Evolution by Natural Selection – Darwin’s Finches | Biology for All | FuseSchool
Articles Blog

Evolution by Natural Selection – Darwin’s Finches | Biology for All | FuseSchool


What are Darwin’s finches and why are they so important to biologists? Study of finches led to the development of one of the most important scientific theories of all time, but how does this come about? In December 1831 a naturalist called Charles Darwin boarded the HMS beagle bound on a surveying voyage to South America Whilst the ship and crew carried out coastline surveys Darwin was free to explore the islands in route in 1855 the Beagle arrived at the Galapagos Islands near Ecuador What darwin found there surprised him greatly? As well as giant tortoises and Marine iguanas don’t collected and preserved a variety of different song Birds called finches Upon returning to the uk he examined them together with ornithologist John gould and later fascinating discoveries? The scientists observed that the birds were all similar to a single type of finch found on Mainland, South America Suggesting that these mainland finches had originally colonized the Island however the Galapagos finches were all slightly different from the original mainland species and They were also different from each other the finches on each Island show distinct variations in their overall size big shape and claw size These differences were attributed to the different food sources available on the various islands of the Galapagos Some of the birds had long thin beaks and sharp claws suited to catching and eating insects while others had large powerful beasts suitable for cracking over the nuts Because of the distances between the islands breeding between different species of finch was unlikely and down Concluded that the finches must have evolved over time from the original mainland species to suit the conditions found on each individual Island in All 13 of the Birds brought that by Darwin who identified as being entirely new species all similar to each other but with definite variations from their common ancestor Darwin propose that the variations seen both within and between the same species arose by chance Variations which gave any individual comparative advantage made them more likely [to] survive and therefore reproduce out competing those with less Advantageous characteristics Darwin called this theory natural selection, and he published it [as] book on the origin of species in 1859 Evolution by natural selection is now widely agreed to be the most accurate theory to explain the origin and diversity of all life on Earth in this video you’ve learned how the finches of the Galapagos islands led to the development of the theory of evolution by [natural] selection Evolution of these birds still happening see what you can find out

16 thoughts on “Evolution by Natural Selection – Darwin’s Finches | Biology for All | FuseSchool

  1. drought in 1977 destroy vegetation in Daphne major island (in Galapagos) .No rain occur for next 18 month.Then how finches survived for 18 month without drinking water?

  2. The fundamental kinds hypothesis says that two or more separately designed kinds of animals or pants that are made to be able to adapt within a certain variation range can bring forth offspring that look so very similar that one would actually think they had a common ancestor or even gave birth to each other although they derived from separate lineages. Their orchards of life are branching out so very widely, that they can actually overlap, if their respective variation range allows. That means: same phenotypes, but different genotypic origins.
    Supposed evolution seen in the fossils could therefore be a misinterpretation of overlapping orchards of created kinds! Whale evolution, for instance, is evidenced by fossils that show similarity. Similarity between specially adapted individuals of different kinds is a predicted phenomenon. An evolutionist would arrange the fossils evidencing whale evolution from legged land mammal to swimming modern whale. A creationist would ask, if these fossils are equally specialized members of separately created kinds. Same fossil evidence – totally different interpretation.
    Being a musician myself, let me explain in musical terms:
    You can use genetic algorithms to breed sounds out of synthesizers. If you breed correctly, a subtractive synth can produce a saw wave and if you breed correctly, an additive synth can also generate a saw wave. The synth parameters are like the genotype for a certain sound phenotype. Both synths have different genotypes, but express the same phenotype. Now download a saw wave sample from the net and tell me: What synth generated it? That's exactly the same problem like distinguishing what kinds fossils came from, If you only look to the phenotypes. What else do you have, but phenotypes, if you dig up fossils? See the problem? You are looking at samples. What can you tell about the synthesizers which generated them?
    Nothing. So it's actually up to you to decide, if it was evolution or baraminology.
    What about age?
    If I recorded a saw wave sample from a synth in the early 80s and a saw wave sample from a VST synth emulation yesterday; how could you tell, if I used two different synths of different age just by listening to the samples ( = looking at the phenotypes) ?
    If I recorded two saw wave samples yesterday with the same synth; how could you tell, that both came from the same synth played yesterday just by listening to them?
    And even if all saw wave samples were slightly different, but similar, so that you could arrange them in a certain lineage, would this lineage evidence common ancestry or separate origins? How do you tell? Of course you cannot possibly know the origins just by looking at the individual phenotypes or even genotypes, because similarity doesn't evidence evolution better than design by similar means.
    Exactly the same is equally true for looking at fossils.
    So, the only evidence against the fundamental kinds hypothesis is the fossil sequence (that shows fossils that are not in their right order) and flawed radiometric dating methods (that are based on unprovable assumptions). But hey: "Evolution – it works!" , right?
     independent.Academia.Edu/henryDalcke/papers

  3. Darwin's finches show the exact OPPOSITE of evolution. Why? Because they are all still finches! All their descendants are 100% finches. If not, what are they "evolving"" into that is not 100% a finch? Some people, dogs, horses, whatever, have different sizes of "beaks". However they are all still equally as much people, dogs, horses, whatever as all the others of their kind. If not, what are they "evolving" into?
    .
    I used to call myself an atheist and thought Darwin was a genius. Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero.
    .
    Research reveals that the beaks grow back and forth in size depending on climate variations. The evidence that finches or Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but finches, and turtles et al? Zero again.
    .
    Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genomes. It never creates new DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates new DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations.
    .
    Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."
    .
    Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column.
    .
    The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops – like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor life forms, like trilobites. are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland. In fact, 90% of the fossils on land are marine. Golly, how did that seawater get everywhere all over the planet? Hmmm….
    .
    Take a look. See the ocean floor dwelling, now extinct, so called "Cambrian", trilobites found on mountain tops all over the world. (They are supposed to be at the bottom of the GC.) https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=trilobites%20On%20Mountains&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&pq=trilobites%20on%20mountains&sc=0-23&sk=&cvid=9008D75298A54105AD924CA3AACAE385 Notice the exquisitely preserved details on many. This is also seen with innumerable sea shells, mollusks, etc.
    .
    Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved, intact and conjoined, vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils in the countless billions to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains. Not uncommonly the fossils are in their original shape with perfect details as you see in the link. "Plate tectonics" are purely speculaitons, piled on theories, heaped on hypotheses. They can't explain the lack of erosion which should have caused those fossils to be nothing but dust and rubble after their so called millions of years trek.
    .
    (And please do not send me a post quoting Talk Origins, which I call Talk Spin. Yes, I know that they claim to have found one GC on this entire, vast, planet. But they didn't. If you will check thoroughly you will see them saying "Some of the strata are out of place", i.e. there ain't any GC there, either. I am very familiar with TO. They have no problems with flat out lying and are not even an authentic science source. If you can find an authentic science source that shows a GC, include that with a link to a photo. Then explain why the rest of the planet shows the exact opposite of a GC. My experience is that knowledgeable evolution defending people will say "Well, the GC is just a model. We know none really exists." When I ask "How can you make a model of something that has no evidence whatsoever that it existed?" they don't respond.)
    .
    The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). Again, the fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 90% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. Even the one by the Aborigines of Australia is highly similar to what the Bible reports.
    .
    So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minuscle changes that leave them basically what they were before.
    .
    You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolutionism when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information, in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species in a genus moving up to the next step on the Animal or Plant Kingdom to become a new family. (Not to mention never seeing any transitions from an order, class, phylum or Kingdom.)
    .
    Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over – in the conveniently invisible and unverifiable past.
    .
    We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any lifeform of Family A to turn into a lifeform of Family B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But eagles stay eagles, bullfrogs stay bullfrogs, dolphins stay dolphins, eboli bacteria stay eboli bacteria, tulips stay tulips, chimps stay chimps, fruit flies stay fruit lies, and of course people stay people, no matter how much they change.
    .
    This fits in with what the Bible says about creation having been halted. What also fits is that no new strands of DNA are ever created. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy, on and on. DNA can be somewhat altered by mutations and natural selection, selective breeding and even genetic engineering, but is never seen to be created from "scratch."
    .
    What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense.
    .
    The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many.
    .
    Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: "Look! Fossil A has some similarities to Fossil B! We'll use big words to sound impressive about that, like 'similar homology.' We have exactly zero evidence Fossil A even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less that it turned into B, C, D etc. But we are going to tell you, as gawd's truth scientific fact, that we know all about what happened to its evidence-free, data-free, descendants. We'll call that science."
    .
    This leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past – for over 100 million Darwin years.
    .
    "Missing links" (2 to 5 million Darwin years' worth of them between you and Lucy or some other such "transition" du jour) is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have…faith…brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious!
    .
    Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them used in every defense in evolutionary literature.
    .
    Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not – who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind.
    .
    Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory.
    .
    You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him, too. Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.

  4. Going by this theory does this mean dwarfism (since its hereditary) could be just a “species” of human in thousands of years?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top