Evolution of new species of finch observed

[floo]

What facts can I oblige you with?

That god exists, would be a start.

[SteveH]

That god exists, would be a start.

Your wish is my command, LR sweetie. God Exists.

[floo]

Your wish is my command, LR sweetie. God Exists.

EVIDENCE?

[SteveH]

EVIDENCE?

You didn't ask for evidence. You asked to be provided with the fact that God exists - and it was you who called that a fact.

[Grace of God]

Then try doing it.

I do but it does not mean i will always agree with you or anyone else for that matter...

[wigginhall]

Another interesting aspect of these finches is, that by tracking weather sequences, you can match these with changes in the shape and size of their beaks.  There are periods of drought and rain, and different food becomes available, or not.  So if there are more seeds, a thicker beak helps, of course, not as a design.  I don't think this has led to new modern species, but probably did in the past.

[Maeght]

I do but it does not mean i will always agree with you or anyone else for that matter...

No one asks you to agree, but your posting style isn't conducive to getting along. And adding a smilie every post doesn't help.

[Nearly Sane]

No one asks you to agree, but your posting style isn't conducive to getting along. And adding a smilie every post doesn't help.

Just to note as per announcement in Banned Posters, Grace of God has been banned for refusing moderation.

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator Note a number of posts have been removed which covered discussion of Grace of God's ban. Discussion of bans are derails and any issues members want to raise should be via PM to Moderation team.

[splashscuba]

But there are limits to what mutations can achieve, which explains the many design faults in organisms, if you assume design. I don't think any mutation could give a vertebrate six limbs instead of the standard four, so, as I said earlier, if humans were to have wings, we'd have to do without arms, which would be a retrograde step, if you ask me.

Natural selection would ultimately decide though. Chances are having wings would probably have a negative effect as these wouldn't, on their own, allow humans to fly (we're too heavy and have the wrong muscular skeletal body). In which case, the resulting mutant would not pass on their genes.

[Spud]

A thicker beak seems to be a bit like africans having a wider nose, and doesn't indicate a different species. Does being reproductively isolated mean that attempts to mate with other species are unsuccessful or that they just don't attract them?

[SteveH]

Natural selection would ultimately decide though. Chances are having wings would probably have a negative effect as these wouldn't, on their own, allow humans to fly (we're too heavy and have the wrong muscular skeletal body). In which case, the resulting mutant would not pass on their genes.

Iwas going to say that. The wings would have to be absolutely enormous. Birds are lighter than animals proportional to their size, and the largest bird capable of flight is the swan,which we are a lot bigger than. Correction - it's the Kori Bustard, according to Google, closely followed by the Mute Swan.

[Harrowby Hall]

Correction - it's the Kori Bustard, according to Google, closely followed by the Mute Swan.

Bit misleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_birds suggests that there is considerable variability in waterfowl and that the individual cob swan which does appear to have been the largest measured was too heavy to be able to fly. If you consider wing span as indicators of size (since this is an important aerodynamic factor) then albatross and condor are larger.

However, your point about springing wings - angel-like - is not going to be the answer is spot on!

There would have to be radical weight-eliminating mutations as well. The weight of our heads (skull and brain) would completely unbalance the rest of the body.

[Stranger]

There have been some very large flying animals.

However, with regard to questions like why hasn't such and such evolved, perhaps the major limitation on what actually evolves is that only a small (and environment dependent) subset of all possible creatures is accessible to evolution, because it can only proceed in relatively small* steps and each step has to be advantageous in its own right.

There has to be a viable path from something that exists to the thing with the perceived advantage. As was pointed out before, evolution can't plan ahead. It may well be an advantage for some land animal to suddenly sprout wings and be able to fly but that would be magic, not evolution.

* Small in terms of the genotype rather than the phenotype. Large mutations are unlikely to be advantageous. Just how much role largish mutations have played is a matter of some debate.

[floo]

Maybe humans will sprout wings in the future!

[Sassy]

Sassy

For someone who has explained how she managed - as an adult - to climb the precipitous pathway up the mountain to achieve the intellectual summit that is "O" level English, you do show surprising gaps in your understanding of the language. I suspect that you have been reading too much by Arthur Conan Doyle - the meaning of "theory", as used in the Sherlock Holmes stories, is erroneous.

Theory has a very clear and well-understood meaning for scientists. You obviously do not know what that meaning is, nor do you understand its application in evolutionary science.

You are clearly a well-meaning and caring individual. Stop giving other people the opportunity to dismiss your contributions.

What a colourful and roundabout way of saying you really do not have an answer or even a scientific knowledge of the things I was referring to. Like most people who only know what they are told, you believe no one understands science or scientist enough to be able to prove or show they know what they are talking about. DO YOU believe it shows and educated answer or a weak and poor excuse for an answer?

You can dismiss all you like but you cannot give and educated answer to support what you are saying. Now ask yourself why I know that but you cannot prove me wrong?  Truth is not a personality contest and like science it requires more than " so and so said".  Scientist are just men and most science is "theory" based on what men think. God and the world has no answer in science or scientist when it comes to their existing. I am not trying to be difficult but truth is a better place to start.

[Maeght]

Are you misunderstanding what a scientific theory is there Sassy?

[Sassy]

Shows once again you don't understand the science if the theory of evolution by natural selection,

  Natural selection - as in survival of the fittest?  Darwin stufied for 30 years he proposed that the many differences in individuals of a species their genes etc regarding their suitability to their surroundings  made them better able to survive.
He also sent out mixed messages because it was Darwin who suggested 'descent with modification' this is where the idea that species change over a period of time and these changes cause new species to come into existence. But the truth is major animals and their species have no been changing and life on this planet only comes from life forms ALREADY here.Man and animals have all adapted or died according to their surroundings. But new life of a brand new species from NOTHING has not happened. In fact science believe evolution has stopped.
Where would that leave the survival of the fittest is no species evolving? We have to think beyond the pail and think about what Darwins writings really mean by making the comparisons here and now.

 

the meaning if the word theory or, well, science at all. You accuse people if ignorance when they comment on religion yet are happy to display your ignorance on evolution. Best not to comment on stuff you don't understand.

Many people use 'theory' where they should use 'law'.  For instance a 'scientific law' The world and creation is a scientific law not a theory since there is no  experiments or even  confirmed observations which would make evolution a theory.  The reason it should be called a 'law' is that their is no evidence of any kind of how life and the planet earth really came into existence. May be if I can reach this conclusion using your words for theories, science, evolution and scientist then why haven't you? The one truth that does come out, is I think for myself and can reason the information before me, without using my religious knowledge.  Whilst you just accept what you are told. I am sure many times you will use the above arguments but you will never be able to give a valid educated reasons for doing so.  I want to learn and grow like everyone else. But not remain ignorant or unable to reason for myself. Because I don't share your view and others won't does not make us ignorant. Especially when we can explain why and what we believe based on having the same knowledge as you but using our own ability to reach a personal conclusion. Thanks for your reply.

[Sassy]

well said ...

It seems to go unnoticed that every creature seems to have parameters set in to their changes ...

Hi Gog,

I have further explained in my previous two posts to this. I hope you will read and tell me what you think. 

[Sassy]

Where on this thread have I insulted anyone? I was sorely tempted to, after reading the alarmingly ignorant and stupid posts of some other people, but I resisted the temptation.
I am not going to argue any more about evolution. It is a fact, and those who deny it are wilfully ignorant, closed-minded, superstitious idiots. (NOW you can accuse me of being insulting, if you like!)

and yet you just know that some fundy fuckwit will say, on some facebook group or other, that no-one has ever seen one species change into another next week or the week after. (One such has just said it in a facebook group I'm a member of.) That's because they are wilfully ignorant idiots who don't even know what "species" means.

  Do the highlighted not insult ?  Are you saying that Darwin did not teach evolution as the 'descent and modification'  where SPECIES all change over time so new species evolve and these species all have a common ancestor which they share?  The way I see it, no one is a fool for reading and suggesting their has been no new species because cross breed any animal you get a new species but not a brand new one from scratch. Life brings life. What is missing is how life exists in the first instance. We can study that which is here. We cannot answer why it is here.

[Sassy]

So you approve of breathtaking ignorance.

And this is supposed to mean what, exactly?

It appears simple and clear to me. NO NEW LIFE FROM SCRATCH. Forgive me for answering if I am wrong Gog, but sometime things appear breathtakingly ignorance because some minds never probe to ask questions beyond what they have read. Science can only progress when men question what they already believe may be right. Religion like science is and should be a quest for truth and evidence.

[Aruntraveller]

We cannot answer why it is here.

I agree. No definitive cause has been identified. No definitive cause. I'll leave that there for you to digest.

[Sassy]

How come we don't see intelligent fundies?

Christ, was intelligent and a fundamentalist of the highest calling. He could do what science cannot and what science cannot explain.
If Christ was here, who would you want to heal you, the doctors and the medical science or Christ and the power of God which is not invasive?

Intelligent fundies are intelligent because they seek truth and that truth in shown in what choice they would make.
CHRIST.

So unless you have something better than insults to argue with, should you not try and present scientific arguments to fight your case instead of insulting people?

[Sassy]

We do, it's just they are so far ahead of you, you don't recognise them....

so no answer to wingless humans..lol

He use to be a Christian, but I guess somewhere he was more afraid of what people thought than God and Truth.
Truth is something we seek more as Christians than as atheists. I feel it fair to say, believers seek truth whilst atheists seek information to try and support their own choice of truth. Shame because there are some good minds on this forum who are atheists.

[Sassy]

Vertebrates are constructed on a basic four-limbed pattern. To have wings, we'd have to do without arms or legs, which would not be much of an improvement. [Edit] Actually, it'd have to be arms we'd have to do without, as they, not legs, are analogous to birds' wings. Legs are in the wrong position.

So how do Angels manage to have wings and all their limbs and fly?

Today we just have the ability to question what we believe and understand why humans do not have wings. God never planned for them to have them could you imagine collisions in mid air or trying to breath in a fallen body. In reality it would be dangerous to have fallen humans flying.