Finches named for Darwin are evolving

You realize that this is wonderful evidence for creation, not evolution! I'm new to this forum, in fact, this is the first post I have ever made to any discussion board. I say that since I don't know to what extent terms have been defined.The term "Evolution" or "Micro-evolution" is commonly used in some evolutionist circles to simply refer to "Adaptation" or "Natural Selection" which has nothing at all to do with molecules to man Evolution. This discovery, which has long been postulated by creationists, is an example of natural selection which was first proposed before Darwin by creationists. In fact we can attribute the foundations of the majority of modern science to creationists.You cannot take the fact that finches have adapted to their environment by developing longer or shorter beaks and then extrapolate that to say they will turn in alligators if we wait long enough! After millions of generations, birds are still birds, bacteria are still bacteria and so on. Organisms adapt within their "kind" but do not become different organisms. This requires the addition of new genetic information, not simply the shuffling or loss of genetic information. Some of the finches in this study were not able to adapt and have suffered probably because they have lost the genetic information to do so.Natural selection is an essential fact necessary for the theory of creationism and this study demonstrates that it doesn't take millions of years for species to change and adapt within their kind. This makes possible the diversity of life we see today to develop from the intial created kinds in only a few thousand, not millions, of years.

I have prepared a response to your post which I think is relevant. What would you like me to do with it? That is, I prepared the response before I saw your "Off Topic" note. I don't know if you mean just message 10 or if you feel the whole thing is going in the wrong direction. I also don't know how to tell who are administrators or who can actually make those decisions. While my response does deal in part with definitions, I feel it is still relavant to the topic. I have begun to peruse the forums and I've found that other creationist here have provide similar information. Nevertheless, if you subscribed to any of it, I don't think you would have responded to my original post, so I'm inclined to move forward. If I don't hear back from you in the next hour, I will go ahead and post here. If someone thinks it should be moved or ended, that's fine. Edited by MurkyWaters, : No reason given.

Don’t get me wrong. Darwin’s work has been the most popularized primarily due to the work of his “bulldog” TH Huxley. However, I’m almost certain that you’ve heard of Edward Blyth. Blyth was a creationist who, according to the article below, “wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837”. Note that Darwin’s work wasn’t published until 1859. “The leading tenets of Darwin’s work”the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection”are all fully expressed in Blyth’s paper of 1835”. In fact, Darwin was strongly criticized at the time for not including acknowledgments for prior work (which he eventually did, although in “fine print”) and has even been accused of plagiarism. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis The concept of natural selection is not at odds with Creation, and as I’ve mentioned previously is required to account for the diversity in the “kinds” of life that has occurred since the flood. We now typically use the term Neo-Darwinism since mutations have been added as a new mechanism in an attempt to explain evolution since natural selection alone did not cut it.

I have documented my "extraodinary claim" in the previous reply.

Thank you Faith. Glad to be here. I'm having fun, but this does take some time, doesn't it? I'd like to get more familiar with the creationist positions on the forum so I don't repeat things too much. Do you have any suggestions as to what might be the best place to start. Or perhaps links to some specific posts that you think are "typical" of creationists positions. Also, I'm concerned that there is not a foundation of understanding among participants. Is there a place where things are defined, like evolution and creation? Perhaps this was done early on in a discussion. It might be impossible to do because of all the diversity of thought. However, I think it would be good to have a "READ THIS FIRST" defining some terms and postions before participating in the forums to lay some groundwork for newcomers. What do you think?p.s. Should I not have replied with this message here since this thread is about finches? If so, what's the appropriate procedure. If I email you than other's wouldn't see it to potentially add their thoughts.