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”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Cartoon
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.
C’mon Zach, spit it out — what is accurate?
of note:
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.
here are some cool video clips from ‘FLIGHT – The Genius of Birds’’:
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?
Heartlander @1: Thank you for posting the cartoon. Love it.
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.
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.
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.
Darwin’s Finches: The Hype Continues. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02796.html
Darwin had his Finches, but Wallace had his Woodpeckers
https://cdn.brainpop.com/socialstudies/worldhistory/charlesdarwin/screenshot2.png
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.
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?
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.