does evolution exsist

Status
Not open for further replies.
The paper was published in 2009 and references Galápagos Finch activity right up to 2008, so I don't know where you got 1992 from.
from encarta 2001:

Finch Hybrids

This article from Discover Magazine discusses how finches interbreed and why the resulting hybrids are unusually "fit" to survive.


Any Finch in a Pinch
By Lori Oliwenstein
Plants hybridize with other species of plant fairly regularly, but as a rule animals are less free with their genes. Birds are an exception. Of the 9,672 known bird species, about 10 percent are known to interbreed with other species. Ornithologists have generally figured, though, that hybridization doesn't make much difference-that hybrid birds tend to be "unfit," which is a biologist's way of saying they don't have kids. The reason for this assumption, it turns out, is that until now no one had really documented the effects of hybridization in the wild.

Every year for the past 16 years, ecologists Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton have visited Daphne Major, an 83-acre island in the Galápagos archipelago, to study populations of Darwin's famous finches. Because the island is so small, the Grants have been able to inspect every nest and tag just about every finch with a leg band. That has allowed them to observe which finches survive and which don't, which finches produce offspring and which fail.

There are three species of finch on Daphne: two that are native to the island (the medium ground finch and the cactus finch) and one that visits occasionally (the small ground finch). The Grants found that the medium ground finch interbred with both of the other species, which did not interbreed with each other. The interesting result, though, was the fate of the hybrid offspring. Both types of hybrid had a higher survival rate than their purebred rivals. What's more, the hybrids went on to produce as many or more offspring.

All in all, the hybrid finches were fittest. That raises the question of whether the finches on Daphne really are distinct species-after all, a species is supposed to be a population of individuals who can't mate successfully outside the group. It's possible, say the Grants, that the three populations on Daphne are in the process of fusing into one.

But it's also possible that they just haven't had time to define themselves as species. Darwin's finches are young species, descended from birds that migrated from South America only recently. (They're a classic instance of evolution in action.) "The species we are studying have not been isolated very long-just tens of thousands of years," says Peter Grant. "In time, they may develop the genetic incompatibilities that prevent interbreeding."

Source: Discover Magazine, August 1992.



"Finch Hybrids." Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2001. © 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
 
Are you serious? :bugeye:

We are not clones of our parents.
Every single living thing that has been sexually reproduced will be the sum of, therefore different to the parents.

sources please, complete with the scientific names of the parents and offspring.

and yes, i am serious.
 
The Grants have been studying the Galapagos Finches for decades. During that time they have released several findings. Did you somehow miss the part where I mentioned that in their latest work (which I linked to) they had referenced finch activity up to 2008?
 
From the paper published in 2009:

A long-term study of Darwin’s finch populations on the Galapagos island of Daphne Major was started in 1973, and by the beginning of 1981 >90% of the two species, G. fortis (medium ground finch) and G. scandens (cactus finch), had been measured and marked with a unique combination of colored and metal leg bands. In that year, after breeding had ceased, a medium ground finch male with exceptional measurements was captured. It weighed 29.7g, which is >5g heavier than any other G. fortis that had bred on the island, and is at the upper end of size variation of G. fortis on the neighboring large island of Santa Cruz (7). An analysis of alleles at 16 microsatellite loci with a no-admixture model in the program Structure (8–11) shows that the probability of this individual belonging to the resident Daphne population is 0.088, and of being a member of the conspecific population on Santa Cruz is 0.912. Therefore, we consider it to be an immigrant. Although it is most likely to have come from the large neighboring island of Santa Cruz, we cannot be certain of the exact source (see Methods). Morphologically, it is similar to G. fortis, but with a somewhat pointed beak profile like that of G. scandens, and therefore possibly of mixed genetic composition. In a second analysis, using an admixture model with samples of these two species from Santa Cruz, Structure assigned a greater fraction of its genome to G. fortis (0.659) than to G. scandens (0.341) (see Methods). It is therefore genetically heterogeneous, and we consider it to be a hybrid. We have followed the survival and reproduction of this individual and all of its known descendants (Fig. 1), here termed the immigrant lineage, for seven generations (F0 to F6) spanning 28 years.

Just so we have the time-line correct, the immigrant Finch that was referenced here appeared in 1981. If they have been following this Finch and it's descendants for 28 years, that brings us up to 2009, which is when this paper was released.
 
Are you serious? :bugeye:

We are not clones of our parents.
Every single living thing that has been sexually reproduced will be the sum of, therefore different to the parents.

sources please, complete with the scientific names of the parents and offspring.

and yes, i am serious.
:eek:

I don't need sources. Were you born as a result of your parents having sex and mixing up their genes, or did your cells divide from your father asexually like bacteria?
 
:eek:

I don't need sources. Were you born as a result of your parents having sex and mixing up their genes, or did your cells divide from your father asexually like bacteria?
this thread is about evolution, not about sex.
yes i know homo sapiens give birth to homo sapiens.
 
Evolution the progression of symbotic relationships were two organisms or more forge together!!!
 
:eek:

I don't need sources. Were you born as a result of your parents having sex and mixing up their genes, or did your cells divide from your father asexually like bacteria?
This doesn't even qualify as a coherent response, let alone an intelligent answer.

Fail.
 
Don't you start as well.

If you can't grasp how one generation is different to the next then no wonder you can't grasp how species can change and adapt over a number of generations.
 
Don't you start as well.

If you can't grasp how one generation is different to the next then no wonder you can't grasp how species can change and adapt over a number of generations.
Too late now... :D

If you can't grasp the contrast between generational dissimilarities and species differentiation than it is no wonder you're having trouble with the concept of "evolution".
 
it's the LACK of evidence dude.
science HAS NEVER recreated the origins of life nor has it demonstrated that one lifeform can change into another.

people tread very thin ice when they suppose on assumptions.

LOL, ever heard of anti-biotic resistant bacteria? Evolution in action.
 
Too late now... :D

If you can't grasp the contrast between generational dissimilarities and species differentiation than it is no wonder you're having trouble with the concept of "evolution".

Are you actually trying to argue evolution doesn't exist along with leopold99, or are you just being pedantic for the sake of argument?
 
synthesizer-patel,
when are you going to address this post?
don't forget to include the scientific names of the lifeforms involved.
ok i will retract.
now YOU post the peer reviewed evidence of either of the following:
1. the offspring that is a different lifeform that its parents
or
2. the lifeform that was mutated into another lifeform.

macro evolution cannot proceed without one or both of the above.
 
leopold99:

You don't need a scientific paper to show an offspring that is different from its parents. Just look in the mirror.

What you mean by "different lifeform" is a bit of a mystery. What exactly do you mean by that?
 
Are you actually trying to argue evolution doesn't exist along with leopold99, or are you just being pedantic for the sake of argument?
No, I am not arguing against evolution - just your post. More specifically, the last part of the one post that I quoted.

I know you're new but you'll figure out who is "for" and "against" what soon enough.

Put me in the "for" column as to evolution. With occasional throwbacks, of course... :D
 
leopold99:

You don't need a scientific paper to show an offspring that is different from its parents. Just look in the mirror.

What you mean by "different lifeform" is a bit of a mystery. What exactly do you mean by that?
i thought the post was clear.
in order for macro evolution to proceed one of two things MUST happen:
1. an offspring MUST be of a different lifeform than its parents.
for example 2 homo sapiens MUST give birth to something other than a homo sapien.
- or -
2. an organism MUST be naturally mutated into another organism.
for example a homo sapien eats compound X and turns into something other than a homo sapien
in both cases it must be shown the organism is viable.

this still wouldn't explain how a fish could wind up flying.
this sounds as ridiculous as some glorified deity flying down here and "doing it".

edit
i've been thinking about what kind of test could demonstrate macro evolution.
i am beginning to wonder if there is one.
if that is indeed the case then evolution doesn't even merit the status of "theory" only hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
in order for macro evolution to proceed one of two things MUST happen:
1. an offspring MUST be of a different lifeform than its parents.
for example 2 homo sapiens MUST give birth to something other than a homo sapien.
- or -
2. an organism MUST be naturally mutated into another organism.
for example a homo sapien eats compound X and turns into something other than a homo sapien
in both cases it must be shown the organism is viable.

It has been stated several times in this thread that macroevolution is essentially microevolution over vast periods of time, and that observed instances of speciation are one of the indications of that.

I personally don't give enough of a shit about your objections to evolutionary theory to rehash the same discussion that has already taken place in this thread, but that wont stop me from pointing out your gross misconceptions about what evolutionary theory actually is.
 
yes it has been stated. over and over and over and over.
but it has NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER, been demonstrated.
 
in order for macro evolution to proceed one of two things MUST happen:
1. an offspring MUST be of a different lifeform than its parents.
for example 2 homo sapiens MUST give birth to something other than a homo sapien.
- or -
2. an organism MUST be naturally mutated into another organism.
for example a homo sapien eats compound X and turns into something other than a homo sapien
in both cases it must be shown the organism is viable.


Complete twaddle. :rolleyes: This tells me you don't even understand how sexual reproduction works, let alone evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top