July 13, 2006

THEY DON'T EVEN PRETEND ABOUT SPECIATION ANYMORE? (via Raoul Ortega):

Finches on Galapagos Islands evolving (RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, 7/13/06, 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.


It would be sadder that this -- citing disproof as proof -- is what they've been reduced to had their ideology not been so destructive. It illustrates again though that were they willing to settle for what was true about Darwin's insight it's still quite brilliant and useful, just not supportive of their ideological ends.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 13, 2006 7:23 PM
Comments

Stipulated: almost all science writers are idiots. Now where do you go with this?

Posted by: HT at July 13, 2006 8:18 PM

Don't blame the writer when it's the "science" that's inane.

Posted by: oj at July 13, 2006 8:28 PM

I understand your desire to uphold the principle of the shortest and pithiest comment winning the day. However...

Much like the advent of the poorly thought-out phrase "survival of the fittest" (never said by Darwin, by the way), the writer of this article uses shorthand to describe the entire process involved, and you pretend that his erroneous summation is indicative of a problem with the underlying science.

What he should have written was something on the order of: "A species of finch with a beak of size "x" found extreme competition for food from a larger species with a similar sized-beak. When mutations occurred which favored a smaller beak, which allowed access to new, uncompeted-for food sources, those offspring preferentially survived and, in turn, passed on these smaller beaks to their offspring. Due to the short generational lag time, these new smaller-beaked finches have taken over the available habitat. In effect, the older species is extinct (or on the way to extinction), while a new species from that stock has arisen in its place."

But that wouldn't win the "quip of the year" award, now, would it?

Posted by: HT at July 13, 2006 8:48 PM

Quip? It's a falsehood.

Posted by: oj at July 13, 2006 9:03 PM
A medium sized species of Darwin's finch has evolved a smaller beak

Still the same species, just a smaller beak.

Posted by: djs at July 13, 2006 9:23 PM

Thus a disproof.

Posted by: oj at July 13, 2006 9:28 PM

DJS: "Species". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

OJ: if you are saying that my statement was factually incorrect, please feel free to identify the erroneous portion and correct it to the best of your understanding. This sniping from the underbrush is neither dignified nor dispositive.

Posted by: HT at July 13, 2006 9:29 PM

Harry:

No, that's the point. Species turned out not to mean what you guys thought it did. Indeed, it means nothing.

Posted by: oj at July 13, 2006 9:33 PM

Do you want to clarify that? Because I don't think you are correct in your assertion.

Posted by: HT at July 13, 2006 10:22 PM

Darwin's finches never speciated, as these haven't.

It's not sniping. The core of your faith is false as you demonstrated by restating the story falsely.

Posted by: oj at July 13, 2006 10:30 PM

Again, and I'm not trying to be snide here, I'd like you to point out exactly where you think I've stated a falsehood. I think you have some rigid definition of species in your mind that isn't correct, but I can't quite be certain because you are so vague in your counterarguments/assertions.

Posted by: HT at July 13, 2006 10:50 PM

HT,

Don't take it from me. From the article:

This was certainly a documented case of microevolution, added Fleischer, who was not part of Grant's research.
Posted by: djs at July 13, 2006 10:50 PM

Almost the entire paragraph is either false or based on assumptions not in evidence, but it concludes with the big lie: "In effect, the older species is extinct (or on the way to extinction), while a new species from that stock has arisen in its place."

There aren't different species of finches.

Posted by: oj at July 13, 2006 10:59 PM

djs:

The great line comes from fellow Darwinists who have said of Grant: "Only God and Peter Grant can recognize Darwin's finches."

Posted by: oj at July 13, 2006 11:00 PM

oj: actually, although I had not (previously) read the entire article, most of what I wrote is in fact confirmed by the last few paragraphs. The question is whether one considers the smaller-beaked birds to be a new species. Using the traditional definition of species, which is based on a series of morphological measurements, the answer should be "yes". The writer muddles the issues, hence your confusion with the intentions of biologists.

djs: what, in fact, is "microevolution", except a step on the path to "macroevolution"?

Posted by: HT at July 13, 2006 11:16 PM

Here's your initial paragraph:

"A species of finch with a beak of size "x" found extreme competition for food from a larger species with a similar sized-beak. When mutations occurred which favored a smaller beak, which allowed access to new, uncompeted-for food sources, those offspring preferentially survived and, in turn, passed on these smaller beaks to their offspring. Due to the short generational lag time, these new smaller-beaked finches have taken over the available habitat. In effect, the older species is extinct (or on the way to extinction), while a new species from that stock has arisen in its place."

Here are some of the errors and statements of faith:

"A species"

"extreme competition"

"mutations occurred"

"favored"

"new,uncompeted"

"preferentially survived"

"taken over"

But the point is really just your conclusion which is the nub of Darwnism and false.

It's not your fault, mind you, this is all you guys have. It's just laughable.

www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/10/why_they_need_a.html


Posted by: oj at July 13, 2006 11:24 PM

Your assertion to djs is an exquisite statement of the faith completely independent of any science whatsoever!

The natural environment microevolves finches just as we intelligent designers microevolve pigs, sheep and cows, but unfortunately the macroevolution never happens.

Posted by: oj at July 13, 2006 11:32 PM

I knew that article would provide some entertainment.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 14, 2006 9:32 AM
« ONLY HIS WORLD SERIES MVP CAN TOP IT: | Main | AMERICA ISN'T A PLACE (via Mike Daley & Tom Morin): »