Finches named for Darwin are evolving

Finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping confirm it — by evolving.

A medium sized species of Darwin's finch has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds just two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for its original food source.

The altered beak size shows that species competing for food can undergo evolutionary change, said Peter Grant of Princeton University, lead author of the report appearing in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Grant has been studying Darwin's finches for decades and previously recorded changes responding to a drought that altered what foods were available.

It's rare for scientists to be able to document changes in the appearance of an animal in response to competition. More often it is seen when something moves into a new habitat or the climate changes and it has to find new food or resources, explained Robert C. Fleischer, a geneticist at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and National Zoo.

This was certainly a documented case of microevolution, added Fleischer, who was not part of Grant's research.

Grant studied the finches on the Galapagos island Daphne, where the medium ground finch, Geospiza fortis, faced no competition for food, eating both small and large seeds.

In 1982 a breeding population of large ground finches, Geospiza magnirostris, arrived on the island and began competing for the large seeds of the Tribulus plants. G. magnirostris was able to break open and eat these seeds three times faster than G. fortis, depleting the supply of these seeds.

In 2003 and 2004 little rain fell, further reducing the food supply. The result was high mortality among G. fortis with larger beaks, leaving a breeding population of small-beaked G. fortis that could eat the seeds from smaller plants and didn't have to compete with the larger G. magnirostris for large seeds.

That's a form of evolution known as character displacement, where natural selection produces an evolutionary change in the next generation, Grant explained in a recorded statement made available by Science.

Evolutionist Re-Definition Council Minutes:

Chair: This monthly meeting is called to order. The first and only order of business today is whether we should allow our definition of "evolution" to, er, uh, evolve from what we adopted in our last meeting.

Definition sub-committee chair: Mr. Chairperson, since we've not found anything since our last meeting that conflicts with our previously adopted definition, I make a motion to the effect that we not change, er, uh, allow the definition to evolve at this time.

Chair: Do I hear a second. The motion has been second-ed. All in favor of adopting the motion as second-ed, signify your agreement by saying "aye". All opposed, "nay".

Chair: The "ayes" have it and let the minutes reflect that the definition remains unchanged for the time being. However, as chair I reserve the right to call a special meeting of the Council when evidence contrary to our previous understanding come to our attention and it becomes apparent the definition of the term "evolution" must be allowed to evolve once again so as to provide our staunchest adherents ammunition to fend off what we all would consider "by definition", unwarranted criticisms.

Chair: Meeting adjourned.

Until a bird begins to turn into something other than a bird, evolution is not nearly beginning to have fruit. LOL, evolving....FOFL.

Done laughing? Now pick yourself up off the ground (was it really that funny?) and examine the nature of your post. You went on to pick and choose part of the 1st Encarta definition of evolution:

the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.

For some strange reason you decided to end the quotation there. Lost interest? Or something more sinister? (BTW, creationists usually employ ellipses. At least it would have been more honest of you to do so here.) Continuing the quote:

According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.

Hmmm, sounds a bit closer to the finch story in the post, now doesn't it? Was this a mistake on your part? Or what?

I will admit the 2nd Encarta definition is pretty weak - but you carefully omitted the phrase, clearly bolded, BTW, "Developmental process." In that sense, the definition is more acceptable, though the phrase, "over time" at the end would perhaps have helped.

But again I ask, why in the world did you pick and choose what you chose to lift from Encarta? Oh wait, that's right. Because you are a creationist and as we've seen literally hundreds of times, creationists have no scruples when it comes to their Bronze Age faith.

However, many believe we come from apes, etc. never a connection just a hope for some I guess.

No. Only creationists think that their boogeyman caricature of scientists think that. No one who knows 7th grade basic biology thinks that. And what of Coyoteman's post upthread? The ones with the skulls.

Why you would want to come from a lower life form, who knows, but some cling passionately to such nonsense.

I'm confident I came from my h. sapiens parents. And I hope you aren't calling them low-lifes.

Critical and intellectually honest thinkers know evolution is at best unprovable by normal scientific standards and at worst (and which I believe to be true) a tremendous hoax perpetrated on mankind to prevent being held accountable for actions and to minimize the importance of God and religion in our lives.

Wow, are you confused. Firstly, no theory in science is ever "provable." None. Never. "Theory" is the highest a scientific idea can ever go. Second, I'll agree: it would be a "tremendous hoax," that's for sure. But not nearly as big as the hoax the Christian God must have played on us all if he created the fossil, astronomic, geological, paleontological, etc record. Is God actually Loki? And third, no theory in science even mentions a God - any god - as science does not address the supernatural by definition. Sheesh, where did you get these ideas? (FWIW, your religion certainly minimizes Allah, Thor, and The Crow - why is that?)

With what is happening in Israel we may soon have our absolute answer.

Say what? Finches evolving off the Western coast of South America are playing a part in the Israeli conflict? Huh?

There have been so many misinterpretations of the fossil record that it is no longer is humorous.

Yes misinterpretations made by evolution skeptics

As for the fossil record, much has been found that is not reported, such as a human child foot print on the same level as pre-human animals

Case in point - countless frauds and misinterpretations of fossil footprints made by evolution skeptics: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Few true scientists believe firmly in evolution anymore. No honest ones do.

Over 99% of biologists do.

Biogeography: the study of the geographical distribution of plants and animals. Hard to see how this has any effect on true science.

Biogeography was one of, if not the most prominent field of evidence that led Darwin to realise common ancestory of species. The pattern of geographical distribution of plants and animals on the Earth fits well with what would have to be true if the theory of evolution were. Ie it fits what evolution expects.

Evolution expects that newly formed remote islands such as Hawaii can only be populated by species from the mainland.

It expects that species on nearby mainlands would have a better chance of reaching the remote island than species on the otherside of the world.

It therefore expects that island species will tend to be more similar to nearby mainland species than further away species. This is observed.

It also expects that certain classes of animal would be more likely to reach remote islands (birds) than others (land mammals) and therefore that remote islands should be heavily populated with birds at the expense of land mammals for example. Again this is observed. Remote islands tend to be dominated by the type of plants, insects and land mammals that would have had more chance of reaching those islands from the nearby mainland. It is no suprise under the evolution model that there are no native reptiles or amphibeans on hawaii, or that the only native mammals are bats.

Luck also plays a role as out of all types of birds on the nearby mainland only a few will reach a very remote island. Therefore evolution expects that only a fraction of mainland bird types, for example, will be represented on an island. This is observed - remote islands are sometimes missing even one species from a certain class of animal or plant, while having an abundance of species of another class.

Evolution expects that once a species does establish on the island it will diverge from it's ancestoral mainland species due to isolation and it will be very unlikely for it to travel elsewhere. Therefore evolution expects a high number of endemic species on remote islands - species that are found only on that island and nowhere else. This is observed.

Evolution also expects that one species which establishs on a remote island can found an ancestral tree of speciation to form an entire array of ancestral species on the island. Therefore evolution expects that while some classes of animal or plant might not be represneted at all, other classes will be heavily represented by many similar species. Again this is observed. Remote islands have such lop-sided distributions of organisms.

All of this which evolution expects must be the case is what is observed. And this is just scratching the surface of how well biogeography supports common descent.

Animals grouped together in fossils could be a result of a massive catastrophic event.

Perhaps if they were distributed at random all mixed up. But they are found in a consistant order.

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.