Lets Beef - Battle Rap Forums - View Single Post

#56 06-25-2014, 01:05 PM

@Crysis and about that Finch argument,

the research group was led by Peter and Rosemary Grant who studied the finches and The Grants hypothesized that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch may come in only about 200 years but in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population so Peter Grant and a graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote that they had seen what they called “a reversal in the direction of selection.” Grant wrote in 1991 that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes n the researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding went on it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years. so Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They're still finches, n the fact that they are interbreeding puts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species and they expose the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.

06-25-2014, 01:05 PM

@Crysis and about that Finch argument,

the research group was led by Peter and Rosemary Grant who studied the finches and The Grants hypothesized that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch may come in only about 200 years but in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population so Peter Grant and a graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote that they had seen what they called “a reversal in the direction of selection.” Grant wrote in 1991 that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes n the researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding went on it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years. so Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They're still finches, n the fact that they are interbreeding puts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species and they expose the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.

06-25-2014, 01:05 PM	#56
Row Guest Voted: 0 audio / 0 text Posts: n/a Mentioned: Post(s) Tagged: Thread(s)	@Crysis and about that Finch argument, the research group was led by Peter and Rosemary Grant who studied the finches and The Grants hypothesized that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch may come in only about 200 years but in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population so Peter Grant and a graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote that they had seen what they called “a reversal in the direction of selection.” Grant wrote in 1991 that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes n the researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding went on it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years. so Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They're still finches, n the fact that they are interbreeding puts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species and they expose the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.