Which road is the chicken crossing?

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

Here's perhaps another way to phrase the question:

Assuming all birds have a common ancestor, were the ancestors' wings big enough for flight?

Perhaps it was a species where a fraction had wings big enough to fly, and the rest didn't. As such they evolved in different ways.

It could be argued that chickens are a species that were smart enough to get someone else to feed them. They didn't need good wings.

 

[NobodySpecial]

were the ancestors' wings big enough for flight?

The very first ancestor, no, the birds gradually evolved from reptiles and the wings developed from feathers to keep you warm, then enough wings to help you jump, then enough to get into a tree etc. But the last common ancestor of all modern birds was a good flyer.

Perhaps it was a species where a fraction had wings big enough to fly, and the rest didn't.

No, all modern birds have too many adaptations that are purely for flight, beaks to save weight, hollow bones, breastbones, dry waste etc

Modern flightless birds followed a sort of hump, they gradually evolved to fly, then slowly lost that ability when life on the ground seemed a better bet.

 

[Ken Natton]

Perhaps I should make this more explicit. The most powerful evidence of common ancestry of all bird species comes form microbiology and embryology, not from final morphology.

 

[cosmos 2.0]

Perhaps I should make this more explicit. The most powerful evidence of common ancestry of all bird species comes form microbiology and embryology, not from final morphology.

what about genetics ?

Has genetics of both flightless birds and birds that fly been studied ?

 

[Ken Natton]

Yes, okay cosmos 2.0, I didn't mean to leave anyone out. It just seemed to me that people were speculating about common ancestry on the basis of the adult form. I only sought to highlight that it is not the most reliable indictor.

 

[eggomaniac]

Perhaps I should make this more explicit. The most powerful evidence of common ancestry of all bird species comes from microbiology and embryology, not from final morphology.

From the link in Evo's Post, above. # 33.

The study, led by Dr Matthew Phillips, an ARC Postdoctoral Fellow at the ANU Research School of Biology, looked at the mitochondrial genome sequences of the now-extinct giant moa birds of New Zealand. To their surprise, the researchers found that rather than having a flightless relative, their closest relatives are the small flying tinamous of South America.

Their molecular dating study suggests that the ancestors of the African ostrich, Australasian emu plus cassowary, South American rheas and New Zealand moa became flightless independently, in close association with the extinction of the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago.

As a layman, I don't know if mitochondrial sequencing and/or molecular dating is microbiology, embryology and/or morphology.

 

[eggomaniac]

But there is no doubt, when you keep talking about which direction penguins are evolving in you are misunderstanding something pretty fundamental. Penguins are not evolving in any direction. No species ever evolves in any direction. You might have a case to argue about what penguins evolved from but there is unquestionably no case to argue what they are going to evolve into. That depends on parameters we can’t know because they belong to the future. So to put it in terms of your original question, the chicken isn’t crossing the road in either direction. Perhaps it’s walking along the road, and no-one knows where it is headed.

I have been astounded by the courteous and helpful responses.
In layman's terms, are you saying if something isn't broken it does not get fixed? Thanks for opening my eyes to this facet of the discussion. To clarify, it takes forces, such as extinction events and continental shifts to drive a species into adaptation. right?
It is interesting and ironic, to me, to learn from an evolutionist that most animals are probably not evolving. That's a beauty!

I must say, when I first skim read your Post 'not evolving' I shuddered it was going to get into the dreaded creation evolution debate. [Thank God never you never meant NOT not evolving, whoops, thank Darwin I should say?, OR thank Nothing would satisfy Krauss. ]
This is ponderous! Do scientists conclude all animal traits and characteristics derive from major events? I know life has been around for 1/2 billion years?, but only 100's of millions? for larger forms, but there have only been a few major extinctions.
Maybe minor events have an affect as well? Now I have been warned to not propose theories, but to pose my new question, maybe the ice ages, encroaching and receding, developed the migration of monarch butterflies and whooping cranes? Big forest fires, maybe?, caused Pacific salmon to migrate every four years? These are not my 'theories' just a way to pose my question.
Is the ring around a pheasant's neck and all other characteristics and traits attributable to some changing environmental conditions? It seems easy to point to continental shift as the reason there are penguins, but explaining all of the minor details in relation to the historical events would take a book the size of Montreal, eh? Why do Baltimore Orioles have roofs and other birds don't? and a billion other 'examples'.
I guess I 'know' the answer is all of these details are from external forces and it's more a question of verification? It is ponderous, though!
The time line with changes and events, events and changes, rather would be so interesting.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have been astounded by the courteous and helpful responses.
In layman's terms, are you saying if something isn't broken it does not get fixed? Thanks for opening my eyes to this facet of the discussion. To clarify, it takes forces, such as extinction events and continental shifts to drive a species into adaptation. right?
It is interesting and ironic, to me, to learn from an evolutionist that most animals are probably not evolving. That's a beauty!

I can't be sure but I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse.

Ken Natton did not suggest that most animals are not evolving. Everything you said following that is a complete red herring.

What he said was no animals are evolving in any direction (i.e. a specific direction). He said this because it seems that is what you're thinking.

Birds did not "evolve toward flight". All that happened was that small lizards that were able to escape prey, did so, thus passing along their genes. If the lizards' environment had changed even slightly (a spurious example: predators could climb trees and jump on them from above), then the lizards would have not survived any better. The ability to jump far with low mass and some control would never have evolved into flight. Those animals would have been eaten, a different set of lizards (say, ones that could see better at night) would have dominated.

 

[Ken Natton]

Ken Natton did not suggest that most animals are not evolving.

Far from it. It is another key point to grasp eggomaniac. And because I think it might help you to attend to this point, I will tell you that following is a point that I only finally got quite recently, from engagement with people who understood better than me, on another forum.

But before I get to that, let me make one easy assertion to pick up on Dave’s point. It is clear, all species are constantly evolving. They cannot do otherwise. You should understand this: The current human population of planet Earth is what? About 6 billion? And each and every last one of us is a mutant. So is every living instance of the something like half a million different species of beetle that inhabit planet earth. But for those mutations to become something like a noticeable, measurable, evolutionary change requires one vital component: Time. Large quantities of it.

So here’s the point that was such a big ‘ah ha!’ for me. Our closest relative is the chimpanzee, right? But between our common ancestor and modern chimpanzee’s are several other species that no longer inhabit planet Earth but are all ancestors of modern chimpanzees. And between that common ancestor and modern humans are several other, other species that no longer inhabit planet Earth but are all ancestors of modern humans. But nowhere in evolutionary history can you point to a boundary between one species and the next. Oh look! There’s the last of our ancestor species, and there’s the first homo sapiens. It is not meaningful to talk about ‘the first human being’.

 

[madcat8000]

I think that it might be simpler put by saying that chickens are evolveing in every possible direction at all times. One is slightly stronger than another at flying, another running, and another at being a fatter meal for humans. As humans we are the major effect on their environment so the one that is a fatter meal is selected for and the other two who are nuissances are selected aginst. Thus chickens have evolved with our guidence to get fatter. But every individual is a mutant and with proper population numbers and generations new variants will arise. If man were removed from the equation then fast runners and strong flyers will have a chance to prove themselves in the wild. They will continue to radiate(mutate and expand into all possible niches) assumeing they arent killed off quickly. Its just not possible to say how an animal will evolve without knowing the ways in whitch its genome can be changed and what challenges the animal will face as these two things are the essance of evolution.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

The very first ancestor, no, the birds gradually evolved from reptiles and the wings developed from feathers to keep you warm, then enough wings to help you jump, then enough to get into a tree etc. But the last common ancestor of all modern birds was a good flyer.


No, all modern birds have too many adaptations that are purely for flight, beaks to save weight, hollow bones, breastbones, dry waste etc

Modern flightless birds followed a sort of hump, they gradually evolved to fly, then slowly lost that ability when life on the ground seemed a better bet.

Ok, but before wings got big enough for flight, they certainly had to be too small for it (I say "wings", but you can include all other flight adaptations). I don't know which species from the "ancestor that had wings too small". But it's an interesting subject.

 

[bobze]

I have been astounded by the courteous and helpful responses.
In layman's terms, are you saying if something isn't broken it does not get fixed? Thanks for opening my eyes to this facet of the discussion. To clarify, it takes forces, such as extinction events and continental shifts to drive a species into adaptation. right?
It is interesting and ironic, to me, to learn from an evolutionist that most animals are probably not evolving. That's a beauty!

Biological evolution is always happening. It is the change of allele frequencies over generations (that is the fact of evolution). How those changes are happening is explained by natural selection (among others).

I believe you are thinking too big, limiting to only things like "continental shifts". An organisms environment is the sum total of biotic and abiotic factors with which it interacts. This means anything from tiny changes of climate, or mineral availability to new species of gut-flora (bacteria in the GI tract). All of these things, no matter how small, will exert selective pressures on a population.

Now this is the important part--We call different forms of variation, at the gene level, alleles. And different alleles (variation) are slightly more beneficial to surviving and reproducing in an environment (remember, the sum total of biotic and abiotic factors). However slight then, the probability of some variation being passed on will be greater than other variation relative to the environment it inhabits.

Since the probability that some piece of variation's beneficialness to survival is not equally distributed, then individuals in a population will not have an equally likely chance to survive and reproduce.

The consequence of this is that from generation to generation the allele frequency of a population will change, with respect to which piece of variation was the most beneficial in the current environment.

We call this (drum roll please), natural selection--Because no conscious choice is being made which pieces of variation is passed on.

This is opposed to artificial selection types, where conscious choice (not the impact on survivability in an environment) is responsible for which variation makes it into the next generation. For example, humans choose the meatiest, most succulent chickens to breed and put their genes (their specific variations) into the next generation. Or, bees choose which flowers are most appealing to them, thus they choose which plants will get their genes in the next generation.

I must say, when I first skim read your Post 'not evolving' I shuddered it was going to get into the dreaded creation evolution debate. [Thank God never you never meant NOT not evolving, whoops, thank Darwin I should say?, OR thank Nothing would satisfy Krauss. ]
This is ponderous! Do scientists conclude all animal traits and characteristics derive from major events? I know life has been around for 1/2 billion years?, but only 100's of millions? for larger forms, but there have only been a few major extinctions.

No! "Characteristics" do not derive from evolution itself. They derive from the mutability of the genome. In plain words, from the fact that biological replication is not a perfect process, its prone to errors which introduce variation for evolution (by selection) to act upon. If biological replication were perfectly conserved from generation to generation then life on Earth would be pretty boring to behold.

Maybe minor events have an affect as well? Now I have been warned to not propose theories, but to pose my new question, maybe the ice ages, encroaching and receding, developed the migration of monarch butterflies and whooping cranes? Big forest fires, maybe?, caused Pacific salmon to migrate every four years? These are not my 'theories' just a way to pose my question.
Is the ring around a pheasant's neck and all other characteristics and traits attributable to some changing environmental conditions? It seems easy to point to continental shift as the reason there are penguins, but explaining all of the minor details in relation to the historical events would take a book the size of Montreal, eh? Why do Baltimore Orioles have roofs and other birds don't? and a billion other 'examples'.
I guess I 'know' the answer is all of these details are from external forces and it's more a question of verification? It is ponderous, though!
The time line with changes and events, events and changes, rather would be so interesting.

There are, as I alluded to above, other types of selection. Another example, is a special type we call "sexual-selection" where a mate (usually the female) is the one choosing which variation gets passed on. If you're interested I'd check out this webpage hosted by the good folks at Berkeley called http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml" . Its a pretty good layman's primer on evolution and a great starting point. If along your way you have specific questions, I'd be happy to help, but the trying to catch up on everything we know about evolution is probably not time-possible for people on form (especially when they should be studying microanatomy! )

 

[bobze]

Far from it. It is another key point to grasp eggomaniac. And because I think it might help you to attend to this point, I will tell you that following is a point that I only finally got quite recently, from engagement with people who understood better than me, on another forum.

But before I get to that, let me make one easy assertion to pick up on Dave’s point. It is clear, all species are constantly evolving. They cannot do otherwise. You should understand this: The current human population of planet Earth is what? About 6 billion? And each and every last one of us is a mutant. So is every living instance of the something like half a million different species of beetle that inhabit planet earth. But for those mutations to become something like a noticeable, measurable, evolutionary change requires one vital component: Time. Large quantities of it.

That seems to be a pretty common misconception that people have of evolution. By and far, selection is capable of producing measurable change much, much faster than we actually observe.

Even so, it still produces measurable change over very short periods of time. For example, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_01.html" (I think you'll find this most interesting Ken).

So here’s the point that was such a big ‘ah ha!’ for me. Our closest relative is the chimpanzee, right? But between our common ancestor and modern chimpanzee’s are several other species that no longer inhabit planet Earth but are all ancestors of modern chimpanzees. And between that common ancestor and modern humans are several other, other species that no longer inhabit planet Earth but are all ancestors of modern humans. But nowhere in evolutionary history can you point to a boundary between one species and the next. Oh look! There’s the last of our ancestor species, and there’s the first homo sapiens. It is not meaningful to talk about ‘the first human being’.

Yes that is an important concept, its only because the extinction of forms that we can say "you belong to species X and you belong to species Y". If populations didn't die out over time, then the biota of Earth would like one big variable population.

To summarize Richard Dawkin's thought experiment;

Suppose we have a time machine and were off to collect historic ancestors in a manner rivaling the Victorian rape of the natural world.

Suppose we dial up our time machine to 10,000 years ago, leap through the space-time continuum and land in the early swing and bustle of the Holocene.

We grab a male and female ancestor and bring them back to the future, where in a bizarre parody of captive breeding programs we have those ancestors mate with modern humans.

[PLAIN]http://blog.pennlive.com/talkingmovies/2008/03/medium_10000bc.jpg

Now, we repeat our foray into history grabbing ancestors every 10,000 years or so and bringing them back to the future. There comes a point in time, when modern people can no longer interbreed with those we have pirated from the past. Let's dub this ancestor, ancestor X. But, it necessarily follows from descent that one of those ancestors we grabbed can interbreed with ancestor X, the ancestor well call P.

If ancestor P were to then take over our experiment, leap-frogging back in time every 10,000 years from their present day they too would find their own distinct ancestor X.

Consider then, the implications of this for the idea of species. At what finite time, do we define a species? At ancestor X? If that is true, then ancestor P (of our species) would be of a different species then our ancestor X. Yet when viewed from ancestor P's time line, ancestor X would necessarily have to be included in the same species.

Crazy, no?

 

[DaveC426913]

Ok, but before wings got big enough for flight, they certainly had to be too small for it (I say "wings", but you can include all other flight adaptations). I don't know which species from the "ancestor that had wings too small". But it's an interesting subject.

This is something I alluded to previously that is critical to the correct understanding of evolution: wings and feathers that were too small to achieve flight did not evolve toward the purpose of flight. Wings and feathers evolved out of some other, unrelated drivers (such as mating plumage or winter downy coating). They served this purpose well, and it was only a side-effect that, when their environment changed, these winglike, featherlike things had an unexpected use in helping with gliding.

That is how wings-that-are-too-small-to-fly evolved into wings-that-are-big-enough-to-fly.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

This is something I alluded to previously that is critical to the correct understanding of evolution: wings and feathers that were too small to achieve flight did not evolve toward the purpose of flight. Wings and feathers evolved out of some other, unrelated drivers (such as mating plumage or winter downy coating). They served this purpose well, and it was only a side-effect that, when their environment changed, these winglike, featherlike things had an unexpected use in helping with gliding.

That is how wings-that-are-too-small-to-fly evolved into wings-that-are-big-enough-to-fly.

I agree with this. So in the absence of any other evidence (as a non-biologist, I'm not very aware of the archeological evidence collections out there), I can not be convinced that a chicken descends from a flying creature. Looking at a chicken alone, it could still be on its way from a non-flying creature, towards a flying one. It's on stand-by.

By continuously breeding the top percentile that manages to stay in the air the longest (by jumping and gliding) when I scare them, in millions of years, we'd get flying "chickens".

Heck, even by breeding mammals this way, I don't see why we wouldn't get there.

 

[cosmos 2.0]

I agree with this. So in the absence of any other evidence (as a non-biologist, I'm not very aware of the archeological evidence collections out there), I can not be convinced that a chicken descends from a flying creature. Looking at a chicken alone, it could still be on its way from a non-flying creature, towards a flying one. It's on stand-by.

By continuously breeding the top percentile that manages to stay in the air the longest (by jumping and gliding) when I scare them, in millions of years, we'd get flying "chickens".

Heck, even by breeding mammals this way, I don't see why we wouldn't get there.

If chickens did or did not descend from bird, humans are certainly controlling its evolution now They may become an extinct species in the future. They are being being bred, how would it affect their genetics. will they be able to fight deadly infections in the future ?

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

If chickens did or did not descend from bird, humans are certainly controlling its evolution now They may become an extinct species in the future. They are being being bred, how would it affect their genetics. will they be able to fight deadly infections in the future ?

I won't go into infectiology (it adds unimaginable complexity), but I'll add that geography also plays a huge role. Chickens living on an island without any predators will have a greater chance (become dodo-like or kiwi-like). With predators, they need to evolve as sprinters (such as ostriches) or flyers.

I think evolution is interesting, but nothing can be said with certainty about the future, and the theories about the past are always pending on the discovery of a new fossilized creature ("missing link").

 

[Ken Natton]

Once more, with feeling…

Firstly, paleontological evidence is far more extensive than many people seem to realize.

But in any case. Knowledge of the evolutionary past of species does not depend solely on paleontological evidence.

Here’s one of my personal favourite evolutionary stories. The reptilian ancestor of all modern mammals that lived around the time of the dinosaurs was a small creature with short legs that moved low to the ground. It picked up ground based vibration through its lower jaw. Over time, as it evolved, small pieces of its lower jaw broke away to form the bones of the modern mammalian inner ear. It was then able to pick up air borne vibration as well.

So how do they know all this? Well, there is actually quite powerful paleontological evidence in support of this story, and I should even be able to find the Scientific American article about it, if anybody wants the reference. But if you want to scoff at this evidence, proof of the story is not actually dependant upon it. That little piece of our evolutionary history, of small pieces of lower jaw bone breaking away to form the bones of the inner ear, is replayed in every modern mammalian embryo as it develops.

 

[DaveC426913]

I agree with this. So in the absence of any other evidence (as a non-biologist, I'm not very aware of the archeological evidence collections out there), I can not be convinced that a chicken descends from a flying creature.

I am confused.

Are you saying that, because you do not have the knowledge of evidence of the descent of flying birds, you have decided that you won't be convinced it's true?

Looking at a chicken alone, it could still be on its way from a non-flying creature, towards a flying one. It's on stand-by.

No. This is a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works. Didn't we just clear this up?

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

No. This is a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works. Didn't we just clear this up?

There may be enough evidence to show chickens come from a flying ancestor, I haven't looked it up. Examining the genes is probably the most convincing evidence.

But if the conditions (geography, ecosystem, human interference or lack of etc.) were right, I don't see why they couldn't evolve to fly again.

 

[DaveC426913]

There may be enough evidence to show chickens come from a flying ancestor, I haven't looked it up. Examining the genes is probably the most convincing evidence.

Again, I think that, by definition, all birds are descended from a flying ancestor. If some descended from one ancestor and some from another, they would be separate classes. They're not. They're all the same class.

But if the conditions (geography, ecosystem, human interference or lack of etc.) were right, I don't see why they couldn't evolve to fly again.

Absolutely they could.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Not only are we descended from apes - we are apes.

Don't play games with words. We are NOT "apes" as that word is scientifically defined. Nor did we evolve from apes- we and apes evolved from a common ancestor that was neither human nor ape.

It's pretty likely that the ancestors of chickens once flew. The odds that all their ancestors back to lizards were flightless, and yet evolved feathers, chest bones, wings and beaks - all adapted to flight - but never flew is rather unlikely.

Haven't you been reading the previous posts. Yes, chickens evolved, fairly recently, from Asian fowl that could fly, to a least and extent.

Although the immediate ancestors of domestic chickens were ground dwelling fowl that if they flew at all it was probably limited to fluttering up into trees to sleep

That has already been said.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Two points of interest regarding the current page of discussion about apes and the chicken.

1. A quote from the Human Genome Project- Functional and Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet:

The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.) Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% similarity but a lot of variation from gene to gene (e.g., some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, while others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives). Some nucleotide changes are “neutral” and do not yield a significantly altered protein. Others, but probably only a relatively small percentage, would introduce changes that could substantially alter what the protein does.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/compgen.shtml

2. From BioMed Central:

Evolution of the chicken Toll-like receptor gene family: A story of gene gain and gene loss
Nicholas D Temperley1, Sofia Berlin1,2, Ian R Paton1, Darren K Griffin3* and David W Burt1*
1 Department of Genomics and Genetics, Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
2 Department of Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvagen 18D, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
3 Department of Biosciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NJ, UK
BMC Genomics 2008, 9:62doi:10.1186/1471-2164-9-62
Abstract:

Background
Toll-like receptors (TLRs) perform a vital role in disease resistance through their recognition of pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). Recent advances in genomics allow comparison of TLR genes within and between many species. This study takes advantage of the recently sequenced chicken genome to determine the complete chicken TLR repertoire and place it in context of vertebrate genomic evolution.

Results
The chicken TLR repertoire consists of ten genes. Phylogenetic analyses show that six of these genes have orthologs in mammals and fish, while one is only shared by fish and three appear to be unique to birds. Furthermore the phylogeny shows that TLR1-like genes arose independently in fish, birds and mammals from an ancestral gene also shared by TLR6 and TLR10. All other TLRs were already present prior to the divergence of major vertebrate lineages 550 Mya (million years ago) and have since been lost in certain lineages. Phylogenetic analysis shows the absence of TLRs 8 and 9 in chicken to be the result of gene loss. The notable exception to the tendency of gene loss in TLR evolution is found in chicken TLRs 1 and 2, each of which underwent gene duplication about 147 and 65Mya, respectively.

Conclusion
Comparative phylogenetic analysis of vertebrate TLR genes provides insight into their patterns and processes of gene evolution, with examples of both gene gain and gene loss. In addition, these comparisons clarify the nomenclature of TLR genes in vertebrates.
Please read on . . .
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/9/62

I hope everyone is enjoying life on *our* planet.

 

[bobze]

Don't play games with words. We are NOT "apes" as that word is scientifically defined. Nor did we evolve from apes- we and apes evolved from a common ancestor that was neither human nor ape. Haven't you been reading the previous posts. Yes, chickens evolved, fairly recently, from Asian fowl that could fly, to a least and extent. That has already been said.

I think you're getting confused with the often used (by creationists) "monkeys". Apes are all Hominoidea--That's the scientific definition.

By definition then, humans are apes and our last common ancestor with all Hominoidea would have been, an ape. In other words the coalescent point of Hominoidea is an ape. Even another way of looking at it would be (and probably better) that "ape" describes a distinct lineage within the order of primates.

So it would be perfectly acceptable to say that all Hominoidea share a line of descent from a common ancestor who was an ape. However, we are not monkeys, which describes a distinct and separate lineage of primates from our own.

You could, if speaking of Old world monkeys, say we are both Catarrhines. And we shared an ancestor who was undoubtedly a Catarrhine, but was neither an ape nor monkey. As both ape and monkey describe two distinct lineages of Catarrhini.

 

[eggomaniac]

That seems to be a pretty common misconception that people have of evolution. By and far, selection is capable of producing measurable change much, much faster than we actually observe.

Even so, it still produces measurable change over very short periods of time. For example, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_01.html" (I think you'll find this most interesting Ken).

Doesn't dog breeding, though unnnatural means were used, at least show that species can change, or be changed, over short periods of times? Those finches in the Grants link were of the same species with different 'traits', right?