Posted on 07/13/2006 1:21:13 PM PDT by 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.
Yes it is. It starts with, "The bible is wrong or misleading in everything it says about life on earth therefore..."
"The bible says God created the animals in the 6 days of creation, context makes it clear that they are the same 24 hr days that we have now, and it also says that animals breed after their own kind. This is in direct contradiction to what evolution says."
That's nice. The Bible is wrong on those points. That doesn't mean that evolution starts with a denial of God.
"You seem to be missing a few details about either what evolution says or what the bible says."
And you seem to think that unless someone believes in your constrained, weak version of God they are atheists. You initial claim that the first rule of evolution is to deny God is ludicrously wrong.
That should be *your* not *you*.
Punctuated beakquilibrium?
Nice of you to admit that. That statement means the bible is wrong about what it says about itself. It says it's written by God and is has no errors. So out goes that which allows us to start questioning everything it says and who really wrote it. And you still think evolution doesn't start with "the bible is wrong so lets study what really happened"
"You seem to be missing a few details about either what evolution says or what the bible says."
And you seem to think that unless someone believes in your constrained, weak version of God they are atheists. You initial claim that the first rule of evolution is to deny God is ludicrously wrong.
So God is weak if He tells you how the world was made? Interesting logic.
Yes it does. Hint, it doesn't have to mention it to make the statement.
I have provided a definition of species. That you do not like it does not mean that I do not understand it.<<
There are more definitions that biologists use. Hanging on to that one, does not bode you well.
The evolution described is not a species turning into "itself", but rather specific physical traits emerging as a result of selective pressure. Misstating the conclusions of the article do not falsify the conclusions. Your lack of honesty does not falsify evolution.<<
Speciation did not occur when the finches were originally observed. The observers did not catch the interbreeding. Just like your observation about honesty. You don't know what it is...how can you know when it is breached?
DK
Your supposed "literal" interpretation of the book of Genesis is of fairly recent vintage. And the "literalism" you apparently take for granted actually consists of a great many insertions and presumptions supplied by the "literalists" to fill in the enormous gaps existing in the first three chapters.
The figurative and allegorical nature of Genesis is really rather self-evident to those who take the time to actually read it.
If a theory says A is true and a different theory says B is true and B conflicts with A....you do the math.
No it doesn't; PEOPLE have made that claim about the Bible.
Dead wrong.
data archive
My God has no trouble communicating and the Bible is what He said, and it is without error.
"Dead wrong."
No, I'm correct. The Bible was written by people. Some people claim it is the word of their God. That doesn't count as evidence either way.
"My God has no trouble communicating and the Bible is what He said, and it is without error."
Then your Bible must be different than everybody else's, because the Bible everybody else is using is wrong about the age of the earth, Noah's flood, and the fixity of species.
And you have not been able to sustain your claim that evolution starts with the premise that there is no God. Mostly because your claim is hogwash.
Not exactly. The theory doesn't exist and wasn't made in a vacuum.
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.