Some Important Things to Keep in Mind

What is the mechanism, that calls for these thick beaked birds, to go to thicker beaked birds? If you explained this and I missed it I apologise.
I would tend to belive they would inherit the same thickness. Not a
whole pop of thicker beaks.

reply to post by randyvs


Not that I want to quote anything anyone that makes sense on this board says or any thing. I happen to simply agree with you. -QUOTE, what you said.

reply to post by randyvs



This was actually observed in the field in the Galapagos by Peter and Rosemary Grant.

wps.prenhall.com...

Basically, during a drought, only the large, heavy seeds of drought-resistant plants were available for forage. The smaller-billed species of finch fell into decline because they could not handle the seeds. However, the overall thickness and size of the bill of the small-billed population increased; those small-billed specimens who were more able to eat the larger seeds than their co-speciests were the ones to survive and pass on their traits.

Natural variation in the population; some individuals happeend to have larger bills than others in the same species - led to a survival advantage that favored the traits of those individuals.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Natural variation in the population; some individuals happeend to have larger bills than others in the same species - led to a survival advantage that favored the traits of those individuals.

Didn't you just restate what's already been understood Darlin? I was asking what( if I read the OP right) was the mechanism that made the whole next generation have even larger beaks than the previous generation. If you look at the OP It's easy to see this is stated.

Respectfully

reply to post by randyvs


The mechanism is pretty simple; starvation. That is, the birds least able to collect and utilize available food sources perished, while those who could eat survived. A dead bird does not breed, and a starving bird will not be able to attract mates very well.

The genes for gracile bills are weeded out of the population while those for robust bills remain.

after i read these what i want to say is that these are really worthy of being kept in mind
good post and much thanks for you

people should have already realized this

reply to post by Nygdan


I just don't know. I'm learning myself, and learning new and unusual facts everyday. At first I thought well yes evolution explains it all!!! Creationism has no basis except for religions trying to trick people into believing what they want them to believe for controlling the populous. I hadn't heard much about Intelligent design (I tought it was the same as creationism). But after the way TPTP want you to believe in evolution nowadays (I hear it from celebrities and elites all over the globe, I've come to believe that yes we were intelligently designed. Darwin's theory still needs proof. Now I dont doubt the fact of adaption, survival of the strongest/smartest, as we are passing our DNA down to our children and yet they have still have their own unique DNA. But in order for darwin's theory to be complete, we need to find evidence/proof of the first self-replicating organism.... and you can't do that. Something almighty and all-knowing was able to create us in a very complex way. I give Darwin an A for effort. Even if our creators/designers were GOD or Alien-like, they created us. I think there are ones out there that are trying to change our DNA so that they can control us in menevolent ways. I think GOD had a part in this and I think he is still our only way to be safe. In my opinion GOD is LOVE, nothing more, nothing less. But there are some evil beings that don't want us to reach our full potential of being GOD-like and having or knowing the direct path to GOD. I just think Evolution is nothing more than a way for TPTB to get the non-religious followers into the same bracket as the blindly devoted religious followers. Making either option (religious followers/ Evolutionists) into the same "far from the truth" bracket.

The OP contains a serious misunderstanding, expressed in this paragraph:

"When scientists and others talk about a Theory of Evolution, they are talking about something completely seperate (separate) from the factual existence of evolution. They are usually talking about Darwin's hypothesis that evolution occurs thru (through) a mechanism of natural selection and leads to adaptations and speciation."

The error occurs in the final sentence. "Natural selection" is a neutral process that is actually irrelevant to Darwinism, because it applies to all evolutionary mechanisms.

The real question is, what is the mechanism that causes new critters to appear? (The "change in allele frequencies is merely perfessorial obfuscation, masking the real issue-- what causes allele frequencies to change?)

For example, if Lamarckian evolution was the operative mechanism for the appearance of new critters, wouldn't "Natural selection" apply perfectly well to it?

If an Almighty God was the sole creator of new species, would they not also need to compete in the marketplace of life? If God made a critter that was really bad at finding food, had no defenses, and was edible, how long would it survive?

Natural Selection (NS) is a trivial marketing concept, no different from the processes that determine what cars are available in a city's dealerships, or what brands of TP appear on a supermarket's shelves. NS has nothing to do with the mechanisms that create cars, TP, or critters.

The OP is, therefore, irrelevant because it fails to address the important question-- what are the mechanisms that cause changes in critters?

Any argument that buys into the absurd notion that HS is an evolutionary mechanism that has anything to do with Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, or the "modern synthesis" (a P.C. euphemism for neo-Darwinism, as in neolithic) is, by intellectual default, a Darwinist argument.

If am off topic I apologize.

Epigenetics. Doesn't that lend weight to evolution? It's a study on how the environment can affect the expression of genes.