Finches named for Darwin are evolving

Error This is the exact senerio that had lead Darwin to the concept of natural selection being the origin of species.

You realize that this is wonderful evidence for creation, not evolution! I'm new to this forum, in fact, this is the first post I have ever made to any discussion board. I say that since I don't know to what extent terms have been defined.The term "Evolution" or "Micro-evolution" is commonly used in some evolutionist circles to simply refer to "Adaptation" or "Natural Selection" which has nothing at all to do with molecules to man Evolution. This discovery, which has long been postulated by creationists, is an example of natural selection which was first proposed before Darwin by creationists. In fact we can attribute the foundations of the majority of modern science to creationists.You cannot take the fact that finches have adapted to their environment by developing longer or shorter beaks and then extrapolate that to say they will turn in alligators if we wait long enough! After millions of generations, birds are still birds, bacteria are still bacteria and so on. Organisms adapt within their "kind" but do not become different organisms. This requires the addition of new genetic information, not simply the shuffling or loss of genetic information. Some of the finches in this study were not able to adapt and have suffered probably because they have lost the genetic information to do so.Natural selection is an essential fact necessary for the theory of creationism and this study demonstrates that it doesn't take millions of years for species to change and adapt within their kind. This makes possible the diversity of life we see today to develop from the intial created kinds in only a few thousand, not millions, of years.

Hi, Murky! Welcome! Was Muddy your cousin, perhaps? Pretty extensively defined, mostly over in the Biological Evolution forums. You might want to nose around over there a bit. Yup. We humans are still anthropoid apes, and still primates, and still mammals, and still tetrapods. That's what evolution is all about.

Ship, pencil, flower, backpack = all the same. Deification of the god known as Subjectivity by a self anointed prophet - thats what evolution is all about - facts never get in the way when the needs of the atheist are present.Ray

Welcome to EvC and good post! Right in tune with the rest of us creationists here. Hope you'll check out all the forums and stick around.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Do you have any hair, Ray? A backbone? A cranium? Do you have hands that grasp better than you feet do?

Not a warranty post. No More.Edited by AdminJar, : personal OT remark hidden

---

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01 Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I see that the Grants are still studying the finches and documenting variations in species over time (= evolution)There is a Sept 2004 (see ABSTRACT) article on this as well: Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's FinchesFor previous work see this article: Genetics and the origin of bird species (abstract here) .Excellent.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Of course it is, because you can define "creation" any way you want to and make it fit, and re-define it to suit whenever necessary, as in when new evidence contradicts previous asserted positions to the point where they cannot be ignored.Also note the Deist position that the universe was created with everything in place and designed for life to evolve from primordial components does not contradict or clash with the concept of life evolving over time, so this is "wonderful evidence" for Deism. Now here you make a logical leap of faith and commit a logical fallacy at the same time. You are essentially asserting that because you can claim the evidence is for "creation" that it then must be against evolution. This is not established. As noted above creation can include evolution as the mechanism by which all life has evolved.To establish that this is "not evolution" you have to demonstrate that it {CAN'T} be evolution. Not only has that not been done, but the evidence in the paper is that it not only {CAN} be evolution but {IS} evolution.Evolution is change in species over time -- precisely what is demonstrated by the finches in question, as noted in the (Science) paper (especially) and referenced in the news article. You forgot mutation in your common creationist strawman argument here. Note that the article specifically states: (bold mine for empHASis)This means the article is not discussing abiogenesis (the proper term for your creationist " molecules to man" misrepresentation), or even evolution of the finches from a common ancestor with other birds (and has nothing to do with either molecules or man).Further, what you refer to as "Adaptation" is the selection of mutations by Natural Selection. The real mechanisms are Mutation and Selection. One causes variations in the base population (in this case large and small beaks in the finches) and the other selects variations that give a species an advantage (here small beaks in the smaller species to take advantage of seeds the other population is not eating) and it de-selects variations that hinder or harm the species (here the larger beaks): Now to claim that this is NOT evolution you have to show that this is NOT what happened, but that something else caused this {appearance of evolution}. And that is not what the theory of evolution claim, so it seems you do not understand what evolution really is. You stated: We use the common definitions that apply to science and biology in general and evolution in particular.For instance - dictionary.com defines evolution as: Please point out where this in any way necessitates birds becoming alligators, or that descendant species will not be related to their ancestor species.Now if you want to discuss how "macro"evolution cannot happen, that should go to a different thread rather than disrupt this one that is specifically about the evolution of variation in the finch population on the Galapagos islands.I suggest "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?To sum: you have not demonstrated {HOW} this {CAN} be evidence for creation (other than by redefining "creation" to include it) nor have you demonstrated {HOW} this {CANNOT} be evidence for evolution. All you have made is an assertion of belief untainted by facts. Or as Faith notes: You can, but you are asserting another false statement that is disproved by ALL the evidence.You are conflating modern creationists with victorian christians, a logical fallacy, ignoring the non-christian thinkers, and ignoring the "foundations" that existed before christianity was even "created" (and long before it "evolved" into american fundamentalist creationism).Further, the sciences have moved on, unfettered by erroneous past thinking, including that of creationist mis-preconceptions (such as flat earth and geocentricism) in their pursuit of knowledge of {HOW} things work based on the evidence that is available.Because you can cite {SOME} evidence for a position does not make it true or valid, most especially when you ignore {OTHER} evidence that disproves the position. The denial of {CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE} means that the position is false, regardless of any claims otherwise, until such time as you can show how the evidence is wrong or explain it in terms of the position claimed.Enjoy.pstype [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: You can also pick "Peek Mode" on the message you are replying to in order to see how others do special formating.And Welcome to the fray

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Define deism as compared to theism and its source ? We know finch beaks oscillate depending upon weather and conditions = better explained by the ID model ? Thus saith RAZD....you are guilty of the same: natural-selection-did-it.You have simply deified nature and pretended to have spoken for it. The only source for respected prophecy is the Bible. IOW, truth and need has smoked you out and shows that Darwinists take the place of God. We know the same Holy Source says that Lucifer was made into Satan for attempting to take God's place and "be like the Most High".Ray

Let's hold this thought for some other thread. This is not the place to debate beyond the particular news item.hello ray. Just apply the standard {dictionary.com\wikipedia.org\etc} definition as that is what was meant in the argument. You can also use {Theism} of course -- the point is that whatever belief is involved can be adapted to find it "wonderful" but that this does not in and of itself rule out evolution. You mean that the IDed organism needs to be fine tuned by (a) having mutations available to provide variation, and (b) subsequent selection to meet the needs of a changing environment (= evolution)?How does this make ID a "better" explanation? Explain the mechanism by which ID worked, and how it was implemented, and how this is differentiated from the mechanism of evolution by the evidence at hand. LOL. Actually the evidence shows it whether I say it or not. This is not a matter of redefining evolution to suit -- it is just the definition applied to the facts: evolution is change in species over time; change in species over time was observed in specific fact and location and duration of time; result = evidence = evolution.Enjoy.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I have prepared a response to your post which I think is relevant. What would you like me to do with it? That is, I prepared the response before I saw your "Off Topic" note. I don't know if you mean just message 10 or if you feel the whole thing is going in the wrong direction. I also don't know how to tell who are administrators or who can actually make those decisions. While my response does deal in part with definitions, I feel it is still relavant to the topic. I have begun to peruse the forums and I've found that other creationist here have provide similar information. Nevertheless, if you subscribed to any of it, I don't think you would have responded to my original post, so I'm inclined to move forward. If I don't hear back from you in the next hour, I will go ahead and post here. If someone thinks it should be moved or ended, that's fine. Edited by MurkyWaters, : No reason given.

That note was from AdminJar, not me. Admins try to keep these things on topic, and this is a news thread rather than a debate thread.Go to Galapagos finches, Message 80Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Say what? Creationists proposed the idea of natural selection? And Darwin and Wallace did not cite them? The fiends! You are going to have to provide a citation for such an extraordinary claim. And in your very first post, too! Congratulations! This will absolutely rock the scientific world!

Yes, right down to the extraordinary claims that can't be documented. (Creationists thought up the theory of natural selection before Darwin, according to Murky)