Evolution of Finch Beaks

Posted on by

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”

  2. Frankie: when you conflate all of evolution with unguided evolution

    Is all evolution guided or just some of it? How do you know?

  3. Robin,

    But since there is no actual demonstrated reason to even consider evolution as anything other than unguided, your complaint is rather moot.

    That is what is being debated and there is evidence that evolution is guided. At least guided evolution can be and is modeled via genetic algorithms. We see its power.

  4. Frankie: At least guided evolution can be and is modeled via genetic algorithms.

    Can unguided evolution be modeled via genetic algorithms?

  6. Unguided evolution and genetic algorithm are contradictory. Guided evolution- see “Not By Chance” 1997; “Evolution: A View from the 21st Century”‘ “the Evolution Revolution”; “Evolution 2.0”

  7. What is the mechanism by which evolution is consciously guided then?

    Poor FrankenJoe has no evidence, can do nothing but bluster.

  9. Steve:

    and maladjusted it seems.i mean who would even attempt to justify eating strange animals.We don’t do it for obvious reasons in the West.

    Bushmeat animals aren’t strange if you live in an African jungle. Just how racially bigoted are you?

    Good sanitation is a prerequisite for good health.This is not even controversial. How do we know when we’ve achieved good sanitation?Where are the diseases?They’re gone.OOOOOhhhh, that’s it then.We got it.We are good to go.

    What’s happens when we stop eating fatty, sugary foods? Oooooh, lookie that.Diabetes, its gone.Heart disease. It’s gone.

    What happens when we stop drinking whiskey all day?Lookie there.Alchoholism is gone. Cirrhosis of the liver.Gone.

    What happens when we stop eating meat, processed food, over-cooked food. Cancer, bye-bye.No, but we’d rather fight the good fight against that evil cancer, rather than give up our barbequed ribs, doritios,and spam.

    Tell us Steve: what do we have to stop eating or drinking to prevent children being born with harlequin ichthyosis?

  10. Steve: i mean who would even attempt to justify eating strange animals. We don’t do it for obvious reasons in the West.

    Racism, plain and simple.

    “Strange animals” indeed. Strange to you, Western baby.

    That’s before even bringing up the question of why Steve’s god designed all those animals to begin with, to be so tempting to starving families but so unhealthy. Why?

    Isn’t Steve’s god a fucking idiot?

    Yeah, it is.

  11. Adapa: Tell us Steve: what do we have to stop eating or drinking to prevent children being born with harlequin ichthyosis?

    And what do we have to stop eating or drinking to stop microcephaly from Zika virus?

  13. Ahh, one of my comments got swept away — the point of my comment was to reply to one of Steve’s which is now in guano, which opened with some of Steve’s trademark swearing:

    Steve: f*&^kin’

    Revising my comment now to make clear:

    Steve, you’re allowed to swear. Camouflaging your swearwords with goofy characters doesn’t make them any less of swears.

    If you’re ashamed to write it out in full, you should also be ashamed to write it out in dirty camouflage.

    Don’t be ashamed! Swear if you want, don’t swear if you don’t want to. But your dirty sidestep is just plain silly. So, word of advice: don’t do that goofy shit.

  14. Steve,

    It is you keiths that claims God allow dogs to eat babies heads.

    I don’t believe in God, Steve. I’m just pointing out the entailments of your omnitheism:

    Think about it, Steve. If God is omniscient, he knew that the dog was about to eat the baby’s head. If God is omnipotent, he could have prevented it. He knew it was going to happen, but he made the choice not to prevent it.

    Now suppose that the baby’s uncle had been present, that he had observed the dog killing the baby, and that he hadn’t lifted a finger to stop it. Who in their right mind would say, “Oh, what a loving uncle!”

    Your God is that uncle — but even worse, because he could have stopped the tragedy before it even got started. He knew it was going to happen, after all.

    You can tie yourself in knots trying to make excuses for God, or you can accept the obvious conclusion: your omniGod doesn’t exist. If there is a God, he isn’t the omniGod. And more likely still, there is no God at all.

    Steve:

    And I corrected you by asserting that no, it is the parents that are not preventing dogs from eating babies. God has nothing to do with it. Responsibility lies with parenting, not God doing cleanup duty all day, everyday.

    Responsibility isn’t either-or. Anyone who stands by and does nothing as a dog eats a baby’s head shares in the responsibility.

  15. keiths:
    I don’t believe in God . . . .

    Careful, if you say that three times you’ll summon fifthmonarchyman in a whirlwind of bible quotes.

  16. Frankie:
    Robin,

    That is what is being debated…

    It’s not being debated in ecology.
    It’s not being debated in nephrology or immunology
    It’s not being debated in public schools or colleges
    It’s not being debated in pharmacology
    It’s not being debated in any area of biology.

    So basically all you’ve got is, “there’s some aspects of society (mostly religious) that want to debate whether evolution is guided or not. But yet again, here’s the problem: those fringe voices don’t get a say unless and until they decide to step to the plate and do the hard work to show that ID is relevant. Your and other proponents claims that ID is relevant doesn’t mean squat.

    …and there is evidence that evolution is guided.

    Then post the research. It’s that simple. But instead, all you keep doing is griping that serious scientists have gone out and done your homework for you. And as I noted earlier, your claims that it’s relevant doesn’t impact our actual work. So unless and until you can actually demonstrate that my work is actually impacted, I’m not going to even consider it.

    At least guided evolution can be and is modeled via genetic algorithms. We see its power.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You’re a riot when you make such absurd claims with no substantiation Joe!!!

  17. LoL! It is being debated by anyone educated in the debate. And GAs are search heuristics actively searching for and directing intermediate solutions to the goal.

    And the evidence for guided evolution is in those books I listed.

  18. Frankie: LoL! It is being debated by anyone educated in the debate.

    Can you demonstrate this? I.E. link to a journal special?

  19. Frankie: And the evidence for guided evolution is in those books I listed.

    Literature bluff much? Surely such evidence would also be available in scientific papers published online? If not, why not?

  20. Frankie,

    And the evidence for guided evolution is in those books I listed.

    And the evidence against it is in these other books. What a great way to debate!

  21. Frankie:
    LoL! It is being debated by anyone educated in the debate.

    Which means what exactly? 100 people…maybe? 200? 1000? I seriously doubt there are even 1000 debating it, but let’s go with that. Given a world of 7.3 billion people and a U.S. population of some 323,000,000, do you really think anyone cares about your particular pet peeve Joe? Do you think it’s ever going to rise to level of even being a local government issue? Yeah…didn’t think so…

    And as I note, it’s not being debated in any actual scientific field, so your pet peeve really doesn’t amount to anything. But hey, if cursing on some message board makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. Still not going to consider it when I actual do bee and bird population research.

    And GAs are search heuristics actively searching for and directing intermediate solutions to the goal.

    That’s neither a rebuttal of my point nor does it support the claim of directed evolution. Care to try again?

    And the evidence for guided evolution is in those books I listed.

    False.

  22. Allan Miller:
    Frankie,

    And the evidence against it is in these other books. What a great way to debate!

    Point me to one that demonstrates all mutations are happenstance occurrences rather than just declaring it so. That book needs to discuss the methodology used to make the determination.

    And perhaps you can give us a model of undirected evolution producing a complex adaptation like a special antenna.

  23. Robin,

    LoL! It should be debated as there isn’t any evidence that unguided evolution can do anything but cause disease and deformities. There is no way to model it producing regulatory networks and body plans. It is a useless heuristic.


    And GAs are search heuristics actively searching for and directing intermediate solutions to the goal.

    That’s neither a rebuttal of my point nor does it support the claim of directed evolution.

    It definitely supports the claim of directed evolution- all intermediate solutions are directed towards the goal. It is a targeted search. That is in direct contrast to natural selection and drift, both of which are undirected processes. But then again you don’t understand natural selection.


    And the evidence for guided evolution is in those books I listed.

    False.

    It’s all there. Take a look and find the mistakes.

  24. Frankie: Point me to one that demonstrates all mutations are happenstance occurrences rather than just declaring it so.

    Why would anyone bother? Given that A) all the studies I have posted show that the mutations were happenstance occurrences, B) you’ve never addressed those studies with any actual rebuttal, and C) no one has ever provided any study that shows a mutation wasn’t a happenstance occurrence, there’s no reason to consider your argument at all.

    That book needs to discuss the methodology used to make the determination.

    Wrong and wrong. First, you need to demonstrate that you have a valid argument. Don’t care to? Fine…then we don’t care to address your non-argument in any serious way. Otherwise, your claims of some teleology in…something…remains a trivial fringe claim waaaaay outside actual science and science education.

    And you know what Joe? I for one am really good with that.

    And perhaps you can give us a model of undirected evolution producing a complex adaptation like a special antenna.

    See above. Maybe Allan will bother to go find one and post a link. If so, he has more faith in you than I

  25. Frankie: Point me to one that demonstrates all mutations are happenstance occurrences rather than just declaring it so.

    Not much to pin an entire belief system on is it?

    What’s the opposite of happenstance occurrence? What actual positive claim do you have?

  26. Frankie: It definitely supports the claim of directed evolution- all intermediate solutions are directed towards the goal. It is a targeted search.

    Yet we don’t observe that in biology (see Lenski). So your point fails.

  27. Frankie: Take a look and find the mistakes.

    And yet, despite the books being 100% truthy, ID diminishes every year in scope, impact and the number of people discussing it (see google trends).

    It’s just us, here, really, and a few other places.

    Joe, what does Intelligent Design predict regarding the evolution of the Finch Beak?

    Let’s get back on topic 😛

  28. Frankie:
    Robin,

    LoL! It should be debated as there isn’t any evidence that unguided evolution can do anything but cause disease and deformities.

    Yeah…you keep saying this, but your claims don’t seem to have a lot of validity when it comes to reality, science, or education. So I’m not overly concerned about your particular pet peeves or POV.

    But hey…feel free to show that said debate actually impacts…you know…real science. Like the studies I do in ecology. Then I would likely begin to care.

    There is no way to model it producing regulatory networks and body plans. It is a useless heuristic.

    Same comment as above. Odd that actual working scientists use such models to advance our understanding, but hey…they actually have to show some results as opposed to your method of just making nonsensical claims on a message board.


    And GAs are search heuristics actively searching for and directing intermediate solutions to the goal.

    It definitely supports the claim of directed evolution- all intermediate solutions are directed towards the goal.

    Funny that you can actually demonstrate this…

    It is a targeted search.

    Except that it isn’t…

    That is in direct contrast to natural selection and drift, both of which are undirected processes.

    Which would then not be in direct contrast…but whatever…

    But then again you don’t understand natural selection.

    Says the man who keeps repeating that saying random mutation and natural selection is redundant

    LOL!


    And the evidence for guided evolution is in those books I listed.

    Robin: False

    It’s all there. Take a look and find the mistakes.

    Not doing your homework for you there Joe, particularly when you’re just tossing out a literature bluff. Nice try though.

  29. Robin,

    Given that A) all the studies I have posted show that the mutations were happenstance occurrences,

    Then tell us how we can test the claim that culled happenstance mutations can produce ATP synthase. If those studies are as you say you should be able to produce testable hypotheses and predictions.

    C) no one has ever provided any study that shows a mutation wasn’t a happenstance occurrence, there’s no reason to consider your argument at all.

    That is incorrect- see Spetner; Marshall and Shapiro

    First, you need to demonstrate that you have a valid argument.

    You never have

  30. Robin,


    It is a targeted search.

    Except that it isn’t…

    All GAs are targeted searches.

    Says the man who keeps repeating that saying random mutation and natural selection is redundant

    It is, according to the experts, the textbooks and the educated. Happenstance variation is the first step of NS.

    The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Ernst Mayr in “What Evolution Is”- he was one of the architects of the modern synthesis. His word means more than yours.

    Not doing your homework for you there

    You mean you are too afraid to look at the evidence. Got it

  31. Frankie: All GAs are targeted searches.

    What bit of DNA has the target written into it? That sounds like a good avenue of ID science research to me. Why don’t you propose it to the DI?

  32. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection.
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

    We now know that the slight variations come from (happenstance) mutations.

    “Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

    Variation

    Inheritance

    Fecundity

    which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

    Heritable variation comes from changes to the genome, ie mutations.

  33. For example, you could mutate every single possible point mutation and see if the ‘target’ changed.

    Joe, how would we even know if the target changed? What will we observe when we poke exactly the right bit on the ol ticker tape of DNA?

  34. Frankie: Heritable variation comes from changes to the genome, ie mutations.

    Ah, but how do you know those mutations are Intelligent Designed?

  35. Frankie:
    Robin,

    Then tell us how we can test the claim that culled happenstance mutations can produce ATP synthase.

    Move the goalposts much?

    If those studies are as you say you should be able to produce testable hypotheses and predictions.

    They all show testable hypotheses and predictions. In fact, the article on the evolution of finch beaks in the OP provides an excellent example. Did you bother to read it?

    That is incorrect- see Spetner; Marshall and Shapiro

    Link please.

    First, you need to demonstrate that you have a valid argument.

    You never have

    LOL! Two points on this Joe:

    1) It’s irrelevant if you accept my argument as valid or not; your opinion doesn’t change how science actually works or my own work.

    2) If you aren’t concerned about convincing folk like me you have a valid argument, then your perspective will never be accepted beyond some fringe religious folk. Why? Because as I’ve noted before, there’s currently no incentive for anyone in science to do any research into your particular pet concept when you and those who believe in the concept can’t be bothered to do the work to support it.

  36. Just think Joe – instead of repeating the same inane catchphrases over and over again for the past who knows how long you could have got a degree in biology!

    And then you could have changed the system from the inside!

    Or at the very least be in a position to propose actual experiments that might support your ideas regarding ID which someone might fund (they would, they are v.desperate).

    But noooo.

  37. Frankie:
    Robin,

    All GAs are targeted searches.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

    http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol1/hmw/article1.html

    https://wiki.ece.cmu.edu/ddl/index.php/Genetic_algorithms

    It is, according to the experts, the textbooks and the educated. Happenstance variation is the first step of NS.

    Link please.

    The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Ernst Mayr in “What Evolution Is”- he was one of the architects of the modern synthesis. His word means more than yours.

    Nothing in that quote refutes what I’ve said. Nowhere does Mayr say that NS and MR are synonymous or that NS and RM are redundant or that NS and RM are the same thing. He even notes, “it’s the first step”. What do you think a “step” is Joe?

    And here’s his actual quote in context from his article:

    Abstract

    Much of the resistance against Darwin’s theory of natural selection has been due to misunderstandings. It is shown that natural selection is not a tautology and that it is a two-step process. The first step, the production of variation, is under the control of chance; the second step, selection proper, is an anti-chance process, but subject to many constraints. The target of selection is the individual as a whole, and many neutral mutations can be retained as hitchhikers of successful genotypes. Sexual selection results from selection for pure reproductive success.

    So, are selection and mutation the same thing? Not according to Mayr. Are they both integral to evolution. Absolutely.

    It appears you actually don’t understand what he wrote.

    You mean you are too afraid to look at the evidence. Got it

    Not my pig; not my farm. If you think it’s so important, then go forth and show it. I have zero reason to bother.

  38. Frankie: Frankie May 9, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection.
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

    We now know that the slight variations come from (happenstance) mutations.

    “Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

    Variation

    Inheritance

    Fecundity

    which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

    Heritable variation comes from changes to the genome, ie mutations.

    Frankie: Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin

    Not sure where you got the quote since MacNeill references four processes (from 2011):

    I believe that the underlying problem is the tendency by most evolutionary biologists to think of natural selection as a “force” or “mechanism”. As John Endler has pointed out (Endler, J. Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, 1986), natural selection is not a “force” or “mechanism”, it is an outcome. To be precise, it is the outcome of four separate, but related processes:

    • Variety: structural and functional differences between individuals in populations,

    • Heredity : the inheritance of structures and functions from parents to offspring (either genetically or epigenetically),

    • Fecundity : the ability to reproduce, especially (but not necessarily) at a rate that exceeds replacement, and

    • Demography : some individuals survive and reproduce more often than others.

    As a result of these four processes, the heritable characteristics of some individuals become more common in populations over time.

    From: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/

    Be that as it may, I don’t see what you think you’re trying to prove with this quote. What part of “result of processes” are you having problems with?

Leave a Reply