Friday, April 24, 2015

Darwin’s Finches Continue to Reveal More About Evolutionists Than Evolution

Interbreeding and Hybridization

Forty years ago biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant began an ongoing study of the different finch species on the Galápagos Islands. They gathered valuable data and during drought years they observed the finches adapt to the environmental challenges. In particular, the population of medium ground finches, Geospiza fortis, shifted toward a larger beak. This was because the drought left smaller seeds in scarce supply, and so those G. fortis with smaller beaks died off. These initial observations were followed with detailed studies of the changes that took place at the molecular level. The latest such study, published in February of this year, describes how a particular protein affects the embryonic development of the finch’s beak. All of this makes for a good case study in adaptation. Unfortunately, it also is a good case study in the misrepresentation of science by evolutionists.

The Grant’s observations of how the Galápagos finches adjusted to shifts in the food supply led to four important findings: the adaptation was rapid, preexisting, cyclical and complicated.

First, the finch populations adjusted to food supply changes just as the temperature in a room changes with your setting of the thermometer. Adjust the thermometer upward and the temperature in a room soon rises. Adjust the thermometer downward and the room cools. The one tracks the other. The finches were not randomly searching some design space—a process which would require long periods of time.

In fact, second, the finch populations were not finding any new designs that were not already present. Just as the room temperature varies between the same old values, the G. fortis shifted between preexisting beak shapes and sizes.

So not surprisingly, third, the G. fortis beak design oscillated back and forth along a cyclical trajectory, morphing between preexisting designs, as the weather and food supply oscillated.

Finally, fourth, these beak designs are varied by extremely complex embryonic development mechanisms. The latest paper, for instance, reports on the ALX1 gene which encodes a transcription factor that influences the finch beak shape and size.

What is a transcription factor? It is a protein that binds to special places in the DNA and regulates gene expression. In other words, a transcription factor is a protein that regulates the creation of other proteins. That is a complicated affair, but the story does not end there. The latest paper finds that this gene must have been transferred between species via hybridization events.

All of these four findings are directly opposed to evolutionary theory and expectations. The process is supposed to be slow, not rapid. The process is supposed to construct new designs, not choose from preexisting ones. The process is supposed to continue off in a direction and arrive at new species, not oscillate back and forth. And the process is supposed to arise naturally, from brute, simple events. The process is not supposed to be based on complex, preexisting, mechanisms.

None of this makes any sense on evolution. In fact Darwin was persuaded that the finches were powerful evidence for evolution because they were different species, not mere variants. In other words, for Darwin they were powerful evidence because, he believed, they did not interbreed.

But interbreeding between the finches is precisely what science has been finding. In this case, the adapting beaks are influenced by the hybridization of the ALX1 gene. Precisely the opposite of the premise which led to the celebration of the Galápagos finches as compelling evidence for evolution in the first place.

Nonetheless, evolutionists have consistently misrepresented the story of the Galápagos finches as an ongoing, powerful modern day confirmation of Darwin’s findings and arguments. The Wall Street Journal calls the new finding “a vivid illustration of evolution working,” and Science Daily informs readers that changes in the finches beaks are “all driven by Darwinian selection.” The new paper, meanwhile, begins with the statement that Darwin’s finches “constitute an iconic model for studies of speciation and adaptive evolution.”

I don’t mind if evolution is true, but I do mind defending it, or any scientific theory, with gross misrepresentations of the evidence.

9 comments:

  1. Wow. In the very same post post you complain about the observed evolution being too fast, and also about the observed evolution not doing enough. Pick one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are the one that needs to decide - natural selection is crap..sorry but you can't use rhetoric to get out of the empirical evidence - that is called blind faith not science.

      Delete
    2. You are the one that needs to decide - natural selection is crap..sorry but you can't use rhetoric to get out of the empirical evidence - that is called blind faith not science.

      Delete
    3. This is a strange reply system....
      I repeat (perhaps why Tom repeated his comment)
      Did we read the same article?

      Delete
    4. This is a strange reply system....
      I repeat (perhaps why Tom repeated his comment)
      Did we read the same article?

      Delete
  2. There is an epigenetic study on finch beaks that looks like the way it is going to turn out - in total contradiction to Darwin - his main IDOL is the opposite of what he and others proposed. Why that is such a surprise to so-called scientists I don't know - a good scientist would be excited, but its a religion, not science.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is an epigenetic study on finch beaks that looks like the way it is going to turn out - in total contradiction to Darwin - his main IDOL is the opposite of what he and others proposed. Why that is such a surprise to so-called scientists I don't know - a good scientist would be excited, but its a religion, not science.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "But interbreeding between the finches is precisely what science has been finding. In this case, the adapting beaks are influenced by the hybridization of the ALX1 gene. Precisely the opposite of the premise which led to the celebration of the Galápagos finches as compelling evidence for evolution in the first place."

    The Nature article refers to evidence of hybrdization in the evolutionary past, presumably before they were completely separate species. But setting that detail aside, exactly what are you claiming is "the opposite of the premise which led to the celebration of the Galápagos finches as compelling evidence for evolution in the first place"? We see changes in the frequency of alleles within populations over generations under the influence of changes in the environment. Isn't that what evolution is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DR:

      We see changes in the frequency of alleles within populations over generations under the influence of changes in the environment. Isn't that what evolution is?

      No. evolution says the species originated spontaneously. That is a very different claim than mere changes in allele frequencies. The latter is used as cover.

      Delete