Migrating birds do not pick up and leave their habitat and not return. Are you supposing that's what these 12 species did?
Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense!
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
Migrating birds do not pick up and leave their habitat and not return. Are you supposing that's what these 12 species did?
context....context ....context...
and given earthquake trends the question may very well be moot....
news just in:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-31/tsunami-warning-issued-after-quake-hits-off-philippines/4237556?WT.mc_id=newsmail
according to who and what context?
Do you understand the difference between the word migrated [ past tense ] and migrating [present tense]?
It's not the tense of the verb that remains unexplained, but how migration relates to the facts presented. Do you care to explain how someone that doesn't understand your answer might connect the dots?
Are you suggesting that the tense of the word and it's context is not relevant to written communication?
why did you post this then?
when I never used the word "migrating"?
using only the word "migrated".
Is it my fault you are unable to determine the difference? Or is it yours because you didnt get the answer you wanted?
The birds existance on the island is due to the significant possibility that they migrated from the mainland....approximately 9-90 million years ago after the islands first formed.
What is wrong with you?
What do you really want?
I am gettiing what I want... are you?
Why do you think I am deliberately attracting and inviting ego centric attacks?
Can you explain how migration relates to the question of the 12 species of finches at Galapagos?
at some point finches must have migrated to the islands from the mainland.
satisfied?
bet you aren't
It's not clear at all what you are trying to say. Migration among birds is a seasonal behavior, they return to roost in their breeding grounds, they do not travel as entire species, much less a dozen entire species of the same family migrating together. Furthermore, these dozen species do not migrate at all.
So how is it related to the question?
no I think it is more than clear...
"at some point finches must have migrated to the islands from the mainland."
Quantum Quack:
You picked a bad example, as it happens. Some people alive right now have 6 fingers on one hand, and some have 4. I'm not quite sure myself what determines how many fingers we have. Obviously it is largely genetically determined, but there may be epigenetic and developmental effects at play too.
Certainly, it is not implausible that a genetic mutation might, in a single generation, cause offspring to be born with 4 fingers on each hand instead of 5.
The same is not true for all traits. Often you get a very gradual change, as would be the case if one of our 5 fingers slowly shortened, generation by generation, until it wasn't there any more. In that case, there would be a stage where there were 4.5 fingers or, more likely, 5 complete fingers with one half the length of the others.
That's unlikely to have happened in a single generation. What is more likely is that they gradually adapted to their environment over many generations.
They could not have survived if they needed a particular adaptation to access a sole food resource. Therefore, we conclude that there was more than one food resource, or there was indeed only one source but one that could be exploited less effectively without the appropriate adaptation (but exploited to some extent none the less).
Yes, finches migrated to the Galapagos. That is not the issue. The issue is how the Galapagos ended up with 12 distinct species of finches that are found nowhere else on the planet. Understand? What turned the finches that migrated into separate unique species, if not evolution?
You picked a bad example, as it happens. Some people alive right now have 6 fingers on one hand, and some have 4. I'm not quite sure myself what determines how many fingers we have. Obviously it is largely genetically determined, but there may be epigenetic and developmental effects at play too.
Certainly, it is not implausible that a genetic mutation might, in a single generation, cause offspring to be born with 4 fingers on each hand instead of 5.
The same is not true for all traits. Often you get a very gradual change, as would be the case if one of our 5 fingers slowly shortened, generation by generation, until it wasn't there any more. In that case, there would be a stage where there were 4.5 fingers or, more likely, 5 complete fingers with one half the length of the others.
That's unlikely to have happened in a single generation. What is more likely is that they gradually adapted to their environment over many generations.
They could not have survived if they needed a particular adaptation to access a sole food resource. Therefore, we conclude that there was more than one food resource, or there was indeed only one source but one that could be exploited less effectively without the appropriate adaptation (but exploited to some extent none the less).
Yes, finches migrated to the Galapagos. That is not the issue. The issue is how the Galapagos ended up with 12 distinct species of finches that are found nowhere else on the planet. Understand? What turned the finches that migrated into separate unique species, if not evolution?
Then that would violate their nature. They are not migratory.
Apparently you mean something else, they packed up and moved, as 12 entire species.
You consider this a plausible explanation?
nope... they migrated one way to the islands...
Yes maybe I did pick a bad example... true.
But one must wonder why there is no archeological evidence to support such transformations such as finches mutating due to evolution in to the dozen or so species of the same family.
Evidence of partial beek mutation? nope none, all fall quite happilly into their respective categories with out demonstrating evidencially their respective slow mutations or adaptations. If there is evidence I woud like to see it.
as I suggested or ammended earlier, the flora itself is also evolving and possibly finch and plant evolved simultaneously in a rather intriguing fashion.
Aqueous knows what my answers are. He knows I referred to Darwins theory which I am not going to labourously repeat here in "my own words". Of course the birds have evolved after migrating to the islands.
But this is not his question . His question is: How did the finches come to exist on the island? and I have answered accordingly as I have already answered the question about diversity or species.
So it is not my problem , but his...
As far as the partial genome issue is concerned, the thinking on this is undeveloped and something I shall research and work with in the future.
There is the issue of the necessity of a complete system for an oganism to function. How that complete system can evolve in a slow mutation process is something of interest to me. I guess because I feel that if a complete system was evolved why would there be the need to mutate any further...when no advantage would be gained. But again this is very undeveloped line of enquiry.. so we shall see...
example: indigenous AUstraians have existed for 50,000 years with out any apparent chanegs to biology or form. Is this because there was no need to? [being perfectly adapted to their existance.]
The question I keep asking, that you keep not answering, is whether you think 12 entire species abandoned their mainland habitats for Galapagos. This is different than migratory behavior, which involves a return to the breeding grounds. The migratory birds suggested by James R, sideshowbob and other folks here is in reference to perhaps only one breeding pair that, for example, could have been blown off course during migration.
The criteria for absurdity is plausibility. Considering the facts given, it would behoove you to seek what's plausible in avoidance of what's absurd.
So you agree after all that the 12 species in question came into existence by evolution through natural selection, from probably a single breeding pair that were probably blown off course, perhaps during the migration of an ancient flock.
I think … case must be that one generation should have as many living as now. To do this and to have as many species in same genus (as is) requires extinction. Thus between A + B the immense gap of relation. C + B the finest gradation. B+D rather greater distinction. Thus genera would be formed. Bearing relation” (on the subsequent page) “to ancient types with several extinct forms.”
You seem cynically skeptical or pessimistic about the evidence. Imagine sorting through it yourself.
That would be good for you, insofar as these comments are concerned.
Pollination, dispersal of seeds, shelter, food - even fertilization of soil - there would be quite a few possible connections. Speciation depends entirely on survival. This species became extinct by human predation--this is Lonesome George, before his recent demise:
You simply avoided saying that 12 species evolved on the islands through descent from a single breeding pair, that they evolved through natural selection into distinct species, each with particular features that established their survival viability.
To this moment you have not said what sideshowbob said above.
No it was Darwin's:
I think … case must be that one generation should have as many living as now. To do this and to have as many species in same genus (as is) requires extinction. Thus between A + B the immense gap of relation. C + B the finest gradation. B+D rather greater distinction. Thus genera would be formed. Bearing relation” (on the subsequent page) “to ancient types with several extinct forms.”
Partial genome? Consider how chromosome 2 differentiates humans and apes.
The system for a cyanobacteria may be little more than receiving adequate sunlight. For sponges, it's circulating adequate adequate water through the colony so that each cell has a reasonable chance of catching a food particle. The systems are as diverse as can be. You can start with this, though, since you're asking about the ways cells cooperate in a system. My favorite is Volvox, also a great tool for teaching the question you're asking.
The advantages for survival are what propagate the advantages for survival.
Their intelligence sets them apart from all other creatures on the planet. They could survive any number threats to their survival merely by imagining a course of action, then carrying it out, that will mitigate the chances of harm.
Instead of "migrated", lets say they emigrated from South America or immigrated to the Galapagos.
If we can agree on that, what exactly is it that you're arguing against?
not arguing against anything. Just suggesting that there is a middle ground that could provide satisfaction to both sides of the debate, science/ religion with out the call for divinity persee.
I happen to think the theory of evolution is quite adequate with out need to be in any way compromised by finding a middle ground solution to this debate, of evolution vs religion.
I made a mistake in interpreting Aqueous innitial question regarding how the birds got there... and the details of Darwins Finches but I was not arguing against the theory of evolution.
The birds emigrated, works for me as well..
no not cynical or even critical, just wishing for the evidence to support the theory to be more conclusive than it is currently.
no not really I Just simply answered your question: How did the finches come to exist on the islands?
My answer was also simple:
due to the time limitations 9 - 90 million years they must have migrated [ emigrated ]
There is no middle ground possible. The few religious factions that do disagree with science are determined to denigrate science no matter what science says. Whether its flat-earthism, geocentrism or creationism, it's all the same. According to them, we are not capable of learning anything for ourselves. We have to take their interpretation of a dusty book as the only "real" knowledge there is. Nothing less will satisfy them.
Years ago I was reading some unknown B grade sci fi writer [title unremembered] who sort of attempted to launch into the notion of the entire universe being an interconnected super computer, a massive "brain" of sorts where by all events from the mundane "cause and effect" to the more profound human kind of interactions were the machinations of this super computer. [ a self evolving and totally natural Matrix type entity]
In his description he described a world of computing with out electricity using reflective discs and sunlight [ suspended on strings of cotton] and a crank handle as a means to compute extraordinary amounts of data. One such light/disc computer would take up about the space required for a 4 bedroom house or reasonable size.
To me it is not at all inconceiveable that the universe with all it's innate activity, both physical and metaphysical could be considered as an extremely intelligent entity.
If one assumes for the moment that all things are connected and inter-related as they certainly appear to be [ via universal constancies such as gravity and light speed ] and consider that this "entanglement" can provide the necessary interrelationships between all things then the amount of computation available at any given moment woud be effectively infinite.
So omniscience is actually quite feasable in a sceintific sense and not a religious one as a form of passive innate collective consciousness [ awareness ]
Generating a genome would be a breeze, being a part of the evolution of all things would be a piece of cake. [passive potency]
I tend to feel that by redefining the notion of "God" in a way that would be acceptable over time, would remove the polarisation of this debate and provde a way for the world to get over it and move on to things a tad more productive. The above redefining doesn't force science to accept religion nor does it force religion to throw away their treasured scripts. IMO
The key to this though is the issue of entanglement or interconnected ness. I believe I have that theoretical key so this is why I am inclined to promote this idea of a middle path regarding this issue. For once this "Key" or some other "key" is evidenced correcty and accepted by mainstream science this path [ a form of Pantheism] is inevitable as an outcome. IMO
[re: the golden mean]
Last edited:
- Status