Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
57 online now:
Aussie, Dm14174, dwise1, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Theodoric (8 members, 1 guest login, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,233 Year: 4,345/6,534 Month: 559/900 Week: 83/182 Day: 17/38 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Finches named for Darwin are evolving
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3225
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 1 of 48 (332808)
07-18-2006 8:58 AM


http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/07/14/darwin.finches.ap/index.html


WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

This is the exact senerio that had lead Darwin to the concept of natural selection being the origin of species.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-22-2006 6:35 PM ramoss has taken no action
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2006 10:55 AM ramoss has taken no action
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2009 6:36 PM ramoss has taken no action

  
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 2 of 48 (334351)
07-22-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ramoss
07-18-2006 8:58 AM


This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
You realize that this is wonderful evidence for creation, not evolution! I'm new to this forum, in fact, this is the first post I have ever made to any discussion board. I say that since I don't know to what extent terms have been defined.

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. This discovery, which has long been postulated by creationists, is an example of natural selection which was first proposed before Darwin by creationists. In fact we can attribute the foundations of the majority of modern science to creationists.

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, bacteria are still bacteria and so on. Organisms adapt within their "kind" but do not become different organisms. This requires the addition of new genetic information, not simply the shuffling or loss of genetic information. Some of the finches in this study were not able to adapt and have suffered probably because they have lost the genetic information to do so.

Natural selection is an essential fact necessary for the theory of creationism and this study demonstrates that it doesn't take millions of years for species to change and adapt within their kind. This makes possible the diversity of life we see today to develop from the intial created kinds in only a few thousand, not millions, of years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ramoss, posted 07-18-2006 8:58 AM ramoss has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 07-22-2006 6:54 PM MurkyWaters has taken no action
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 07-22-2006 7:09 PM MurkyWaters has replied
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2006 12:16 PM MurkyWaters has replied
 Message 14 by deerbreh, posted 07-25-2006 3:02 PM MurkyWaters has replied

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 3 of 48 (334366)
07-22-2006 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by MurkyWaters
07-22-2006 6:35 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Hi, Murky! Welcome! Was Muddy your cousin, perhaps?

I say that since I don't know to what extent terms have been defined.

Pretty extensively defined, mostly over in the Biological Evolution forums. You might want to nose around over there a bit.

After millions of generations, birds are still birds, bacteria are still bacteria and so on. Organisms adapt within their "kind" but do not become different organisms.

Yup. We humans are still anthropoid apes, and still primates, and still mammals, and still tetrapods. That's what evolution is all about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-22-2006 6:35 PM MurkyWaters has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2006 7:05 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 4 of 48 (334374)
07-22-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
07-22-2006 6:54 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Yup. We humans are still anthropoid apes, and still primates, and still mammals, and still tetrapods. That's what evolution is all about.

Ship, pencil, flower, backpack = all the same. Deification of the god known as Subjectivity by a self anointed prophet - thats what evolution is all about - facts never get in the way when the needs of the atheist are present.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 07-22-2006 6:54 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 07-22-2006 7:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 681 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 48 (334376)
07-22-2006 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by MurkyWaters
07-22-2006 6:35 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Welcome to EvC and good post! Right in tune with the rest of us creationists here. Hope you'll check out all the forums and stick around.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-22-2006 6:35 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by deerbreh, posted 07-25-2006 3:06 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 18 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 9:16 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 6 of 48 (334380)
07-22-2006 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Cold Foreign Object
07-22-2006 7:05 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Do you have any hair, Ray? A backbone? A cranium? Do you have hands that grasp better than you feet do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2006 7:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Omnivorous, posted 07-22-2006 7:47 PM Coragyps has taken no action

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3851
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 7 of 48 (334386)
07-22-2006 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coragyps
07-22-2006 7:25 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Coragyps writes:

Do you have any hair, Ray? A backbone? A cranium? Do you have hands that grasp better than you feet do?



Based on his paper trail, I'd say lots, no, yes but sloping, and no.

Not a warranty post. No More.

Edited by AdminJar, : personal OT remark hidden


God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 07-22-2006 7:25 PM Coragyps has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 642 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 48 (334492)
07-23-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ramoss
07-18-2006 8:58 AM


Science Continues ...
I see that the Grants are still studying the finches and documenting variations in species over time (= evolution)

There is a Sept 2004 (see ABSTRACT) article on this as well: Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches

For previous work see this article: Genetics and the origin of bird species (abstract here) .

Excellent.


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 1 by ramoss, posted 07-18-2006 8:58 AM ramoss has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 642 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 48 (334508)
07-23-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by MurkyWaters
07-22-2006 6:35 PM


... wonderful evidence for CREATIONist erroneous assertions ...
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


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 2 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-22-2006 6:35 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-23-2006 7:49 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 12 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-24-2006 8:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 10 of 48 (334620)
07-23-2006 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
07-23-2006 12:16 PM


Re: ... wonderful evidence for CREATIONist erroneous assertions ...
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.

Define deism as compared to theism and its source ?

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.

We know finch beaks oscillate depending upon weather and conditions = better explained by the ID model ?

RAZD writes:

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):

in RAZDs first comment he writes:

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.

Thus saith RAZD....you are guilty of the same: natural-selection-did-it.

You have simply deified nature and pretended to have spoken for it. The only source for respected prophecy is the Bible. IOW, truth and need has smoked you out and shows that Darwinists take the place of God. We know the same Holy Source says that Lucifer was made into Satan for attempting to take God's place and "be like the Most High".

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2006 12:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2006 9:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 642 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 48 (334655)
07-23-2006 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object
07-23-2006 7:49 PM


Re: ... wonderful evidence for CREATIONist erroneous assertions ...

Let's hold this thought for some other thread. This is not the place to debate beyond the particular news item.

hello ray.

Define deism as compared to theism and its source ?

Just apply the standard {dictionary.com\wikipedia.org\etc} definition as that is what was meant in the argument. You can also use {Theism} of course -- the point is that whatever belief is involved can be adapted to find it "wonderful" but that this does not in and of itself rule out evolution.

We know finch beaks oscillate depending upon weather and conditions = better explained by the ID model ?

You mean that the IDed organism needs to be fine tuned by (a) having mutations available to provide variation, and (b) subsequent selection to meet the needs of a changing environment (= evolution)?

How does this make ID a "better" explanation? Explain the mechanism by which ID worked, and how it was implemented, and how this is differentiated from the mechanism of evolution by the evidence at hand.

Thus saith RAZD....you are guilty of the same: natural-selection-did-it.

LOL. Actually the evidence shows it whether I say it or not. This is not a matter of redefining evolution to suit -- it is just the definition applied to the facts: evolution is change in species over time; change in species over time was observed in specific fact and location and duration of time; result = evidence = evolution.

Enjoy.

Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.


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 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-23-2006 7:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

  
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 12 of 48 (334988)
07-24-2006 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
07-23-2006 12:16 PM


Re: ... wonderful evidence for CREATIONist erroneous assertions ...
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.

Edited by MurkyWaters, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2006 12:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2006 11:08 PM MurkyWaters has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 642 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 13 of 48 (335041)
07-24-2006 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by MurkyWaters
07-24-2006 8:03 PM


Another thread for this issue
That is, I prepared the response before I saw your "Off Topic" note.

That note was from AdminJar, not me. Admins try to keep these things on topic, and this is a news thread rather than a debate thread.

Go to Galapagos finches, www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=421&m=80#80>Message 80

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 12 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-24-2006 8:03 PM MurkyWaters has taken no action

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2129 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 14 of 48 (335206)
07-25-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by MurkyWaters
07-22-2006 6:35 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
This discovery, which has long been postulated by creationists, is an example of natural selection which was first proposed before Darwin by creationists.

Say what? Creationists proposed the idea of natural selection? And Darwin and Wallace did not cite them? The fiends! You are going to have to provide a citation for such an extraordinary claim. And in your very first post, too! Congratulations! This will absolutely rock the scientific world!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-22-2006 6:35 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 9:00 PM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2129 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 15 of 48 (335207)
07-25-2006 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
07-22-2006 7:09 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Faith writes:

Right in tune with the rest of us creationists here.

Yes, right down to the extraordinary claims that can't be documented. (Creationists thought up the theory of natural selection before Darwin, according to Murky)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 07-22-2006 7:09 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 9:07 PM deerbreh has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022