Galapagos finches

Paul, please note again what Peter Grant is saying. AT THE EXTREME, he stresses, there would be 6 species in his view. That means that he thinks most likely there would be fewer.How many species really are there? Well, it looks to me like most likely, 5 or fewer. Possibly even one, although the Grants are not about to say that in public (if indeed this is entertained by them) because in today's climate, they would be accused of aiding the enemy. So it would be interesting to know what they privately think.Is it reasonable to trust the speciation claim? Given the evidence of a grossly exagerated species list, I say the trustworthiness of the claim is seriously undermined. I am also judging the current criteria for a species of these finches as highly unreasonable, in comparison, say, with humans or dogs. For example, the claim has been made that if the drought persisted in the islands, a new species of finch could come about in about 200 years (the drought favors birds with bigger beaks to crack the tougher seeds with). Based on beak size/shape alone??!! Come on... If we bred dogs with pug snouts in many generations, would they be a new species of dog? Oh wait, we already have, and last time I checked, they were still the same old dogs.I am not here to convince anyone. I am here to make up my mind. And so far, this is my best estimation of the matter.[This message has been edited by Tamara, 02-09-2004]

MrH: Clearly, not only creationists but taxonomists and assorted naturalists have also struggled with what a species is, and many have rued the lack of a solid definition.

quote:

---

The Galapagos finches are fascinating for the fact that they show how a formerly unified population has exploited separate niches and developed structures and instincts best suited to their individual environments.

---

Could not agree more.

quote:

---

The effect of geographical distribution on the rate of speciation is dramatic and persuasive to any rational observer. Unfortunately, creationists have a vested interest in denying that speciation events take place, and for that reason only, they can't consider the finches separate species.

---

Dontcha love it when people start the "any rational observer" would realize that... Cut the BS, please! I cannot speak for others, but myself, I have no vested interest in denying that speciation with the finches takes place. I recently found out I was lied to about embryo pictures and the recapitulation thing, and so I decided to find out what else is fishy in the world of darwinism.

quote:

---

Creationists never tire of telling us that the Galapagos finches tell us nothing about the mechanisms of evolution, that this isn't Darwinian evolution at all, and that we should ignore the clear lessons these birds teach us about the development of life on Earth.

---

Did you ever read Wells and Milton? Both agree that this example is a clean and persuasive evidence for natural selection.

Tamara,The lack of a solid definition for 'species' is just what we expect from a Darwinian standpoint. The difference between humans and chimps is a matter of degree, just like the difference between the species of Galapagos finches, the dozens of species of leopard frog, or the thousands of species of tapeworm. This comes as no surprise to taxonomists, zoologists, or anyone who sees the development of life on Earth through the lens of evolution.Perhaps you could let us all know how natural selection resulted in changes in allele frequency in the Galapagos finches, but that evolution by natural selection is somehow flawed or fraudulent. We see the changes wrought by natural selection, and we see the vast amount of change in organisms over time. Why shouldn't one type of change be the basis for the other?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Darwin pointed out that the doves in his days were all classified as one species, becauses everyone knew that they were bred from Rock Pigeons. If they hadn't been bred by humans, he said, taxonomists would put them in at least 3 genera and 8 species.Yes, they're still the "same old dogs," but I'm pretty confident that in the wild, not bred by men, most breeds of dogs--if they were isolated and breeding only among themselves--would be regarded as separate species. Maybe one of the scientists here could correct me if that's not true, but the whole point being made about finches suggests to me it is true.The point being made to you, Tamara, is that species are not so easily defined, anyway. Would chihuahua's and St. Bernard's really be considered the same species in the wild? (Of course, we all know that chihuahua's would never survive in the wild and barely survive domesticated , but you understand my point.)Darwin said the doves in his day differed even in the amount of vertebrae they had? How much difference do we really need before we grant that speciation has occurred? I don't see where you've established this in any way, since even your sources don't say this. Only you say this. "Grossly" exaggerated? I don't think you've established grossly, since the number of species remains a subjective interpretation, which taxonomists are trying to objectify as much as possible, knowing that full objectivity is not possible. This means the next person could legitimately come along, examine the matter further, and assign more species based not just on their further research, but even on their possibly different definition of species.

I suggest that you reread the quote. It is clear to me that Grant means the most extreme *Reduction* in the number of species which gives us six as a minimum on current data - as I have said all alongOn that basis we have six as the minimum currently supported and only a possibility of any reduction below that.Is it reasonable to trust the speciation claim - YES. Grant explictly states that even after reduction there are two species on a single island.

MrH, you make a lot of unwarranted assumption about my point of view. I am not against evolution, or science. I am against bullshit. (Guess what -- I just picked up a youth book on evolution put out in 1990, otherwise not bad, which says that human embryos go thru a few days when they have gills. Not gill slits, GILLS! Shows ya... bullshit never dies.)

quote:

---

We see the changes wrought by natural selection, and we see the vast amount of change in organisms over time. Why shouldn't one type of change be the basis for the other?

---

Those that want to make that argument should make a better one than with the finches. If they don't they will lose credibility among us layfolks. As is already happening.

quote:

---

I'm pretty confident that in the wild, not bred by men, most breeds of dogs--if they were isolated and breeding only among themselves--would be regarded as separate species.

---

Temp, yes, ah, if only. Problem is, the finches are not isolated and breeding only among themselves. And even if all toy poodles were dispatched to a desert island (I can dream, no? where they could only breed among themselves because no corgis were available, that still would not make them a separate species, don't you think? The Galapagos Islands are now densely populated in some places. Like the rock doves, house sparrows, and starlings of Eurasia and North America, they have adjusted to human habitation. They are learning to eat scraps and seeds from people. The various types of finches which before were distinguished by differences in bills are becoming "a hybrid swarm" in towns. So perhaps that means that if the finches are not one species now, soon they will be... Problem with your argument is... if chihuahuas and St. Bernards would not be considered one species "in the wild" then why should Icelanders and Bantus be considered one species? You see that sort of thinking opens up a can of worms. Better leave them all together if they interbreed...

quote:

---

I don't see where you've established this in any way, since even your sources don't say this. Only you say this. "Grossly" exaggerated?

---

Yeah, well, if 14 bogus species that should be really six or possibly fewer in the words of THE expert does not strike you as gross exageration, what can I say? I guess my gullibility meter is more finely calibrated than yours!

quote:

---

This means the next person could legitimately come along, examine the matter further, and assign more species based not just on their further research, but even on their possibly different definition of species.

---

I know, exactly. And the rest of us are equally free to jeer from the bleachers.Since there is no chance whatsoever in my opinion that the finches will be objectively reevaluated in the near future (given the cultural climate and their iconic status), I am not holding my breath, and have to decide without having the benefit of those future taxonomical studies.

Tamara,Again, I'm not sure what you demand to see. I apologize that evolution from Cambrian forms to modern ones is too slow to demonstrate in a lab, but too fast to be captured perfectly in the fossil record. If this seems like rationalization to you, so be it. Your healthy skepticism goes out the window when Wells and Milton are doing the talking.You seem to realize that 'species' will never have a precise definition, but you don't seem to understand our explanations of why this is necessarily so. If you think of a better definition, you may win a Nobel prize.You seem to realize why the finches are such an important demostration of adaptive radiation, but you'd rather not put that together with the genetic links we recognize between ostensibly unrelated organisms. In other words, the fingerprints of evolution are everywhere but you want us to believe evolution isn't.[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 02-09-2004]

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

The physical (as opposed to geographical) barrier to interbreeding of chihuahuas and St Bernards is a tad higher than that between any two populations of humans, don't you think?

quote:

---

I apologize that evolution from Cambrian forms to modern ones is too slow to demonstrate in a lab, but too fast to be captured perfectly in the fossil record. If this seems like rationalization to you, so be it.

---

Achtung: Unwarranted assumption about my point of view.

quote:

---

Your healthy skepticism goes out the window when Wells and Milton are doing the talking.

---

Leave them out of it. I am here because I want to hear what others like yourselves have to say. (But when I double-checked on the gill slits et al, and found they have something to say, I started to listen. Maybe you should too.)

quote:

---

You seem to realize that 'species' will never have a precise definition, but you don't seem to understand our explanations of why this is necessarily so. If you think of a better definition, you may win a Nobel prize.

---

Dobzhansky already took care of that one! Then got talked out of it. But it's still there for those who want to tighten up the game.

quote:

---

You seem to realize why the finches are such an important demostration of adaptive radiation, but you'd rather put that together with the genetic links we recognize between ostensibly unrelated organisms. In other words, the fingerprints of evolution are everywhere but you want us to believe evolution isn't.

---

Achtung: More unwarranted assumptions about my point of view.MrH: I don't demand to see anything. I am evaluating.

quote:

---

The physical (as opposed to geographical) barrier to interbreeding of chihuahuas and St Bernards is a tad higher than that between any two populations of humans, don't you think?

---

And yet, they would manage if they had no one else to hump. Those resourceful dogs...!

quote:

---

And even if all toy poodles were dispatched to a desert island (I can dream, no? where they could only breed among themselves because no corgis were available, that still would not make them a separate species, don't you think?

---

Not at first, but give them a couple of million years and and some climate change, perhaps some competition from other small carnivores, etc.Speciation is not a sure thing, but it is not impossible.BTW, you do know that we have seen speciation in real time in organisms that reproduce rapidly enough for us to see it, right?

No, Tamara, I think the size difference is enough to discourage that. I don't know if the experiment has ever been done but I would be surprised if they managed to have sex. Then the problem of viability of a Bernard pup in a chihuahua mother would arise.

quote:

---

BTW, you do know that we have seen speciation in real time in organisms that reproduce rapidly enough for us to see it, right?

---

Well, that is what I want to look into next. Any links would be appreciated. I hope the evidence can speak for itself without positing flimsy arguments on the order of poodle species. I would figure that by now, there are new Drosophila species induced in the lab?The other question I have... isn't it true that in order to have something novel (like a novel species or genus) you'd need mutation, right? I mean, selecting for stuff that is already in the gene pool runs into a dead end, no?

quote:

---

Then the problem of viability of a Bernard pup in a chihuahua mother would arise.

---

So what happens when very different sizes of critters do breed (say by insemination)? Would not nature make adjustments for the discrepancy so that the mother does not just blow up?!

That is a serious misrepresentation of the actual situation.We do not have 14 bogus species. Instead we have a population classified as 14 species by one criterion that MAY be as few as six when classified by another.I think your bias is showing.Oh and what DOES Wells have to say about "gill slits" ? The structure is there in vertebrate embryos, and it is genuine evidence of evolution even though Wells doesn't like it.