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

Thirteen species of finches live on the Galápagos, the famous island group visited by Charles Darwin in the 1830s. 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.

The same thing is seen in artificial selection, with all the various modern breeds of dogs being more specialized than the parent (mongrel) population, but carrying less information—and thus less potential for further selection (you can’t breed Great Danes from Chihuahuas). In all these sorts of changes, finches are still finches and dogs are dogs. The limits to change are set by the amount of information originally present from which to select.

Creationists have long proposed such ‘splitting under selection’ from the original kinds, explaining for example wolves, coyotes, dingoes and other wild dogs from one pair on the Ark. The question of time has, however, been seized upon by anti-creationists. They insist that it would take a much longer time than Scripture allows. Artificial selection is quick, they admit, but that is because breeders are deliberately acting on each generation. The usual ‘guesstimate’ of how long it took for Darwin’s finches to radiate from their parent population ranges from one million to five million years.

However, Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant recently released some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galápagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action.1 For example, during drought years, as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, selection favoured those with larger, deeper beaks capable of getting at the remaining large seeds and thus surviving, which shifted the population in that direction.

While that is not very surprising, nor profound, the speed at which these changes took places was most interesting. At that observed rate, Grant estimates, it would take only 1,200 years to transform the medium ground finch into the cactus finch, for example. To convert it into the more similar large ground finch would take only some 200 years.

Notice that (although the article fails to mention it) such speedy changes can have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation, but are based upon the process described, that is, choosing from what is already there. It therefore fails to qualify as evidence for real, uphill (macro) evolution — though many starry-eyed students will doubtless be taught it as ‘evolution in action’.

Instead, it is real, observed evidence that such (downhill) adaptive formation of several species from the one created kind can easily take place in a few centuries. It doesn't need millions of years. The argument is strengthened by the fact that, after the Flood, selection pressure would have been much more intense — with rapid migration into new, empty niches, residual catastrophism and changing climate as the Earth was settling down and drying out, and simultaneous adaptive radiation of differing food species.

Reference P.R. Grant, ‘Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches’, Scientific American, 265(4):60–65, October 1991.

Well since Christ (you know, Christian, follower of Christ) wasn't embarrassed by his belief in the Flood I see no reason for any of his followers to be embarrassed by their belief in the Flood.

But some are embarrassed in front of the worldly and supposedly sophisticated and that's just too bad seeing that James (another follower of Christ) said friendship with the world is enmity toward God.
That's in the same source that informs Christians about the Flood and Christ and how to be his follower.

“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.”

However if humans didn't bring the flightless birds then they arrived by some other means not yet obvious.

But the dating of the FIRST humans in New Zealand is not settled at all despite using LARGE letters.

> But the dating of the FIRST humans in New Zealand is not settled at all despite using LARGE letters.

It is settled to within a few hundred years based upon extremely accurate and corroborated Maori oral history. Maori are able to recite from memory their whakapapa, or genealogy, from their current generation to the generation which landed in their Iwi’s canoe, and some of them can go back to ancestors living in Hawaiki. I have seen them do it. Anthropologists accept it as an accurate record. That’s good enough for me.

It is a thoroughly preposterous notion to suggest that Maori brought several distinct species of Kiwi, several distinct species of Moa, the Tuatara, the Haast Eagle, the Kea and several species of the Weta with them on their dugout canoes to New Zealand. Even allowing for the FACT that these animals had existed here for many millennia prior to their arrival. No serious scientist would suggest this.

Quite aside from the nonsensical suggestion that they carried these animals here, there remains the question of where they came from and why there are no such animals found anywhere else on this planet — including wherever it is that the Maori presumably brought these animals from.

We can play this precise same game with Australia: they have animals like the Kangaroo and the Platypus and the Echidna that are found nowhere else. Are you suggesting that the Aborigines swam to Australia with these animals strapped to their backs?

As I said earlier, your argument becomes silly and embarrassing the more it gets delved into.

> I see no reason for any of his followers to be embarrassed by their belief in the Flood.

I do. Because the notion of a universal flood that covered the entire planet beggars belief.

There may have been a flood, but it most certainly wasn’t universal. Mathematics and physics prove that beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. Don’t believe me? Pull out your slide rule and calculate the volume of water necessary to cover the earth to a depth of 29,000 feet above current sea level — for that is what would be necessary to have a universal flood.

There just isn’t enough water on Earth to do that. Don’t take my word for it tho’ — do the maths, melt down the polar ice caps and convince yourself. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed. So where did all this water go?

It went nowhere, because the Genesis flood could not possibly cover the entire planet. Couldn’t.

Leaving aside the problematic New Zealand and Australia, whose unique and flightless animals must have somehow swum from Mt Ararat halfway ‘round the globe to shipwreck ashore DownUnder...

> However if humans didn’t bring the flightless birds then they arrived by some other means not yet obvious.

Any advance on swimming on the backs of aborigines or hitching a ride with the Maori? UFOs perhaps? Or maybe Noah’s Ark had large petrol motors and some means of navigation?

In truth, mate, it really does seriously move from the sublime to the ridiculous. As Christians we are better to accept facts as they are, rather than try to force facts to fit the Genesis record, whose first few chapters are a parable and are largely allegorical.

Otherwise, Atheists and Evolutionists have every right to laugh at our beliefs.

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.

The only ones who think there's "8-20" mass extinctions are evo scientists who have (unwisely) refused to consult with the best and brightest in the creation science community, who (as usual) are way ahead of evos on the "problem" of multiple mass extinctions. Truth is, the only mass extinction of any import is the so-called Cretaceous extinction, which represents the activity of the Flood. Other apparent "strata" (Devonian, Silurian, etc.) are just different layers simultaneously deposited by the Flood. The appearance of the "stratification" of fossils is due to hyrdological sorting:

Hydrological sorting

It is an imperfect process, which is why we see anomalous fossils:

Anomalous fossils

of all types and sizes, something that the failed evolutionist model can't explain.

As for the "greatest extinction event" of all time, the so-called "Permian extinction", it's likely this isn't an extinction at all. Most "fossils" buried in sub-Permian strata proabably weren't living at all, but incomplete body parts, likely left over and unused from God's original Creation, and left buried in the earth. Instead of considering that these monstrous body parts were just that, monstrous leftover body parts from the Great Engineer, the evos put together fanciful monsters like these:

From nothing more than a few impressions in rock, which are either just body fragments leftover from Creation or randomly shaped rocks (who knows which?)

Image of so-called "animal fossil"

These so-called "evo-scientists" are no better at science than the clowns who think they can see the Blessed Virgin here in a piece of toast:

God never asked men to waste their lives digging down into rocks into his body-fragment 'junkyard' to find "evidence" to incorrectly interpret as "science". Instead, He gave us all the answers to Creation compactly and concisely in Genesis, so that we may spend our lives in the more noble pursuit of spreading His Word.

Again, Creation Science has far outdone evolutionary "science" in explaining the data, and leaves the field of "evolution" languishing in its death throes.

It is possible to reconcile the fact of Evolution and the fact of Creation, if one is willing to discard the unbelievable and the impossible.

For example, it is unbelievable that Evolution happened by Chance: a Creator was necessary. And a universal flood is impossible: at best it was local. And while Creation could certainly have taken six days, it didn’t: it took six epochs of millions of years.

Once that piece of commonsense has been done and dusted, everything falls into place just fine: including the Big Bang theory.

> God never asked men to waste their lives digging down into rocks into his body-fragment ‘junkyard’ to find “evidence” to incorrectly interpret as “science”. Instead, He gave us all the answers to Creation compactly and concisely in Genesis, so that we may spend our lives in the more noble pursuit of spreading His Word.

I am inclined to agree with this. And I believe that we, as Christians, do ourselves and our Faith no favors at all by tilting against the undeniable facts that Science has been able to establish. Doing so hurts our Credibility something shocking.

Instead, when Science establishes something undeniable, we need to adjust our interpretations to accommodate the new evidence. That’s only sensible.

The St Augustine article posted earlier in this thread is excellent in this regard.

First the addition of vast amounts of water would distort the crust of the earth forcing some areas down and others up so having water over 29000 feet deep isn't necessary.

And there's plenty enough water to cover mountains that might well have been lower before the flood. If the earth were smooth water would cover it to a depth of several thousands of feet.

But let's cut to heart of the matter:

“Otherwise, Atheists and Evolutionists have every right to laugh at our beliefs.”

“OUR BELIEFS”?

That's really the nut to be cracked, isn't it? How to call one’s self Christian while accepting the beliefs and doctrines of the atheists and evolutionists in The Temple of Darwinism.

You're afraid the atheists and evolutionists will laugh at YOU if you aren't one of them. It is YOU who is embarrassed at what Christ believed not he or us.

“It is settled to within a few hundred years based upon extremely accurate and corroborated Maori oral history.”

Right. A history likely taught them by the anthropologists themselves.

The Genesis account has an accurate written history covering a much longer period of time.

Supposedly moas walked to New Zealand on a land bridge now under water but then sea levels rose, So where were all these flightless birds when New Zealand was submerged?

“Any advance on swimming on the backs of aborigines or hitching a ride with the Maori? UFOs perhaps? Or maybe Noah’s Ark had large petrol motors and some means of navigation?”

> First the addition of vast amounts of water would distort the crust of the earth forcing some areas down and others up so having water over 29000 feet deep isn’t necessary.

I think I’d prefer to see some science on that assertion. There is NO EVIDENCE that massive distortions of the earth’s crust on that scale has happened in the past 6,000 years.

> And there’s plenty enough water to cover mountains that might well have been lower before the flood. If the earth were smooth water would cover it to a depth of several thousands of feet.

Let’s see some maths to prove that, please. I have heard that even the outrageous AlGore Inventor of the Internet is only touting a 20 foot rise in the sea level should the polar ice caps melt. Twenty feet! Not twenty thousand feet, twenty ONLY.

That certainly isn’t going to submerge Mt Ararat. It won’t even cover a half-decent hill. So where did all the rest of the water come from? And more to the point, where is it now?

> “OUR BELIEFS”?

Yes, our Christian beliefs. The ones that matter, and the ones that we, as Christians, are expected to preach. The Gospel, which is the Good News of the Kingdom of God and the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Unless that isn’t something that you buy into, I think “Our Beliefs” is a perfectly accurate way to describe them.

> How to call one’s self Christian while accepting the beliefs and doctrines of the atheists and evolutionists in The Temple of Darwinism.

It’s actually quite easy to “crack that nut”, as you say. I’ve explained how in my post previous to this one.

> You’re afraid the atheists and evolutionists will laugh at YOU if you aren’t one of them.

I’m actually not “afraid” of anything or anyone on this earth or in this life.

> It is YOU who is embarrassed at what Christ believed not he or us.

No, I’m actually embarrassed by the jolly nonsense that some of my fellow Christians, such as yourself, hold forth to be “Truth” in the face of irrefutable fact. I am embarrassed by your jolly nonsense, and embarrassed for you.

It’s rather like having a daft uncle who gets drunk at family gatherings and farts loudly and moons the in-laws. It’s unseemly and embarrassing.

> Right. A history likely taught them by the anthropologists themselves.

Is that a serious assertion? That hundreds of thousands of Maori were taught their individual family trees by anthropologists, and that these family trees corroborate, cross-check and agree? Or more likely you’re just being silly.

I see no necessity for you to insult the Maori in order for you to try to defend your indefensible position. They take their family’s (”Iwi”) Heritage every bit as seriously as my fellow Scots take their clans. And with a dam’n sight more accuracy, too.

> The Genesis account has an accurate written history covering a much longer period of time.

The Genesis record, in particular the first few Chapters dealing with Creation, the fall of Mankind, and the Flood, are accurate but not to scale. In part they are parable, in part they are allegory. Their purpose is to explain what happened, and to explain why things happened the way they did. Their purpose is not necessarily to explain how things happened. Evolution does that task much better.

> Supposedly moas walked to New Zealand on a land bridge now under water but then sea levels rose, So where were all these flightless birds when New Zealand was submerged?

A “land bridge”? A land bridge from where? The waters around New Zealand aren’t like the waters between Britain and France — shallow — and the land masses aren’t close together. The water is deep and it always has been. And it is a very long way to our nearest neighbor, across the Tasman Sea to Australia. Not a land bridge in sight. Impossible.

There is no evidence of any “land bridge” over which these flightless birds could have traveled to NZ over the past 6,000 years. Heck, there is no evidence of any smaller-scale land bridges between North and South Islands over which they would have needed to cross, if land bridges were how they got here.

They may have used a land bridge when New Zealand was a part of Gondwannaland, but that was millions of years ago. More likely they evolved here in situ.

“I think I’d prefer to see some science on that assertion. There is NO EVIDENCE that massive distortions of the earth’s crust on that scale has happened in the past 6,000 years.”

Ever hear of glacial rebound? Geologists say where glaciers once were the earth's crust is still rebounding from being depressed by the weight of the glaciers and that's over crust that is three or four times the thickness of oceanic crust with water being even heavier than ice by volume.

What would happen if a sudden weight of water was laid down on the earth's crust? How would affect the movement of crustal plates? and a host of other things? And where is it now? Oceans, seas, deep ocean trenches, thousands of square miles of open water.

No evidence? Says you.

I said there was plenty of water.....your reply:

“Let’s see some maths to prove that, please. I have heard that even the outrageous AlGore Inventor of the Internet is only touting a 20 foot rise in the sea level should the polar ice caps melt. Twenty feet! Not twenty thousand feet, twenty ONLY.”

From the Encyclopedia Britannica,
“Actually, all the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on the Earth’s surface.”

And from somewhere I can't recall if you need the math:

The total volume of the oceans is 1.3 billion cubic kilometers. The surface area of the Earth is 510,072,000 square kilometers. Dividing the volume by the surface area, we get a depth of 2.5 kilometers.

A bit rough but you should see the point.
and finally,

“Yes, our Christian beliefs. The ones that matter, and the ones that we, as Christians, are expected to preach. The Gospel, which is the Good News of the Kingdom of God and the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Luke's ability to trace Jesus linage back to Adam was part of that Good News, he said he was going to trace all things with accuracy, so when did his genealogy become parable and allegory?

“I see no necessity for you to insult the Maori in order for you to try to defend your indefensible position. They take their family’s (”Iwi”) Heritage every bit as seriously as my fellow Scots take their clans. And with a dam’n sight more accuracy, too.”

And I see no reason to insult those who accept the Scriptures over Darwin. Luke's record had far, far more support than the traditions of the Maori and is certainly taken just as seriously.

“It’s rather like having a daft uncle who gets drunk at family gatherings and farts loudly and moons the in-laws. It’s unseemly and embarrassing.”

But it's your daft uncle not mine and there's more important things than your pride.

“The Genesis record, in particular the first few Chapters dealing with Creation, the fall of Mankind, and the Flood, are accurate but not to scale. In part they are parable, in part they are allegory. Their purpose is to explain what happened, and to explain why things happened the way they did. Their purpose is not necessarily to explain how things happened. Evolution does that task much better”

“Evolution does that task much better” is your belief not “ours”.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.