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.
"Is that an echo I hear?"
No, it's the sound of you being unable to back up your claims.
If you deny the Bible you are denying reality. You are right, the Bible and its truths (including creation) will not go away. That is reality.
Perhaps I should submit to a thorough examination by you so that I will know for certain whether I am a true Christian. : )
Frankly, though, I don't believe you have much understanding of what the Bible actually says about either creation or itself.
The fact that you keep on repeating that makes me think you must have missed—or simply choose to ignore—where he further clarified his position.
It's not that evolution starts with the premise that there is no God; evolution starts with the premise that the Bible is wrong.
Yet you don't believe in a young earth?
No intellectual honest person can believe in a young earth.
I have no idea what you mean.
"The fact that you keep on repeating that makes me think you must have missed—or simply choose to ignore—where he further clarified his position."
His attempts to *clarify* did not succeed. He is dead wrong about evolution. Evolution does NOT start with the rule that there is no God.
"It's not that evolution starts with the premise that there is no God; evolution starts with the premise that the Bible is wrong."
Which is very different from saying that evolution starts with the *rule* that there is no God. You help my argument, thanks. :)
BTW, evolution doesn't start with the premise that a literal reading of the Bible is wrong; that is the conclusion made AFTER the evidence is evaluated. It certainly isn't just evolution that has made conclusions different from the literal reading of the Bible. Geology did so before evolution.
No. The age of the earth is no more a matter of theological "belief" than is the position of the earth in the solar system.
Of course it is, otherwise it wouldn't be in the Bible.
You have yet to provide an argument to show that the theory of evolution is flawed or false. That you repeatedly deny reality and ignore facts does not actually show a weakness in any scientiic theory.
What does the Bible give as the age of the earth?
About 6000 years. It lists 7 days of creation and the blood line from Adam to Jesus. Then we conveniently count time from Jesus to now. It seems that the Bible and the calender have gone out of their way to give us the age of the earth.
Well, then, it's apparent you're looking to have a p*ssing match, rather than a reasoned discussion.
He is dead wrong about evolution. Evolution does NOT start with the rule that there is no God.
For crying out loud, get a grip. He revised his statement to say evolution denies the God of the Bible. Mm-kay? Move on already.
You help my argument, thanks. :)
I didn't say anything different from what he already said. Yet, for some odd reason, your 'logic' won't let him say it.
Geology did so before evolution.
No, it's not geology, it's your underlying assumptions—e.g. if something appears to be old, it is old—that say a literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong.
Why haven't cows and chickens evolved the slightest bit to eat us?
On the other hand.. the "tall tale crowd" will discount any new or old thing that advances the tale.. if it seems logical..
"The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense" - Tom Clancy
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.