Darwin's Finches Demonstrate Evolution

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Azure

I really don't get the part about fish evolving the proper structure to survive on land.

Wouldn't they die before it happened? Seeing that they now need water to survive.....

The limbs were evolving to select those individuals that could best locomote in shallow water, support the body weight along the shores when buoyancy wasn't available, and that could facilitate short muddy trips from one tidal pool to the next.

[redforever]

Quoting from the article

"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."

The birds did not evolve or change their beaks. The ones with large beaks died, leaving only small beaked birds remaining in the gene pool. As the article says, it is gene displacement. It is a form of evolution, but it is not as some are thinking, that all the birds slowly changed their beaks over time. It happened quite rapidly and suddenly because of the fact that the large beak birds died.

If suddenly the "white" population became susceptible to something that no other human race was susceptible to, the white gene pool would soon be eradicted too, and thus only other "colors" would remain. This does not have to imply that over time, the color of the white skin became something other than white. And I am only using "white" as an example because to use any other color, would immediately draw the wrath of all those who think I then must be a bigot.

I am not speaking against evolution, I am merely clarifiying what the article clearly states.

There has been no proof to date that evolution has ever crossed species. In other words, that a fish became a bird or whatover.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by redforever

The birds did not evolve or change their beaks. The ones with large beaks died, leaving only small beaked birds remaining in the gene pool. As the article says, it is gene displacement. It is a form of evolution, but it is not as some are thinking, that all the birds slowly changed their beaks over time. It happened quite rapidly and suddenly because of the fact that the large beak birds died.

But isn't that natural selection? Isn't evolution (and correct me if I'm wrong) heavily based on the theory of natural selection? When a species average beak size is 3", and 50 years later its 2" due to natural selection, isn't that micro-evolution in action?

If suddenly the "white" population became susceptible to something that no other human race was susceptible to, the white gene pool would soon be eradicted too, and thus only other "colors" would remain. This does not have to imply that over time, the color of the white skin became something other than white. And I am only using "white" as an example because to use any other color, would immediately draw the wrath of all those who think I then must be a bigot.

Well... out of all the animals and species that exist, you could have picked dozens of other examples, but for whatever reason chose to use this one.

The birds with big beaks died out because they couldn't compete with another variety of bird. I find it hard to imagine a disease that struck down only white people, and left the rest alone. That implies that different skin-tones have different genetic structures? I'm pretty sure thats not the case...

[icarus]

Originally Posted by redforever

There has been no proof to date that evolution has ever crossed species. In other words, that a fish became a bird or whatover.

Speciation is a logical result of evolution. There would be no 'proof' because we don't have the luxury of making observations over the requisite millenia.

To me, what this article seems to do is lend some credence to Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium that speciation can occur more rapidly than neodarwinistic gradualism would suggest.

[redforever]

Quote:
Originally Posted by redforever
The birds did not evolve or change their beaks. The ones with large beaks died, leaving only small beaked birds remaining in the gene pool. As the article says, it is gene displacement. It is a form of evolution, but it is not as some are thinking, that all the birds slowly changed their beaks over time. It happened quite rapidly and suddenly because of the fact that the large beak birds died.

But isn't that natural selection? Isn't evolution (and correct me if I'm wrong) heavily based on the theory of natural selection? When a species average beak size is 3", and 50 years later its 2" due to natural selection, isn't that micro-evolution in action?

Yes, as the article states, it is a form of evolution, things have changed, call it survival of the fittest or whatever, for some reason or other, change has occurred. Mutation can also cause change that is genetically passed on. There are many ways that things can change or evolve.

Where some become confused is trying to figure out how say these birds could evolve and get a new beak, WITHOUT outside stimuli. In other words, would these same birds have evolved and changed the size of their beaks without having the factor of the large beaked birds die off? Would then the large beaked birds, all on their own, without external stimuli, change their beaks to be the same size of the small beaked birds?

Right now, within the human race, the young generation has bigger thumbs than their predecessors. Is this evolution? Or is it muscle development due to all the computer activity and games being played on the computer? In other words, will the thumbs of further generations stay large, will the large thumb now be passed on genetically, or will the thumb size remain the same at birth, but once again, become larger with electronic game activity?

[RedMan12]

Originally Posted by Azure

I really don't get the part about fish evolving the proper structure to survive on land.

Wouldn't they die before it happened? Seeing that they now need water to survive.....

then why is there fish now are that capable of surviving on land or breathing air? Also fish that have fins that are more like legs and capable of walking on land? Some fish can live out of water for a couple of days.

http://www.lookd.com/fish/airbreathing.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGCGI4CAD1.DTL
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/educ...erch/index.cfm

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by redforever

Where some become confused is trying to figure out how say these birds could evolve and get a new beak, WITHOUT outside stimuli. In other words, would these same birds have evolved and changed the size of their beaks without having the factor of the large beaked birds die off? Would then the large beaked birds, all on their own, without external stimuli, change their beaks to be the same size of the small beaked birds?

Evolution is a response to the environment. Adaptation for a species to stay viable and competitive. As far as I know, very little if any evolution occurs without stimuli. There is no reason for it.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Evolution is a response to the environment. Adaptation for a species to stay viable and competitive. As far as I know, very little if any evolution occurs without stimuli. There is no reason for it.

Exactly. Every species has an optimum environment to live in. Given such an environment, the species will flourish. But if that environment changes, the species is forced to change or you "go the way of the dinosaur".

Now, changes or adaptations are required if your environment changes. This does not however have to infer that the physical look of the species will evolve. It can merely mean that perhaps their housing situation will change, their diet might change, etc.

So should we say, very little if any evolution occurs without stimuli? Or should we say, very little if any adaptation occurs without stimuli?

All I am trying to say is, we can talk semantics for a long time, and what is our meaning when we say evolution compared to adaptation? They can mean different things to different people and can be confused, and to some, they imply one and the same thing.

[FlamesAddiction]

Not to nitpick too much, but genetic adaptations don't actually occur through environmental stimuli. They are random regardless of environmental stimuli, and every indivudual has them even when the environment is stable. Most are neutral, but some are advantageous or detrimental. When the environment shifts, so do criteria for what is advantageous or detrimental.

The environment just facilitates which mutations stay in the population.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I was looking through some creationist stuff a while back and I came across someone explaining how Noah could look after all them birds.

If Noah took just two of each species (he didn't) that's something like 50 thousand birds. That's a pretty big task, especially when you have to feed the brontosaurus and the silverback. The explanation offered was that back in those days, birds were different, and since then they have changed a lot, and there are more kinds, therefore evolution is a myth.

It also explained that it would be easy to fit all those animals in a hand-made wooden boat, because it was the size of a 747.

You know what really sinks the whole Noah arguement. He took two of every animal right?

So when he lets them off the boat, what the heck do the lions eat until the antelope population is sufficiently large enough to support a couple of lions?

I'm thinking lions have to eat at least 20 antelopes a year, but it'd take at least a few years for the antelope population to recover to that size. I guess the lions ate dirt while they waited for their food source to grow to sustainable levels?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

You know what really sinks the whole Noah arguement. He took two of every animal right?

So when he lets them off the boat, what the heck do the lions eat until the antelope population is sufficiently large enough to support a couple of lions?

I'm thinking lions have to eat at least 20 antelopes a year, but it'd take at least a few years for the antelope population to recover to that size. I guess the lions ate dirt while they waited for their food source to grow to sustainable levels?

I guess so.

I'm thinking there were a lot more animals that needed to eat other animals to survive.

Interesting perspective though.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

You know what really sinks the whole Noah arguement. He took two of every animal right?

So when he lets them off the boat, what the heck do the lions eat until the antelope population is sufficiently large enough to support a couple of lions?

I'm thinking lions have to eat at least 20 antelopes a year, but it'd take at least a few years for the antelope population to recover to that size. I guess the lions ate dirt while they waited for their food source to grow to sustainable levels?

And it's not just the lions, it's the cheetahs, the leopards, everything that eats meat.

All meat eaters had a lean year (or more realistically 20 years)

But that's ok, cause God probably saved them from starvation somehow. I mean it's God and he can do anything. Why can't people just see this? SEE THIS AND BELIEVE!!! AND YOU WILL BE SAVED!!!

[Daradon]

Getting back to the debate, their are plenty examples of amphibians today that breath air and live in water, and have the beginnings of limbs to help them get around in shallow water.

And FlamesAddiction is right. The mutations are random. They don't evolve to GAIN an advantage. It's just that the random mutations that are advantageous are most likely to reproduce. If they are successful and breed though, they become part of the larger society over time.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Getting back to the debate, their are plenty examples of amphibians today that breath air and live in water, and have the beginnings of limbs to help them get around in shallow water.

And FlamesAddiction is right. The mutations are random. They don't evolve to GAIN an advantage. It's just that the random mutations that are advantageous are most likely to reproduce. If they are successful and breed though, they become part of the larger society over time.

exactly, and we're seeing this today with our own species. remember that baby with 3 arms? or the few cases of people with an extra finger/toe? and i'd even go so far as to say the "genius" kids that seem to be popping up more and more often are evidence of that same idea

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

exactly, and we're seeing this today with our own species. remember that baby with 3 arms? or the few cases of people with an extra finger/toe? and i'd even go so far as to say the "genius" kids that seem to be popping up more and more often are evidence of that same idea

Except, that us humans, so afraid of change, will probably make sure that everything becomes nice and even. We are weeding in disadvantageous changes like disease, and weeding out ones that might become advantageous. Only the genuis baby might actually go forward.

[Calgaryborn]

Here is a breakdown of the 6 types of evolution said to have taken place in order for life to exist as we know it without the influence of a creator:

1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
6. Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed.

This was taken from a creationists web site. I think it is a fair assessment of what evolutionists believe in order to remove God from the equation.

Regarding this thread I find it disturbing that most of the post center on mocking the creationist's theories rather than examining your own. Aren't you operating from a position of ignorance when you question the validity of a theory without knowing the proposed mechanics of how it works?

Getting back to the topic of this thread: These finches haven't evolved at all. What has been witnessed is a narrowing of the variations within the species by enviromental conditions. Before we had finches with different sized beaks. Now some of them have supposedly become extinct. Extinction can be observed.

There are problems associated with believing microevolution plus a huge amount of time will produce macroevolution. Genetic code must be altered and expanded in order to produce varieties within a species that can be naturally selected to produce changed species. This is supposedly acheived through random mutation. Mutation that has been observed has universally weakened the host species and haven't been shown to actually produce something new to the species. It only produces a mutated version of some charateristic already present within the species.

Imagine what it would take by chance to create an eye. The end result is quite complexed and needful for many species. How could an eyeball be produced over time. Are we to believe that this was the cause of small progressive mutations that dispite all odds endured for millions of years until it became useful? I don't believe it.

Evolution begins with dust or gas that apparently is omnipresent. This is said to have produce our complexed world randomly. Vasts amounts of time is all is all that was needed.

Right!

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Here is a breakdown of the 6 types of evolution said to have taken place in order for life to exist as we know it without the influence of a creator:

1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
6. Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed.

This was taken from a creationists web site. I think it is a fair assessment of what evolutionists believe in order to remove God from the equation.

Regarding this thread I find it disturbing that most of the post center on mocking the creationist's theories rather than examining your own. Aren't you operating from a position of ignorance when you question the validity of a theory without knowing the proposed mechanics of how it works?

Getting back to the topic of this thread: These finches haven't evolved at all. What has been witnessed is a narrowing of the variations within the species by enviromental conditions. Before we had finches with different sized beaks. Now some of them have supposedly become extinct. Extinction can be observed.

There are problems associated with believing microevolution plus a huge amount of time will produce macroevolution. Genetic code must be altered and expanded in order to produce varieties within a species that can be naturally selected to produce changed species. This is supposedly acheived through random mutation. Mutation that has been observed has universally weakened the host species and haven't been shown to actually produce something new to the species. It only produces a mutated version of some charateristic already present within the species.

Imagine what it would take by chance to create an eye. The end result is quite complexed and needful for many species. How could an eyeball be produced over time. Are we to believe that this was the cause of small progressive mutations that dispite all odds endured for millions of years until it became useful? I don't believe it.

Evolution begins with dust or gas that apparently is omnipresent. This is said to have produce our complexed world randomly. Vasts amounts of time is all is all that was needed.

Right!

Here, here!!! Well said.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Getting back to the topic of this thread: These finches haven't evolved at all. What has been witnessed is a narrowing of the variations within the species by enviromental conditions. Before we had finches with different sized beaks. Now some of them have supposedly become extinct. Extinction can be observed.

The finches have different sized beaks because of genetic mutations. There are lots of examples of genetic mutations even amoung humans. Like the six fingers argument.

Now I guess, if you really wanted to, you can say 'God' created those mutations for whatever reason. But your looking at evolution backwards in your 'explaination' of the situation above. Your saying that a species with MORE variation has lost some of it's variation by other slightly different ones dying off, or becoming extinct. That's simply not true. If that were true, there would be less species now then there were millions of years ago, and we KNOW the opposite is true.

(Let's save the millions of year vs. the 10,000 year creationist idea for another thread)

Even if you don't believe that, your still looking at it backwards. As I mentioned first off, plenty of examples of mutations can be seen now. These happen all the time, often randomly, some are cuased by pollution or other environmental factors.

Evolution is not the CHANGING of these traits or mutations into something more desirable or advantageous, it's simply the traits that keep the animal more successful are more likely to be passed on over and over and over again as these creatures come to sexual (or asexual lol ) maturity.

As for the space dust, well no one was arguing that. Only the proof or microevolution, and the obvious link to macroevolution over millions of years.

People have a hard time imagining something that long. Just like they have a hard time imagining that vastness of space. But it's still there. We have telescopes that can see billions of light years away, essentially looking backwards in time through our universe. It's boggling to think, but it's mathematically proven. The universe is way older than 10,000 years. Even though we cannot turn those lens back at our home planet (yet) I would assume the same rules apply.

Even 'God' likes math. You can't dispute math.

[Calgaryborn]

Daradon

The fact that finches have different sized beaks or that people have different sized noses isn't caused by mutation. They are variables within the genetic makeup of the species. If you are taller than your parents or have bigger feet it doesn't mean you are a mutant.

In the past I had a job that required me to identify species of trees within a large operating area. As a help I bought a field guide for trees with nice glossy photos. I found it difficult useing the book because I never could find a picture which perfectly match the tree. My supervisor gave me a different field guide which had only drawings of each species. After a time I relied solely on the drawings because it was easier to identify the trees. The reason for this is no two trees look exactly the same. Just like people or finches they are all different. In a given area the trees will have some more pronounced characteristics and some less pronounced characteristics but, a species will all have the same general characteristics.

For the record: Oiler fans are mutants

[Calgaryborn]

Daradon

One more thing: Go to your nearest public library and skim through as many pro-evolutionary books as you can find. See how many different dates they have for the origin of the universe and the origin of life. For that matter see how constant they are with any of their dates. After you've done that check the web for the latest scientific opinion on these dates. I'll bet it will astound you. God may like math but, I'm not so sure He thinks so highly of specutative math. I don't think their calculators are off so much but, I do believe they imagine constants that aren't consistant; Such as the speed of light.

I still remember an old political page cartoon of a little Mulroney and his finance Minister Wilson walking home from school. Wilson was complaining that his math teacher had unfairly failed him when he was just a couple billion off on the question. That was a classic!