Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,176 Year: 5,433/9,624 Month: 458/323 Week: 98/204 Day: 14/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Galapagos finches
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 80 of 104 (335040)
07-24-2006 11:01 PM


here we go ...
bump
to bring this to the surface for continued discussion from
Finches named for Darwin are evolving
RAZD writes:
Message 9, to MurkyWaters, Message 2:
You realize that this is wonderful evidence for creation, ...
Of course it is, because you can define "creation" any way you want to and make it fit, and re-define it to suit whenever necessary, as in when new evidence contradicts previous asserted positions to the point where they cannot be ignored.
Also note the Deist position that the universe was created with everything in place and designed for life to evolve from primordial components does not contradict or clash with the concept of life evolving over time, so this is "wonderful evidence" for Deism.
... not evolution!
Now here you make a logical leap of faith and commit a logical fallacy at the same time. You are essentially asserting that because you can claim the evidence is for "creation" that it then must be against evolution. This is not established. As noted above creation can include evolution as the mechanism by which all life has evolved.
To establish that this is "not evolution" you have to demonstrate that it {CAN'T} be evolution. Not only has that not been done, but the evidence in the paper is that it not only {CAN} be evolution but {IS} evolution.
Evolution is change in species over time -- precisely what is demonstrated by the finches in question, as noted in the (Science) paper (especially) and referenced in the news article.
The term "Evolution" or "Micro-evolution" is commonly used in some evolutionist circles to simply refer to "Adaptation" or "Natural Selection" which has nothing at all to do with molecules to man Evolution.
You forgot mutation in your common creationist strawman argument here. Note that the article specifically states:
This was certainly a documented case of microevolution, added Fleischer, who was not part of Grant's research.
(bold mine for empHASis)
This means the article is not discussing abiogenesis (the proper term for your creationist " molecules to man" misrepresentation), or even evolution of the finches from a common ancestor with other birds (and has nothing to do with either molecules or man).
Further, what you refer to as "Adaptation" is the selection of mutations by Natural Selection. The real mechanisms are Mutation and Selection. One causes variations in the base population (in this case large and small beaks in the finches) and the other selects variations that give a species an advantage (here small beaks in the smaller species to take advantage of seeds the other population is not eating) and it de-selects variations that hinder or harm the species (here the larger beaks):
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.
Now to claim that this is NOT evolution you have to show that this is NOT what happened, but that something else caused this {appearance of evolution}.
You cannot take the fact that finches have adapted to their environment by developing longer or shorter beaks and then extrapolate that to say they will turn in alligators if we wait long enough! After millions of generations, birds are still birds, ...
And that is not what the theory of evolution claim, so it seems you do not understand what evolution really is. You stated:
... I say that since I don't know to what extent terms have been defined.
We use the common definitions that apply to science and biology in general and evolution in particular.
For instance - dictionary.com defines evolution as:
ev·o·lu·tion
3. Biology.
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Please point out where this in any way necessitates birds becoming alligators, or that descendant species will not be related to their ancestor species.
Now if you want to discuss how "macro"evolution cannot happen, that should go to a different thread rather than disrupt this one that is specifically about the evolution of variation in the finch population on the Galapagos islands.
I suggest "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
To sum: you have not demonstrated {HOW} this {CAN} be evidence for creation (other than by redefining "creation" to include it) nor have you demonstrated {HOW} this {CANNOT} be evidence for evolution. All you have made is an assertion of belief untainted by facts. Or as Faith notes:
Message 5
Right in tune with the rest of us creationists here.
In fact we can attribute the foundations of the majority of modern science to creationists.
You can, but you are asserting another false statement that is disproved by ALL the evidence.
You are conflating modern creationists with victorian christians, a logical fallacy, ignoring the non-christian thinkers, and ignoring the "foundations" that existed before christianity was even "created" (and long before it "evolved" into american fundamentalist creationism).
Further, the sciences have moved on, unfettered by erroneous past thinking, including that of creationist mis-preconceptions (such as flat earth and geocentricism) in their pursuit of knowledge of {HOW} things work based on the evidence that is available.
Because you can cite {SOME} evidence for a position does not make it true or valid, most especially when you ignore {OTHER} evidence that disproves the position. The denial of {CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE} means that the position is false, regardless of any claims otherwise, until such time as you can show how the evidence is wrong or explain it in terms of the position claimed.
Enjoy.
ps
type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy
You can also pick "Peek Mode" on the message you are replying to in order to see how others do special formating.
And Welcome to the fray
MurkyWaters writes:
Message 12, in reply:
I have prepared a response to your post which I think is relevant. What would you like me to do with it? That is, I prepared the response before I saw your "Off Topic" note. I don't know if you mean just message 10 or if you feel the whole thing is going in the wrong direction. I also don't know how to tell who are administrators or who can actually make those decisions. While my response does deal in part with definitions, I feel it is still relavant to the topic. I have begun to peruse the forums and I've found that other creationist here have provide similar information. Nevertheless, if you subscribed to any of it, I don't think you would have responded to my original post, so I'm inclined to move forward. If I don't hear back from you in the next hour, I will go ahead and post here. If someone thinks it should be moved or ended, that's fine.
Here should be fine ... (k jar?)

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 8:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 104 (335609)
07-27-2006 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by MurkyWaters
07-25-2006 8:07 PM


Re: here we go ... oops.
Thanks for the response MurkyWaters,
I directed you to this thread with the understanding that we were going to be discussing the galapogos finches and not general misconceptions about evolution, time and the universe in general ...
Thus ~90% of your response is off-topic here as well. Sigh.
Let's start a new thread where the topic is your conception of evolution (then we can't get off-topic, and we can put it in "Is It Science?" Forum where the standards for evidence are less strict -- for the debate:
Message 1
Now I am going to assume that you have read that post before proceeding to respond to the rest of this one (we'll have to wait for it to be promoted before you can respond to it), as otherwise we'll be talking in circles.
Whether you agree with those definitions or not, you can see that within their context, the finch article fits much better with the creation model than with the evolutionary one, primarily since it demonstrates that change does not require millions of years to take place.
You don't get to change definitions to suit your arguement. Sorry.
So, it's not a matter of my agreeing with your definitions, but a matter of using the correct definitions to begin with -- the ones that everyone else uses and not some creatortionista strawman version that changes with every argument.
Evolution is change is species over time. That is what occurred. No supernatural intervention was observed. Conclusion: the change in species over time was due to evolution and not some supernatural intervention.
And let's be clear here, you have not actually shown how the finch fits a creation model other than by claiming that the same mechanism that explains how the finch fits the evolution model can be usurped used by creationists: this does not make it a "better" fit, it just demonstrates how creation is redefined to fit the evidence.
It is not evidence for evolution since the change has not added additional genetic information that wasn’t already present but is required for true evolution to occur.
Seeing as how evolution does not claim to be about changes in "information" this is a strawman arguement based on a false definition of what evolution is about -- this is another bogus creatortionista argument.
Evolution is changes in species over time.
See reference to the bogus creatortionista "information" argument in post linked above and do NOT reply to it here where it is off-topic.
What you need to do here -- on this thread -- is demonstrate specifically how the finches (1) cannot be explained by evolution and (2) how it then fits (your) YEC model in ways that are NOT explained by evolution (using the {real\standard} definitions etc) so that it (YEC) is a better fit.
Blanket assertions aside, you need observation, mechanism (theory), evidence and test (validation), for how your YEC method works.
Evolution has this, and it fits the observed facts.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 8:07 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 104 (335876)
07-27-2006 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by AdminNWR
07-27-2006 12:16 AM


Re: A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
That would be a possibility, but it looks like we'll need to wait for a further response from MurkyWaters first.
Edited by RAZD, : doncha hate seeing a typo just as you hit send?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AdminNWR, posted 07-27-2006 12:16 AM AdminNWR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-29-2006 1:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 95 of 104 (336350)
07-29-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by MurkyWaters
07-29-2006 1:09 PM


Re: A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
see response.
And I take it from the lack of any follow-up on the Galapogos Finches that this issue is resolved?
Galapagos Finches show change in species over time == evolution.
(certainly there is no information that it =/= evolution)
Edited by RAZD, : finished post
Edited by RAZD, : spleing

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-29-2006 1:09 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-29-2006 2:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 97 of 104 (336381)
07-29-2006 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by AdminNWR
07-27-2006 12:16 AM


Re: A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
see Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate and Muriad Misconceptions

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AdminNWR, posted 07-27-2006 12:16 AM AdminNWR has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 98 of 104 (336834)
07-31-2006 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by MurkyWaters
07-29-2006 2:06 PM


Re: A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
1) Your contention that change in species over time == evolution.
It's not my contention, but the contention of the science. As referenced.
Part of the problem is that there are two "evolutions"
(1) is the mechanism - (micro\macro)evolution, the change is species over time, (mechanism)evolution or {"M/E"} and
(2) is the science - the study of evolution (the mechanism), AND the experiments, AND the observations, AND the results, AND the theories of natural (survival\sexual) selection, common descent, punkeek, etc etc etc, (science)evolution or {"S/E"}.
What you have said above essentially is "it is not {M/E} because it is not {S/E}" -- and in logic this is called the fallacy of equivocation, using different meanings of words in different parts of the construction.
I guess we'll have to cover that under definitions in the Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)
LOL, this "great debate" thing is cool. It sounds like we're getting ourselves into something very "special".
The only thing 'special' is that it is just two people in the debate. This means no {dodging\changing} the topic without mutual consent, and it also means coming to some consensus before moving on (even if that consensus is agreeing to disagree).
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : for clarity in red above

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-29-2006 2:06 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 99 of 104 (421199)
09-11-2007 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by MurkyWaters
07-29-2006 2:06 PM


Back to the Evolution of the Galapagos Finches ...
This is in response to the information\assertions made in Message 118 regarding the Galapagos Finches and whether this constitutes evolution or not:
MurkyWaters writes:
... In all of the change that we have observed, fruit flies are still fruit flies, moths are still moths, finches are still finches. No evolution. It doesn’t matter if we simply observe species changing. ...
As we see from the Definition of Evolution you can define evolution several ways, but the required elements are (a) hereditary traits and (b) natural selection operating on those traits as expressed in the individual phenotypes, and that result in (c) the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time (or from generation to generation). When these conditions are met evolution has occurred. This is "descent with modification" to use Darwin's formulation, and thus we would always expect that the offspring of (X) would always be (X) regardless of what (X) is, and to say otherwise is to misunderstand or misrepresent evolution. If there is a change in hereditary traits from one generation to the next then evolution has occurred, whether it is still the same species or not.
If you want to discuss the definition of evolution go to Definition of Evolution
MurkyWaters writes:
... As we all know, the word “evolution” can refer to this theory or it can refer to the “process” (or mechanism) that is occurring today (as many references pointed out). In other words, you can look to the Galapagos finches and say “this is evolution” referring to the process (CISOT), or you can say the Galapagos finches does not go far enough to demonstrate evolution, referring to the theory (MTM) ...
{Where "CISOT" refers to "change in species over time" (where the "change" has been specified as hereditary) and "MTM" refers to "molecules to man" (which MurkyWaters also states as "all the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form").
This is essentially agreeing that evolution has occurred by the process of mutation and selection. As we see from The Definition for the Theory of Evolution that there is a lot of confusion as to what constitutes a theory, and we also see that we can define the theory of evolution several ways, but the essential elements are (a) evolution per a scientific definition (such as "change in hereditary traits from one generation to the next"), and (b) the theoretical postulation that this applies to any level of change that has been observed, whether that change be microevolution within a population or macroevolution and the increasing divergence possible between related species with the increasing passage of time.
MurkyWaters writes:
(Percy, Message 115)

The Galapagos finches are an example of evolution in action because scientists were able to observe modification through successive generations brought about by changes in the natural environment that in turn changed which variations were more desirable than others.
This is where we part ways. This is exactly the point that initiated this entire debate. It all depends on how you define “evolution”. It may demonstrate “evolution” which some have deceptively defined as only change in species over time but it DOES NOT demonstrate the theory of evolution.
The point is not how people define evolution, but how evolutionary biologists define evolution. When you use the definition used by the scientists it qualifies as evolution. That there is a conflict with how the theory of evolution is defined by the "MTM" theory would imply it is a faulty statement of the theory of evolution, not that evolution has not occurred.
Again, if you want to discuss the definition of evolution go to Definition of Evolution.
MurkyWaters writes:
(Percy, Message 115 ... adding back comments in gray)

You spend much time objecting to "change in species over time," which you abbreviate as CISOT, as part of the theory of evolution. I don't understand why you raise this objection, since all the dictionary definitions you cited include change over time. The entire purpose of Darwin's Origin of Species was to present evidence explaining how the current diversity of life came about by changes in predecessor species.
You’ve made my point. The purpose was to explain how all “the current diversity of life came about”, NOT just how species change. The fact that species change, by itself, DOES NOT rule out the possibility that this diversity is the result of changes to the original created kinds about 6000 years ago.
But applying the theory to the evidence would. When you apply the theory to the evidence back to say the end of the Cretaceous Period (the KT extinction event) or all the way back to bacterial life (when only prokaryotes lived on earth) and show that the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation explains the data sufficiently, then it validates the theory of evolution over a concept of minimal original "kinds" of animals (especially with certain "typical examples" as listed in Genesis). In fact you only need to go back a few million years before those "typical example" organisms evolved to reach this conclusion.
It is not the theory that makes the distinction between competing theories, but predictions based on the theory for results when you apply it to the evidence to see if it can explain the evidence: that is what distinguishes one theory from another (and those predictions are usually made to falsify one or the other of competing theories). This is basic to how science works, so once again we need to use definitions as used by scientists that study evolution. This has been reviewed on The Definition for the Theory of Evolution, and currently the definition of the theory of evolution as defined on that thread is:
RAZD writes:
Message 158
(1) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time.
(2) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected.
(3) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.
(4) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes:
  • theories on how change is enabled
    ...(list of theories on different mechanisms for the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits within populations)
  • theories on how changes made within each generation are selected
    ...(list of theories on different mechanisms of selection and where and when they operate)
    ... etc
If you want to discuss the definition of the theory of evolution go to The Definition for the Theory of Evolution (which is currently closed but can be reopened on request to moderation staff (see Thread Reopen Requests 2) or restarted - it's currently at 215 out of a usual 300 messages on a topic, and many of them are discussions not related to the theory of evolution).
According to that statement of the theory, evolution can be as small a change as just the change in hereditary characteristics from one generation to the next, it does mean that the changes observed in the Galapagos Finches meet the requirements of the theory of evolution as used by evolutionary biology scientists.
What else does MurkyWaters say that impacts this thread on the evolution of the Galapagos Finches? Several times, most recently in Message 112 and Message 118 of the same thread, he has made statements like:
MurkyWaters writes:
One of the greatest evolutionary minds, Ernst Mayr, who has been called the “Darwin of modern times” says that change in frequency of alleles is NOT evolution and therefore not a part of the definition.
And let’s not get into this silly notion that evolution is simply a change in frequency of alleles. There are many scientists that disagree with this definition including the Darwin of modern times Ernst Mayr. “Neutral evolution” is NOT evolution.
But of course the change in beak size of the Galapagos Finches is not "neutral evolution" as it involves selection of hereditary traits from one generation to the next.
As documented on Message 192 using these quotes of Mayr is misrepresenting what he says, and does not take into consideration where he actually says what evolution is throughout the book. Some examples are:
quote:
"Evolution is best understood as the genetic turnover of the individuals of every population from generation to generation."
-- Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.76
"Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biological species."
-- ibid p.157
"In fact, the way organisms are structured, evolution is inevitable. Each organism, even the simplest bacterium, has a genome, consisting of thousands to many millions of base pairs. Observation has established that each base pair is subject to occasional mutation. Different populations have different mutations, and if they are isolated from each other, these populations inevitably become more different from each other from generation to generation. Even this simplest of all possible scenarios represents evolution."
-- ibid p.264
There can be no doubt for anyone understanding what Mayr is saying in this book, that evolution occurs when hereditary traits are selected and that the selection then affects the distribution of those traits in following populations. There can be little rational doubt that applying the statements above to the Galapagos Finches shows that they evolved fully in accordance with the views of Mayr.
Conclusions
(1) evolution as defined by evolutionary biologists involves the change in hereditary traits from generation to generation.
(2) the theory of evolution as defined by evolutionary biologists involves evolution (per 1) and the (testable) postulate that this applies to any observed level of change in species over time.
(3) the change observed in the Galapagos Finches in response to changes in the ecology did involve selection of hereditary traits from one generation to the next, and that this is therefore an example of evolution in action.
(4) the change observed in the Galapagos Finches was explained by the change in hereditary traits from one generation to the next, and this is therefore a validation of the theory of evolution at this (small) scale of change and in this one instance.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : sp, grammar
Edited by RAZD, : reopening thread link
Edited by RAZD, : reworded section for clarity

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-29-2006 2:06 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 101 of 104 (443660)
12-26-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Elmer
12-26-2007 7:46 AM


Re: The neo-lamarckian mechanism
Evolution of ontogeny: linking epigenetic remodeling and genetic adaptation in skeletal structures | Integrative and Comparative Biology | Oxford Academic
The rest of your post - where you show how this applies specifically to Galapagos finches and how it is "neo-lamarkian" - is strangely missing.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Elmer, posted 12-26-2007 7:46 AM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Elmer, posted 12-26-2007 11:16 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 104 (443711)
12-26-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Elmer
12-26-2007 11:16 AM


Re: The neo-lamarckian mechanism
... what is strangely missing is your ability ...
Don't need to go all snooty. All you posted was a cut and paste, no link and no commentary for how it applies: this is against the forum guidelines.
... take empirical facts, accept their inescapable implications, and revise your theoretical assumptions about the mechanisms involved in phenotypic alterations/epigenetic inheritance.
Yet you have not shown that genetic inheritance does not apply ... and even then you are still dealing with "inheritance" of hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. You still don't show that the beaks are larger in the new chicks because they absorbed something from the ecology, rather than the tested "inheritance" of hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
Nor do you show that the beaks are larger in the parents because they grown that way in response to ecological conditions and then pass on that acquired trait to their offspring.
It's not a matter of accepting some "new paradigm" because it is missing. Whatever way you cut the evidence, I am still left with:
... the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation
In this particular case, the expansion of the _average_ beak size of a particular population of finches on a particular Galapagos island when affected by the behaviour required to processer larger and tougher forage, temporarily, along with the decrease back to to normal _average_ beak size once normal-sized forage became once again available.
Yet the increase in beak size is not shown to have grown in response to the behavior\need for larger beaks. To assert that this is the case without evidence is less than scientific.
What I got from the Abstract was that in some cases some bones grow somewhat differently due to epigenetic effects than probable from pure genetics. That may just mean that naturally large beaks can become somewhat stronger\larger than they otherwise would during the development of the chick to adult, but not that naturally small beaks can become as large as the naturally large beaks.
RM+NS? My aunt Fanny!
Yet you don't show that finches with small beaks do not die out during the drought conditions.
So lets talk about:
'adaptation and variation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation
And return to the discussion of variation and adaptation with speciation added to the mix on Evolution and the BIG LIE? At least talk to Ray.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Elmer, posted 12-26-2007 11:16 AM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Elmer, posted 12-26-2007 11:00 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024