

When you twisted Majerus' words to try and make them look like the opposite of what they actually said. Here is his conclusion:

You are a clown. I have not posted any of Majerus words. Clearly there is a liar here - but it is not me.

[Last Visible Dog]

Why do I need to prove God exists in order to show that you are a lying hypocrite?

1. You claim I lied about God's work. Therefore it is your burden to prove God exists.

2. I did not lie about anything - you are the one that is lying.

3. Now you are calling me "hypocrite" - more baseless name-calling from CarolinaGuitarman (Name-calling is a sure sign one is in way over their head)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You are a clown. I have not posted any of Majerus words."

Who said this?:

" 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."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1628747/posts?page=193#178

"Clearly there is a liar here - but it is not me."

You really have no shame.

Please show me that it was NOT Majerus who YOU quoted on your post.

[Last Visible Dog]

One of the claims made against evolution has always been that it leads to immorality. Yet, the example of anti-evos argues against that. "Can you prove God exists?"

I have never claimed evolution leads to immorality so this comment is just more dishonest nonsense from CarolinaGuitarman.

It is you that attacked me using God.