Darwin’s finches: Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood adaptation

Creation Magazine ^ | Carl Wieland

[GodGunsGuts]

Also see:

Galapagos: Showcase for Creation

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood adaptation

So where did the flightless birds of New Zealand come from? And how did they get here?

(Answer: probably not on Noah’s Ark, and probably not after the Flood)

[Matchett-PI]

Augustine’s Origin of Species - How the great theologian might weigh in on the Darwin debate.
Christianity Today ^ | May 8, 2009 | Alister McGrath
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Upstate NY Guy]

Thanks for the post. I do not believe Darwin's theory properly explains the origin of the human or species or the various finch species. I believe God created life in all its varied forms.

However I have a little trouble understanding some of the logic in the article. In the first sentence the author states:
"Thirteen species of finches live on the Galápagos"

Then a little later he states:
"If the parent population has sufficient created variability (genetic potential) to account for these varied features in its descendants, natural selection could take care of the resulting adaptation"

So how did one species become thirteen species? This would mean that a single species of finch with enough genetic variability could become thirteen separate species of finches simply by selective breeding.

This does not seem to be a valid argument for creation.

[count-your-change]

How did the flightless humans get to New Zealand?

When people travel they take animals with them, still happens.

[Ancesthntr]

The finches have a variety of bill shapes and sizes, all suited to their varying diets and lifestyles. The explanation given by Darwin was that they are all the offspring of an original pair of finches, and that natural selection is responsible for the differences.

Surprisingly to some, this is the explanation now held by most modern creationists. It would not need to be an ‘evolutionary’ change at all, in the sense of giving any evidence for amoeba-to-man transformation. No new genetic information would have been introduced. If the parent population has sufficient created variability (genetic potential) to account for these varied features in its descendants, natural selection could take care of the resulting adaptation, as a simplistic example will show.

Say some finches ended up on islands in which there was a shortage of seeds, but many grubs were living under tree bark. In a population with much variation, some will have longer, some shorter, beaks than average. Those birds carrying more of the ‘long-beak’ information could survive on those grubs, and thus would be more likely to pass the information on to their descendants, while the others would die out. In this way, with selection acting on other characters as well, a ‘woodpecker finch’ could arise.

Finally, someone who gets it! What is described above could be called "micro-evolution," wherein the fittest of a population with a particular set of characteristics and potentials survive, passing their genes to their offspring...and the process repeats itself many, many times until you end up with seemingly big changes that some call "evolution."

This is not, however, "macro-evolution," wherein changes occur that have no basis in genetics. For example, the original finches didn't have lips and then suddenly sprout beaks because "today is Mutation Day."

IOW, "natural selection" is a different thing than "evolution" as the latter is popularly presented.

That said, the world was NOT created 5,770 years ago. People who believe that are failing to use their reason, which (like faith) is a gift given to them by G-d. That the universe is 14 billion + years old is really not open to much debate, and those holding to the literal interpretation of Genesis are missing a LOT. Read Gerald Schroeder's book, "Genesis and the Big Bang" for a detailed explanation as to why there is absolutely no contradiction between science and faith on this issue.

[canuck_conservative]

What about events that happened before 5000 years ago? What do the evolution-deniers (aka “creationists”) say about those - things like dinosaurs, multi-mass-extinctions, etc.?

[WondrousCreation]

What about events that happened before 5000 years ago? What do the evolution-deniers (aka “creationists”) say about those - things like dinosaurs, multi-mass-extinctions, etc.?

There's only one mass extinction evident from the fossil record, and it was caused by the Flood.

[Upstate NY Guy]

Here's the part I don't understand about the article. Most creation theory states there is such a thing as evolution but not across different species. In other words a population of large dogs can evolve or be bred into a population of smaller dogs. But, the theory states, a population of dogs may not evolve or be bred into a new specicies such as the cat.

But the author states thirteen separate species of birds grew out of a single species of bird. Correct me if I am wrong but I thought members of different species may not cross breed producing viable offspring. So how does one specicies become thirteen?

[Ancesthntr]

There's only one mass extinction evident from the fossil record, and it was caused by the Flood.

1. Prove it. IOW, explain the fossils found under the layer of soil that people like you believe represents "THE Flood."

2. Well, what about the dinosaurs? Are they from immediately before the Flood (i.e. somewhere between roughly 4,100 and 5,770 years ago)? What about radio-carbon dating and other methods that show an Earth that is ancient? Are they all lies? Were the scholars who wrote the Talmud (well before the invention or even the idea of radio-carbon dating) showing a lack of faith when they discussed an Earth aged in millions or more years?

[Ancesthntr]

But the author states thirteen separate species of birds grew out of a single species of bird. Correct me if I am wrong but I thought members of different species may not cross breed producing viable offspring. So how does one specicies become thirteen?

Maybe the author means "sub-species" or, like dogs, breeds. After all, a Great Dane can breed with a Chihuahua (with mechanical difficulty to be sure, but it is genetically possible). Without knowing the facts, I suspect that these finches CAN breed with each other (but don't).

[DieHard the Hunter]

> When people travel they take animals with them, still happens.

Kiwis and the now-extinct Moa predate human settlement in New Zealand by many millennia. So they didn’t get here with the help of humans, that much is certain.

[Upstate NY Guy]

Ahhh... that would explain it. Thanks.

[DieHard the Hunter]

Fascinating — thanks for posting. This analysis is not inconsistent with my own beliefs. I shall have to read St Augustine further...

[count-your-change]

Oh really?

From “TE ARA: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand”,
When was New Zealand first settled?
Extinction and decline.

“It is only when many different dating methods, from many different parts of New Zealand, on several different lines of evidence, all converge to show similar results that most scientists will feel comfortable in determining a first arrival date earlier than the generally accepted date of 1250–1300. One problem is the short time since first human arrival in New Zealand. Regardless of the debate as to whether this was 700 or 2,000 years ago, most dating techniques have their limitations over such short spans, and interpreting results requires extraordinary care.”

Acknowledgements to David J. Lowe (University of Waikato), Bruce McFadgen (independent archaeologist) and Janet Wilmshurst (Landcare Research

Not at all clear when humans arrived and the debate goes on.

[GodGunsGuts]

I read Schroeder’s book many moons ago. See the following for a critique of Schroeder’s work from a YEC perspective:

http://creation.com/gerald-schroeder-and-his-new-variation-on-the-day-age-theory-part-1

[canuck_conservative]

There's only one mass extinction evident from the fossil record

No - there's fossil evidence of 8-20 mass extinctions, depending on what threshhold of devastation you set. Generally speaking, each geologic era (Devonian, Permian, etc.) is separated by such an event. In the past 540 million years there have been five major events when over 50% of animal species died.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Oh really?

Yes, really.

> Not at all clear when humans arrived and the debate goes on.

It is quite clear that humans arrived sometime after AD 1 and generally accepted that the first permanent inhabitants were the Maori, who arrived between AD900 and AD1200.

There is some silly speculation that the Phoenicians settled in and around Taupo around the time of the Taupo volcanic eruption, based on what appear to be rock carvings. My neighbor is a leading proponent of this theory. It is not generally accepted as credible.

What is accepted as credible is that New Zealand was one of the last large land masses to be settled by humans, and that prior to the arrival of humans New Zealand was populated with a large number of flightless birds. It is also generally accepted that the Maori — the first human inhabitants — caused the extinction of the Moa, which had inhabited our islands for many millennia.

There is NO WAY that our flightless birds, and the reptile known as the Tuatara (last of the dinosaurs) were brought here by humans.

It is embarrassing for fellow Christians to cling in desperation to such foolish notions, rather than acknowledge the FACT that Evolution occurred, and the FACT that a Universal Flood didn’t.