Skip to comments.
'Darwin's finches' revert to type
english.aljazeera.net ^
| May 4, 2006
Posted on 05/08/2006 1:17:07 PM PDT by mlc9852
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 401-415 next last
To: mikeus_maximus
Strictly speaking, Darwin did not write about a direction to evolution (better and better, for instance) but spoke only of change.
If I remember correctly it was Darwin who described the now-extinct Irish Elk, who through continued selection wound up with antlers so huge the animal could not navigate a forest.
So in Darwinian theory, if a species moved all the way to a single-cell blob from a complex finch, that would not be de-evolution, just evolution from one state to another.
41
posted on
05/08/2006 1:59:40 PM PDT
by
DBrow
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: Junior; PatrickHenry
Further evidence that natural selection is true and macro-evolution is false.
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: CheyennePress
It is strange. Just wanted to see what everyone else thought about it.
45
posted on
05/08/2006 2:07:36 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: All
Ok, then, give me a call when these birds devolve back into reptiles, or snails, or bacteria, or whatever it is you Evos claim they evolved from.
46
posted on
05/08/2006 2:07:43 PM PDT
by
Robwin
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: connectthedots
Right, and wrong.
It is support for natural selection, since the beak size trait being selected for no longer matters, due to the introduction of new food sources (apparently).
This study says nothing about "macro-evolution". These birds were all members of the same species, which had been diverging, but now are not.
There are several (I think 14?) other species on the islands which HAVE diverged into separate species from a common ancestor.
48
posted on
05/08/2006 2:10:31 PM PDT
by
2nsdammit
(By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
To: Robwin
Read the sources, and try not to be so ignorant next time you make a comment....
49
posted on
05/08/2006 2:11:50 PM PDT
by
2nsdammit
(By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
To: vpintheak
Correct. This study only intailed one species, which had appeared to be diverging, but were still able to produce viable offspring.
50
posted on
05/08/2006 2:13:31 PM PDT
by
2nsdammit
(By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
To: connectthedots
Just go on believing that as it makes you feel good -- regardless of the logical error you are making.
51
posted on
05/08/2006 2:15:19 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: mlc9852
What would an example of "reverse evolution" be?It's your thread. You tell us!
52
posted on
05/08/2006 2:18:45 PM PDT
by
shuckmaster
(An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
To: 2nsdammit
There are several (I think 14?) other species on the islands which HAVE diverged into separate species from a common ancestor. This has actually been observed; or is it speculation?
To: DBrow
Strictly speaking, Darwin did not write about a direction to evolution (better and better, for instance) but spoke only of change.Then boy, he sure fooled Huxley! :)
To: connectthedots
55
posted on
05/08/2006 2:46:01 PM PDT
by
2nsdammit
(By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
To: raynearhood
All evolution is microevolution.
56
posted on
05/08/2006 2:49:40 PM PDT
by
js1138
To: frogjerk
57
posted on
05/08/2006 3:11:27 PM PDT
by
Elpasser
To: calex59
"This was a fake study."
Not at all.
"The moths were pinned on the trees for the photos taken and did NOT rest on either light or dark areas per se."
Not true. There were one or two photos that had both color patterns side by side that had the birds pinned down, because it is hard enough to find the moth let alone both color varieties together. It was simply used as an illustration of the two color varieties. ALL of the other pictures were of ONE moth that was photographed undisturbed on the tree trunks. The study was in no way faked and this charge has been refuted time and time again.
"Most evos know it was fake by now and like to sweep it under the rug, it is embarassing for them to mention it."
What's embarrassing is how anti-evos, who ostensibly attack evolution because it is supposed to lead to immorality, have no trouble lying through their teeth about what this study showed.
58
posted on
05/08/2006 3:21:32 PM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: 2nsdammit
From the first link:
In one model of how species form, geographical separation leads to evolutionary divergence. Recent evidence permits refinement of this model. I've always said that evolution is not a theory; it is a model. No proof of evoulution there.
As for the second linked page, it 'cannot be found', just like proof for evolution.
To: 2nsdammit
From the first link:
In one model of how species form, geographical separation leads to evolutionary divergence. Recent evidence permits refinement of this model. I've always said that evolution is not a theory; it is a model. No proof of evoulution there.
As for the second linked page, it 'cannot be found', just like proof for evolution.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 401-415 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson