Home » Intelligent Design » Darwin’s Finches: An Example of How Evidence for Evolution Works

Darwin’s Finches: An Example of How Evidence for Evolution Works

July 29, 2012 Posted by Cornelius Hunter under Intelligent Design
5 Comments

Leading evolutionist Jerry Coyne presented Geospiza fortis as an evidence for evolution at a recent talk at Harvard in what continues to be a good example of the strong metaphysics and weak science behind evolution. Recall that the Galapagos finches provided one of Darwin’s many metaphysical argumentsfor his idea that the species must have arisen on their own. As Carl Zimmer explained in his book Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea:  Read more

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to Darwin’s Finches: An Example of How Evidence for Evolution Works

  1. 1
    JoeJuly 29, 2012 at 7:04 am

    Yessirree, Darwin’s strawman is alive and well!

    The fixity of species is a strawman because even YEC accept variation within a Kind which technically is evolution. Finches are evidence for variation within a Kind.

    But tat is how evos “win” they lie about theor opponents’ claims and press on regardless of what reality says.

    That is why I am pressing for a disclaimer on biology textbooks that state neither YEC nor Intelligent Design are anti-evolution as they both accept a change in allele frequency over time, ie evolution, descent with modification, ie evolution and that natural selection exists and occurs, ie evolution.

  2. 2
    bornagain77July 29, 2012 at 9:14 am

    Dr. Hunter as you pointed out, materialists never mention the fact that the variations found in nature (such as peppered moth color and finch beak size) are always found to be cyclical in nature. i.e. The variations are found to vary around a median position with hardly ever a continual deviation from the norm. And if it is a ‘permanent’ deviation from the median position it is because information was lost from the genome by the culling effect of natural selection or by the detrimental effect of deleterious mutations destroying preexistent information. This blatant distortion of what the evidence actually is led Phillip Johnson to comment in the Wall Street Journal:

    “When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.”

    And when one digs deeper to try to find a rigid mathematical foundation for evolution, a person soon finds the reason why atheists, such as Coyne, are stuck with such misleading evidence to try to make their case:

    Here is a short sweet overview of Mendel’s Accountant:

    Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory (Mendel’s Accountant)
    Excerpt of Conclusion: This (computer) program (Mendel’s Accountant) is a powerful teaching and research tool. It reveals that all of the traditional theoretical problems that have been raised about evolutionary genetic theory are in fact very real and are empirically verifiable in a scientifically rigorous manner. As a consequence, evolutionary genetic theory now has no theoretical support—it is an indefensible scientific model. Rigorous analysis of evolutionary genetic theory consistently indicates that the entire enterprise is actually bankrupt.
    http://radaractive.blogspot.co.....ution.html

    Further notes:

    “What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.”
    Pierre Grasse (1895 – 1985) Editor of the 28-volume “Traite de Zoologie” Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University
    http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm

    A. L. Hughes’s New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – December 2011
    Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species’ particular environment….By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became “heritable”. — As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The “remainder” has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) — in the formation of secondary species.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53881.html

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    Here is a detailed refutation, by Casey Luskin, to TalkOrigins severely misleading site on the claimed evidence for observed macro-evolution (speciation);

    Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change – Casey Luskin – January 2012
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55281.html

    Here is part 2 of a podcast exposing the Talk Origin’s speciation FAQ i.e. ‘literature bluff’

    Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims – Casey Luskin
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_41-08_00

    As for me, it is simply beyond shocking to find that evolution, which I thought was ‘scientific’, actually has no rigid mathematical basis in science and it was also ,shocking to find atheists dogmatically belittling, intimidating, and even firing, anyone who does not go along with their delusional practice of science.

    Music and verse:

    The Civil Wars – Barton Hollow
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooTyuRd9zSg

    John 15:25
    ,,,‘They hated me without a cause.’

  3. 3
    Robert ByersJuly 30, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    once again another good thread about how presumptions are mistook for evidence.
    evolutionists do make such errors about how lines of reasoning are EVIDENCE for biological conclusions they make.

    Being persuaded that fixity is overthrown by the abundance of different types of birds per island IS not biological evidence for a hypothesis on the bird thing.
    Even if true its not biological evidence for evolution.
    Just a hunch without evidence.

    The bible already taught all creatures came from pairs off the ark and so it could only be that diversity in birds is from some mechanism unrelated to their origin from somewhere else.
    People are case in point. Quick change must of happened without selectionism.

    Even if finches etc did change from minor selection it is still only evidence for what it is.
    To say bubbles to buffaloes is a demanding conclusion because of micro evolution is JUST lines of reasoning.
    Show biiological evidence this could happen and did!
    abyways there could be other options for how things change.
    Proving fixity of species is wrong is proving wrong a idea held by few and certainly not YEC folks even back in the day.
    Noah’s ark overthrew fixity of species.
    Darwin was a anglican who already rejected Genesis as his acceptance of the geology stuff proves.

  4. 4
    sergiomendesJuly 30, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    Robert Byers,

    “Noah’s ark overthrew fixity of species.”

    what did noah’s ark prove or give evidence for, what line of reasoning from it gets the truth? just curious.

    sergio

  5. 5
    Robert ByersJuly 31, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    sergiomendes
    the creatures put upon the ark in kinds means only after the flood was the earth settled by these kinds.
    Therefore islands are only later settled in a post flood world. Also kinds limits things. So crows would just be one kind but today, I guess, there are many types of crows.

    genesis therefore was the first to correct any ideas of fixity of species.
    Debunking birds as created for each island was a waste of time for Darwin.
    He was arguing against something already rejected.

Leave a Reply