Interesting Things – “Darwin’s Finches” – No Proof of Evolution

“Darwin’s Finches” – No Proof of Evolution

Genesis 1:21 So God created… every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Medium Ground Finch (Geospiza fortis) by ©Wiki

Medium Ground Finch (Geospiza fortis) by ©Wiki

During his visit to the Galapagos Islands, Charles Darwin saw that each island was populated by a little finch. These birds were all very similar; yet, from one island to another there were some differences in the size and shape of the beak. Darwin reasonably concluded that in the distant past a pair of these birds had been blown 600 miles from the mainland and had since multiplied and spread. The environment on each island was slightly different, and the birds had developed specialized beaks to exploit the different food sources. It seemed to Darwin that here was a unique example of evolution in action where 13 different species had arisen from just one mating pair. A species is defined by the ability to reproduce; thus, a sterility barrier separates one species from another. Textbooks use Darwin’s finches to claim that new species have been produced, demonstrating evolution in action. However, the facts are that at least six of these different birds are known to interbreed and thus by definition are not new species at all but simply varieties within a single species. Moreover, DNA studies reveal very little difference between any of these birds, and there is no evidence of new genetic material, which is essential if evolution actually took place. Darwin’s finches offer no support for evolution. However, they do support the Bible when it teaches that, like every other creature, the birds have simply reproduced “after their own kind.” God has so designed His Creation that while it is possible for creatures to adapt perfectly to individual environments, there is still stability of the basic “kind.”

Dear Father, I thank You for Your Word that tells me of salvation. Amen.
Creation Matters, (CRS), pp. 5-6, “Quiz.”
Copyright (C) 2010 Creation Moments, Inc

“Darwins Finches” are part of the Tanagers and Allies-Thraupidae Family in the Passeriformes Order.

See also:

Galapagos: Showcase for Creation


22 thoughts on “Interesting Things – “Darwin’s Finches” – No Proof of Evolution

  1. To the other Grant:

    “The four corners of the world. Stunningly hard. Has he never heard of North South East and West.”

    I have. Have you ever heard of the definition of “literal”?


  2. The four corners of the world. Stunningly hard. Has he never heard of North South East and West. Also I believe it is Job that saw the world was an orb and hung on nothing.


    • Hi Grant,
      Yes, in Job he said: “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. (Job 26:7 KJV)
      Thanks for commenting.


  3. Poor evolutionists. You just can’t understand that only a change in your life, brought about by “faith” in the Lord Jesus Christ, will also bring understanding of God’s word.
    “But the natural man recieveth NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are FOOLISHNESS unto him: neither
    can he know them, because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned.” I Cor. 2:14

    In words that you can understand; you and others who are lost are spiritually blind. It is impossible for you to believe the Bible which is the word of God.

    The only verses of scripture that you can understand is the Gospel of salvation and then only if you heed the call of the Holy Spirit to salvation. He knows if you will repent of being a sinner by birth and a sinner on purpose.

    Until you are convinced that you are lost and must repent He will not call you to salvation. This belief that you are lost comes from hearing the gospel preached or reading it
    on your own in the Word of God.

    May God help you before it is too late.


  4. Would you mind telling me which part of it answers my questions? I’ve read through it and didn’t find it. I saw a section that simply stated that Genesis was written as a literal historical narrative. I didn’t see where they said how that was determined, which was what I was asking.

    I also didn’t see them write anything terribly explicit on where the dividing line between objective fact and subjective belief is drawn, which was my other question. I saw them claim they look at the same evidence everyone else does and simply “interpret” it differently… but interpretation is a subjective process. It is applied to subjective factors… not objective ones. You do not “interpret” what the universal gravitational constant is. You do not “interpret” what the half life of Thorium 232 is. These are plain and simple objective facts not subject to interpretation.

    So what, exactly, are they applying this “interpretation” to, to arrive at their conclusions which so wildly depart from those of the scientific community?


    • You had asked about the “4 corners”, that was discussed, You had asked some other questions and some of those were answered. I am not a scientist, so I don’t know all the terms you are throwing around. What I do believe is that God said He created the world, heavens, all that is in them, and He did it in 6 days. I believe it. Proof? It is called faith, but then again, those who believe in the theory of evolution have a “faith” in that. None of us were living at the time, so, “faith” comes in to play. I have a hard time having faith in an idea that I just “happened by accident over a period of millions of years.” I can’t explain how God did it, but I believe that He did, and did it in 6 days. If not, then when all of live is over, I die, and that is it. On the other hand, If what I believe in the Bible is true about creation, then what Jesus Christ did on the cross to purchase my salvation is also true. Then when I die, I have put my trust in God and there is an eternity, then I have made a eternal decision that will affect my soul forever.
      It is a decision we all have to make as to accept the Lord or reject Him. I have made mine.


  5. But “core beliefs” do not alter objective facts Lee. And when we start talking about things like the age of the earth and whether evolution occurs we are talking about disputes over hundreds of objective facts.

    For example: My genetic code is different than that of either of my parents. If someone were to deny this it would be innapropriate to call it something so innocuous as a “different core belief”. One of us thinking pizza is delicious and one of us thinking it’s disgusting would be a difference of belief/opinion. One of us thinking genetic composition of individuals didn’t change over succesive generations would simply mean one of us was clearly and demonstratably wrong.

    So the question becomes… what do you accept as objective fact, and what do you think is subjective opinion?

    Basic laws of physics? Objective fact, or subjective opinion? Is the value of the fine structure constant of the universe dependent on your or my belief in what it is… or is it simply what we measure it to be *regardless of what anyone wants to believe about it*?

    “Yes, I believe that there is symbolism in the Bible, and metaphors, but not when it comes to telling about creation. Revelation and some other books have parts that are making a point and are not literal.”

    And how did you determine that the creation account was NOT making a point metaphorically/symbolically rather than claiming an event literally occured exactly as described?


  6. Glad to hear your husband is ok.

    “Quoting Evolution falsehood to those who don’t believe evolution is also futile.”

    How about just plain old objective facts? We could stick with that and see where it takes us if you’re at all interested in figuring out why you and I have reached radically different conclusions on this particular subject.

    I would appreciate an answer to my previous question though so I can get some feel for what environment we’re operating in here. Do you believe in the existence of any metaphorical text in the bible or do you take the position it is all completely literal to the last word? I would think you would have to agree that it’s hard to take Revelation 7:1 literally for example… considering the earth is round and doesn’t have corners.


    • Good evening, Grant.
      I suppose the reason we have different conclusions is because of our core beliefs. My belief in God as the Creator and that the 1st 11 chapters of Genesis are a literal account of how the world and all that is in were created in six literal days, not eras, is where we differ. I believe there was a real universal flood and that there is evidence of it. Both sides have “evidence”, but how that evidence is interpreted, comes from a persons core belief. Yes, I believe that there is symbolism in the Bible, and metaphors, but not when it comes to telling about creation. Revelation and some other books have parts that are making a point and are not literal.


  7. Quoting Evolution falsehood to those who don’t believe evolution is also futile.
    By the way, the last comment was to both you and Dan. I did not call anyone a fool as I had been previously called by Dan. I was quoting scripture that was given by God. Reading the second quote from I Corinthians indicates I am a fool, but a fool for Christ. I have no problem being that kind of a fool.
    No, I have not had time to read all the reference you two posted. I have had a husband in the hospital and was tied up. Will read them as soon as I can. He is out now and okay.
    Also, the article was a reprint from Creation Moments and not my own writing, but I do agree with it.


  8. Word of advice… quoting bible verses at people who don’t believe in the bible is a futile exercise. See, the bible doesn’t get it’s authority from evidence or demonstrated proof of it’s veracity (unlike evolution)… it gets it purely from people having faith in what it says. If you’re talking to someone who hasn’t bought into it you might as well be quoting the Hobbit at them.

    Now, I’m going to ignore you calling me a fool and see if we can’t get to some understanding of why you belive what you do on this subject. I would say I have already provided you with an extensive explanation of the same from my side assuming you bothered reading the information at the link I provided. (Did you actually want to dispute anything listed there btw?)

    So… the bible is *literally* true. Everything? Or just some things?

    For example… talking serpent? Actually happened?

    The world has 4 corners… LITERALLY?

    Just trying to get a feel for exactly how far you take this or if you’re willing to acknowledge the use of metaphor anywhere in the text.


  9. Hello Dan and Grant,
    Yes, I believe the Old Testament and the New Testament are God’s Word. Yes, I believe the 1st 11 chapters of Genesis are true (along with the rest of the Bible) and that God Spoke and the worlds came into being. Yes, I am a creationist who believes in a young earth. Yes, I take those creation chapters “literal.” Yes, I believe Adam and Eve literally sinned and it has caused all of us to be sinners.Yes, I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of mankind and that He alone is the Savior.
    No, I do not believe in the theory of evolution nor billions of years for things to develop.
    Am I a “complete fool”? The Bible tells of lots of fools, but two in particular I would like to point out.
    “The fool has said in his heart,’There is no God.’ They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.” (Psalms 14:1 NKJV)
    “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-25 KJV)


  10. “I believe God through the Lord created the world and all the critters that were created on days five and six.”

    I’m sorry, let me be sure I am understanding you correctly.

    You mean *literally*? As in, you are taking the old testament *literally*? It’s a little strange to even take it seriously metaphorically… but I have difficulty comprehending someone taking it literally.


  11. “I believe God through the Lord created the world and all the critters that were created on days five and six. ”

    Oh, sorry, I mistook you for someone who’s not a complete fool.


  12. Or are you just saying that you don’t realize:

    – “Kinds” is a hopelessly out-dated and uselessly vague term
    – Transitional fossils have been well-documented
    – Divergence (which I mentioned) and Clade Sorting (not mentioned yet) very nicely explain contemporarily observable gulfs between, say, vertebrate classes.



    • In reply to ““Kinds” is a hopelessly out-dated and uselessly vague term”, I have a question. Do you consider the Bible (God’s Word) to be hopelessly out dated? If so, then we are talking from two different worldviews. I believe God through the Lord created the world and all the critters that were created on days five and six. He said they were “kinds” and that is the term I use.


  13. First of all, the finches have never been considered, by anyone, to be the proof of evolution. They were simply something that helped inspire Darwin’s insights into how descent with modification operated.

    Second of all, please don’t use the word “kinds” in the context of a discussion of biology and evolution unless you are able to meaningfully define it. The word is species. Whenever someone starts throwing around “kinds” it is inevitably to muddy the waters by throwing out a term that has no set meaning so they can make any claims they want about it. I have never, in my entire life, got anyone who wanted to use “kinds” instead of species in these discussions to tell me what the technical definition of a “kind” was. Would you care to be the first?

    Third… if it’s evidence of evolution you’re looking for I wrote these for just such a purpose:

    That’s post one of seven, all of which are to be found on the site… if you have any questions about anything in any of them feel free to ask.


  14. “Evolution in the original sense meant changing from one “kind” to another.”

    Oh okay, it sounds as though you’re arguing against Lamarkianism. I thought you were arguing against modern evolutionary biology and what evolution means post-Darwin and especially post-Mayr.


  15. Oh, and this little tidbit: “However, they do support the Bible when it teaches that, like every other creature, the birds have simply reproduced “after their own kind.””

    Actually, that doesn’t disprove evolution either. Individuals within a population of course reproduce “after their own kind.” The question is, can they mate with all sub-populations of its own “kind” (i.e. are they “reproductively isolated)? If they cannot, and are so isolated, there will never be gene flow between the subpopulations, which will therefore over a number of generations become less and less like each other. Viola, now you have two species or “kinds” instead of one.

    That’s what the Grants’ findings show. And the findings of other biologists for that matter. I’m sure you’ll deny it and say that “They’re still the same kind,” except they’re not – new species A and new species B cannot successfully produce AB‘s together, nor can A become a parent of a B, as you correctly say.

    Again, viola!: Evolution.


    • I have no problem with them becoming isolated and not being able to interbreed, just as dogs have done over the years, but they are still birds or dogs. Evolution in the original sense meant changing from one “kind” to another, not normal interbreeding within the kinds. People of different cultures and appearances intermarry and form new characteristics, but they are still humans. That could be called “natural selection”, but I wouldn’t call that “evolution.”


  16. It’s correct to say that “Darwin’s finches” weren’t the actual inspiration for Darwin, that would be the Galapagos mockingbirds. The only reason we talk about the Geospiza finches as “Darwin’s” were because they were interesting and he first brought them back to England.

    But “No proof of evolution.” Clearly you’ve never heard of the Grants. They’ve spent their lifes’ work, going to the Galapagos for 6 months out of every year from 1973-2009, tracking the year-by-year changes in these finches. Their work has shown unequivocally that natural selection (and to a lesser degree, other mechanisms of evolution) is more rapid than we had thought.


Please leave a Comment. They are encouraging.

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

You are commenting using your 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