Finches named for Darwin are evolving

Associated Press ^ | 07/13/06

[tallhappy]

Evolutionary changes occur with each generation. They don't usually create observable morphological changes.

This is semantics. By definition evolutionary change has taken place in every person or organism and does so as well in offspring.

In this case the 20 year time frame means that the phenotype was all ready there in the population but is reported to be a larger percentage than in the past. There was no evolutionary change to create the phenotype.

[Michael.SF.]

The Goddess, Ann Coulter, discusses this at length in "Godless" and in her usual style rips the Darwinists a new one.

Here is a link to a website that concurs with her assessment Darwin's Finches, 13 species.

[bobdsmith]

how does a shorter beak equate to evolution? it could easily be attributed to global warming or more likely a statistical fluke in the measurements themselves.

It's genetic change in a population - evolution.

[traditional1]

Don't care to argue Dawin's theory with you, but as far as Coulter goes, she sure knows how to crank up the Lefties (sometimes leans to excess in word choices, as far as I'm concerned......but TRULY can't fault her on getting responses from wacko-lefties)

[GOPJ]

Evolution is not a theory solely about speciation. It covers any genetic change in a population. Ie bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics even though they haven't changed species.

If you take out the part about speciation, you've got nothing. The Theory of Minute Change doesn't quite have the same impact. As I said before, when the finch "evolves" into something other than a finch, I'm interested. Until then it's as exciting as finding out that people with better diets are taller. They are. And that's not evolution until they start turning into something else - a dog - or a horse.

There's not one missing link - ALL the links are missing.

[onedoug]

Great for those who get their science from AP.

This is that same argument made against Ann Coulter.

[bobdsmith]

Biologists claim tigers and lions are seperate species...yet they can interbreed. Curious eh?

Btw seeing as Coulter is just rehashing old creationist arguments a good list of rebuttles to the usual claims about darwin's finches have been online for a long time. This is a particularly good rebuttle of Johnathon Well's arguments in "Icons of Evolution":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/finches.html

No doubt Coulter uses a few of his arguments.

[driftdiver]

either that or its genetic change in rulers. whats that revolution?

[fortunecookie]

im not aware of anyone using finches as a "proof" of evolution. It's a demonstration of natural selection.

Shhhh!! The fewer people who catch that (rather obvious) point, the better! At least that group isn't going to rush to clarify that small point.

[Tokra]

As I said - those who refuse to believe in evolution will come up with a thousand excuses as to why this change in finches beak size is not really evolution.

[BenLurkin]

[Coyoteman]

There's not one missing link - ALL the links are missing.

This is a transitional (missing link--except its not missing). Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[bobdsmith]

I give her a unique free pass on her choice of words as I think it is done simply to annoy liberals and the effects are worth it. In fact I wish I could come up with some of the stuff she says.

[xzins]

Finches named for Darwin are evolving

When checked last evening they had become something midway between a bat and a flying squirrel.

Commenting on the change, Val Kilmer reportedly stated: "Rocky the Flying MoonBatMan!"

Spielberg is planning a series. Boris&Natasha will both be played by Richard Simmons. Rocky Wayne, a reclusive rich man with a corner on the Nut market, has a number of famous names contending for the role. Rumor says that Tom Cruise, himself a famous NutCase, has proposed that he be crossed with cloning cell taken from Sly Stallone. Now, would that be Rocky IX?

[Cicero]

I heard these birds have evolved so far they now claim that Darwin is passe.

[bobdsmith]

If you take out the part about speciation, you've got nothing.

Then don't take it out. In fact leave it in because it is part of the theory. It just isn't the entire theory.

As I said before, when the finch "evolves" into something other than a finch, I'm interested.

That's the kind of thing a lot of posters have posted in this thread. Very odd. Why post to a thread you aren't interested in just to tell everyone what would have to happen for you to be interested in it? Only other threads I see that in are about soccer.

Until then it's as exciting as finding out that people with better diets are taller.

Well that isn't a genetic change within a population at all so I can agree with you that isn't evolution.

There's not one missing link - ALL the links are missing.

And the earth is flat.

[Mikmur]

This is surely not evolution, not at least to the definition of the word. This is purely adaptation. All species do this, including us humans. Until a bird begins to turn into something other than a bird, evolution is not nearly beginning to have fruit. LOL, evolving....FOFL.

Evolution: Biology the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.*

Evolution: Biology the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different (emphasis mine) organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material*

Adapting: the process or state of changing to fit new circumstances or conditions, or the resulting change*

Adapting: Biology the development of physical and behavioral characteristics that allow organisms to survive and reproduce in their habitats*

It is foolish to think we will see evolution happen. It is equally foolish to take it as fact at all seeing there is only proof of Adaptation and not evolution. However, many believe we come from apes, etc. never a connection just a hope for some I guess. Why you would want to come from a lower life form, who knows, but some cling passionately to such nonsense. 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. With what is happening in Israel we may soon have our absolute answer.

*defintions provided by Encarta dictionary.

[bobdsmith]

This is surely not evolution, not at least to the definition of the word.

one of the first given on this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is foolish to think we will see evolution happen. It is equally foolish to take it as fact at all seeing there is only proof of Adaptation and not evolution.

You are thinking of direct observations. That is only one of many many different fields of evidence. Biogeography and the fossil record (see post 52 for ex.) are two prominent supports for common ancestory.

[onedoug]

"...believe in evolution...." The only thing I really believe in is God.

It's a fair hypothesis, though I woudn't attempt to unify it with quantum theory just yet.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 380 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.