Posted on 05/08/2006 1:17:07 PM PDT by mlc9852
Here's his second link:
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/jbpascar/Courses/Biol1010/ExtraCreditActivities/American%20Scientist%20Online%20-%20Adaptive%20Radiation%20of%20Darwin's%20Finches.htm
Apparently the link is too big or something. If you copy and paste the entire line and got to that link, it works.
Recent data help explain how this famous group of Galapagos birds evolved, although gaps in our understanding remain.
At least the author is honest enough to admit there are gaps; but gaps, they are. No evidence for macro-evolution in this article, either.
It's ridiculous articles like this that give crevos an inroad. What stupidity.
"Then where the alleles came from in the first place must be called "creation" :-)"
Or mutation... :)
Negative that, GhostRider.
I may not be an evolutionary biologist myself, but I've read enough Gould, Darwin, and Johannson to know that once a mutation, or pangenetic change (ahh, the elusive pangene theory we all forget), or an unexplainable break in the fossil record shows a change from one species to another... or a change in type, then we have what is called macro-evolution.
Oh, but we will argue that all changes are micro changes and eventually, though we can not observe it, a macro change happens when you compare the original species with the new species.
Problems occur though. Where in the genetic code of any known species can we see the ability to adapt outside of the genetic code? Mutations, you say? Name one beneficial mutation that has been observed in the last hundred years, even on the single cell organism level, that has caused a permanent change in the species. If you can, which, I believe, cannot be done, name one mutation in any complicated organism that is not identified by the disease it causes.
If it can't be observed, then how is it good science.
I'm not saying creationism, or intelligent design is good science either, just that evolutionary science, as it is today is based on a set of beliefs that the 'science' is molded to fit.
Try, as many have, but I will not be convinced otherwise. And, no, I am not open minded about this, just as I am not open minded about alot of things. Taxes are bad. Communism sucks. America is the greatest country this planet has ever seen. God is real, and He created the earth as we know it. These are all a matter of belief. Do I completely understand every aspect of any of these? NO, but I do know more than most. I keep myself educated about much, and from what I do know, I base my faith.
Didn't say it did. My comment was directed at the poster who linked the article and poated:
The link below, (although long, sorry!) is a reprint. There is ample evidence to support the common ancestor theory...
I was merely pointing out that the article did not support a "common ancestor theory'. Nothing more; nothing less.
I have 4 siblings. That makes me one of five.
Each of us have a different eye color.
I have 3 children, each of them have a different eye color.
The different finches of the Galapalos Islands have beaks which are not what their parents had. I'm shocked.
From Allelles to Zygotes, there is an almost impossible or rather (excuse the pun) inconceivable nbr of potential combinations.
How come all of the best FReeper threads are not about math? You know permutations, combinations, probability and statstics?
I love this stuff. Thanks for the ping.
http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch.html
"The parent moths have the genetic ability to give birth to both black and white speckled moths."
Well said and to the point. The genome ALREADY existed for both color schemes. One did not develope by mutation or other mechanisms of genetic change. One was simply selected for by changing enviromental conditions - it did not develope as result of those conditions - the genes already existed. Natural selection serves to preserve a species, not create new ones. Of course, I'm not saying anything here that hasn't been said a million times already - I don't know why I bother.
Apparently the same is true for Darwin's finches.
What the hell is a macro change? Give and example.
You replied to a post I made to another poster, which places you in the position of that poster since you were defending his position.
Your argument is not with me; it is with the other poster.
I can't give an example, that's the catch. It's a generic term representing the extent of change needed to evolve one species into a completely new species or a different type.
macroevolution n : evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups
microevolution n : comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level
I can give you a bunch of theories as examples, but they aren't factual examples, as the change could not be observed.
But, here's one theory:
Archaeopteryx was small, with a wingspan of 0.5 m and weighed about 325 g. Its feathers were similar to those of flying birds, but its skeleton closely resembled that of a small carnivorous dinosaur. The brain was relatively large for an animal of that epoch.
And so we have a change from dinosaur/lizard to somewhat of a transitional bird. Though a lot of the links between the archaeoteryx and it's original ancestor (which is not known) are missing, from lizard to bird is a pretty big (macro)change.
Even the rapid changed of punctuated equilibrium take tens of thousands or millions of generations. Rapid is a misleading word.
Evolution is like compound interest. The rates are different at different times and places, but the changes accumulate one step at a time. There are no macro changes in one, or even a few generations.
Oh, it's you again.
And once again you're completely wrong.
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.