Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Finches named for Darwin are evolving
Associated Press ^ | 07/13/06

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: balderdash; beakbullcrap; beakingnews; bewareofludditehicks; crevolist; evolution; junk; microevolution; pavlovian; princetonluminary; roadapples
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 541-547 next last
To: BigDaddyTX
Why haven't cows and chickens evolved the slightest bit to eat us?

What selection pressures exist that could bring about such evolution?
481 posted on 07/18/2006 11:18:26 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

Otherwise what "wouldn't be in the Bible?" The book of Genesis?

As I stated previously, what is rather oddly called a "literal" interpretation of Genesis is of relatively recent origin and is anything but "literal." Insertions and suppositions are liberally made to fill in the enormous gaps, and "literalism" is abandoned ad hoc to explain away inconvenient passages.

Genesis is not a simplistic documentary of physical creation. Spend some time actually reading and parsing just the first three chapters, and spend some time reading the myriad of theological works engendered by them. It will be enlightening.


482 posted on 07/18/2006 11:20:24 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: BigDaddyTX
Why haven't cows and chickens evolved the slightest bit to eat us?

Why haven't we evolved wings on our backs and wheels on our feet?

483 posted on 07/18/2006 11:23:29 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: Tokra

When Mom cut my pieces of meat into smaller pieces, they were easier to eat, and I gobbled them down quicker. If it caused me to grow stronger and faster (twenty seconds faster than if I'd stuck with eating larger pieces of meat more slowly), is that evolution?!


484 posted on 07/18/2006 11:24:33 AM PDT by Ciexyz (Leaning on the everlasting arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Creationism (YEC especially) makes claims that can be tested. , like a young earth, or Noah's flood, or the fixity of species...

If common descent is a fact, that "all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form", then in principle it is impossible to construct any empirical argument against it. For example, consider the hypothesis that the earth's bio diversity really is the result of multiple origins. If you assume that common descent is a fact, what conceivable empirical evidence could ever be provided for the possiblity of multiple origins? If all the evidence is automatically subsumed under that axiom of common descent, and it is therefore impossible to provide any empirical evidence for the possibility of multiple origins, then how can the claim of the factuality of common descent be evaluated scientifically?

Cordially,

485 posted on 07/18/2006 11:35:31 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz
If it caused me to grow stronger and faster (twenty seconds faster than if I'd stuck with eating larger pieces of meat more slowly), is that evolution?!

Evolution occurs across successive generations. It does not occur in individual organisms.
486 posted on 07/18/2006 11:39:38 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
As I stated previously, what is rather oddly called a "literal" interpretation of Genesis is of relatively recent origin and is anything but "literal."

You keep saying that. I guess you really believe it. I don't believe it for a second and it can't be proven. You may as well make some other unprovable statements about how 2000 years worth of Christians thought and call that a debate.

487 posted on 07/18/2006 11:47:04 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (More and more churches are nada scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Where, exactly, is "IT" written, and what significance does "IT" have?

Staying on the road of denial, you will never cross the road of truth. Not my truth, "THE TRUTH".

Ignoring the warning signs doesn't make them go away. The denial road is a deadly road. Continue at your own risk; either the road ends, you crash or you make a U turn. YOUR choice to either see or deny.
488 posted on 07/18/2006 11:57:47 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
"Well, then, it's apparent you're looking to have a p*ssing match, rather than a reasoned discussion."

Saying somebody is wrong is getting into a pissing match? What an odd world you live in.

"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."

And he is still wrong about that. BTW, he claims that that is the same as saying there is no God. In other words, if you say that the Bible is not literally true, you don't believe in God. That would make the vast majority of the world's population atheists.

"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."

You've got it backwards. Geologists started with the Bible creation story being literally correct, but the evidence brought them to a different conclusion. The geologists who discovered the Earth was old were creationists to a man.
489 posted on 07/18/2006 12:00:13 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

"f common descent is a fact, that "all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form", then in principle it is impossible to construct any empirical argument against it."

Incorrect, but thanks for playing.

BTW, you are evading the point I made about creationism and about how it can be tested.


490 posted on 07/18/2006 12:03:25 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The geologists who discovered the Earth was old were creationists to a man.

The modern creationist try to flush the entire history of science down the memory hole.

I have thought for some time that a high school course in history of science would be useful accross the board. It would satisfy the demand for "critical analysis," and it would reall pi$$ off those who claim to be in favor of critical analysis.

491 posted on 07/18/2006 12:04:11 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Creationists are black holes of ignorance sucking in and destroying even the light of other posters.


492 posted on 07/18/2006 12:30:31 PM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Not to mention some of my keyboard strokes.


493 posted on 07/18/2006 12:31:49 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
BTW, you are evading the point I made about creationism and about how it can be tested.

I agree with you.

If there really was a common ancestor, then what empirical evidence could be adduced against it?

Cordially,

494 posted on 07/18/2006 12:37:42 PM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Saying somebody is wrong is getting into a pissing match?

It is a p*ssing match when you refuse to move from point A to point B, and instead, continue in repeating something that's already been dealt with.

And he is still wrong about that.

How so? Evolution has to deny the God of the Bible, since the Bible states certain things about who God is, including what He has done, and how and (thanks to the genealogy) when He did it. Evolution says the Bible is wrong. The God of the Bible says He wrote the Bible and that it is absolutely true. The Bible says everything was created in six days, and every creature reproduces its own kind. Evolution says that's not how it happened at all, and that it's continuing to happen.

In other words, if you say that the Bible is not literally true, you don't believe in God. That would make the vast majority of the world's population atheists.

No, it would be saying whatever gods the majority of the world's population believes in are not the God of the Bible. There is a difference, although it's certainly understandable if someone who dismisses the Bible considers the difference too subtle or unworthy of mention.

The geologists who discovered the Earth was old

... would have similarly looked at Adam a minute after he was created, "discovered" him to have been a fully-grown adult, and overestimated his age.

495 posted on 07/18/2006 12:41:22 PM PDT by newgeezer ("Hezbollah" is deceptive. A better translation is "Hezb'Allah"; it means 'party of Allah')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

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.<<

Weak definitions, sloppy logic, and a lack of results...

Someone has a denial problem.

DK


496 posted on 07/18/2006 12:48:07 PM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Staying on the road of denial, you will never cross the road of truth. Not my truth, "THE TRUTH".

You have again refused to answer my questions. I am curious as to why you make such an effort to ignore my questions.

Ignoring the warning signs doesn't make them go away.

To what "warning signs" do you refer? Merely asserting their existence does not actually demonstrate their existence. Also, why have you continued to refuse to address my question regarding your previous claim about those attempting to "outdo" the God to which you refer? Who is attempting to "outdo" this God and how are they attempting to do so?
497 posted on 07/18/2006 12:55:13 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
Weak definitions,

Asserting that definitions are weak does not actually demonstrate that they are weak.

sloppy logic,

You have yet to explain how any of the logic involved is sloppy.

and a lack of results...

The theory of evolution has successfully predicted specific genetic sequences across species and it has been used to accurately predict the location of fossilized remains of specific organisms before those remains were found. Please explain how these are not "results" and explain how evolution is weakened or falsified by this.
498 posted on 07/18/2006 12:57:04 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Evolution has to deny the God of the Bible,

Evolution is a conclusion drawn from observations of reality. It is not the fault of reality that it contradicts claims made by specific religions. That reality contradicts religious claims does not mean that reality is making specific statements about those religious claims; it only means that those religious claims were in error all along.
499 posted on 07/18/2006 12:58:18 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

500 ?


500 posted on 07/18/2006 1:10:01 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 541-547 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson