PDA

View Full Version : darwin's finches are evolving...



Mike70
12-Sep-2008, 08:49 PM
found this article on the AP. damn interesting. the finches on the galapagos islands that inspired darwin have been shown to be changing to adapt to new competition for food and in response to climate pressures.

but evolution remains a theory for some (most people absolutely fail to understand what is meant by the word "theory" in science) not the principle driving force of biology.




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.

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation.

Publius
12-Sep-2008, 09:41 PM
but evolution remains a theory for some (most people absolutely fail to understand what is meant by the word "theory" in science) not the principle driving force of biology.

Yeah, but as the article says:


This was certainly a documented case of microevolution, added Fleischer, who was not part of Grant's research.

Nobody ever argues about microevolution. To impress a creationist, you would have to show that the genes resulting in the smaller beak size were not present in the original population. It does not appear that there's any evidence of that here. Creationists do not maintain that environmental pressures have no effect on the predominant characteristics of a population. They maintain that beneficial mutations cannot adequately account for the amount of speciation necessary to produce Earth's biological diversity. And, more fundamentally, that evolution cannot produce life from non-life. In fact, some creationists will even grant the former while continuing to deny the latter.

Mike70
12-Sep-2008, 09:49 PM
Nobody ever argues about microevolution. To impress a creationist, you would have to show that the genes resulting in the smaller beak size were not present in the original population. It does not appear that there's any evidence of that here. Creationists do not maintain that environmental pressures have no effect on the predominant characteristics of a population. They maintain that beneficial mutations cannot adequately account for the amount of speciation necessary to produce Earth's biological diversity. And, more fundamentally, that evolution cannot produce life from non-life. In fact, some creationists will even grant the former while continuing to deny the latter.

nothing would impress a true creationist. nothing. you could beat them over the head with evidence and it would make no difference.

there is a fu*king creation museum near cincinnati that depicts and insists that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that humans co-existed with dinosaurs .

how the frak do you argue or prove something to people who believe such nonsense?

Publius
12-Sep-2008, 09:57 PM
nothing would impress a true creationist. nothing. you could beat them over the head with evidence and it would make no difference.

there is a fu*king creation museum near cincinnati that depicts and insists that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that humans co-existed with dinosaurs .

how the frak do you argue or prove something to people who believe such nonsense?

Well, there are competing schools of thought under the umbrella of creationism-defined-broadly. A bona fide observed example of speciation as a result of mutation would drive at least some people toward the theistic evolution/intelligent design (God created the universe and the spark of life billions of years ago, and somehow directed evolution along its course) end of the spectrum and away from the young-earth creationism (God created the universe 6,000 years ago in six literal 24-hour days, and specially created each species pretty much just as they are today).

darth los
15-Sep-2008, 03:32 PM
It's funny how there's such a high standard for the burden of proof for the theory of evolution yet there's virtually none when it comes to the creationist point of view.

That's an unfair debate from the get go. One says prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's true, while the other would settle for any shred of evidence of if it's legitimacy.

Makes me wonder if there was indeed some sort of incontravertable proof that that the theory of evolution is indeed how things happened would the the religious accept it or continue believing in what they do.:confused: