Evolution Continuing In The Galapagos Islands

[Janus]

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.

Finches on Galapagos Islands evolving (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_sc/darwin_evolution;_ylt=AlrJgnsz2P_BVRW3uQexnK8PLBIF ;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

[Severian]

The difficulty with this, as confirmation of evolution for those who still deny it - is that it's microevolution, change within a single species.

Creationists will admit the reality of microevolution but not macroevolution. Though I've never been sure where they draw the line.

Ordinarily, macroevolution means the emergence of new species. But that's been observed to happen, too, so creationists will mostly admit it can.

They say they don't admit evolution can produce new "kinds". Since the Bible says God created the different "kinds" of animals.

But "kind" is not a scientific classification, and I've never seen them try to scientifically define it.

[Delta]

Interesting. Although I don't generally view new evidence for evolution to be of much practical interest. Those who don't believe in it don't do so for lack of evidence, they mostly just reject reason as a method of acquiring knowledge.

[pedro san pedro]

Same species as this? (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19025525.300.html)



Our impact on the environment may be forcing evolution into reverse, collapsing recently formed species back into single ones

OUR impact on the environment may be forcing evolution into reverse, collapsing recently formed species back into a single one. This "reverse speciation" may be robbing evolution of the raw material for future biodiversity.


Eventually, the two fledgling species can become different enough genetically that they can no longer hybridise effectively, but if the barriers to gene flow come down too soon the two may hybridise and merge again. Just such a collapse appears to be happening today among Darwin's

[RevSouth]

When has macroevolution been observed? Just wondering, not debating it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Pedro san Pedro: Evolution never goes "backwards" It's obvious that the new species simply aren't up to the task. This happens with or without human intervention.


When has macroevolution been observed? Just wondering, not debating it.

It's been observed hundreds of times in the fossil record. Of course to Creationists this isn't evidence, but their standards of evidence are unacceptable.

[Janus]

pedro,

The article I posted was about the finches evolving again and creating a new species rather than merging into a single one.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:40 PM
When has macroevolution been observed? Just wondering, not debating it.
One example: a new species of mosquito has developed since the construction of the London Underground. Their ancestors fed on birds, but since they were trapped underground they had to adapt to feed on rodents and people.

They can no longer interbreed with the ancestral species. That's probably enough to google up more info if you want.

That's a new species, so macroevolution to most biologists.

But not creationists. I asked a moderate creationist at work today where the line is drawn, but she didn't know exactly. Except that she doubts birds evolved from reptiles, or humans from apes.

[Avtomatov]

If earth were meant for us humans then why did god wait so long to put us on it? What purpose did the dinosaurs serve? And why did he not make us so mutations/evolution do not happen?