Darwins Finches evolve

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

I am confused by what you say:

Biological Evolution = Change in Allele frequencies in a population over time.

yet:

…modern anthropology has done away with the term "race" altogether as we are, in fact, all of the human race.

There is an irreconcilable dichotomy arising, further fueled by recent genetic findings. I must lay a little ground work in order for others to understand. First, if "anthropology" makes this claim that humans are a single "race," and this position is not based solely on politics, and humans are but another animal; then how does one account for the recent announcement around Christmas dealing with a mutant gene in the genome of Caucasoid populations?
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...logy-4598.html
post 6 and 8

Wherein the researchers discovered that a mutant gene is responsible for fair skin in Caucasoid peoples compared with Negroid peoples. Yet, this mutant gene is not responsible for fair skin in Mongoloid peoples. That tells me there are at least three distinct sub-species of humans per "change in Allele frequencies in a population over time," assuming humans are "but another animal." Whether one looks to the genetic antiquity of the Bushmen, Laplanders and Ainu peoples, or the mythological explanation of Noah's sons Shem, Ham and Japeth; the concept of three distinct "sub-species" of humans exists with this train of thought, and cannot be adequately reconciled with "modern anthropology has done away with the term 'race' altogether as we are, in fact, all of the human race." The logical conclusion, and political danger, of "Biological Evolution = Change in Allele frequencies in a population over time" leads to Eugenics. This is the latent conflict with gauging "speciation" by a cosmetic adaptation such as beak size, nose size, skin color, I.Q. or shoe size.

We cannot have both. Either one statement is true, or the other, but not both together under the same guise of science and anthropology…

This has been an underlying point I have striven to bring forth in my previous discussions. We both know I can get carried away on this subject, hence my reason to refrain. But I do want this one crucially salient point brought forward. Perhaps I have left some of the newer people scratching their heads wondering what I am getting at. Yet, I know full well others here who have participated in the previous discussions know exactly what I am getting at.

With this I will bow out to let this thread develop as it will.

Peace, to one who I greatly respect.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

it should probably also be said that the debate in science is not if evolution happened. it has. the debate is over the mechanisms for such

Indeed, but I fear too often the discussion and debate over different mechanisms gets drowned out in the general polarised Evolution vs Creationism argument.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hey Brian, are you serious about this?

Well, I've started something a couple of weeks back, and have 2 chapters written. But I've started many books before.

[flowperson]

Keep writing Brian. Someone should be able to come up with some viable answers. It might as well be you.

When it comes to the discussion at hand, I approach the subject from the viewpoint of the operation of complex systems. Nature is a complex system; and, subsets of this uber system are plants, animals, electromagnetic radiations, earth's weather patterns and atmosphere, geological shifts in earth's foundational materials, and even materials and animate and inanimate objects modified and created by intelligent beings, since these are, by definition, only expedient and transitory rearrangements of natural complex systems re-fashioned to suit our needs. Everything within this categorization is entirely composed of a fixed number of naturally occuring elements, arranged with each other in varying combinations. As far as we are able to see in the observable universe this all seems to be the case.

So think of all our earthly realities as nested sets of macro and micro complex systems that tend to come into being naturally or artificially, that exist for differing time spans in certain forms, and then tend to transform themselves because of environmental necessities into other sorts of complex systems. Such transformed systems are not necessarily very different from what came before, but just different enough in order to, perhaps, adapt more effeciently to the new and changed environmental order.

Water is a complex system, yet it may exist in at least three forms on the earth or in the atmosphere; steam, liquid, or as a solid. The phase changes that mark the shifts between the forms exhibit hallmark patterns at the molecular and atomic levels as the changes progress. But these hallmark patterns are dormant once the stability of a new phase is attained.

This same or similar process takes place in living organisms as they change to adapt over time to environmental variabilities. If a Finch species in the Galapagos Islands adapts its beak characteristics to adapt to new food source conditions, it may or may not signal a permanent change in the animal and the establishment of a new species. It's a question of how long the new stability lasts. It depends upon one's definition of permanence. Beaks may change within another ten years or so because of other needed adaptations to feeding conditions. Can that also be considered a species change ? I believe that this is all a matter of degree and time spans.

Science is a series of measurements and observations that describe conditions in our environments of complex systems. It and its findings are always subject to adjustment and change depending upon the relative stabilities over time of what is being observed and measured. Looking at past objects gives us a series of pictures of past realities frozen in time, and by stringing enough of them together science has the ability to determine and, now, digitally model, over time, whether phenomena such as global warming trends are real, and what the causes might be. But these methods, such as stringing together humanoid fossils to determine our heritage, are notoriously incomplete because of the lengthy time periods involved. Actually, digital archaeogenetic analyses are currently yielding more fascinating versions and pictures of what we are and where we came from.

In living complex systems these things are much more difficult to theorize upon and to reach concrete conclusions about. These systems are much more sensitive to many more variables than, say, water is. They must also react and mesh with atmospherics, light, electro/geomagnetic variances, nutrient availabilities, etc., so there are many more things to observe and measure to determine accuracy and applicabiliy of any explanatory theories which may be derived in the process.

So saying that there have always have been three distinct varieties of humans and that they correspond with the stories concerning Noah's three sons may be true, but it could also just be a convenient metaphor to explain our possible genotype, phenotype, and cultural histories. In a like manner we might regard random genetic mutations within the human system to be transitory and not necessarily indicative of species change. It is clear that autism, attention deficit disorder, juvenile diabetes, increased allergen sensitivities and the like signal changes in the human system. But are they changes that signal some immense movement towards a permanent shift in the makeup of our species ? Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell.

But these days some epidemiologists are concerned that our species' shift away from living in natural as opposed to constructed environments over the past 150 years or so may be enough of an environmental imposition upon our system's stabilities to force cascades of genetic changes that may profoundly change all of us in significant ways.

flow....

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

I am confused by what you say:

yet:

There is an irreconcilable dichotomy arising, further fueled by recent genetic findings.

the terms "race" and "ethnicity" are two different orders of classification used to denote different aspects of the being, as far as i can tell. further, i suggest that the "irreconcilable dichotomy" is more of a classifcation issue

I must lay a little ground work in order for others to understand. First, if "anthropology" makes this claim that humans are a single "race," and this position is not based solely on politics, and humans are but another animal; then how does one account for the recent announcement around Christmas dealing with a mutant gene in the genome of Caucasoid populations?

it seems like you are suggesting that different ethnic groups are different species of human. i would strongly disagree with such a notion. all of which, however, seem somewhat outside the scope of the OP. moreover, humans have plenty of mutations within their genetic code...

anthropology is a bit different than taxonomy, iirc.

Wherein the researchers discovered that a mutant gene is responsible for fair skin in Caucasoid peoples compared with Negroid peoples. Yet, this mutant gene is not responsible for fair skin in Mongoloid peoples. That tells me there are at least three distinct sub-species of humans per "change in Allele frequencies in a population over time," assuming humans are "but another animal."

how have determined that these genetic mutations constitute a new "sub-species" category in standard taxonomy?

surely you do not dispute that all humans are able to interbreed, do you?

Whether one looks to the genetic antiquity of the Bushmen, Laplanders and Ainu peoples, or the mythological explanation of Noah's sons Shem, Ham and Japeth; the concept of three distinct "sub-species" of humans exists with this train of thought, and cannot be adequately reconciled with "modern anthropology has done away with the term 'race' altogether as we are, in fact, all of the human race."

modern humans, Homo Sapien Sapien, on the male side are all related to the african Bushmen.

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7442.html

The logical conclusion, and political danger, of "Biological Evolution = Change in Allele frequencies in a population over time" leads to Eugenics.

only if one subscribes to certain view points which are not based on anything but a desire for power and worldly influence.

it is the logical conclusion of Social Darwninism that, however, is quite outside the scope of this thread.

We cannot have both. Either one statement is true, or the other, but not both together under the same guise of science and anthropology…

reality does not seem to be bi-valent regardless of how often our view points are. reality is multi-valent and, as such, has a myriad of manners in which beings are assembled.

the two statements are addressing different areas and they are both correct statements. naturally, as our information grows so does our understanding.

metta,

~v

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Woah, everybody's using loads of SAT words here, but I'm going to try and contribute something intelligent anyway...

Originally Posted by wil

I'm not denying evolution...just wondering out of all the fossils we've discovered...out of the thousands of species...all we ever see is interspecies change...in every single case we have a missing link...we can never get from a-z on any species change because we always have a hole...

Doesn't seem like scientfic proof to me...I personally would like to see the gaps filled.

Now, what I remember from my weekly three-hour-nap entitled "Biology 101" is that you can't say that A is a separate species from C unless they can't interbreed. But in order to know whether or not they can't interbreed, you have to have living examples around to play with. Vaj mentioned, how long does it take for micro to become macro? Say you've got fossil evidence of creature A, and somewhat later fossil evidence of creature B, and even later fossil evidence of creature C. For the sake of convenience you label them three different species. But if C evolved from B evolved from A, how do you know who could have interbred with whom? If dogs were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth, how would future generations know that chihuahuas could interbreed with great danes, and that they weren't separate species?

The point I am clunkily trying to make here is that maybe the gaps are filled already, we just can't recognize it because we don't have any eohippi around to try and mate with a horse.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

The point I am clunkily trying to make here is that maybe the gaps are filled already, we just can't recognize it because we don't have any eohippi around to try and mate with a horse.

I'm hip...but unless we think this happenned quite rapidly it seems there would be some eohippi fossils or at least some equahips, or hipotanooses. If all we were missing was B, I'd be tempted to agree. But in any species evolution it appears the closest we can get is a-l we are missing b-k and conjecture that 42 changes happened between the two.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by wil

I'm not denying evolution...just wondering out of all the fossils we've discovered...out of the thousands of species...all we ever see is interspecies change...in every single case we have a missing link...we can never get from a-z on any species change because we always have a hole...

Doesn't seem like scientfic proof to me...I personally would like to see the gaps filled.

Hi Wil, I won't pretend that I know a whole lot about paleobiology or the fossil record. But from what I do understand, it is not realistic to think that we would be able to find a record of smooth transitions from one morphological species to the next.

What I find compelling is found in the genomes of present-day organisms, as well as the observations we have from intentional breeding of things like Brassica and canines. I know, I know, they are still broccoli relatives and still dogs, yet if you found an intact broccoli and an intact mustard plant in the fossil record, or an intact chiahuha and St. Bernard, you might not conclude that they really were so very closely related. And, the one thing we don't have as evolutionary experimentalists is the factor of time. It's pretty difficult for us to conceptualize the length of time at work, and unrealistic to think that in a minute fraction of our speices lifetime we could reproduce the conditions that resulted in something like our own speciation. Of course we can speed up the process using genetic engineering, but still, a foundational part of evolution amounts to a great great deal of 'trial and error' on the part of genes being altered and discarded, or in very very rare instances kept as more beneficial.

But as I said, the more compelling evidence is not found in the fossil record, but in the genomes of present-day species. Tobacco and petunias and tomatoes are all quite different species, although in the same family of Solanacea. But they can no longer naturally interbreed, they have different numbers of chromosomes. However, the genomes of these species have many many shared genes, and even large sections of chromosomes that can be aligned. You can deduce from these patterns what the genome of the common ancestral species was like, even though that ancestral species no longer exists today or can be found in the fossil record. And the same thing can be applied as you get further and further from the same family of organisms, seeing smaller and smaller chunks of DNA that have not been rearranged as you get further away from the genus or family.

If not evolution, what possible explanation could there be for this observation? Why do we see these footprints of ancestral relatedness between largely divergent species if some other mechanism were at work. And if indeed God Did It (as at the root I firmly believe He did ), why would He leave us this evidence of evolution, rather than just assembling each genome from scratch in no discernable pattern? After all, there's no biological reason that the genes must appear in any given pattern in the genome for them to be functional.

Wil, I'm not picking on your post, but this is a point that never seems to be discussed. The focus always seems to be on the fossil record.

luna

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Actually, I have to be a canker here, and point out that indeed we're only seeing small adaptions within a species, rather than development of completely new species.

Humans have been manipulating the physical form of dogs for thousands of years, and despite an incredible range of adaptations, I don't believe we've actually created any new species of dog - merely variations on a theme.

So the finches shows that species can adapt - but we've seen this before. What we've not seen is a clear transistion between species.

No, I'm not downplaying evolution - I'm just trying to downplay expectations that the finches article can serve as a strong proof.

Must agree. Take two of the finches from the islands, and let them breed else where. Let us see if their DNA is altered, or if their chicks or the next generation of chicks shows the same "adaptation" to the environment they find themselves in. If what is said is true, there should be no change...If on the other hand the bills change to meet the new environment (that is back to the way old finches live), then there is no evolution. If on the other hand they die in their new environment, because it is inhospitable to what they are used to...then maybe we have an evolutionary step before our eyes...

That indeed would be very cool...

v/r

Q

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Quahom,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Must agree.

why "must" you agree? is it a religious reason which forces your agreement?

Take two of the finches from the islands, and let them breed else where.

so, you would propose to remove the finches from their natural habitat and have offspring in a completely different ecological zone? what would you learn about the Galapagos finches if they were in, say, Arizona?

Let us see if their DNA is altered, or if their chicks or the next generation of chicks shows the same "adaptation" to the environment they find themselves in. If what is said is true, there should be no change...If on the other hand the bills change to meet the new environment (that is back to the way old finches live), then there is no evolution.

so, in your view, if something changes in response to the new enviornment, that isn't evolution?

what a surprising view.

If on the other hand they die in their new environment, because it is inhospitable to what they are used to...then maybe we have an evolutionary step before our eyes.

we'd simply have dead birds.

metta,

~v

[wil]

Namaste Q, I think there is an interesting point there...on one hand we are amazed that something changed/evolved even and dance at the evidence in a couple of short decades. But I'm just thinkng outloud, hasn't man moved animals, moths, birds, from continent to continent, introduced foriegn species in strange lands...some hundreds of years ago? Is there marked differences that we are touting?

Luna, I know and agree with your statement on the fossil record. It just seems if we find bunches of fish lizards on the top of a mountain in Nevada, and we trip through such a wide variety of dinosaurs in Arizona...and I really don't know what is everywhere else...just know about what I see and read...it still seems their are illogical holes. Now I am not a creationist...I just think both camps make up answers to suit their needs. Funny enough I've read the genome argument from the creationists...Once G-d built some DNA that worked in one species...had conventinal builing blocks he reused them...much as one would find cinder blocks used in residential basements, high rise commercial, and industrial warehouses. Or the bone structure of a hand...reused in birds and dolphins...why not?

Again, I think the perponderance of evidence lends towards some sort of evolving process. But also see some other influence that caused major changes...whether that was radiation, electromagnetic, alien (either through an active life form or something contained in a meteorite), or G-d...I don't know. I saw a special maybe a year ago about the animals returning to Chernobyl...foxes, voles, raptors, rabbits...all highly radioactive, the ones with tumors and cancer died, and now these seem to exist and replicate offspring that can deal with radiation...it is all interesting to me...still doesn't stop me from questioning...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Quahom,

thank you for the post.



why "must" you agree? is it a religious reason which forces your agreement?



so, you would propose to remove the finches from their natural habitat and have offspring in a completely different ecological zone? what would you learn about the Galapagos finches if they were in, say, Arizona?



so, in your view, if something changes in response to the new enviornment, that isn't evolution?

what a surprising view.



we'd simply have dead birds.

metta,

~v

Not at all Vaj. I happen to believe evolution is a definitive change in the DNA structure of a life form, and I believe that it takes alot of time in order to get that helix to change from its original pattern. Anything short of that (IMO), is simply a temporary adaptation to an alien environment. If you stuck me on the Galopagos Islands (sp), for a year, I would come back as brown as an almond with bleached Strawberry blond hair. But a year later away from that environment, I'd be back to the ruddy Irish complexion and dirty blond hair I was born with.

Case in point, with as many chemicals and energies man is subjected to every day, plus the different items we consume that were not available even a hundred years ago, we should show signs of evolving (genetically). With the exception of a mutation here and there, we aren't evolving in any sense of the word.

If you wish to show conclusively that the Finches of the Galopagos Islands (sp), have "evolved" from the other finches around the world (including Arizona) , genetic comparrison and results side by side would most definitely do it.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Quahom,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Not at all Vaj. I happen to believe evolution is a definitive change in the DNA structure of a life form, and I believe that it takes alot of time in order to get that helix to change from its original pattern.

in your view, evolution is not a change in allele frequencies?

Anything short of that (IMO), is simply a temporary adaptation to an alien environment.

how long must something be changed for it to be considered "changed"? for instance, how long should the MSRE bug be resistant to our antibiotics before it would be considered resistant to our antibiotics?

If you stuck me on the Galopagos Islands (sp), for a year, I would come back as brown as an almond with bleached Strawberry blond hair. But a year later away from that environment, I'd be back to the ruddy Irish complexion and dirty blond hair I was born with.

populations evolve, not individuals. hence the defintion as = change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

Case in point, with as many chemicals and energies man is subjected to every day, plus the different items we consume that were not available even a hundred years ago, we should show signs of evolving (genetically). With the exception of a mutation here and there, we aren't evolving in any sense of the word.

oh?

so, you would say that homo sapien sapien is the same as homo sapien neandthalas?

what time frame is acceptable to you for a population to evolve? 1 generation? 1,000 generations?

what about nested hierarchies and retrovirii?

If you wish to show conclusively that the Finches of the Galopagos Islands (sp), have "evolved" from the other finches around the world (including Arizona) , genetic comparrison and results side by side would most definitely do it.

i see.

so, when the DNA does evidence evolution, what is the objection then? further, you realize that i am not one of the scientists that have published this report, correct?

it is not "my wish" to demonstrate anything other than the continued accumulation of evidence and knowledge to support the various theories that humans have regarding the natural world.

it really comes down to ones a priori axioms and what they find to be pursuasive, in my view. clearly, you and i have different axioms and what we find to be pursuasive.

metta,

~v

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by wil

Luna, I know and agree with your statement on the fossil record. It just seems if we find bunches of fish lizards on the top of a mountain in Nevada, and we trip through such a wide variety of dinosaurs in Arizona...and I really don't know what is everywhere else...just know about what I see and read...it still seems their are illogical holes. Now I am not a creationist...I just think both camps make up answers to suit their needs. Funny enough I've read the genome argument from the creationists...Once G-d built some DNA that worked in one species...had conventinal builing blocks he reused them...much as one would find cinder blocks used in residential basements, high rise commercial, and industrial warehouses. Or the bone structure of a hand...reused in birds and dolphins...why not?

Hi Wil, I have to say that is this kind of answer that 1) makes me want to tear all of my hair out of my head, 2) pray that we don't stop trying to educate our children about the mechanisms and evidence of evolution and 3) never ever want to particpate in this kind of debate again. I hope you take all of that in the light-hearted spirit in which it is intended, although I must say it is a very frustrating view to try to discuss.

Why do you say that you think 'both camps just make up answers to suit their need?' Do you really think that scientists are just pulling things willy nilly from thin air and publishing them because they think they sound good? And even in defense of the creationists, they are trying to make their arguments conform to the Biblical account, as wrong-headed as I believe that approach to be.

As for the creationist response to the genomic evidence for evolution, I just have to say that they have to try really really hard to ignore or explain away this fact. The simple straightforward answer is of course that it is exactly what we expect if evolution is occuring. It's not like Darwin had genetic evidence for evolution when he postulated his theory of descent with modification. He made a hypothesis based upon his observations. Lo and behold this hypothesis predicted what we were to find in the fossil record. And after that, lo and behold again it would predict what we find in the genomes of various species. That's what makes it a useful theory: its predictive value. The creationists 'theory' on the other hand has not predictive value, and in fact the reverse is true. Every time we discover more evidence supporting evolution, the creationist has explain this evidence away, and in doing so fails to provide any evidence that evolution is not occurring.

[wil]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Wil, I have to say that is this kind of answer that 1) makes me want to tear all of my hair out of my head, 2) pray that we don't stop trying to educate our children about the mechanisms and evidence of evolution and 3) never ever want to particpate in this kind of debate again. I hope you take all of that in the light-hearted spirit in which it is intended, although I must say it is a very frustrating view to try to discuss.

Why do you say that you think 'both camps just make up answers to suit their need?' Do you really think that scientists are just pulling things willy nilly from thin air and publishing them because they think they sound good? And even in defense of the creationists, they are trying to make their arguments conform to the Biblical account, as wrong-headed as I believe that approach to be.

Gotta love it...and yes, I take it fine...no offense here. After all when it comes to a layperson in this discussion you can't get anyone with less knowledge unless you went to a third grader...I did graduate high school, but that was 30 years ago, when they were regularly promoting people through to get rid of them...all my higher degrees are achieved on the streets...

But do I really think some scientists publish crap to get their name in the paper or their name on some thesis...uh yes. Publish or die, grant money, funded projects...millions if not billions are wasted on dead ends and ridiculous theories (I'm not just lumping evolution into that camp...just hopefully making a point)

So yes, I do believe both camps have an agenda...and like our US court system...we are not out to find truth or justice but to prove our side is right. The both have benefit of thier side winning out.

Me I'm just on the sidelines making stupid comments....and doing my best to support the hair replacement centers around the world....everyones gotta work!

[AletheiaRivers]

If you stuck me on the Galopagos Islands (sp), for a year, I would come back as brown as an almond with bleached Strawberry blond hair. But a year later away from that environment, I'd be back to the ruddy Irish complexion and dirty blond hair I was born with.

Are you saying that your getting tan skin and bleached hair while on the island is an adaptation?

That would be like saying that a finch with a long beak actually had its beak shrink while on the island.

Is that really what you meant to say? Or is this a communication thing again?