Darwin's Finches

These were the birds that Darwin noticed on his trip to the Galapagos islands in the South Pacific Ocean.

Of the 26 types of land bird that Darwin studied here, 13 were finches.  They had not been seen by Darwin anywhere else, although very similar birds had been studied by him in nearby South America.  He formed the opinion that one or more finches had come from South America at some point and had become stranded on the islands, and had then started to change into different birds.

But just before we get carried away, let us consider what we actually know.  Firstly, even if it is unusual that certain types of bird are only found in small numbers in one place this is no proof of evolution.  All we know is that these birds are similar to others nearby, but different at least in looks.  Again, their uniqueness is no proof of evolution.  It is just as likely to be a proof of extinction - of the finches in all the other parts of the world.  It is strange how this is happening all around us today, and yet extinction is totally ignored as a serious explanation for the finches on the Galapagos Islands.

Secondly these birds are still finches.  They haven't changed into blackbirds, sparrows or starlings.  If they have changed, they haven't changed much at all.  The body sizes differ to some extent, as do the beak shapes and the eating habits, but that is about the limit of the differences.  Even to label them as different species may be giving them a distinction that doesn't really exist.  Species are usually separated on inability to interbreed, but in this case we don't know whether these birds cannot interbreed, or whether it is other factors that stop them doing so.  As you may know there is considerable social resistance to human groups interbreeding, even though that is perfectly possible biologically.

So thirdly it may be asked whether they have changed at all, or whether, like human beings who have different colour skins, different shaped faces and different habits, the birds are actually the same as they always were but that in course of time certain characteristics have been selected to produce different looking birds.  This is not evolution, any more than all the vast numbers of dog types show evolution.  So we should be rather careful in drawing conclusions about Darwin's Finches.

The above was written in 1996, which was some time before I read Lee Spetner's little book 'Not by Chance' (1997).  In it he makes two points, among many.  The first of these that is relevant to the above topic, and to which he devotes an entire chapter (Ch. 5), is that there are no known examples of random mutation which add information to the genome, as the Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT) requires.

Put into plain language, the normal system of mutation which undoubtedly occurs, and which is supposed to be the agent allowing evolution to occur, does not actually do that at all.  Organisms must become more complex for evolution to occur, and that means that the storage system in the cell which determines that greater complexity must itself become more complex.  If this does not happen then neither does evolution.  Random mutations have never been shown to produce greater complexity in the DNA, and therefore Darwinian evolution cannot have happened either.

Nevertheless, Spetner says, changes do occur; so how does this happen?  He draws on some interesting research studies which show that animals, without change in their DNA, can change what they look like, and the way in which they act, and that these changes appear to be permanent.  The caveat is that the environment appears to cause the change, and for the change to remain the environment must also continue unchanged.  He lists a number of such changes, some small, some quite large in a variety of organisms.  One of the more interesting changes that he notes is of relevance to the case of the Galapagos Finches.

Laysan Island, a small coral island in the middle of the Pacific, is part of an official US Government Bird Reservation.  In 1967 about 100 of the Laysan finches were taken some three hundred miles northwest to an island called Southeast Island (well, naturally...), one of four within a radius of about 10 miles.  With some human help, as well as by natural dispersion, the finches quickly spread to all four islands in the group.  A check in 1984 showed that the finches were already different from those on Laysan island (Conant 1988, Pimm 1988).  Three years later the population of finches was found to be approximately 800.  Although all alike in 1967, by 1987 birds on different islands were showing some very diverse forms, particularly in beak shape.  Those on North Island had beaks deeper and shorter, and those on Southeast Island had longer and more slender beaks than the original type on Laysan.

To claim that this is Neo-Darwinian evolution is clearly absurd.  Nevertheless the birds had changed, and had changed almost as much as the differences which separate the finches on the various Galapagos islands.  The Laysan-Southeast finches have not been the subject of evolution, yet have shown gross morphological change in a matter of 20 years.  Since the extent of change has been almost identical in the Galapagos Finches, why are the latter unthinkingly quoted as a prime example of evolution?

It has to be said that Evolutionists's enthusiasm for their cause all too often blinds them to simple facts and more obvious explanations of natural phenomena.  I suppose, to be fair, this sort of thing is a little unexpected.  But the problem with evolutionists is that they assume that what they see is a product of evolution when, in point of fact, it can often be shown to be nothing of the kind.  As that is the case, it is quite possible that the few exceptions will also be found to have nothing to do with Evolution.

References:
(Press your 'Back' button to return to the text from any of these references.)

Conant, S., (1988). "Saving endangered species by translocation," BioScience, vol. 38, pp. 254-257
Pimm, S.L., (1988). "Rapid mophological change in an introduced bird," Trends in Evolution and Ecology, vol. 3, pp. 290-291