Evolution In Action
This is neat. Finches in the Galapagos Islands, where Darwin did a bunch of his initial research, are evolving fast enough that we can see it happen.
A medium sized species of Darwin’s finch has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds just two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for its original food source.
July 13th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
The tobacco bud worm has evolved to the point where it is highly resistant and even immune to insecticides that originally would wipe out 99% of them. But the 1% was resistant and passed that resistance on to its offspring. Now they eat these insecticides like they’re candy.
This had happened with a number of insects, and we see it on an on-going basis in bacteria, as they become resistant to more and more antibiotics.
Regardless, anyone who’s actually read Darwin knows this sort of thing was observed and meticulously documented over 100 years ago. I seriously doubt that the majority of Darwin haters have read a word from his book.
As an aside: An honest religion would be eager to learn more about science, so as to get closer to understanding God’s creation. Galileo was persecuted 500 years ago for the heinous crime of suggesting that the planets orbited the sun, and things haven’t change much. It seems the power and influence of organized religion is vastly more important to them than understanding the world around us. They are doing themselves a great disservice.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Lyle the power of organized bought, and paid for science isn’t performing any better. Man causes global warming? Second hand smoke is more dangerous to bystanders than the original inhalation of the smoker? Coffee is bad for you? Coffee is good for you? Margarine is better for you than butter? Butter is better for you than margarine? Another Ice Age is upon us? A human fetus isn’t human? Or isn’t life? ad nauseum!
And usually these are all the same guys. Just reconciling their scientific results with the agendas of the sponsors of the particular studies.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Lyle, you may want to look in your history books again. Check out Copernicus and Oserme (the later of which had many of Galileo’s inventions for him hundreds of years beforehand, including a vaguely ‘heliocentric’ theory, and shared them with the Church, eventually becoming a bishop).
There have been some infamous situations where science and religion didn’t agree well, but you’d be amazed how short of a time they actually last when no longer stared at by records-keepers who insist on relaying the ills of their enemies.
For example, the official Catholic dogma on has been neutral or even positive between the 1950s and today. For starters, Pope Pius XII wrote that “For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter” back in ’50.
The Church’s official stance has actually been fairly pro-evolution since ’96, when Pope John Paul II stated : “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies — which was neither planned nor sought — constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
July 14th, 2006 at 7:43 am
I’ve always said any time a a study is quoted, it should also include who paid for the study.
July 14th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Call me when they see its genetic structure changes enough that it cannot breed with same species it was born from, twice, producing a male and a female, within a close enough time period for the two to breed, who happen to have the same random genetic mutations making them capable of breeding and producing offspring capable of breeding with the new species.
Creationists don’t disagree with genetics — it’s the above that we generally take issue with.
July 14th, 2006 at 10:56 am
That’s pretty much my take… Let me know when it’s a different species. I don’t think adaptation = evolution. We breed dogs and corn for desirable traits, but don’t call it evolution.
July 14th, 2006 at 11:14 am
I wasn’t picking this particular fight, but evolution of new species that can’t cross breed with their own parents has been observed. I think it’s mainly plants (perhaps a few bugs too), but it’s happened. I read about it with Primrose plants a while ago.
Apparently, plants can cross breed easier than animals. Most of the cross breeds are sterile, but sometimes they’re not. And some of these new cross breeds can’t breed with their parents. I think with the primrose, the crossd offspring had a different number of chromosomes from their parents (but the same as each other). So they made a new species.
Science is cool.