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.
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.
Why haven't we evolved wings on our backs and wheels on our feet?
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?!
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,
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.
"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.
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.
Creationists are black holes of ignorance sucking in and destroying even the light of other posters.
Not to mention some of my keyboard strokes.
I agree with you.
If there really was a common ancestor, then what empirical evidence could be adduced against it?
Cordially,
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.
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
500 ?
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.