I'm not sure if Ferret actually read the article or not. It's about character displacement, not evolution, per say.
Yeah, it didn't necessarily 'evolve' within a short period of time....it just died off, and the few that were different survived. There's no suggestion that some of them didn't have those features before the drought. So in my perception you can't say it was a matter of quick evolution.
Nice .... Nixon Incarnate....lmao... I find that funny, especially since good ole' Ant is no-longer with us again.
Take a look into punctuational evolutionary theory. I first came across this years ago - I was looking into paleo-geographic endowments in Europe and how these set a structure for later economic and political concentrations of power...somehow, veered into anthropology and evolutionary theory. A quick search yielded this. It is well established, so there is a good deal of literature.
I feel I'm stealing time from the real subject...but thanks. It will take me a great deal of time before I an affirmative opinion on this.
Hear you. Despite the tiff, I am sincerely interested in TBarr's and Lorien's links on the global warming debate, and once I have a second (heading out of town overnight to interview for a chef's job on the fly - nothing like turning your family upside down in short order...holy crap), I will dive into this as well. Anyway, enjoy the search.
I find a certain level of humility must be taken in politics or in ideas in general, otherwise people (or I) become dogmatic ie they fail to see reason when they are confronted by it. Hope it goes well for your family and you. You know what's best. ------------------- On a side note: I've been starting to think of why issues such as global warming and immigration don't get their due attention...or seem to be negated in ways. Now I know you don't have the same perception I have on immigration, and that might never change. But nevertheless, these issue usually don't strike incredible interest in populace till they are directly effected. I think that's the sad truth about many people. Now while I'm somewhat neutral on opinons of the global warming issue, I do understand that many scientist believe it's a critical issue...and I do think that warrants intense public review. I don't believe it's gotten that due time. *shrug*
Thanks for the thoughts, Rick - all of them. I wholly agree with you on the need for humility. As well, on the need for open and honest debate on both issues, immigration and global warming. I know you don't want to wake up to a land changed for the worse, when it is too late. Though we disagree on some of these things, I know you to have a sincere heart, and for that you have my respect.
species dying off and better adapted species living on is part of evolution, they have been studying those finches for many years, they have been measuring their features and documenting them Did you guys read a different article then me? The finches beaks got smaller in response to outside influences, they adapted, and technically evolved.
Ferret, I may be misreading you. But as described above, this is not evolution, this is Lamarckism. Finches beaks don't get smaller in response to outside influences, nor do finches which "adapt" certain changes in their lifetime pass on those changes genetically to new generations. Those finches with smaller beaks stand a better chance of surviving such that their gene set is increased in the population pool, and the trait will tend to be more and more commonplace.
what is the difference? in compettion with a second species the physical characteristics changed over a few genereations is that not "survival of the fittest"? and covered under the definition of evolution? How exactly do the changes occur in evolution, magic? Random chance?
Your last quote is right, and is what I am saying. You writing: Indicates adaptational changes in response to outside pressures, which is Lamarckism. Evolution, on the other hand, says that the fact that a given bird has a smaller beak - however obtained, whether from parental genes, or, especially under conditions propitious to a punctuational shift, recessive expression or outright mutation - may make it easier for the little dude to live long enough to pass on its "small beak" gene, or allele. If small beaks are conducive to survival, then more and more small-beak alleles will find themselves in the population gene pool, and less and less other-beak alleles will be expressed in the gene pool. In other words, evolution. You may be saying this. Again, as I read it, I was seeing adaptational changes in response to an external pressure, which is not evolution, but Lamarckism.
Global warming RULES!!! It's gonna be 52 today in Wisconsin! YEAH!!! I think I just might take the bike out. At this rate it may never snow here again, which would be too soon!
wouldn't that mean evoultion could only exist in vacuum? Its impossible for something to exist in the wild without outside forces acting on it, isn't it. To exist, is essentially is to have external pressures, isn't it?
As often happens online, it is impossible sometimes to know that we may or may not be saying the same thing. Let me give an example and see if, in fact, we are in agreement. A flock of pre-adolescent birds is on the beach, running into shallow surf and pecking for surf-shrimps just buried under the stand. Every day, around 11:00 a.m., a clan of seals arrives to chow on these birds. In response, one of these birds learns to wait it out on the dune behind the surf zone so that while his flock-mates get chowed, he does not. Or, in an alternative (and false) scenario, one observes a bird with longer legs than other birds and presumes it is because of the external pressure (the seals) that this bird adapted by growing longer legs, such that it could run like hell to avoid getting chomped. In both cases, this bird survives to have young, whereas his now dead flock mates do not. Lamarckism would imply that this bird's learned behavior, or, his growing of long legs, is what was passed on - adaptive changes, whether learned or (falsely presumed) biologically adaptive, passed on to young. Now, it could be argued that the learned behavior is evolutionary - something like, "lore" passed on for millenia, such that a given population, having learned behavior, will tend to live long and well. And this is where much of cultural anthropology crosses over into evolutionary theory. But this isn't evolution, according to its main lines. Evolutionary theory says that the genetic material within the bird that would make it able to avoid being eaten - a specific gene that is, in this case, well-suited to survival under these conditions, a gene which can be passed on to its young - will mean this gene will tend to show up more and more in the population pool. An example would be your finches. Whatever brought about the short-beak gene - mutation, recessive expression, or simple inheritance that marries well with the finch's environmental universe, such that it will live to pass on this well-suited gene to its young - this possession of the crucial gene, making it possible to preferentially survive long enough to pass on its material, is what matters.
Hahahahha. Tell me about it. Deep winter, da U.P. - and it may as well be spring. Maybe, in Edinburgh.
really what the heck is the difference? arn't all physcial traits essentially genetic ? and how could growing smaller beaks be "learned"
Ferret, I note that you read this earlier today. I'm sorry you're having some difficulty understanding the difference. Additionally, growing smaller beaks can't be learned. As I have said above, this is Lamarckism; and Lamarckism was long ago dismissed, with the onset of Darwin and "classic" evolutionary theory. Lamarckism: Adaptive changes acquired by an individual during a given lifetime in response to external stressor(s), such changes being passed on to children. Evolution: A given set of genes possessed by an individual from birth that are advantageous, given a set of environmental conditions, such that the individual preferentially survives long enough to pass on those sets of genes to children (preferentially, when compared to other individuals possessed of less advantageous genes). Eventually, these advantageous alleles will be seen more frequently over disadvantageous alleles - those possessed of the disadvantageous alleles simply don't make it to parenthood, and so their percentage among the population simply dies off. If this is still confusing, and if you are sincerely interested, there is lots of material on this that may help you to understand better. If so, as this thread is about global warming, perhaps you should PM me and I'd be glad to discuss it with you more.
NorthPointAiki: Thank you for the information about Lamarckism, now that you have explained that in Lamarckism, the trait is supposedly acquired during an individual's life time, then passed on. Although, there are some species out there which can spontaneously mutate in some way or another during their lifetime. Some fish, for example, can change gender. For those species which can mutate and acquire different characteristics during their lifetime, might not Lamarckism be a potential?
Seems that ExxonMobile is trying to manipulate the Global Warming debate. I can understand that since they lose if actions are taken against climate change. They've spent $16 fucking millions to fund skeptic groups between 1998 and 2005. No wonder why there's so much confusion about this subject. I wonder if it's only ExxonMobile that have sponsored the skeptic side.