Darwinism Genetics Intelligent Design

“Evolution” of Darwin’s Finches Tracked at Genetic Level

Spread the love

One thing we can all agree on is that the infamous finches on the Galápagos Islands are a classic icon of evolution. The difference is that evolutionists are playing the fool. Ever since Darwin wondered aloud that if the different types of finches he saw on the Galápagos Islands were not merely variants of a species, but in fact different species, then it “would undermine the stability of species,” and therefore the finches (and everything else) must have spontaneously arisen, evolutionists’ dullness has been embarrassing. Like the co-worker who reveals his ignorance as he rambles on about his pet peeve, evolutionists’ positivistic proclamations about the finches reveal an astonishing level of ignorance.  Read more

16 Replies to ““Evolution” of Darwin’s Finches Tracked at Genetic Level

  1. 1
  2. 2
    Zachriel says:

    Cornelius Hunter: Ever since Darwin wondered aloud that if the different types of finches he saw on the Galápagos Islands were not merely variants of a species, but in fact different species

    That’s not accurate. Please try again.

  3. 3
    bFast says:

    C’mon Zach, spit it out — what is accurate?

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    “The most striking and important fact for us in regard to the inhabitants of islands, is their affinity to those of the nearest mainland, without being actually the same species. Numerous instances could be given of this fact. I will give only one, that of the Galapagos Archipelago, situated under the equator, between 500 and 600 miles from the shores of South America. Here almost every product of the land and water bears the unmistakeable stamp of the American continent. There are twenty-six land birds, and twenty-five of those are ranked by Mr Gould as distinct species, supposed to have been created here; yet the close affinity of most of these birds to American species in every character, in their habits, gestures, and tones of voice, was manifest. So it is with the other animals, and with nearly all the plants, as shown by Dr. Hooker in his admirable memoir on the Flora of this archipelago. The naturalist, looking at the inhabitants of these volcanic islands in the Pacific, distant several hundred miles from the continent, yet feels that he is standing on American land. Why should this be so? why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plain a stamp of affinity to those created in America?”
    – Charles Darwin – The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life – Chpt. 12, page 249
    https://books.google.com/books?id=bFXDg6-IxlcC&pg=PA249

    of note:

    “… in a controlled study, finches were introduced to an island that previously had no finches (Conant 1988, Pimm 1988). In 1967, about 100 identical finches were removed from a U.S. Government Bird Reservation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and were taken about 300 miles away to a group of four small atolls lying within less than ten miles of each other, which had no native finches. The birds were released onto one of these islands, and they soon spread to all of them. Seventeen years later, when the birds were first checked, they were found to have a variety of bill shapes and to be adapted — both by their behavior and by their bill shapes and associated muscles — to various niches. This was a speeded- up form of the conventional scenario of Galapagos finch evolution. In seventeen years, and possibly less, the finches had diversified into various niches.”
    For the effect of Bmp4 on other birds see
    Wu, P., T.-X. Jiang, S. Suksaweang, R. B. Widelitz and C.-M. Chuong (2004) Molecular Shaping of the Beak. Science 305(5689): 1465–1466.
    Lee Spetner – The Evolution Revolution

    Epigenetics and the Evolution of Darwin’s Finches – 2014
    Excerpt: The prevailing theory for the molecular basis of evolution (Neo-Darwinism) involves genetic mutations that ultimately generate the heritable phenotypic variation on which natural selection acts. However, epigenetic (Non-Darwinian) transgenerational inheritance of phenotypic variation may also play an important role in evolutionary change.,,,
    Genome-wide alterations in genetic mutations using copy number variation (CNV) were compared with epigenetic alterations associated with differential DNA methylation regions (epimutations). Epimutations were more common than genetic CNV mutations among the five species; furthermore, the number of epimutations increased monotonically with phylogenetic distance. Interestingly, the number of genetic CNV mutations did not consistently increase with phylogenetic distance.,,,
    http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../1972.full

    Darwin’s finches not a good example of Darwinian evolution? – February 12, 2015
    Excerpt: The most extensive genetic study ever conducted of Darwin’s finches, from the Galapagos Islands, has revealed a messy family tree with a surprising level of interbreeding between species.
    It also suggests that changes in one particular gene triggered the wide variation seen in their beak shapes …
    The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of “gene flow” between the branches of the family.
    This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands.…
    “It’s been observed that the species of Darwin’s finches sometimes hybridise – Peter and Rosemary Grant have seen that during their fieldwork,” Prof Andersson told the BBC.
    “But it’s difficult to say what the long-term evolutionary significance of that is. What does it contribute?”
    What it contributes is that one would be hard pressed to show that there is any evolution going on, in the face of this much hybridization.,,,
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    Darwin’s Finches: Answers From Epigenetics by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. – August 29. 2014
    Excerpt: Just one year prior to this 2014 study,1 the epigenetic basis of speciation was demonstrated in birds in which the progressive geographical spread and ecological patterns of adaptation for a newly introduced songbird species were characterized by differences in DNA methylation patterns, not variation in the actual DNA sequence.2 In contrast, traditional Darwinian evolution alleges that random changes in the DNA itself generate new and useful variants that are then selected by the environment. In reality, researchers are now discovering that organisms can robustly adapt to different ecological niches without major changes in their DNA sequence.,,,
    What underlies this variation in finch beaks? In studies attempting to determine the molecular basis for beak variability in finches, researchers have found that very similar developmental genetic pathways among species can produce markedly different beak shapes.5 So if the genes are essentially the same, then what seems to be the major source of variation? In this current effort, the researchers studied two different factors in the genome. The first were short sections of non-coding DNA sequence that varied in the number of copies—repeated units—called copy number variants or CNVs. In humans, differences in CNVs form the basis for studying forensics and paternity testing. The second factor studied was epigenetically-based, using an analysis of DNA methylation patterns around the genome.
    From these analyses, the researchers found that epigenetics correlated well with increased diversity among species while CNVs, based on actual DNA sequences, did not. In addition, they also undertook a more focused study of the epigenetic profiles of specific genes involved in the morphogenesis of beak shape, immune-system responses, and coloring of the birds. Once again, the epigenetic profiles of the different bird species for all of these gene groups were different while the DNA sequences were nearly identical.
    In addition, the amazing cellular machinery that reads, regulates, replicates, and modifies epigenetic states in the genome is so incredibly sophisticated and complex that it can only be attributed to the work of an Omnipotent Creator.
    http://www.icr.org/article/8338/

    Darwin’s Finches Show Rule-Constrained Variation in Beak Shape – June 10, 2014
    Excerpt: A simple yet powerful mathematical rule controls beak development, Harvard scientists find, while simultaneously preventing beaks from evolving into something else.,,,
    We find in Darwin’s finches (and all songbirds) an internal system, controlled by a non-random developmental process. It is flexible enough to allow for variation, but powerful enough to constrain the beak to its basic form (a conical shape modulated by scaling and shear) so that the rest of the bird’s structures are not negatively affected. Beak development is controlled by a decay process that must operate at a particular rate. It’s all very precise, so much so that it could be modeled mathematically.,,,
    The very birds that have long been used as iconic examples of natural selection become, on closer examination, paragons of intelligent design.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....86581.html

    Darwin ‘Wrong’: Species Living Together Does Not Encourage Evolution – December 20, 2013
    Excerpt: Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution set out in the Origin of Species has been proven wrong by scientists studying ovenbirds.
    Researchers at Oxford University found that species living together do not evolve differently to avoid competing with one another for food and habitats – a theory put forward by Darwin 150 years ago.
    The ovenbird is one of the most diverse bird families in the world and researchers were looking to establish the processes causing them to evolve.
    Published in Nature, the research compared the beaks, legs and songs of 90% of ovenbird species.
    Findings showed that while the birds living together were consistently more different than those living apart, this was the result of age differences. Once the variation of age was accounted for, birds that live together were more similar than those living separately – directly contradicting Darwin’s view.
    The species that lived together had beaks and legs no more different than those living apart,,,
    ,,,there is no shortage of evidence for competition driving divergent evolution in some very young lineages. But we found no evidence that this process explains differences across a much larger sample of species.,,,
    He said that the reasons why birds living together appear to evolve less are “difficult to explain”,,,
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/darwi.....on-1429927

    More Fossil-Molecule Contradictions: Now Even the Errors Have Errors – Cornelius Hunter – June 2014
    Excerpt: a new massive (phylogenetic) study shows that not only is the problem (for Darwinist) worse than previously thought, but the errors increase with those species that are supposed to have evolved more recently.,,,
    “Our results suggest that, for Aves (Birds), discord between molecular divergence estimates and the fossil record is pervasive across clades and of consistently higher magnitude for younger clades.”
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....s-now.html

  5. 5
    Zachriel says:

    bFast: what is accurate?

    Darwin thought he had brought back from the Galápagos Islands “blackbirds”, “gross-beaks”, “wrens”, and finches — clearly distinct species, or even different families.

    Darwin wasn’t an ornithologist, so he turned his specimens over to John Gould, the preeminent ornithologist of the day. Gould examined the birds and determined that, despite their differences, they were related species of finches.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Back to School to Learn about the “Darwin’s Finches” Icon of Evolution – Casey Luskin – September 22, 2012
    Excerpt: Frank J. Sulloway of Harvard University showed that, really, Darwin was hardly influenced by finches and scarcely observed their feeding habits. He did not correlate their diets and beaks; in fact, Darwin collected too few specimens to determine whether any finch species was unique to each island. He did not even keep track of where he picked up every specimen. Really, no finch species was unique to any one island. Unfortunately, some teachers and writers remain unaware of Sulloway’s historical findings.
    (Alberto A. Martinez, Science Secrets: The Truth about Darwin’s Finches, Einstein’s Wife, and Other Myths, pp. 95-96 (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011).),,,
    It looks like Jonathan Wells has been vindicated once again. It would be nice to think that someday biology textbooks will be amended accordingly.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....64601.html

    here are some cool video clips from ‘FLIGHT – The Genius of Birds’’:

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – video clip playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s05koz6adzw&list=PLO673u2zYHhmKlWOnzc6FCbGr42TCB71C

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Hummingbird tongue – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMw3RO7p9yg

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Feathers – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2yeNoDCcBg

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Flight muscles – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFdvkopOmw0

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Skeletal system – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11fZS_B6UW4

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Starling murmurations – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GR9zFgOzyw

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Embryonic Development – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ah-gT0hTto

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    I can never stay up with the latest discoveries, so I appreciate Dr. Hunter.

    But surely Darwin knew that different species could inter-breed. So what did the finches add that wasn’t already known?

  8. 8

    Heartlander @1: Thank you for posting the cartoon. Love it.

  9. 9
    mahuna says:

    Mung @ 7

    One of the common definitions of “species” is that they CANNOT interbreed. That’s why we recognize only 1 species of domestic dog and are quibbling over whether wolves are also just another breed of dog (or perhaps “all domestic dogs are breeds of wolves”).

    If Darwin had admitted that his finches were merely odd variations on a single species, it would have killed his book entitled “Origin of SPECIES”. Any livestock breeder in 1850 knew how to optimize a breed to produce better race horses, etc.

    And my understanding is that science books for more than a century have insisted that the finches demonstrated the truth of the natural production of new SPECIES to fill specialized niches in natural environments. If the different looking finches are NOT separate species, then we should be actively rewriting all of the public discussions of what was a major ERROR by Darwin and how this ERROR was propagated as truth.

  10. 10
    tommy hall says:

    God created organisms in a top-down way, with an intrinsic ability to quickly and purposefully respond and adjust to environmental challenges and pressures….. The Darwinists have aped this ability, applied generous amounts of smoke screen and rhetoric, lied through their teeth to everyone, and given “evolution” the credit — fooling hundreds of millions of people. Darwinists are the biggest con artists the world has ever known.

  11. 11
    Mung says:

    Darwinists are the biggest con artists the world has ever known.

    I still think this award has to go to politicians. Hillary Clinton v Donald Trump.

  12. 12
    mw says:

    Darwin’s Finches: The Hype Continues. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02796.html

  13. 13
    earthsinterface says:

    Darwin had his Finches, but Wallace had his Woodpeckers

    https://cdn.brainpop.com/socialstudies/worldhistory/charlesdarwin/screenshot2.png

  14. 14
    Zachriel says:

    Mung: So what did the finches add that wasn’t already known?

    They were different enough that some didn’t even appear to be finches. Yet, not only were they finches, they were closely related finches.

    mahuna: One of the common definitions of “species” is that they CANNOT interbreed.

    Or interbreed rarely enough that the separate populations retain their distinctive features. A simple example is the polar bear, which can successfully breed with grizzly bears, but rarely does so. Consequently, the populations retain their distinctive features, and are clearly considered separate species. Also consider the wide variety of mallard species. While many can successfully interbreed, they are still considered separate species because they retain their distinctive features.

    mahuna: If Darwin had admitted that his finches were merely odd variations on a single species …

    Why would he do that? Not only did he think they were different species, but that they were, in some cases, different families. It took an expert ornithologist to determine their actual relationship.

    mahuna: If the different looking finches are NOT separate species …

    They are different species, though it wouldn’t matter to Darwin’s point concerning their common ancestry and following adaptation.

  15. 15
    es58 says:

    ghostrider said over there:
    Science doesn’t have to refute stupid unsupported claim

    So, if one hypothesises: there is a limitation to how far something can evolve, and, all the experiments support that, why isn’t that valid?

  16. 16
    Zachriel says:

    es58: there is a limitation to how far something can evolve, and, all the experiments support that, why isn’t that valid?

    If you could show there are such limits to evolution, then it would falsify evolutionary theory; however, no such limits have been determined. The “proofs” are usually strawman numerical arguments.

Leave a Reply