Global Warming Effect and Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter

March 12, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

New research shows that in the span of just fifty years songbirds have become slightly smaller, probably as a consequence of global warming. This is no big surprise as it has long been understood that size is inversely correlated with temperature. The Darwin contemporary Christian Bergmann first observed this trend, in terms of a correlation with latitude, and the trend became known as Bergmann’s Rule. But how did the change come about? Read more

Comments

Allen_MacNeill,
But I think it’s clear that, no matter how different they will be (and I suspect they will be very different indeed, at least in some ways), they will not really be “entirely new creatures”. No phylogenetic lineage has members that are “entirely new creatures”. Rather, each new individual, like each of my children, represents a blend of the known and the unknown. It’s part of what makes life interesting, to me anyway.
Can you speculate, just for fun, on what new features your lineage will have? Maybe webbed toes, wings, maybe horns, or be hairless? Or do you think your children's evolution won't be that severe no matter how much longer the lineage has to evolve?Clive Hayden_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

David Kellog,
Some things may improve over time, but not necessarily Clive’s understanding of evolution.
I've missed you and your misnomers. If I can't understand evolution, it's because of evolution :) Of course, that is only your point of view, not mine, I don't believe in evolution, so I don't hold it to any truth about anything, i.e. cognitive abilities etc., but you must, so you have to blame a process for the process being wrong. Evolution accounts for everything in your scheme. Luckily I don't have that self-defeating paradigm.Clive Hayden_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

David (11):
Dr. Hunter seems to create a straw opponent. Toward the end of this article he states:
Yes, hasty writing is bad writing.Cornelius Hunter_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Allen wrote: While we’re on the subject, my close friend (and sometimes intellectual opponent) Hannah Maxson (currently in rural Mongolia) has recently contacted me with the news that she has gotten married and that she and her husband have adopted two of the orphans that they were raising. It was good to hear from her and to find out that she was all right, and even more fun to see the photos of her two new sons.
Thank you for posting the news about one of my former IDEA colleagues and your student Hannah. I will be forever indebted to you for your kindness and defense of my IDEA colleagues at Cornell like Hannah, Seth, and Rabia. You extended this kindness to them with some peril to yourself, and most amazingly you did so so despite your disagreement with their views. And with that, I think an apology on my part to you and your colleagues is in order. I have a hot temper and I certainly have episodes not consistent with being a gentleman. Although it is no excuse, it does get difficult for me to see I and my colleagues labeled on a daily basis as anti-science, enemies of society, and other unflattering titles. Although that does not excuse my conduct, I hope it will help you to not look so unfavorably on me. I do not intend to disrespect the character and hard work of you and your colleagues. For sure, one of the most beloved names in the ID movement is an evolutionary biologist by the name of Richard Sternberg. And there is always the perennial prodigal son of ID, an evolutionary biologist and physiologist by the name of John Davison. In addition to that, the work of Kimura, Haldane, Wright, Crow, Felsenstein, Ewens, Ohta, Jukes, King, and many others are the staple of ID literature pioneered by Sanford and ReMine. And it goes without saying Bill Dembski draws heavility on the work of Ronald Fisher. And Will Provine is known to be a friend of the father of ID Phil Johnson. All this to say, I hope we can cooperate in the dialog and exchange of information. You're presence here has always made me behave a little better than I would otherwise. Thank you, sincerely, Allen for being a part of our humble forum at UD. regards, Salscordova_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Hi Allen, Thanks for the good news about Hannah Maxon. Through your updates I feel like I almost know your good friend myself.Charlie_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 13
To me, this strikes as saying that since your children’s hair is usually a different color they’ll eventually evolve into a new creature. Do you believe that Allen? Do you believe that your children’s offspring, way down the lineage, will be entirely new creatures? Do you think they will be better or worse than humans?
This is actually a fascinating question. How different are we from our ancestral hominids of, say, one million years ago? How different will our descendants be a million years further down the line. That's assuming a super-volcano or passing comet hasn't wiped the slate clean and us off the face of the Earth. As Sal Cordova points out at #14:
Even creationists believe allelic novelty came about through mutations, but those mutations don’t necessarily have to be the sort of mutations that we see in operation today. Creationists speculate that the first forms were special creations, followed by modest amounts of mutation.
So even YECs have been forced to concede that a certain amount of mutation takes place, although they want to limit it as much as possible. But even that small concession raises a serious problem. For them, not much change has happened over the few thousand years since The Creation but what about after a million years or even longer? Once you allow change can happen - and it's pretty hard to pretend it doesn't - you're going to have to find a really good reason why things won't change out of all recognition given enough time - and that includes us. As for whether the changes are better or worse, the question is, by what standard? Are we better than the tribal societies of the Middle East two thousand years ago or worse?Seversky_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

While we're on the subject, my close friend (and sometimes intellectual opponent) Hannah Maxson (currently in rural Mongolia) has recently contacted me with the news that she has gotten married and that she and her husband have adopted two of the orphans that they were raising. It was good to hear from her and to find out that she was all right, and even more fun to see the photos of her two new sons.Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Allen: No phylogenetic lineage has members that are “entirely new creatures”.
My understanding is the real implication of evoluitonary theory is that in a sense, there are really no species since there are no species barriers given all creatures are from one family. We only have phylogenies, not real species. I seem to recall you made that very observation on your blog. For the sake of argument let us say there are not really any species barriers, all living things descended by common descent, and theat there is no intellignet design. The issue remains whether the mechanisms we see in operation today: natural selection, genetic drift, random mutation, developmental plasticity, etc. are sufficient to create the features of biological systems today. I'd have to say the answer is no, or undecided at best. The hopeful monster theories, the resurgence of some mutationist schools of thought (articulated by Nei), suggest dissatisfaction with accepted mechanisms. I would argue that even granting common descent and no intelligent design, a believable mechanism for change has yet to be discovered. The state of affairs is not far from the state of affairs facing the OOL community. With respect to rapid change in populations due to developmental plasticity (not natural selection acting on random mutation), it would appear there is a lot of pre-existing capacity for adaptation (and maladaptation), and that capacity is environmentally stimulated. The question is whether developmental plasticity invalidates evolutionary theory. I'd say it casts doubts on the proportion of change in a population attributable to natural selection acting on random variation. Most certainly, the mean features of an entire population can be transfored without involving random mutation at all. Ebberhard-West gives examples that go far beyond changes in mere size and weight to include things like sex characteristics etc. John Davison noted examples where the gender of creatures can even be modulated by temperature!scordova_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Yes. I have always been drawn to babies and toddlers, every since I was a little kid. It has never really mattered much if they were "mine", and indeed I have more than once seriously contemplated adopting children. My wife and I have not done so...yet.Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

What, they actually don’t know the mechanism of global population changes? Say it ain’t so. High time they started to get their act together.
Are you aware of how much work is needed to do this? I'm aware of several systems where there is enough data, but it needs pedigrees over several generations, so we're talking 10-20 years of work, not just catching and ringing on migration, but during breeding (to get parent/offspring relationships). This is a bit easier now, as parentage can be assigned through DNA, but that needs lab work to develop the markers (for this sort of work markers may or may not work across species). Then the analyses have to be done: the animal model was only introduced a few years ago, so before that there was less reason to collect this sort of data.
See: The Dollar Hen on evironments affecting chicken weight. the individual changes of weight ran from 2 1/2 lbs gain to 3/4 lb loss Clearly natural selection and mutation were not in play!
Of course not - these were farmed chickens. They also gained weight because they were fed. The Oikos paper that the BBC report was describing looked at changes in the wild, and your description also seemed to be about wild birds. Another point, not one I would expect you to have picked up, TBH, is that the authors of the paper deliberately measured size in a way that excluded, or at least minimised, the short-term effects of feeding (i.e. they corrected for condition). So, again, the comparison you make is misleading.
She lists actual examples of developmental plasticty if you can read through the Darwinian misperceptions which you point out are pervasive among the evolutionary community.
I'm sorry? (a) I was making the point that phenotypic plasticity is well known amongst people who actually study short-term evolution in birds. It's poor Cornelius who doesn't understand this, so would you kindly aim your fire at your fellow creationist.Heinrich_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Allen:
...indeed, I really love babies and toddlers very much...
Even those which are not your own?Mung_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

However, once a bird disappeared and did not reappear for a specific period of time, it was logged as dead.
Did they track this through insurance claims?Mung_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Allen, I was surprised that Clive would offer the "better or worse" question, as he should know enough by now to realize its misleading character. Some things may improve over time, but not necessarily Clive's understanding of evolution.David Kellogg_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

The key point is that the Grant's observed and documented a process that had to be there if evolution occurs. Their work does not provide evidence of speciation but if it were not there then the foundations of the theory would be weakened and critics could and almost certainly would argue, with some justification, that evolutionists can't even find the smallest amount of evidence to support their theory.Seversky_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

In comment #13 Clive Hayden asked:
"Do you believe that your children’s offspring, way down the lineage, will be entirely new creatures?"
Personally, I think "believe" is not the word I would choose. Given the patterns of emergence and extinction that phylogeneticists have observed in phylogenetic lineages, I suspect that, like most lineages, mine will die out after not too many generations. As a parent, I fervently hope that none of my children will pre-decease me, and since I love my children (indeed, I really love babies and toddlers very much), I hope they will have children of their own, but it seems to me that hoping is very different from expecting or believing. As for how different they will be (assuming there are any), I can only project, based on my current experience. My children (I have six) are both remarkably different from each other and remarkably similar in some ways. Ergo, I suspect that they will not be "entirely new creatures", but will be some blend of the familiar and the unfamiliar, the former giving their ancestors comfort in the known and the latter piquing their curiosity in the unknown. But I think it's clear that, no matter how different they will be (and I suspect they will be very different indeed, at least in some ways), they will not really be "entirely new creatures". No phylogenetic lineage has members that are "entirely new creatures". Rather, each new individual, like each of my children, represents a blend of the known and the unknown. It's part of what makes life interesting, to me anyway. Clive also asked:
"Do you think they will be better or worse than humans?"
There are several loaded terms in this question as well. Once again, the word "think" isn't one that I would have chosen. As I wrote above, I suspect that my descendants (assuming there are any after a surprisingly few generations) will be different from me (my children already are), yet familiar in some ways as well. However, "better or worse" are value judgments, and therefore cannot be predicted, only hoped for. Like almost any parent, I hope that my children will be "better" than me: more humble, less envious, more tolerant, less prone to anger, more generous, less lazy, more loving, less selfish, more resilient, less self-doubting, more...well, you get the picture. I hope that all of my descendants (and all of yours) will be all of those things, and will work hard to help them become all of those things. But whether our evolutionary descendants are "better" or "worse" than us...are we "better" than our ancestors, or "worse"? I honestly can't say one way or the other, can you?Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Change in size would be among the easiest to occur, precisely because all the parts are there, but now they are just smaller. Or bigger. Surely there is no comparison between overall size reduction and adding features and functions. If I look at the human population of Toronto, the city in which I live, what do I see? Women hardly more than a metre tall (homo Flo, anyone? and women who are much closer to two metres tall.) But they have all the same body parts, all functioning in the same way. So, it strikes me that the information change is probably a minor one, compared to the vast claims made for Darwinism. Also, please note, these patterns can be easily reversed. I have seen it in my own lifetime. My daughters attended school with many Philippine-born girls. In some cases, after the family moved to Canada, the height of the children was significantly greater than that of their mothers - and greater than mine or my girls'. :) The best explanation, in my view, is a higher protein diet, typical for this region. People then reach whatever height they can, depending on long bone formation. At any rate, I know that size can change between single generations. Apparently, something similar happened in Japan in the last century. Whatever that is, it is not Darwinism.O'Leary_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

This means that the Grants have, through diligence and extraordinary effort, provided confirmatory evidence for both of Darwin’s theories of evolution: natural selection (as the explanation for the evolution of adaptations)
The Grants have through diligence provided observations. Although hard work is a necessary condition to making good science, it's not a sufficient condition. At best their fine work demonstrates that natural selection provides a mechanism to select among better adapted phenotypes, but that notion of selection was one articulated by creationists like Blyth, years before Darwin. In contrast, Darwin argued Natural selection acting on random variation was the means of creating sufficient novelty to evolve things like flight, hearing, sight, etc. Darwin's view of Natural selection has not been demonstrated, only Blyths view. That nature will favor the survival of one phenotype over another does not in any way constitute how the spectrum of phenotypes came to exist in the first place. The notion of "adaptation" is equivocated. There are at least two meanings of "adaptation" 1. adaptation as in selecting from existing phenotypes 2. adaptation as in creating viable phenotypes Natural Selection as observed by the Grants and others only adapts from existing phenotypes. Evolutionary literature, upon demonstrating adaptations of the #1 sort, argues via equivocation that it demonstrated adaptation of the #2 sort. This is not science, this is equivocation. This sort of "proof" is logically and scientifically illegitimate.
Allen: and descent with modification (resulting from dramatically increased reproductive isolation among subgroups of the finch population).
Again, more equivocations. The observation that descendants are different from parents hardly constitutes a mechanism for the emergence of novel integrated capabilities. Throwing rocks at cars constitutes "modification" to a car, it would be wrong to argue that such "modifications" are the same sort of mechanisms that originated the car. So with respect to "modification" there is equivocation going on. We have: 1. modifications that are no more than selecting from existing phenotypes (which is really no modification at all) 2. modifications that are the result of mutation 3. modifications that are the result of developmental plasticity 4. modifications that create integrated novelties (such as new complex proteins and capabilities) The Grants showed #1-type of modification, it is improper and essentially equivocation to suggest #1-type modifications are #4-type modifications. That would be about as bad as saying selecting a Honda over a Toyota is the process that created automobiles!
As someone who aspires to be a scholar, I would recommend that before you fabricate unsupported speculations concerning things about which you know little or nothing that you first read and ponder the research reports, review articles, and monographs of people who have actually done the hard work of observing nature, and try to do so with something resembling objectivity.
The work by you and your colleagues for sure has been hard, but I've tried to point out where the evolutionary inferences go completely awry. My regrets for getting snippy. But when Heinrich demanded I give examples of birds getting heavier or lighter through mechanisms other than mutation and selection, I lost my patience for dealing with such sophistry. Finally, I pointed out that the BMP4 expression might not necessarily be due to mutation. There are other forms of environmentally induced heritable and non-heritable changes that are not mutational in nature. I cited research specifically regarding BMP4. The range of plasticity in Finches could be epigenetic in nature and not necessarily due to genetic mutation. Mary Jane West-Ebberhard alluded to this because of the reversion to previous phenotypes. If the finch variations in question were due purely to random mutation and if selection purged out the weaker variants from purely random mutation, we might not expect to see reversion to some mean, but rather total disappearance. Instead we see reversion to a mean, which is more suggestive of natural plasticity (plenty of non-genetic plasticity with respect to weight, shape, and size). Finally, it appears Grant himself questions how much of the observed diversity is attributable to mutations that occurred during the 30 years of his work. He suspect these were previously existing variants introduced through introgression with sister "species". Even creationists believe allelic novelty came about through mutations, but those mutations don't necessarily have to be the sort of mutations that we see in operation today. Creationists speculate that the first forms were special creations, followed by modest amounts of mutation. But that is a speculation by creationists and not necessarily the view of other proponents of ID. And it goes without saying, speculations are not necessarily science, they are speculations. So there is no argument that mutations happen, it is the nature of mutations that is in question.scordova_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill,
This means that the Grants have, through diligence and extraordinary effort, provided confirmatory evidence for both of Darwin’s theories of evolution: natural selection (as the explanation for the evolution of adaptations) and descent with modification (resulting from dramatically increased reproductive isolation among subgroups of the finch population).
If that Darwinian evolution then it certainly isn't Darwinian common descent. I liked David Berlinski's response to this when he said, I'm paraphrasing, that the beaks change with the wet and dry season and regress back to the mean. Maybe one day we'll have Galapagos elephants evolved from the finches, maybe, but we need a lot more evidence than beak variation. To me, this strikes as saying that since your children's hair is usually a different color they'll eventually evolve into a new creature. Do you believe that Allen? Do you believe that your children's offspring, way down the lineage, will be entirely new creatures? Do you think they will be better or worse than humans?Clive Hayden_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

So, Sal, you are plainly, simply, and completely wrong.
I'm glad this didn't come with the standard MacNeill civility lecture.
As someone who aspires to be a scholar, I would recommend that before you fabricate unsupported speculations concerning things about which you know little or nothing that you first read and ponder the research reports, review articles, and monographs of people who have actually done the hard work of observing nature, and try to do so with something resembling objectivity.
Good advice. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/darwin-and-the-nazis/#comment-240816 "Thank you, Sal: your have always been, in all of your interactions with me, a gentleman and a scholar." A. MacNeillCharlie_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter seems to create a straw opponent. Toward the end of this article he states:
Not surprisingly, findings such as this one have scientists increasingly questioning evolutionary theory.
That's a strong claim, but one for which he provides no evidence. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. It's a claim made out of thin air. But it would have to be, since it depends on such "scientists" believing his earlier claim that these findings challenge evolutionary theory in the first place. And that claim, as Heinrich and Allen MacNeill show, also has little evidentiary support.David Kellogg_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Allen: Additionally, research into the underlying developmental genetics regulating beak morphology (carried out by other researchers) has shown that the observed changes in beak morphology were paralleled by slight changes in the hox gene (BMP4) that regulates the development of jaw bones in finches and other vertebrates, and that these changes fully explain the patterns of evolutionary change and adaptation observed.
Actually from Abzhanov and Grant 2004: Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches it parallels the expression of BMP4 not necessarily the mutation of BMP4:
We found that expression of Bmp4 in the mesenchyme of the upper beaks strongly correlated with deep and broad beak morphology. When misexpressed in chicken embryos
But one should not hasten to say the changes in BMP4 expression are due to "random mutation" versus environmentally induced factors. This paper by Young and Badyaev suggsest that BMP4 is not toally "random" but could be modulated by environmental factors. Evolution of ontogeny: linking epigenetic remodeling and genetic adaptation in skeletal structures
Changes in patterns of BMP [bone morphogenic protein] expression typical of skeletal adaptations (Table 1) are frequently hypothesized to result from mutations in regulatory regions of BMP pathways (Terai et al. 2002; Albertson and Kocher 2006). However, this hypothesis overlooks the crucial role of environmental and other non-genetic inputs into skeletal development despite overwhelming evidence of the close relationship between external stimuli (e.g., muscle loading and diet) and the development of cartilage and bone .... The effects of mechanically induced expression of BMPs (especially BMP-2 and 4) on growth and development also varied with intensity and duration of mechanical stimulation
Granting there is selection at work in the Darwin's finches, is this really phyletic transformation most of the time? Ebberhard argues that the plasticity is retained, not lost. But loss of the plasticity would be the case if this were real Phyletic transformation in the Darwinian sense. Reversion to previous forms via random back mutation seems a bit suspicious. Reversion via environmentally induced changes (even environmentally induced genetic changes) is possible, as well as through introgression. Grant conceded in 1999 in his book Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches
From factors tending to deplete genetic variation, I now turn to factors tending to restore and increase it. The two source of allelic novelty are mutation and introgression. It is conceivable that mutation rates are unusually high in Darwin finches, and higher in some species than in others, but nothing is acutally known about mutation in Darwin finches.
Grant then suggests Introgression rather than random mutation as a source of "novelty"! If so, this is hardly natural selection acting on random mutation! At the very least the issue of "random mutation" as the most important source of novelty is still open. PS Ebberhard suggest the possility of environmentally induced genetic changes. This is heretical, but it seems to be true in some instances.scordova_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Evolutionary biologists are actually doing the work to see if these changes are due to selection, or something else
What, they actually don't know the mechanism of global population changes? Say it ain't so. High time they started to get their act together.
Do you have any evidence of a change that large? Please, argue from the evidence, not from made up numbers.
See: The Dollar Hen on evironments affecting chicken weight.
the individual changes of weight ran from 2 1/2 lbs gain to 3/4 lb loss
Clearly natural selection and mutation were not in play! It was common sense environmentally induced effects. Such common sense analysis should cast deep suspicion on claims of mutation and selection as the principle basis of change in average weight and size of populations. (roll eyes) Who is to say heretible epigentic developmental mechanisms as well as non-heritable mechanisms aren't in play in other population transformations. Other specific examples that go far beyond environmentally induced weight and size changes and can be found through West-Ebberhard's book on developmental plasticity. There are some pretty astonishing changes which one would have naively assumed to be the result of random mutation, but are in fact the natural range of existing plasticity. She lists actual examples of developmental plasticty if you can read through the Darwinian misperceptions which you point out are pervasive among the evolutionary community.scordova_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Unlike Sal, I have read most of the Grants' research reports, review articles, and monographs. As part of their research Peter and Rosemary Grant and their student assistants tagged, measured, and recorded every single bird that hatched, fledged, matured, and reproduced on Daphne Minor over the past three decades. They couldn't record every bird that died because they couldn't find them all. However, once a bird disappeared and did not reappear for a specific period of time, it was logged as dead. What they found was that there has been a statistically significant correlation between the beak lengths of specific individual birds and their reproductive success over time. Because of the massive amount of demographic data they gathered, they were able to distinguish between changes that resulted from developmental plasticity (as reflected in mean individual phenotypic differences) and changes that were correlated purely with changes in heritable (i.e. genetic) traits. Their research indicates that the latter were overwhelmingly correlated with the observed pattern of changes in beak and body size over the period of time that such changes were observed. Furthermore, by meticulously recording the environmental conditions that prevailed in their study area during the same period of time, they were able to correlate the observed changes in phenotype of the birds (and the corresponding changes in genotype) with changes in the environment, showing that the phenotypic changes were driven by changes in the environment, with a lag time precisely predicted by evolutionary theory. Additionally, research into the underlying developmental genetics regulating beak morphology (carried out by other researchers) has shown that the observed changes in beak morphology were paralleled by slight changes in the hox gene (BMP4) that regulates the development of jaw bones in finches and other vertebrates, and that these changes fully explain the patterns of evolutionary change and adaptation observed. And finally, not only does the empirical research carried out by the Grants provide overwhelming support for natural selection as the explanation for the changes in beak morphology, it also has provided strong evidence for the divergence of a new (i.e. incipient) species among the finches on Daphne Minor during the period in which the observations were carried out. This means that the Grants have, through diligence and extraordinary effort, provided confirmatory evidence for both of Darwin's theories of evolution: natural selection (as the explanation for the evolution of adaptations) and descent with modification (resulting from dramatically increased reproductive isolation among subgroups of the finch population). So, Sal, you are plainly, simply, and completely wrong. As someone who aspires to be a scholar, I would recommend that before you fabricate unsupported speculations concerning things about which you know little or nothing that you first read and ponder the research reports, review articles, and monographs of people who have actually done the hard work of observing nature, and try to do so with something resembling objectivity. Indeed, I recommend that you follow T. H. Huxley's advice:
"Surely it must be plain that an ingenious man could speculate without end on both sides, and find analogies for all his dreams. Nor does it help me to tell me that the aspirations of mankind–that my own highest aspirations even–lead me towards [a particular doctrine]. I doubt the fact, to begin with, but if it be so even, what is this but in grand words asking me to believe a thing because I like it. Science has taught to me the opposite lesson. She warns me to be careful how I adopt a view which jumps with my preconceptions, and to require stronger evidence for such belief than for one to which I was previously hostile. My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonise with my aspirations. [http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/letters/60.html]
Rather than post a long list of references to the primary literature on the Grants' research, I recommend that anyone interested in this topic paste the following key terms into Google Scholar, and then start reading: peter rosemary grant galapagos finchesAllen_MacNeill_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Sal if you had bothered to read the PNAS paper I've referred you to, you would see an example where it was demonstrated that decadal changes weren't genetic. I haven't looked at the finch studies in detail, so I can't answer you there.
Natural selection fails as an explanation for changes in the mean of human body weight in the current generation. Why rush to it as a primary explanation for changes in the mean weight of Darwin’s finches?
(a) life span is much shorter in finches than humans. So there is more time to see inter-generational changes, (b) I'm guessing there is evidence for heritability for body size and beak shape. If there is directional selection, there will be a response. (c) it's possible that the Grants have some more data: I'm not that familiar with their work.
The Grants conceded regarding the finches:
The phenotypic states of both species at the end of the 30-year study could not have been predicted at the beginning.

What does this unsourced quotemine have to do with whether the changes were due to selection? At the start of the period, they would not have known what the environment would have been like over those 30 years.Heinrich_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Consider that from 1990 to 2005 the average weight of infants decreased about 1.6% in the USA according to this article: Change in Birth Weight Was the change due to selection acting on the entire population? It would be hard to argue natural selection and muation adequately describe the change because we aren't even dealing with an entire generational cycle to even allow competition for that trait! Similar observations might be made in the rise in obesity. The mutation selection paradigm are inappropriate mechanisms to describe the fundamental causes of the change. Science Daily suggest the reason is increased food intake. Duh! This is not the result of natural selection acting on random variation to favor overweight individuals. Now consider the Grant's study of Darwin's finches. The variation in beak depth was on the order of a few percent change. The also pointed out changes in body weight. They speculate natural selection. Maybe so, but how much of it was developmental plasticity? Again I point out the Grants also studied body weight. How much change in mean body weight is due to eating habits and not natural selection? Natural selection fails as an explanation for changes in the mean of human body weight in the current generation. Why rush to it as a primary explanation for changes in the mean weight of Darwin's finches? The Grants conceded regarding the finches:
The phenotypic states of both species at the end of the 30-year study could not have been predicted at the beginning.
scordova_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Heinrich: There is also evidence that phenotypic changes in body size can occur without genetic changes
So much worse then for the case that changes are due to natural selection acting on random mutation! Plain old developmental plasticity is a better explanation. Example, undernourish a population, the population on the whole might weigh less in the very next generation. This has nothing to do with selection and mutation. Sheesh! But how many times has comparably simple observations of developmental plasticity been force-fitted into a mutation-selection model? Do the Grants really know that what they observed was mutation and selection versus developmental plasticity? Where is the experimental control that even asks the question!!!!!!scordova_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Pop quiz! Here is a quotation:
In X a number of biologists have advocated what may be called Y views of evolution, especially the conception that in certain cases rapid evolution can occur.
The questions are: a) What is the value of Y? b) Where is the quotation from? Too-facile use of search is forbidden; I've made some trivial changes to discourage this. I'll provide the full original quote and source with the answers, of course.anonym_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Sorry, but this post just reveals Dr. Hunter’s ignorance
On the contrary, Heinrich, it reveals your misinterpretation of the issues. Developmental plasticity has been ignored as a mechanism of change on the presumption that populations are transformed primarily by mutation and selection. For example, we might find the mean weight of an adult bird population (say 1000 birds) to be say 4 pounds with a standard deviation of 1 in a given environment. Say we have an enviromental change, and the very next generation of 1000 birds has a mean weight of 2 pounds and standard deviation of half a pound. That is too short a time to account for the population change to be attributable to mutation followed by selection. The proper mechanical description is one of developmental plasticity, not mutation and selection!!! West-Eberhard documents such cases, and unfortunately she has to impose Darwinian perversions (err, interpretations) to describe what is empirically evident, namely, mutation and selection are not necessarily principle mechanisms of population transformations, but rather developmental plasticity in response to the environment. Exactly as Dr. Hunter desribes! What this demonstrates is the evolutionary propensity to mis-interpret obvious data even in real time, present day observations. It casts serious doubts that the community is qualified to make grand claims about the anything in the deep past.scordova_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Sorry, but this post just reveals Dr. Hunter's ignorance. Birds vary in size: if you capture 100 birds of the same species and weight them, or measure the length of their tarsus, you'll see variation. I hope Cornelius is aware of this. He might then wonder how much of this is due to genes, and how much is the environment. The answer is that it is a bit of both: we know that there is genetic variation for size, and this is persistent (genetic variation like this is known as 'standing variation'). So, if the changes are genetic it is this standing variation that is evolving. Also, if Dr. Hunter had read the paper, he would have read this:
Although our data cannot demonstrate that body size is evolving under climate change, they do show that the response is correlated with natural selection and may therefore be adaptive.
and a careful reading of the BBC piece shows that they do not mention evolution. So he's attacking a target of his own making. One other point is worth making: the authors talk about there being natural selection. This is the process that leads to differential survival. but it does not necessarily lead to evolution: if there is no (additive) genetic variation, there is no genetic change, and hence no response to selection. IIRC, there was a paper on flycatchers in Nature a few years ago that showed this happening. There is also evidence that phenotypic changes in body size can occur without genetic changes (this is part of the specialist literature, so I wouldn't expect Dr. Hunter to be aware of it).Heinrich_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Yup. Fast changes in phenotype that has nothing to do with selection or even mutation. It should be obvious that the environment affects development of an organism, and thus major characteristics of the organims. Selection and mutation are not the proper paradigms to describe the population changes but rather developmental plasticity. Evolutionary theory gets it wrong, developmental plasticity gets it right! Mary Jane West-Eberhard in Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences:
Contrary to common belief, environmentally initiated novelties may have greater evolutionary potential than mutationally induced ones
She unfotunately has to give credit to Darwinian mechanisms creating the capacity for developmental plasticity. That is pure speculation. What is in evidence from direct empirical observation is developmental plasticity is a better paradigm to describe certain population changes than mutation and selection!!!!! Maybe even Darwin's finches are examples of developmental plasticity than Darwinian evolution!scordova_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply