Kevin's Watch

Cybrweez wrote:About the finches, I'm confused. This research shows an example of a species adapting to better suit the environment. Who doesn't think that such a thing occurs in nature? However, to say that this proves the belief of molecules to man is ridiculous. I'm also confused in that this would support the young earth creationists view, that speciation would occur rapidly, hence the variation we have now after the flood, tho w/in 10,000 years.

That is definitely an oversimplification. The "case of the finches" is not an example of speciation, only a minor adaptation: no new species was born (as I said before, microevolution, as opposed to macroevolution or speciation). I'm confused as to the "belief of molecules to man": what did you mean there?
This does definitely not support the young earth creationists view, either... while this example of microevolution was readily noticeable, true speciation still takes a much longer time (no one, as far as I remember, has been able to observe speciation from beginning to end).

By the way, remember that this is microevolution we're talking about, not macroevolution or speciation: the small-beaked finches are still finches, and can freely mate with large-beaked finches. Still, it is definitely proof of evolution at work.

A proof of evolution? What kind of evolution? You mention micro and macro, there are differences? If this is micro, how does it prove macro?

I literally haven't been in the Loresraat in weeks, but I just happened to stop in this morning. I'm certainly not one of the more knowledgable Watchers in this area, so I might be corrected here. But...

Macro is proven by the fact that life on earth is not as it once was.

-Some species that used to exist no longer do. It's true that in some cases, a species could simply have been wiped out. But we have fossil records of other species changing over time, sometimes going in more than one direction.

-Some species that now exist did not at one time. It's true that in some cases, a species might have existed since the beginning of time, and simply doesn't have any fossil records. But in other cases, we have fossil records that show a step-by-step progression from one species to another.

This (the thing about beak sizes) is news?!

My biology lecturer at Uni over a decade ago cited the very same (Galapagos) example.

But I'd call it fluctuations within the characteristics of a species, not evolution. Although it is a great example of how evolution works.

Rainy year= lots of small seeds around=small beak favoured.

Dry year= larger seeds=large beak favoured.

Climate change= New species.

I thought microevolution = speciation? Different species of finch is one thing, but the finch becoming a hawk is another.

No, microevolution is a concept heavily leaned on by semi enlightened creationists who feel uncomfortable calling 99,99 % of biological scientists liars.

All evolution is a matter of changes of bases in the DNA becoming prevalent from generation to generation. How many bases for micro and how many for macro? Those who know little of genetics tend to think that big differences in physical appearance must mean big changes in DNA. That is just not true.