Finches named for Darwin are evolving

[tocqueville]

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer
1 hour, 28 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_sc/darwin_evolution_2

[kwolf68]

1. Im not sure

Maybe this is just basic selection. Maybe this finch has the alleles for the smaller beak, but they just have not been expressed until the competitive pressures.

Is this finch an actual "NEW SPECIES"? Or just the same species with different adaptations?

(Disclaimer: I fully support evolution, admire Darwin, and am currently in grad school studying science).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Expressing alleles due to competitive pressures...

would be evolution.

[kwolf68]

4. I know that

Yes, and this process is called Micro-evolution. I don't think the dingbat theocrats have a problem with that.

Isn't it Macro-evolution that they squawk about? The actual appearance of a completely new species, which this case is not.

That is what I was asking. The only true way to prove that this is actual evolution as in "a brand new species" we'd have to to genetic analysis of these new finches and the ones they supposedly evolved from.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. The process is called evolution.

"micro" and "macro" are nonsense.

Creationists squawk about science in general and are best left ignored.

To prove they're a new species is to observe them and notice if they do or do not mate with the others species.

[kwolf68]

8. Sure....

Your 2nd comment .... totally agree. Religious zealots hate science. I know all that.

Your third comment is definately onto something. If this population of finches does not (or can not) mate with the former population, then yes indeed evolution has been observed.

Your first comment I don't necessarily agree with, but I wont worry about it.

[trotsky]

10. Sorry, that is an incorrect understanding of evolution.

Evolution is simply the change in frequency of genes in a population over time. That's all.

Evolution can and does lead to speciation, which is what you are confusing it with.

[kwolf68]

13. I am trying to discuss this from the standpoint

of speciation. Yes, evolution has occured here. I never have said anything else.

[trotsky]

19. Then what did you mean in your first post?

You said: Maybe this is just basic selection.

And what you clearly meant by that would be expressed by adding "as opposed to actual evolution" on the end. Because the article did not differentiate - you did. You seemed to indicate you thought a population had to become a whole new species before evolution could be declared to have happened.

[kwolf68]

21. The article most certainly did differeniate

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


Those are their words, not mine. I just kinda took off on that angle.

What would totally blow the minds of the Christ-freaks is for a new species to be "created" from the genome of an "original" species because of a genetic mutation. Currently, we only know mutations as negative, but the concept of a mutation CAN and DOES lead to variation in the genome. Theoretically, a mutation does NOT have to be lethal, although so far most have been. I argue a sample size of only 100 years or so is not near enough time to figure out the role of mutations in evolution.

[trotsky]

22. Yeah, you did "take off" on that angle.

Falsely introducing speciation as a requirement for evolution.

You are also wrong with your statement:

Currently, we only know mutations as negative

Honestly that statement sounds more like something I'd expect to hear from Kent Hovind or any of the liars at the ICR.

Here's a brief list of a few that are found in humans.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

[kwolf68]

23. Just lovely.

I know what evolution is, but there are two interpretations of it. Religious nuts, to my knowledge, have no qualms with selection, "micro-evolution" even having claimed "God" made it possible.

They reject the idea that man evolved from apes (or an ape-like creature). They believe Man "came" from Adam and Eve and they understand "micro-evolution" as an explanation on why we have black people, white people, Orientals, etc. They had to deal with this pickle and they did so by accepting the general definition of evolution.

While you suggest I incorrectly introduced speciation into the discussion as a requirement for evolution, I merely used the term interchangeably as it applied to the religious right's arguments. Was the “creation” of a new species the end result of this evolution? They think God creates "new" species. We think nature does it by the process of evolution leading to speciation.

Sure, we can sit here and please ourselves knowing these finches DID evolve, but will this convince those on the freak side? Maybe, we shouldn’t worry about winning that argument. I was simply coming at it from the angle that this story would not please the Christo-freaks.

In essence, yes they evolved, but “new life” was not created from this evolution. THAT is what gets those people fired up, not the fact a finch is now showing characteristics not previously seen.

As far as your link to the mutations, that was indeed very interesting. I’ve only scanned through it, but some of the information in that link is still to be determined. The science on most, if not all, of those examples is not proven definitive. The lipid transport study suggests its only possible mutation is of factor, not definite. To me, that is meaningless although interesting and loaded with possibilities.

Several of the others appear to be variations of genes. I’m not discounting it, just saying the science is still on-going.

[trotsky]

25. So you're still going to stand by your statement...

that we don't know of any beneficial mutations, huh?

[longship]

15. Strawberry-flavored evolution vs vanilla-flavored.

Everybody knows that there is no such thing as vanilla-flavored evolution. There is only the strawberry-flavored kind. Is that how it works?

We should ask the people who would argue about micro- vs macro-evolution to put their money where their mouths are.

Name and characterize the natural barrier which prevents genetic changes from accumulating to the point that so-called micro-evolution becomes macro-evolution. What experiments can be done to establish the existence of such a barrier? What experimental result would be fatal to the micro-/macro- barrier theory?

I propose that there is no such barrier. Therefore the use of the term micro-evolution is meaningless.

However, I *do* love the strawberry-flavored kind. With nuts on top, please.

[kwolf68]

18. Are you kidding?

While I very much admire your question, I would never propose asking that question to some creationist freak ...I'd be burned at the stake as a heretic.

[LynneSin]

7. That's evolution in a nutshell

Consider it this way - the bigger-beaked finches are unable to find food as readily as the smaller beaked variety. Because of this the larger-beaked ones are probably less likely to find food, thus increasing the possiblity of not only starvation, but less offspring produced and quite likely a lower survive rate for the offspring because the big-beaked parents are unable to find enough food.

Whereas the smaller-beaked ones are able to find food, live longer, produce more chicks and care for those chicks and ultimately the genes for their smaller beaks are passed on more often to future generations than the larger beaked ones.

[xchrom]

11. sort of -- there's NEW finch that was competeing for the same seeds

as the original finch.

the original -- adapting to the competition from the new arrival -- is evolving by being hatched with shorter beaks to better access the new finch won't eat.

not unlike elphants in uganda being born in greater numbers with no tusks.
no tusk -- no being poached.

[kwolf68]

14. Yes I have heard of the elephants

And it does my heart good. Ok, kill us for our tusks...Fine you bastards, we'll just be born without tusks.

[xchrom]

24. i know -- i LOVE that!

elephants are amazing.

[kwolf68]

12. I understand that

I have plenty of experience with field research. Please understand I typically question everything while still staying on the path of evolutionary Biology.

If these two finches are the same species then this is not the creation of a new species, even though those with the smaller beak look different than those with the bigger beak.

I understand the concept that evolution is the change of allele frequency. Where this discussion gets bogged down is where one species is derived from some other species with different genetics.

The genetics of these two finches, providing they are the same species, are the same despite the difference in beak sizes. What makes these two finches look different is the expression of genes, not necessarily the differences in them.

Keep in mind, I have been witness to true "Macro-Evolution" in the lab with bacteria. Bacteria, in some cases, can actually undergo genetic change and this is the basis for "a new species", which is what the Christo-fascists can't put their brains around. To witness this sort of evolution in mammals is not likely, or easy due to generation times. So we have to do research on past events, which is what Darwin did and which was brilliant science.

[Avalux]

17. Would still be evolution.

Doesn't have to be a new species of finch. :hi:

[berni_mccoy]

20. There was a study in the 1950's on foxes

The goal was to understand the study of how domesticated dogs evolved from wild species. They took wild foxes and domesticated them. Within just two generations, the descendent foxes exhibited different physical characteristics. Significantly varied features in the nose, mouth, ears and tails, as well as temperment. When looking at the various biochemical factors, they discovered one key difference in the domesticated foxes and their wild ancestors: adrenaline levels. When the domesticated foxes had a much lower level of adrenaline than their wild ancestors, and this lower level of adrenaline caused genetic mutations that resulted in domesticated features.

[xultar]

3. They're not evolving. God thought he'd design a few with smaller

beaks cuz they'd look cuter.

[mike_c]

5. of course they're evolving-- all animals are evolving....

Peter and Rosemary Grant have turned their summers into one of the premiere data sets in ecology and evolutionary biology.

Evolution = changing population allele frequency from one generation to the next.

[FSogol]

9. The finches not named for Darwin are also evolving.

Great headline however. I imagine some flat-earthers ascusing godless, liberal finches of evolving despite what it says in the Bible.

[mom cat]

16. Shh! Don't tell the Fundies. Their pea brains might explode!

:nuke: