Darwin's finches tracked to reveal evolution in action

by Daniel Cressey - nature.com

Thanks to Mike for the link.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091116/full/news.2009.1089.html

A husband and wife team has spotted what could be the beginning of a new species of finch on one of the Galapagos Islands, where Charles Darwin developed his ideas about evolution.

Peter and Rosemary Grant, evolutionary biologists at Princeton University in New Jersey, have spent nearly four decades watching finches on Daphne Major, in the Galapagos archipelago where Darwin, too, studied finches. The birds later figured prominently in his discussions of variation and natural selection.

Over the decades, the Grants have measured and tagged the vast majority of the finches that inhabit Daphne Major, and as a result have been able to observe evolution in real time (see 'Evolution caught in the act').

It was in 1981, that the Grants spotted an unusually heavy medium ground-finch (Geospiza fortis). At 29.7 grams, the male was more than 5 grams heavier than any they had seen on Daphne Major before. Genetic analysis showed that it probably came from the neighbouring island of Santa Cruz.

The Grants numbered the bird 5110 and followed it and all its known descendants over seven generations. Many of its descendants stuck out from the other G. fortis on Daphne Major: they had unusually shaped beaks and their songs differed from those of the other finches.
...
Continue reading
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091116/full/news.2009.1089.html
_____________________________________________________________________
[UPDATE] 17-Nov good article in Wired
Thanks to Brema for the link
http://richarddawkins.net/changes/update.php?id=4619&idType=get

On one of the Galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young Charles Darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.

In many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer who’d already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path. But playing an unexpected part was chance, and the newcomer singing his own special song.

This miniature evolutionary saga is described in a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It’s authored by Peter and Rosemary Grant, a husband-and-wife team who have spent much of the last 36 years studying a group of bird species known collectively as Darwin’s finches.

The finches — or, technically, tanagers — have adapted to the conditions of each island in the Galapagos, and they provided Darwin with a clear snapshot of evolutionary divergence when he sailed there on the HMS Beagle. The Grants have pushed that work further, with decades of painstaking observations providing a real-time record of evolution in action. In the PNAS paper, they describe something Darwin could only have dreamed of watching: the birth of a new species.
...
Continue reading
http://richarddawkins.net/changes/update.php?id=4619&idType=get

Posted: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 14 of 14 |

Reload Comments

Page Numbers

1. Comment #432376 by j.mills on November 17, 2009 at 1:57 am

Limerick Summary News Service!

The big beak and odd song of this finch
Should make a creationist flinch.
The researcher's detection
Shows natural selection
Takes a mile when you give it an inch!

Other Comments by j.mills

2. Comment #432385 by DanDare on November 17, 2009 at 4:23 am

I can see it now "Oh but, my gosh, they haven't change 'kinds', they are still just finches. Obviously there is nothing valuable about this."

How can we ever deal with the macro evolution crap?

Fantastic research though, for those of us with some brain cells.

Other Comments by DanDare

3. Comment #432386 by wetbread on November 17, 2009 at 4:32 am

Jonathan Weiner's "The Beak of the Finch," which is about the Grants, is the book that launched my fascination with evolution. The Grants' story and their dedication to their research is inspiring. Definitely worth the read.

Other Comments by wetbread

4. Comment #432392 by InYourFaceNewYorker on November 17, 2009 at 5:19 am

Satan is trying to trick us by making it look like the finches evolved! ;)

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

5. Comment #432430 by bluebird on November 17, 2009 at 11:20 am

Cool! This article was posted the same day I put the first batch of winter seed out for (american) goldfinches.

The section about their song I find particularly interesting. Wish there was a soundbite to listen to, my curiousity is piqued!

Tonight is part 3 of NOVA's 'Becoming Human':
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/becoming-human-part-3.html

Other Comments by bluebird

6. Comment #432431 by Duff on November 17, 2009 at 11:22 am

If you cut that finch open, you will find five grams of buckshot in his craw. This is obviously a trick to fool the simple creationist people.

Other Comments by Duff

8. Comment #432449 by ridelo on November 17, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Catch those finches and burn them at the stake! They're doing the devils work!

Other Comments by ridelo

9. Comment #432451 by crookedshoes on November 17, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Reminds me of the classic "Kansas outlaws the practice of Evolution" article. i think it was in the onion... "any species caught evolving will be prosecuted (or is it persecuted)..." funny stuff.

Other Comments by crookedshoes

10. Comment #432462 by God fearing Atheist on November 17, 2009 at 3:03 pm

2. Comment #432385 by DanDare
How can we ever deal with the macro evolution crap?

With patience and massive experimentation over decades, or perhaps centuries.

The IDiot charge appears to be that:-

1) Evolution can't produce novel information in the genome.
2) The genome can only "degenerate" due to noise (mutation)
3) The appearence of a novel phenotype is "potentiated" by the existing genome. i.e. the genotype was always there (inserted by god) sitting silently until the species hit an environment which would require it.

1) Would be partially refuted by the genome growing in length. For instance, Lenski's experiments (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html) might show some of the 12 tribes having a longer genome than the common ancestor.
I think it is only a partial answer because it would undoubtably be claimed that the additional genetic material is "noise". Only if the additional material gave a novel function would the case be closed. However, that might take centuries of flask evolution. This would also answer "objection" 2.

However, it doesn't answer 3) because the stupid argument can always be advanced that the "potential" to lengthening the genome is already encoded in the genome. Given the complexity of even an E. coli genome, there is scope for IDiots to muddy the waters. (To anyone but an IDiot this is of cource an admission that evolution by natural selection works.)

Given that Craig Venter et al. are trying to created synthetic life - ie the minumum set of genes to sustain life, then doing a "Lenski" set of experiments with the minimum genome would erode the stupid doubt of "potential" because if the genome was "provably" minimal, then there is by definition no spare "potential" - it is all used to sustain life. However, we are possibly back to at least centuries of evolution before a "minimal" lifeform acquired other characteristics. Even then, because the original design would have been "cribbed" from nature ("god") the "potentiation" argument could be maintained by the stubborn.

Another approach, being persued by Lenski (and many many others) is computer simulations (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,). Lenski has evolved an expressed super-functional genome of 84 instructions from a minimally functional genome of 50 instructions. It proves the idea of evolution - "...evolution will occur whenever and wherever three conditions are met: replication, variation (mutation), and differential fitness (competition)" as phrased by (Dennett, D. in Encyclopedia of Evolution, E83-E92 (OUP, New York, 2002).

However, the perverse objection will always be "but you potentiated it in the code", or "its only a simulation, it doesn't work in biology".

Even if evolution is shown in the lab, the final perverse objection will be - "Therefore god intervened in your experiment by carefully aiming the cosmic ray that lead to the evolution of the novel gene - your 300 year experiment therefore proves us right"

I don't suppose any real scientist is going to spend their life in a vain attempt to convince the IDiots that evolution is true, and no grant body would give them the money anyway. However, I am sure there is much useful science to be done, and the side effect will be yet more evidence that can be used by science teachers like Richard, Coyle etc to persuade even the moderately dim fence sitters about evolution.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

11. Comment #432465 by Ygern on November 17, 2009 at 3:32 pm

Fascinating stuff.

I long for the day when these types of article aren't accompanied by a speculation of what Creationists are going to say - who cares what they think?

That said, I know that we do have to care about what they think - it's the best way of combating such nonsense when confronted by it. I just wish that science articles could be discussed on their own merits without having to bother about denialists, creationists and other such loons.

Other Comments by Ygern

Reload Comments

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers