http://www.nature.com/news/evolution-of-darwin-s-finches-tracked-at-genetic-level-1.19795
“But their still Finches! Checkmate Evolutionists!”
Or some similar comment. But whatever. Still a very cool study.
138 thoughts on “Evolution of Finch Beaks”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Moved one comment to Guano. Accusing other participants of dishonesty violates the rules.
A lot of words strung together in PoMo style, having no meaning at all.
No doubt the start of a good, publishable paper in some journal or another.
The genes that controlled for smaller beak sizes were selected more often (that is, those finches with those genes had more offspring with those genes, which in turn meant more finch offspring with those genes survived relative to corresponding offspring with genes for larger beak sizes.)
They are the same thing. You can’t have the former without the latter. That’s the whole point of the research. If the finches didn’t have the genes identified for controlling beak size, how exactly would they adapt to a fluctuating environment?
But here’s the real kicker, not only do we now know that genes must be the mechanism for this adaptation to fluctuations, we now know exactly what genes are responsible. No Morton’s Demons or Invisible Pink Unicorns necessary.
Yep. And…?
…and this then makes no sense. Are you suggesting that the populations of birds that survived the drought are exactly the same as the populations of birds that existed before the drought? If not, then RM+NS is responsible for producing new birds. Simple as that.
RM+NS isn’t supposed to explain the arrive of the fit. Once again, it is you who is conflating evolution with abiogenesis.
Here’s the thing: the world has not had the same exact conditions from the beginning and the various environments have not just fluctuated within some narrow cyclical band throughout history. We know that all sorts of environments have changed permanently. Given this study, we also now have specific evidence for how species not merely adapt to fluctuations, but how whole new species develop in response to more radical environment changes.
Besides we know that RM+NS is driven by fecundity and therefore doesnt explain it.They are passive components of the system, therefore impotent as an explanation.
Its the most glaring and fundamental weakness of the non-teleological evolutionary position.
Robin,
Unguided evolution has many glaring weaknesses. It cannot be modelled, it doesn’t produce any testable hypotheses and the predictions are missing.
BTW NS includes RM so saying RM&NS is redundant.
And to top it off we now know that finch variation can happen in under two decades. And that kicks NS out of the picture
So you keep asserting…
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MATHME.html
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Neutral-Theory-The-Null-Hypothesis-of-Molecular-839
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519303000997
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650405/
Uhh…that would be part of the tested hypotheses…
…and yet they are separate mechanics…something actual scientists like to keep in mind…
???
Do explain this incredible (if erroneous) insight.
Robin,
Yes Robin, we already understand your penchant for equivocation. You just can’t link to something called “evolution” and claim it’s about unguided evolution. Heck the first link discusses genetic algorithms and it is a given they model directed evolution. It’s as if you are incapable of learning what is actually being debated.
Instead of just posting bald links perhaps you could tell us how they refute my claims. What is the testable hypothesis for unguided evolution producing ATP synthase?
And evolutionary biologists know that natural selection includes random mutation- it’s in the definition of the concept. In “What Evolution Is” Mayr calls the production of variation the first step in natural selection. You can’t have natural selection without happenstance mutations.
As for the finches changing within 2 decades that is in peer-review:
Conant S (1988) “Saving Endangered Species by Translocation” Bioscience 38: 254-57
Pimm SL (1988) “Rapid Morphological Change in an Introduced Bird” Trends in Evolution and Ecology 3: 290-91
Natural selection includes mutations:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32
“What Evolution Is” Mayr:
Frankie:
Depends how you define them. But if so, why do you never importune your ID colleagues with this little gotcha? They say it all the time.
Tell me Frankie, do you agree with Mayr on much else or just cherry-picked quotes?
If Mayr is such an authority to you, why do you disagree with him on almost everything else? Why not accept his authority, as you do with that quote, on other matters as well?
Plenty of meaning Petrushka, plenty.
Excess reproducion is the key driver of the process. Variation can only happen if there is enough progeny to work from. The more the progeny, the more variation in the toolbox, the more robust the outcome.
Simple and straight forward.
However, excess reproduction (fecundity) is always played down and RM+NS played up by propoenents of non-teleological evolution. The reason is clear. No evolutionary biologist has a logical non-teleological explanation for fecundity.
A teleological explanation however, is logical, rational, easily understood. Design a system that has multiple functions i.e. (creates adaptive variation, individuality and beauty, supplies a continuous stream of nutrition to the food chain, etc).
A non-teleological explanation has no way to explain it. So the strategy is to co-opt an already in place phenomenon but place it in a safe category (abiogenesis) where an explanation can be downplayed, even ignored.
A teleological explanation covers ALL the bases in a logical, rational manner. Moreso, this type of explanation appeals to the human animal precisely because it understands and demands goal oriented, purposeful explanations.
Non-teleological explanations require humans to suspend this desire for rational explanations at the core. Recipients of non-teleological explanations are advised not to dig too deep but accept what appears on the surface as rational explanations. The deeper one digs with sharp questions, the more the non-teleologist demands we accept an IOU in lieu of a logical, rational explanation.
In fact, one participant on this forum, Flint understands the implications very well. And he exhibits that pseudo-rational behavior of the non-teleologist quite nicely.
Flint agrees that nature does in fact design as humans design but emphasizes that it doesnt design in the way that teleologists think. He is sure of it. But then he never gets around to explaning just HOW he knows that.
He probably wants us to think that nature designs in some elusive, muddled inexplicable way thus availing himself of the need to explain in more detail about how in fact nature does design non-teleologically.
But curiously, why would Flint even venture to dip his toe into the icy teleological waters? Because it appears Flint is intelligent enough to understand that a non-teleological explanation has just so much gas in its tank.
At the end of the day, a teleological explanation grips us intellectually, emotionally. Inescapable.
And of course, that is by design as well. i mean, what is the point of conscienceness, human artistic creativity, technological prowess if not to realize the teleological foundation of the universe?
Not with its current zero supporting positive evidence it doesn’t. Saying “Design” is no better than saying “magic!” when it comes to explanatory power. Sure it appeals to the scientifically ignorant and those desperately trying to prop up their Fundy religious beliefs but it doesn’t sway the scientific community even a little.
And of course this is precisely why non-teleological evolutionary narratives are going absolutely nowhere.
I mean how the hell does non-teleological evolution move forward when teleology stares them in the face all day, every day.
That’s it. It goes nowhere.
I mean, why the hell do you think Dawkins, Myers and Coyne got into the secular religion biz for. At least there, they can gain some modicum of traction….along with some ‘likes’ and ‘hits’, too.
And contrary to what Adapa says, design has lots of explanatory and scientific power.
Programmming biological software.
It’s happening already, no thanks to non-teleological evolutionary storytelling. Shit, biological software programming is where its at for the 21st and 22nd centuries. All of it will be done through investigating how nature designs and programs its biological software.
The Adapa’s of this world are fast becoming 21st century Luddites.
Adapa, you don’t want to be a Luddite. Drop the non-teleological charade.
Its over. Over.
Conversely, teleological evolutionary narratives are going somewhere? Could you point to some evidence of this – what was the latest paper published that supports Intelligent Design via a teleological evolutionary narrative?
Go on then, explain something via design!
The best I’ve seen so far is that design is a mechanism and therefore that is the explanation.
Unless, of course, you can do better?
On second thoughts, you do think that is an explanation!
At some point you’ll wonder why this revelation has not received a Nobel. I’ll be happy to clue you in then!
Would you mine explaining that worm that lives in a human eyeball as part of it’s lifecycle in a teleological way? Or that parasitic wasp?
Feel free to pretend this difficult question was not asked also.
Sorry Steve but “it looks designed to me!!” just isn’t sufficient evidence for science to conclude the intelligent design of biological life.
Go ahead and explain something then using the Intelligent Design paradigm. Start with Ebola, tuberculosis, and harlequin ichthyosis.
There are no genes for beak size or even genes for beak morphology. There are genetic networks which contribute significantly to the form and structure of finch beaks. By identifying areas of the genome which play a role in beak formation a correlation is established. But as the saying goes correlation does not imply causation.
If you know exactly which genes are responsible for beak morphology can you provide us with a diagram of the network?
From a press release on 21st April 2016 Evolution in action detected in Darwin’s finches
This person also thinks that this gene controls beak size, but unlike you he is unclear as to how it achieves this.
Of course I completely agree that no Morton’s Demons or Invisible Pink Unicorns are necessary, but that genes are necessary.
I do not think that individual organisms can or should be described in teleological terms. But I do think that particular body structures or organs can be described in this way. For instance if we look at wings, eagles have adapted the pentadactyl limb for the primary purpose of flying.
But IMO your argument about worms and parasitic wasps is a very poor one. Would you say that thumb screws or atom bombs do not count as being designed just because they inflict pain and suffering?
I made no such argument! I think you are just seeing what you expect to see.
No, rather the claim was made by Steve:
And I was asking for what the teleological explanation is for nature’s thumb screws and atom bombs is. That’s all.
This comment, along with Omagain’s telegraphs what ills the non-teleological mind – opposition to immanence because they don’t understand why if the world is intelligently designed that diseases such Ebola, Tuberculosis, and harlequin ichthyosis could exist.
So they gravitate to a skeptical, atheistic mindset.
But does their lack of understanding lend support to a lack of immanence in the world?
Hardly.
To be sure, the exception doesn’t make the rule. Adapa, Robin, Omagain can point to plenty of examples of what they deem cruel diseases, yet there are just that, exceptions to the rule. Not only that, the fast majority of ‘disease’ is preventable.
That is what is cruely cruel. A species like humans that have self-consciousness, intelligence, understanding and KNOW how to prevent the vast majority of what ails humanity, yet they refuse to take the required steps.
No, humanity would rather continue with the comfort habits and comfort solutions that let disease proliferate.
Disease is a marker that tells us the state of our individual and collective decision-making process. Are we on the right track or the wrong track in how we go about our lives- what we choose to eat, who we choose to carry on the genetic line, what kind of social habits we choose to engage in.
The problem is not with a supposedy manevolent emmanance but with a slothful, recalcitrant humanity.
And that is where the fight is.
In here.
“Go ahead and explain something then using the Intelligent Design paradigm. Start with Ebola, tuberculosis, and harlequin ichthyosis.”
Can we avoid Ebola? Sure. Say out of the fu54kin’ forest. Stop eating bush meat. Stop selling it.
Can we avoid Cholera? Spend money to provide clean plumbing to Latin America and Africa.
Can we avoid heat disease? Stop eating meat and gorging ourselves.
The list goes on and on.
I’ve read some dumb shit in my time but fuck me.
So no, you can’t offer a teleological explanation that is, is logical, rational, and easily understood.
It seems not to.
Actually I’m perfectly happy to accept such things in a designed world, designed by something horrible like the deity out of the OT. But that’s not the point. You said you could offer a teleological explanation that is, is logical, rational, and easily understood for such things.
So far you have not done so. Cholera is the designers way of telling us to build plumbing? Are you sure you want to stick with that?
What’s AIDS for Steve? Punishing teh gay? Under your scheme it appears so…
Explain AIDS.
I am fairly confident that Steve’s “explanation” for AIDS will involve “what kind of social habits we choose to engage in”. As my dear brother once noted, when presented with the “God is telling you to have sex with only one person, and don’t share needles” argument, “That doesn’t prevent you from getting AIDS, it merely prevents you from passing it on. One would have thought the Good Lord would be more efficient.”
Myself, I wonder what the hemophiliacs did to piss God off. Or what anyone with an inborn error of metabolism did, for that matter. Could one of the theists explain the mucopolysaccharidoses?
Slothful? Like lillies of the field?
DNA_Jock,
People need to be more careful in picking their parents.
Slothful children with eyeworms.
You mean like kiwi wings?
Why? Is there any real point to modifying a “hand” into a wing, or is that just what evolution has to use for wings?
No, the constraints of evolution do not point to purpose, rather to lack thereof.
Why? Do humans produce machines that have to parasitize or to devour other machines merely in order to exist? I’ve never seen it, but the opportunism of evolution leads to something like that. How could it not? How could teleology lead to such wasteful competition for resources, by contrast?
How is that even close to relevant? We’re not discussing claws and teeth, which animals have both for offense and defense, or antlers used to battle for mating rights, we’re talking about organisms that can’t exist except by living off of other organisms in ways that are debilitating to the latter. They don’t exist for defense, for warfare or torture, or anything analogous with human designs, they just evolved to be successful in a way that is utterly indifferent to the pain and suffering of the hosts.
What’s the purpose of parasitism?
Glen Davidson
This is the same Steve who argued that God allows dogs to eat babies’ heads because he “is not in the business of making robots.”
Not the sharpest tool in the theistic shed.
Apparently, he’s in the business of making meat.
Glen Davidson
I really don’t understand how this is supposed to be a rebuttal to my point. All you appear to be insisting is that the finch study doesn’t pinpoint the mechanism of change, but I (and certainly all the researchers) aren’t arguing that anyway.
But let’s take your statement above. “There are no genes” (well, there are…we’ve labeled very specific regions of the genome as “genes” because we do know and can map to their activity relationships to morphology.) But let’s call the relationships “genetic networks” instead. Happy? Good.
So what have we got? Mapping of those “genetic networks” to specific activity morphological results. We also have studies showing the effect of environmental changes to the offspring survival rates correlated with specific “genetic network” configurations and can now see exactly how the environment changes effect those offspring rates.
How is this not evolution and where exactly does any teleological effect come in?
What specific difference would that make to either my point or your argument?
Please post where I said I know the exact mechanism of genetic control. I think you’ll have a tough time showing that I even implied such, let alone stated it outright.
So then we are not in any disagreement that I can determine. Or was there something else you wished to argue about the article?
Only teh RIGHTEOUS be allowed to have teh secks and teh blud transfusions!
I see. You have no teleological reason for why those awful diseases and genetic ailments exist in the first place. Evolution explains why they exist quite nicely, Steve not so much.
I’m sure science would love to know how to prevent babies from being born with harlequin ichthyosis. Any ideas Steve?
Given that it’s likely humans have been eating ‘bush meat’ since day one, your designer should have dropped us a note letting us know when it went from a source of food to a bad thing.
These ideas really are half baked.
I’m sure married women in Brazil would love to know how to prevent their babies from microcephaly caused by Zika virus in the sperm of their husbands — men who don’t even know they’ve been infected.
Okay, I’ll go along with the idea that it was “bad” human behavior (air travel and cargo transport, surely anathema to god and Steve both) that moved Zika from its origin into Brazil, but now that it’s there … what “good” human behavior is going to make a difference to those pregnant women??
Funny how god — speaking through the male-only heads of Church, of course — prohibits the human methods we have of coping. Birth control and abortion. “Bad”.
Microcephalic babies. “Good”.
God has a lot to answer for.
Murphy’s Law suggests there is a god, just like Yahweh.
Not only is Steve’s response bizarrely out of touch with a million years of human history, it’s also racist. It’s just those dirty blacks who eat “bush meat” and get (well-deserved, as a result of their slothful recalcitrant habits) “forest” diseases such as Ebola (which the Designer somehow Designed but cannot possibly be blamed for).
OF course, Steve’s Designer has a message for those lazy and stubborn jungle dwellers: get with the program: buy Monsanto seed, plant it, harvest, and become rich enough to buy industrial-farmed meat in the market instead of dirty and cheap bush meat.
Or if you’re too poor to buy into the Monsanto seed solution, tough luck. Starve and watch your family starve. Because the Designer boobytrapped the “forest” to be a dangerous dark place, and designed you to know better than to go there …
But the “forest’ is only dangerous and dark in Steve’s mind to African blacks; Steve spews racist tropes without even stopping to think for a second. If it’s North America, and if you’re white, Steve has no advice for you to avoid the forest. It’s your deer-hunting, wild-pig-hunting, coon-treeing, beaver-trapping playground!
If you’re poor white American and hunt to put food on your family’s table, well, that’s just fine. It’s not “bush meat” it’s wild pig BBQ!
I have corrected IDists and Creationists. And they say it because evos say it. So perhaps you guys should learn what your position says then everyone will follow suit.
Word is you’re an expert on ID-Creationism. Especially on the evidence that supports the YEC baraminology “created kinds” claims. Maybe you could outline this YEC evidence for us.
“ID-Creationism” only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant. Also the Created Kinds exist regardless of any YEC paradigm. Baraminology does not require a YEC scenario.
But then again all of that will be ignored.
It is strange and very telling that when al one has to do to refute their opponents is to step up and support the claims of their position they choose to attack their opponents with nonsense.
So why do you keep doing it?
Seriously…”projection”, thy name is Joe Galien.
LoL! Robin the projectionist strikes again. I have supported the claims of ID. OTOH all you can do is equivocate. Go figure…
Heck you have proven that you don’t even understand the position you are desperately trying to defend.
Love to see you demonstrate that. LOL!
You’ve never once provided any support for any claims of ID. Not a single piece of research. Not one peer reviewed article. Not one attempt to calculate CSI. Not zip. And why? Because there is no supporting evidence for ID.
Oh…and yet another unsupported claim by you Joe. But hey…show me up. Go for it. Link to any of this supposed “support” you’ve provided for ID. Have at it Joe.
And in addition to your non-response, you don’t even know what “equivocate” means. That’s actually really funny!
Oh please…Please…PLEASE elaborate on how you’ve come to this conclusion. I need a good chuckle!
Robin,
I have provided support for ID- the genetic code; ATP synthase; meiosis; the spliceosome; the ribosome- and many, many more.
Calculate CSI? Shannon told us how to measure information and Crick told us what information is with respect to biology. It isn’t our fault that you can’t put the two together.
Equivocation- you use any and all evidence for “evolution” as evidence for unguided evolution. AND you didn’t understand that natural selection includes random mutation.
*rolls eyes*
Those are not support for ID. Heck, they are not even support for biology. Simply posting “meiosis” isn’t support for anything. Posting “water” is not support for hydrology.
Even your own posts don’t support the claims in those very posts, Joe.
So my previous comment still stands: You’ve never once provided any support for any claims of ID. Apparently, you don’t have any idea of what support actually looks like. No surprise I suppose…
Translation: “Uhhh…gosh…no…can’t calculate CSI for anything.”
And it isn’t my (or any other ID opponent) burden to put the two together. Here’s a clue Joe – I have no incentive to take ID seriously in any way. The work I do in ecology has no use for ID, so I could care less about it. So unless those folks (like you) who insist it is important actually…you know…make an effort to show it’s important on some level…no one else is going to bother.
Bottom line Joe, if you don’t take ID seriously, why in the world would I?
Neither one of those actions meets the definition of equivocation. Yet again, you seem to be having difficulty understanding definitions.
But since there is no actual demonstrated reason to even consider evolution as anything other than unguided, your complaint is rather moot.
And as for Natural Selection including random mutation, that’s just laughably silly.
Let’s start with basic definitions:
and
Whoa! What’s this? Completely different definitions?!?! Almost like they are two separate concepts!! How could that be if natural selection includes random mutation? I mean…why doesn’t the definition of natural selection include the definitions for random mutation if they’re the same thing as Joe claims?
Oh…riiight…because perhaps Joe doesn’t really know what he’s talking about.
What about:
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1902
Gee…same thing. NS and RM are seen as separate components of evolution. Why is that? Could it be that Joe is wrong?
Certainly appears to the case.
Robin,
I provided the definitions of natural selection. One was form an architect of the modern synthesis. The other was from UC Berkley. I can present many more from college textbooks that agree with me.
And yes all of that evidence supports ID. Your position sure as hell cannot explain it
And I have calculated CSI. You can too if you pulled your head out long enough to pay attention.
As for equivocation- when you conflate all of evolution with unguided evolution, that is equivocation- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivocate
Equating evolution with unguided evolution is obviously equivocation
Robin,
nat·u·ral se·lec·tion
[ˈnaCH(ə)rəl səˈlekSHən]
NOUN
biology
the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.
And random mutation is part of that process, just as Mayr explained.