Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Have Peter and Rosemary Grant and the Galapagos Darwin finches been “disappeared”?

arroba Email

So it seems, at least from a Big Science book defending Darwinism:

In a post yesterday, I discussed the book Science and Creationism, published by the National Academy of Sciences. I asked, “Are Galápagos Finches ‘Evolution in Action’?” In the next edition of the book (2008/2017), now called Science, Evolution and Creationism, I noted something utterly surprising. This “particularly compelling example of speciation,” the profound contributions of Peter and Rosemary Grant to our understanding of the evolutionary process, this example of evolution in action, all of it had now been completely deleted!

But why? How could the authors suddenly do this? Some of the following points may be considered, based on material from even years before 2008. See, for example, Lönnig 1993, pp. 196/1971; and Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (2000), pp. 159-176. In 2017, Evolution News reported on the often limitless evolutionary extrapolation from the variation in the Geospizinae (the subfamily to which the Galápagos finches belong) to the origin of species and higher systematic categories in general. See, “Darwin’s Finches: An Icon Gets Retouched.” …

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Galápagos Finches and a Surprising Deletion” at Evolution News

It was just hybridization, really. Not the fountain of explicitly Darwinian speciation that neo-Darwinian theory needed.

Look on the bright side. Darwinism may be endangered but the birds aren’t, or not necessarily. Hey, we can live with that.

Longtime readers will, of course, remember Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig in connection with the dreadful carnivorous weed that tried to eat Darwinian evolutionary biologist Nick Matzke. Lönnig is a specialist in carnivorous plants (among the most interesting in the entire kingdom, of course).

See also: Preparing the public for the slow demise of Darwinian evolutionary theory

Mike Behe’s new A Mousetrap for Darwin is available today and that’s the position he takes. That’s our sense too. What about New Scientist’s thirteen reasons for moving past Darwin and the doubts about speciation? Whatever else maybe said of these folk, they are not currently suffering from Darwinbrain. We need to distinguish between rubbish dropkicked from one edition to the next of a public school textbook and what alert minds are really thinking. And they’re really thinking that it’s time to move on.

Yeah, I think I see him peeking out from a tiny window way up there. lol -Q Querius
Seversky bolts back to the inner keep. “ Only neo-Paleyists still regard Darwinism as the be-all and end-all of evolution.” Belfast
Changes to the beaks in Galapagos finches appear after a single generation through epigenetic switches. -Q Querius
I believe the Grants claimed it took about 20 million years to form a new bird species. Doesn’t add up. Too gradual. jerry
It's due to ideological poisoning. It's completely unacceptable that anything but spontaneous generation could be the explanation of life on earth or anywhere. The science was settled once and for all in 1859 and Darwinism is now the only immutable "fact" that exists in Science regardless of evidence to the contrary. Darwin fundamentalists would much rather deny human mind, will, and observation than to give up their faith in Darwin. -Q Querius
Unbelievable, Why are evolutionists still so clueless? Modern evolutionary thought STILL posits evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, just as Darwin did. It is the same now as it was back in 1859. All that has changed is now we know the molecules. It is all still design without the intelligent designer. It's as if people like seversky are just clueless and proud of it. ET
Reminds me of the smart comment someone made about journalism: "Newspapers never admit they were wrong. They just sometimes stop being wrong." Morality requires a loud correction and apology when you change course, so the students or readers can also learn from the failure. Unfortunately neither journalists nor scientists are moral. They are Deepstate bureaucrats following Deepstate's fast-shifting Correct Line microsecond by microsecond. The dizzying speed of the shift is the only thing that counts. Never let the suckers learn or adapt or maintain balance. Spin and spin and spin. polistra
Look on the bright side. Darwinism may be endangered but the birds aren’t, or not necessarily. Hey, we can live with that.
Only neo-Paleyists still regard Darwinism as the be-all and end-all of evolution. Seversky

Leave a Reply