tgamble

I'm getting a claim from a creationist (and I swear i'm not makeing this up) that darwin's finches got bigger beaks because the enviroment communicated with the genetic material. Bigger beaks were needed so that's what everyone got. except those on the Island who didn't need em. This, she informs me, is a sign of intelligence. She also states:

Obviously this is nonsense. I was just wondering if anyone had more extensive information. Did areas where bigger beaked finches had an advantage also have smaller beaked finches? I'm almost certain that not all the finches where bigger beaks were needed got em. That's just absurd.

Did places where bigger beaks weren't needed have finches with them anyway? I suspect the answer is yes but I'd still like to get confirmation.

RufusAtticus

Maybe you should explain to her natural selection. The traits we see fixed in the finch populations are the result of natural selection, not selective mutation. Mutations are random. Natural selection is not. Also, she seems to not understand the amount of variation found in finch populations. The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner is a wonderful book. I suggest that she reads it before she comments anymore on finches.

-RvFvS

DireStraits

How does evolution predict the fact that mutations are specific to need and a reaction to the change in the environments???

DS: This is an expression one of the worst misunderstandings of the TOE of which I know. I think it stems from the belief that evolution has a purpose in mind. And that misunderstanding arises from the belief among many creationists that the TOE is supposed to replace God in explaining the origin of species.

RealityCheck

<a href="http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/2455.html" target="_blank">Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches by Peter R. Grant</a>

BTW, the foreward is by Jonathan Weiner.