Finches named for Darwin are evolving

Associated Press ^ | 07/13/06

[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.

[Dimensio]

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

Evolutionary changes cannot occur in a single individual. They require a minimum of one successive generation to exist.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"She mentioned the finches as another example of Darwinian argument errors."

And she looked really stupid doing so. The only error was Coulter believing she knew anything about evolutionary biology.

[Coyoteman]

Critical and intellectually honest thinkers know evolution is at best unprovable by normal scientific standards...

To the extent that no theory in science can be proved, you are correct. To the extent that you are really saying evolution is a wild guess with no support, you are wrong.

...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.

It wouldn't be your religious background, rather than your scientific training, that leads you to that conclusion, would it?

[Mikmur]

There's not one missing link - ALL the links are missing. And the earth is flat. Why is it when faced with an unpleasant fact, name calling and insults are always hurled? You need help.

[tallhappy]

Evolutionary changes cannot occur in a single individual. They require a minimum of one successive generation to exist.

Yes. What I wrote reflected that:

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

[bobdsmith]

I just felt the quickest response to a blatent false statement was to post another blatent false statement in sarcasm. No insult was intended.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Someone needs to post a picture of Gregory Peck, as Atticus Finch, in "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Vicarious thread hijack attempt bump.

There, I feel better.

[Mikmur]

"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." There have been so many misinterpretations of the fossil record that it is no longer is humorous. As for the fossil record, much has been found that is not reported, such as a human child foot print on the same level as pre-human animals.....oh well...don't have time to provide adequate documentation on this...gotta go...but the honest person can find it. There is blatant dishonesty in the scientific community to either further a political agenda, such as global warming is virtually human induced or to keep the funding coming from either government of private individuals. Few true scientists believe firmly in evolution anymore. No honest ones do. Biogeography: the study of the geographical distribution of plants and animals. Hard to see how this has any effect on true science. Animals grouped together in fossils could be a result of a massive catastrophic event.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Bills can change from year to year in a single bird. Puffins do it regularly, as a mating signal. I believe I've read about it happening in response to environmental changes too.

If you find that the population of Japan averages three inches taller than they did seventy years ago, does that mean that the Japanese are evolving?

Mrs VS

[b_sharp]

You know, by definition, the 'missing link' will always stay missing.

Another instance of argument by definition?

[b_sharp]

"*defintions provided by Encarta dictionary."

Do Biologists get their definitions from Encarta or does Encarta get their definitions from Biologists?

[dread78645]

by definition, the 'missing link' will always stay missing.

Thus, the God of the gaps ...

[Elsiejay]

This is an example of adaptive variation, utilizing information already available within the birds' gene pool. To call this evolution, in the sense of generating a new species, is idiocy. The Galapagos finches have been demonstrating such responses to alterations in their environment for as long as man has been observing them and recording such variations in beak size and shape. But they remain finches.

[Coyoteman]

You know, by definition, the 'missing link' will always stay missing.

Another instance of argument by definition?

But they found this one. Does that mean it was never missing?

[Stultis]

So finches evolved into . . . finches. And in 20 years no less. What a dramatic transformation!

O.K., so maybe you can 'splain this to me, or anyone else who made similar comments...

Why is a case of adaptive evolution driven by natural selection no big deal, and readily accepted, even by creationists, if it concerns finches, but it's some BIG FREAKIN' controversy, probably involving fraud and conspiracy, if it involves an equally or more minor change in Peppered Moths???????

[atlaw]

As for the fossil record, much has been found that is not reported, such as a human child foot print on the same level as pre-human animals.....oh well...don't have time to provide adequate documentation on this...gotta go...but the honest person can find it.

I can't find it. Honest. Perhaps you could help.

[Central Scrutiniser]

[whattajoke]

Now when the finch turns into a frog, ping me. That's evolution.

I'm curious as to where you learned about evolution. Because your declaration above is most certainly not what is taught by the theory. not even close. In fact, I'd wager you know nothing of the theory, if you think that it ever posits that birds should "turn into" a frog.

In fact, if a bird were to turn into a frog, now THAT would finally be something that falsifies the theory of evolution. THAT would give you creationists FINALLY something to hang your hat on! The act of a bird turning into a frog would blow the theory out of the water once and for all. So you keep looking for that to happen, and we'll stick to reality, that is, the science.

[whattajoke]

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

No, bats and flying squirrels are mammals, the finches are not. If a finch turned into a bat or flying squirrel, evolution would be falsified and creationists would finally have something to hang your hat on.

But perhaps you are confused b/c the bible does clearly state that bats are "fowl," and since the bible is clearly infallible, that must be so.

Right?

[xzins]

You belie your handle.

In any case, to get evolution you need a transition to another kind.

That would be bird to mammal; fish to reptile; mammal to X.

But, you missed the humor. Rocky the flying moonbat.

Or would that be Batman VI?