Re: Dismantling Evolution is Easy

Phenotypic plasticity isn't evolution supersport. It's the response of an organism to environmental stimuli (a form of "dynamic adaption" if you will). Thus, a bodybuilder bulking up, or someone getting a suntan on the beach, are examples of this type of variability. However, as I have repeatedly told you on other boards, forms of phenotypic plasticity *themselves* can be selected for via evolution. The *ability* to build muscle and get a suntan vary from human to human. So these abilities can be selected for under the right environmental pressure (say we run out of suntan cream and blast away the ozone layer). This selection is evolution.

Plasticity, in terms of an organism evolving "plastically", is when morphology is directed under high selective pressures to certain forms. So when we say a bird's beak evolved plastically, we're saying that a certain shape of beak is best suited to feeding, and the closer a beak shape converges on this optimal form, the more advantage is given to the host bird.

As for the finches in question, nowhere in the paper do they say that they measured the same finches' beaks (which they would have needed to do to claim that the finches get bigger beaks like bodybuilders bulk up). They merely say that the population showed a 3-4% increase in beak size over two *generations* (that is, they compared young finches with their grandparents). This would be highly likely in a situation where food is scarce and only the birds with larger beaks could feed well enough to stay alive *and* rear their young. This isn't rocket Science you know.

By the way, I have dealt with you on other boards, you refused to answer my posts. The only reason I'm here was that I found it amusing that you cross-post the same material over multiple boards, so thought I'd give you a surprise. ;)

I'll deal with the snail example on Sunday night, as I'm off for the weekend to meet some friends. Byebye for now!

Andrew