Finches named for Darwin are evolving

Associated Press ^ | 07/13/06

[presidio9]

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.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

Hee hee.

[balrog666]

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[hail to the chief]

And what do you think evolution is?

[taxesareforever]

Keep it going Dark Knight. I'm enjoying your reponses to the guitar man and Dimensio. You got them on the run. However, they haven't thrown in the "strawman" and "non sequitur" at you yet but I'm sure its coming.

[cookcounty]

Any names picked out for the new emerging species??

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Any names picked out for the new emerging species??"

Nobody ever claimed it was an example of speciation. It's an example of natural selection.

[Tokra]

Explain how the same species, demonstrating smaller average beak size is a sign of evolution. If there were no smaller beaked birds in the general population a few decades ago, there might be an inkling of an inkling of a chance that it signalled the beginning of a possibility of some form of evolution. Your comment is a prime example of how you "old earthers" will jump on anything to help bolster your point of view, even if it really does no such thing. All this shows is that those with smaller beaks get more food and are stronger and more viable, therefore more likely to breed. The result is more birds with small beaks. Of course, I guess it all comes down to what the meaning of "evolution" is (if you can decide the meaning of "is" too).

Evolution doesn't happen in 100 years - it happens after hundreds of thousands of years.

Look at the Toucan with it's huge beak. That large beak evolved because of the bird's food supply. The same thing is happening with these finches. After several hundred thousand years of beak size changes, it is very likely that you will end up with an different species.

Here's how it happened with the Toucan - if the seeds the bird eats keep getting bigger, then the baby birds born with larger beaks will get more to eat. Since they get more to eat, they will be more likely to reproduce. Some of their babies will be born with even bigger beaks, those babies will get the lions share of food and the tendency to have babies with larger beaks will continue. If the smaller-beaked babies don't get as much food (because their smaller beaks can't deal with the larger seeds), the smaller beaked birds will tend to not have as many successful offspring, while the larger-beaked birds will. After thousands of generations you end up with birds with huge beaks. After a few more thousand generations, these large beaked birds are no longer the same bird as their smaller-beaked distant relatives.

This is how evolution works.

It's you anti-evolution crowd that keeps changing the definition of "evolution". Every time a discovery comes along that points to the existence of evoluton - the creationists will decide that evolution REALLY means something else.

Evolution means just what Darwin defined it as - the survival of the fittest. If the smaller beaked finches are "fitter" then they will survive better than their larger beaked relatives. Check back with them in 300,000 years and they will have become a whole new species.

I haven't "changed" the definition of evolution one whit.

[webstersII]

"The definition of 'species' is not 'squishy'. It is somewhat ambiguous at borders, because of the nature of speciation, but the term is well-understood regardless."

LOL

It is somewhat ambiguous at borders, because of the nature of speciation

That is circular logic at its finest.

[Dimensio]

That is circular logic at its finest.

Please explain how the logic is circular.

[Dimensio]

That doesn't sound squishy to you? It is not well understood, it is flexible to the point of uselessness.

Please explain how the fuzziness of species barriers poses a problem for the theory of evolution. Be specific.

Evolution cannot be both a theory and a fact.

It is a fact that alelle frequencies change over time. The explanation for the process that causes such shifts in alelle frequencies is theory. Your statement is demonstratably false

I have mentioned several biological tech advances that don't require any evolutionary belief or training, but are far more important to humanity. When I ask about the usefulness of ToEs, I get sent to pages that describe computer genetic algorithms that spit out obscure circuit designs or other bizarre fringy stuff.

Please explain why genetic algorithms, which produce useful and efficient circuit designs, are "fringy".

So why am I obligated to prove my knowledge to you?

You have made a claim that is hinged upon your knowledge of the subject. If you cannot demonstrate adequate knowledge of the subject, then your claim is questionable.

[Dimensio]

Are you going to support your previous unsubstantiated assertion that the rebuttal to Ann Coulter's claims that I referenced are "garbage", or are you going to continue changing the subject every time you are asked to provide evidence for a claim?

[Dark Knight]

Please explain how the fuzziness of species barriers poses a problem for the theory of evolution. Be specific.<<

You don't know what a species is. That is one of the reasons there are crappy results for ToEs.

>>It is a fact that alelle frequencies change over time. The explanation for the process that causes such shifts in alelle frequencies is theory. Your statement is demonstratably false<<

If evolution is both a theory and a fact...biologists have been giving the public crap for years.

Pick either a phenomena or a theory. But don't claim both.

Your statement is methodological crap.

>> Please explain why genetic algorithms, which produce useful and efficient circuit designs, are "fringy".<<

Gee, the underpining theory of all biology can produce some minorly useful "circuit design" when I cited MAJOR advances that will help humanity in incredible ways.

Gee. Sounds kind of fringy to me.

>>You have made a claim that is hinged upon your knowledge of the subject. If you cannot demonstrate adequate knowledge of the subject, then your claim is questionable.<<

Look in a mirror. ToEs have not proved their usefulness. Obscure circuits vs man machine interfaces. You just don't get it.

Your claim is questionable. Biology is doing wonderful things. ToEs aren't

I look forward to the wonderful things biology has to offer.

ToEs just aren't that important.

Thanks

DK

[Dimensio]

You don't know what a species is. That is one of the reasons there are crappy results for ToEs.

How are the results "crappy"?

If evolution is both a theory and a fact...biologists have been giving the public crap for years.

Pick either a phenomena or a theory. But don't claim both.

It has already been explained to you that the process of evolution, alelle frequency change over time, is a fact while the explanation behind the causes for such changes is the theory of evolution. Willfully ignoring this explanation does not make the distinction "crap".

Gee, the underpining theory of all biology can produce some minorly useful "circuit design" when I cited MAJOR advances that will help humanity in incredible ways.

The existence of advances that do not rely on evolution does not negate the existence of advances brought about from the theory of evolution.

[Dark Knight]

Gee, the underpining theory of all biology can produce some minorly useful "circuit design" when I cited MAJOR advances that will help humanity in incredible ways.<

The existence of advances that do not rely on evolution does not negate the existence of advances brought about from the theory of evolution.<<

Still don't get it. ToEs have not brought any real advances in science. They are still in the thought experiment stage.

Obscure circuit design is the best it can do?

That is because it has "crappy definitions" (like species) or silly definitions like natural selection or random mutation aren't well defined.

But when you get results, I'll look at it again.

Crappy science, crappy results.

DK

[Dark Knight]

What is a species?

I know the definitions. You will crap out on this one.

Explanations without bound...you have not produced results.

You would be fired in the private sector...just like Ghost Busters.

>>The existence of advances that do not rely on evolution does not negate the existence of advances brought about from the theory of evolution.<<

What advances?

That is what I've been asking for for decades.

DK

[LibertarianSchmoe]

From Dark Knight (bolding mine):

I'm excited as heck that someone figured out how to send a single strand of DNA through a microchannel and sequence the DNA

I'm excited as heck that someone may be able insert DNA into a correct place using carbon nanotubes.

I'm excited as heck someone found a compound the body does not reject and appears to be able to build prothetics that can interface with the host.

I'm excited as heck that someone figured out how to use stem cells to coax damaged spinal cords to grow into functional stuff

What if you found out that all of these someones were also evil-utionists?

[Dark Knight]

What if you found out that all of these someones were also evil-utionists?<<

Since their discoveries were neutral to evolution...like most discoveries...

Don't care.

DK

LOL

[LibertarianSchmoe]

You know, DK, you may be right. Maybe all this evolution stuff is just fiction. So tell me, what's the alternative explanation for the variety of life on Earth?