Finches

Are the Galapagos finch beaks evidence of Darwinian evolution?

Were you taught in biology class that the changing lengths of finch beaks was a good proof of Darwinian evolution? Many students were… but is it true?

Jonathan Wells has an article about it at Evolution News.

It says:

When Charles Darwin visited the Galápagos Islands in 1835, he collected specimens of the local wildlife. These included some finches that he threw into bags, many of them mislabeled. Although the Galápagos finches had little impact on Darwin’s thinking (he doesn’t even mention them in The Origin of Species), biologists who studied them a century later called them “Darwin’s finches” and invented the myth that Darwin had correlated differences in the finches’ beaks with different food sources (he hadn’t). According to the myth, Darwin was inspired by the finches to formulate his theory of evolution, thoughaccording to historian of science Frank Sulloway “nothing could be further from the truth.”

In the 1970s, biologists studied a population of medium ground finches on one of the islands in great detail. When a severe drought left only large, hard-to-crack seeds, 85 percent of the birds perished. The survivors had beaks that were about 5 percent larger than the average beak size in the original population. The biologists estimated that if similar droughts occurred once every ten years, the population could become a new species in only 200 years. In a 1999 booklet defending evolution, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences called the finches “a particularly compelling example” of the origin of species.

But after the drought, birds with smaller beaks flourished again, and the average beak size of the population returned to normal. No net evolution had occurred. No matter; Darwin’s finches became an icon of evolution that is still featured in most biology textbooks.

In the 1980s, a population of large ground finches, with larger beaks than the medium ground finches, migrated to the island. When a drought in 2004-2005 again reduced the food supply, the medium and large ground finch populations both declined. But since even the largest beaks among the medium ground finches were no match for the beaks of the large ground finches, the latter pretty much monopolized the larger seeds and the former had to make do with smaller seeds. This time, the medium ground finches that survived the drought had beaks that were smaller than the average size in the original population. Biologists studying the finches argued that birds with smaller beaks were better able to eat the tiny seeds that were left after the large ground finches ate the big ones, and they concluded that this was again an example of “evolutionary change.”

[…]Wait a minute. Average beak size increased slightly during one drought, only to return to normal after the rains return. Then average beak size decreased slightly during another drought. A region of DNA is correlated with beak size. And somehow that tells us how finches evolved in the first place?

There is an important distinction to make between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Changes within a type is micro-evolution. Evolving a new organ type or body plan is macro-evolution. There is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution, but no evidence for macro-evolution.

What needs to be proven by the Darwinists is that the same process that results in different average beak size in a population of finches after a drought can create the finches in the first place. I think that Darwinists are credulous – they believe what they want to believe because they want to believe it, even if the evidence is incredibly weak. Darwinists must demonstrate that heritable variations can result in the generation of new organ types and body plans. Changes in average beak size is not interesting. What is needed is to show how the beaks, much less the wings, evolved in the first place.

Icons of Evolution

Jonathan has actually written about a number of  misleading things that you may mind in Biology textbooks.

Here are the sections in his book “Icons of Evolution“:

  • The Miller-Urey Experiment
  • Darwin’s Tree of Life
  • Homology in Vertebrate Limbs
  • Haeckel’s Embroys
  • Archaeopteryx–The Missing Link
  • Peppered Moths
  • Darwin’s Finches
  • Four-Winged Fruit Flies
  • Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution
  • From Ape to Human: The Ultimate Icon

Dr. Wells holds a Ph.D in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley.

6 thoughts on “Are the Galapagos finch beaks evidence of Darwinian evolution?”

  1. “What is needed is to show how the beaks, much less the wings, evolved in the first place.”

    Full-blown Darwinists will typically handwave this all away by simply declaring, “that’s not what we or our discipline are about,” and then talk about the absurdity of YEC as if YEC and purposeless evolution are the only options.
    What’s got atheists all in an uproar now that ID is a thesis taken seriously by an increasing number of scientists is that it doesn’t fit into either camp. Yet, it’s seriously debated within academia when it isn’t censored by people who claim to be defenders of reason and science. I’ve even heard atheistic scientists try to ridicule it by saying it’s creationism dressed but in a really nice tuxedo. Pfft.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. No.
    Check out RSR .org for thousands of articles from a Christian perspective that uses SECULAR research papers to prove a God created young universe.
    You can probably search rsr .org /finch beak.
    KGOV .com is the main site.

    Like

  3. Man, I fell for the finches too, LOL! But, I was just appealing to authority in my atheist years. Which goes to show you how important it is to have the right Authority.

    Now, I just say “The beaks remained beaks, the finches remained finches, the birds remained birds. Yaaawn.”

    Like

  4. Macroevolution holds that a species can “advance” up an evolutionary path, like apes eventually becoming humans. Microevolution is more of a horizontal, diversification event, like a fish having a different color pattern than it’s relatives a few creeks over in Africa. BIG difference.

    Microevolution does not prove macroevolution.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Micro evolution is even what any theist should expect to find.

    I assume God would load possibilities and changes into his creation to allow it to survive. That way we can see it unfold over time and not have to hope for God to show up every so many years to create new animals because old ones couldn’t adapt to environmental changes.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s