1 posted on
05/08/2006 1:17:08 PM PDT by
mlc9852
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
To: mlc9852
Just like the moths in europe that were in my old textbooks. The moths got darker as the pollution/soot got on the trees and made the trees darker. And now that the pollution problems (from the 50's and 60's), the trees are lighter and the moths are getting lighter.
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.
2 posted on
05/08/2006 1:22:38 PM PDT by
geopyg
("I would rather have a clean gov't than one where -quote- 1st Amend. rights are respected." J.McCain)
To: mlc9852
So now they're
devolving into a
lower lifeform?
We are DEVO. D-E-V-O.
(But seriously, this just shows variation about the genetic mean, which is all that's ever been observed.)
To: mlc9852
The only answer is for human beings to exterminate themselves so that large-beaked finches may survive and flourish.
To: mlc9852
Ahh, micro-evolution at it's best.
6 posted on
05/08/2006 1:27:23 PM PDT by
raynearhood
("Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."- Ronald Reagan)
To: mlc9852
people have been breeding animals for all of known history, this is news?
8 posted on
05/08/2006 1:27:53 PM PDT by
kinoxi
To: Zionist Conspirator
To: mlc9852
As opposed to writing longhand?
11 posted on
05/08/2006 1:28:56 PM PDT by
SouthTexas
(Viva la Migra!)
To: mlc9852
Human interaction with animals could be causing evolution to go into reverse... Sigh.
12 posted on
05/08/2006 1:29:54 PM PDT by
M203M4
To: mlc9852
I really don't have anything to add, except the source of this is from an aljazeera.net server? I thought that area of the globe stopped evolving arround 800 years ago.
13 posted on
05/08/2006 1:30:16 PM PDT by
GreenAccord
(David Blaine tries to hold breath in water for 9 minutes, 2 secs more than Ted Kennedy's 1969 record)
To: mlc9852
16 posted on
05/08/2006 1:33:30 PM PDT by
Elpasser
To: PatrickHenry
23 posted on
05/08/2006 1:39:39 PM PDT by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: mlc9852
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.
25 posted on
05/08/2006 1:41:33 PM PDT by
Sofa King
(A wise man uses compromise as an alternative to defeat. A fool uses it as an alternative to victory.)
To: mlc9852
28 posted on
05/08/2006 1:46:17 PM PDT by
2nsdammit
(By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
To: mlc9852
Do the mosquitoes in the subways of London now suck less too?
37 posted on
05/08/2006 1:55:25 PM PDT by
Radix
(Stop domestic violence. Beat abroad.)
To: mlc9852
Wow! Evolution has reverse! And we thought it only had one speed.
42 posted on
05/08/2006 2:02:54 PM PDT by
RoadTest
(The wicked love darkness; but God's people love the Light!)
To: mlc9852
Am I the only one who finds this a little suspect? Why would their beak sizes reverse so quickly? First of all, these birds have a much longer lifespan than the moths, so you wouldn't expect them to revert as quickly as the moths do.
Secondly, I wouldn't expect something as trivial as beak shape to so greatly impact the outlook of a species. With moths, you have a very clear selective advantage in camoflauge.
With beaks, you have a specialization, but change should occur slowly. Further, unless humans are destroying large swaths of habitat, the long-beaked birds should still have a survival advantage for their selected niche because they are best suited towards that food source (even if the other birds are best suited towards human habitation).
To: mlc9852
I see, the birds are ADAPTING to their surroundings. But it sure sounds like they are still finches to me.
47 posted on
05/08/2006 2:10:12 PM PDT by
vpintheak
(What's worse, a liberal, or a know it all posing as a Conservative?)
To: mlc9852
But but, natural selection evolution is "directionless"! There is no up or down. Or left or right. It is "whatever".
It is patently unscientific to say that something "devolved". It has no meaning.
83 posted on
05/09/2006 5:12:30 AM PDT by
bvw
To: mlc9852
Strangely enough, Darwin did not create finches. I know, it's hard to believe since after all, he is a God!
89 posted on
05/09/2006 5:57:57 AM PDT by
Doc Savage
(Of all these things you can be sure, only love...will endure.......................)
To: mlc9852
94 posted on
05/09/2006 6:44:07 AM PDT by
JZelle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
