Darwin's Finches... evolution in action?

Actually "speciation" does occur. The boundaries of the ‘kind’ written about in Genesis does not always correspond to any given man-made classification such as ‘species,’ genus, family, etc. But this is not the fault of the biblical term ‘kind’; it is actually due to inconsistencies in the man-made classification system. That is, several organisms classified as different ‘species,’ and even different genera or higher groupings, can produce fertile offspring. This means that they are really the same species that has several varieties, hence a polytypic (many type) species. A good example is Kekaimalu the wholphin, a fertile hybrid between a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), i.e., between two different so-called genera.

It turns out that the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory supports the biblical model. Biologists have identified several instances of rapid adaptation, including guppies on Trinidad, lizards in the Bahamas, daisies on the islands of British Columbia, and house mice on Madeira. Another good example is a new ‘species’ of mosquito that can’t interbreed with the parent population, arising in the London Underground train system (the ‘Tube’) in only 100 years. The rapid change has ‘astonished’ evolutionists of course like this time.

Do these profound changes increase information? No—populations are seen losing information, and adapting within the constraints of the information they already have. In contrast, goo-to-you evolution requires something quite different—the progressive addition of massive amounts of genetic information that is novel not only to that population, but to the entire biosphere. Most notably, it does not create new information, it can only act upon information already present. This is a telling argument against evolutionary theory as natural selection is promoted as one of the most important mechanisms of evolutionary development. It is the origin of complex information networks that must be explained by evolutionary theory, and this is, IMHO, the most vulnerable Achilles heel of the theory, for there is no adequate mechanism whatsoever for the creation of information content, particularly of the complexity necessary for even the "simplest" life forms. The bottom line is that there is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.

sad, sad little evolutionists. read the article. Next to the last paragraph.

"No exact rule exists for deciding when a group of animals constitutes a separate species. That question “is rarely if ever asked,” as speciation isn’t something that scientists have been fortunate enough to watch at the precise moment of divergence, except in bacteria and other simple creatures. But after at least three generations of reproductive isolation, the Grants felt comfortable in designating the new lineage as an incipient species."

How can this be a "new species" if no exact rule exists for deciding?

The article is wrong though because the definition of a species has been debated for many years, and every time a consensus is reached there lies a animal that goes against the definition. The general accepted definition is that speciation happens when the daughter genetic strain can no longer successfully breed with the parent, and it this case that rule isn't even followed because the last paragraph of the article states (paraphrase) we may loose this strain when they breed back into the parent strain.

Members of a species always reproduce with members of the same species in nature. And various characteristics in members of a species arising due to environmental factors or present in the genes, may come to predominate in subsequent generations. In the same way that tallness may predominate in the children of one tall and one short individual. But this change arising in subsequent generations cannot turn living things into another species. Darwin’s finches developed longer or shorter beaks, but they never became other life forms. They did not turn into peacocks or bats. In the example in the article, they did not give rise to a new species by reproducing one another. They have acquired no new features apart from those arising from their own genes. No matter how much Evolutionists attempt to mislead people by the use of variations, this very definitely constitutes no evidence for evolution.

This is not the kind of biologic change hypothesized by Darwin’s theory, because there is no question here of organisms gradually acquiring new characteristics and turning into other species. Such a result has never been obtained, not in this example and not in any of the countless experiments and observations conducted by evolutionary biologists. All scientific experiments and observations have revealed that biological change is limited to variations within a species and that there are genetic obstacles that separate species from one another.

Darwinism Refuted:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/index.php

Don't Judge Before You Read!

May Allah guide all of us through the right path.

http://www.islamawareness.net/

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm

http://www.online-watch-tv.com/Peace-TV.php

Evolution has been evidently proven beyond any reasonable doubt for many decades. Speciation has been witnessed many, many times both in the lab and in nature. Creationists will not accept this as proof of evolution because they insist that one species of bird evolving from another species of bird is in-keeping with its "kind". They think evolution proposes cats giving birth to budgies and other such nonsense.

Darwin's finches again. Just wait they will change back! Besides the article says they don't think they will survive. Is that good evolution or more backwards or downward evolution?

Oh look the creationists have nothing to say to this.

Evolution is fact, deal with it.

The fact that the birds can no longer interbreed to form fertile offspring proves that they are different species.

It most certainly is.

Anyone with even a rudimentary education in Biology, Genetics, Archaeology ect can tell you that.

Only the terminally gullible will claim it's not.

(let's thank Jean for being a perfect example of what I just said. Clearly, wilfully ignoring the facts makes their brainwashing work better...)

Yet another solid piece of evidence to add to the growing mountains of support for legitimate scientific understanding, and another nail in the coffin of absurd religious ideas masquerading as rational inquiry.

Take that, evolution-deniers!!

You've still got a bird and kind produces kind. My two daughters look nothing alike.

Get real!!!