'Darwin's finches' revert to type

english.aljazeera.net ^ | May 4, 2006

[raynearhood]

Not that I didn't trust the story. I figured they had probably pulled the story from elsewhere anyhow, as they most likely don't have the means to do the research... or the credibility to print their findings if they did.

[Old Professer]

Altruism?

[Junior]

Ping.

[evets]

img src=http://www.shorefire.com/artists/devo/images/devo2_cover.jpg height=300 width=300>

[Sofa King]

This isn't evolution "going in reverse", they're simply adapting to changes in their environment. In this case, this is causing convergent instead of divergent evolution.

[OB1kNOb]

We are DEVO. D-E-V-O.

Did someone call?

Whip it. Whip it good!

[mlc9852]

What would an example of "reverse evolution" be?

[2nsdammit]

Here's the Scientists' site explaining, minus the al Jazeera hype/interpretation:

http://www.biology.mcgill.ca/faculty/hendry/finch.html

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

The only answer is for human beings to exterminate themselves so that large-beaked finches may survive and flourish.

Okay. Sounds good to me.

You go first. ;)

[raynearhood]

Micro-evolution, though. Change within a species or type that leaves that species the same cannot be reasonably extrapolated to prove that the species could change to a different type. Otherwise we would be able to observe Macro-evolution.

Besides, the moths are a poor example of micro-evolution anyways, just survivability of certain inherent camouflage abilities. The parent moths have the genetic ability to give birth to both black and white speckled moths. To say that this is micro-evolution is to say that blonde hair and blue eyes in Germany during the reign of the Third Reich is proof of micro-evolution because it was beneficial to survivability.

[PatrickHenry]

Yeah, right.

[Sofa King]

A specie becoming less adapted to it's environment (and not because the environment itself is changing faster than it can keep up).

[frogjerk]

Human interaction with animals could be causing evolution to go into reverse, says a report by the Royal Society, Britain's science academy.

Bush's fault.

With BUSH not securing the borders these so-called "birds" with smaller beaks will be crossing the RIO GRANDE in no time ready to eat the bread crumbs that American birds will not eat...

Total sarcasm...

[calex59]

This was a fake study. The moths were pinned on the trees for the photos taken and did NOT rest on either light or dark areas per se. Just another fake evolution theory that was totally rigged, and this is a fact you can check if you want to. Most evos know it was fake by now and like to sweep it under the rug, it is embarassing for them to mention it.

[mlc9852]

But I wanted an actual example of that happening if you know of any.

[Sofa King]

No, since it is a phenomenon that the theory of evolution does not predict happening.

[Radix]

Do the mosquitoes in the subways of London now suck less too?

[skr]

LOL!

[mikeus_maximus]

A specie becoming less adapted to it's environment (and not because the environment itself is changing faster than it can keep up).

Does the GOP count?

[2nsdammit]

Which is NOT happening here.

The environment is changing, with the addition of human-introduced food sources. The specialization of the birds toward different food sources is not so important anymore, thus the traits which HAD been selected for no longer are causing the divergence of the two beak types. This was a single species to begin with; it hadn't diverged as yet into two distinct species.