You realize that this is wonderful evidence for creation, ...
Of course it is, because you can define "creation" any way you want to and make it fit, and re-define it to suit whenever necessary, as in when new evidence contradicts previous asserted positions to the point where they cannot be ignored.
Also note the Deist position that the universe was created with everything in place and designed for life to evolve from primordial components does not contradict or clash with the concept of life evolving over time, so this is "wonderful evidence" for Deism.
... not evolution!
Now here you make a logical leap of faith and commit a logical fallacy at the same time. You are essentially asserting that because you can claim the evidence is
for "creation" that it then must be against evolution. This is not established. As noted above creation can include evolution as the mechanism by which all life has evolved.
To establish that this is "not evolution" you have to demonstrate that it {CAN'T} be evolution. Not only has that not been done, but the evidence in the paper is that it not only {CAN} be evolution but {IS} evolution.
Evolution is change in species over time -- precisely what is demonstrated by the finches in question, as noted in the (Science) paper (especially) and referenced in the news article.
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.
You forgot mutation in your common creationist strawman argument here. Note that the article specifically states:
This was certainly a documented case of microevolution, added Fleischer, who was not part of Grant's research.
(bold mine for empHASis)
This means the article is not discussing abiogenesis (the proper term for your creationist " molecules to man" misrepresentation), or even evolution of the finches from a common ancestor with other birds (and has nothing to do with either molecules or man).
Further, what you refer to as "Adaptation" is the selection of mutations by Natural Selection. The real mechanisms are Mutation and Selection. One causes variations in the base population (in this case large and small beaks in the finches) and the other selects variations that give a species an advantage (here small beaks in the smaller species to take advantage of seeds the other population is not eating) and it
de-selects variations that hinder or harm the species (here the larger beaks):
The result was high mortality among G. fortis with larger beaks, leaving a breeding population of small-beaked G. fortis that could eat the seeds from smaller plants and didn't have to compete with the larger G. magnirostris for large seeds.
Now to claim that this is NOT evolution you have to show that this is NOT what happened, but that something else caused this {appearance of evolution}.
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, ...
And that is not what the theory of evolution claim, so it seems you do not understand what evolution really is. You stated:
... I say that since I don't know to what extent terms have been defined.
We use the common definitions that apply to science and biology in general and evolution in particular.
For instance - dictionary.com defines evolution as:
ev·o·lu·tion
3. Biology.
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Please point out where this in any way necessitates birds becoming alligators, or that descendant species will not be related to their ancestor species.
Now if you want to discuss how "macro"evolution cannot happen, that should go to a different thread rather than disrupt this one that is specifically about the evolution of variation in the finch population on the Galapagos islands.
I suggest
"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
To sum: you have not demonstrated {HOW} this {CAN} be evidence for creation (other than by redefining "creation" to include it) nor have you demonstrated {HOW} this {CANNOT} be evidence for evolution. All you have made is an assertion of belief untainted by facts. Or as Faith notes:
Message 5Right in tune with the rest of us creationists here.
In fact we can attribute the foundations of the majority of modern science to creationists.
You can, but you are asserting another false statement that is disproved by ALL the evidence.
You are conflating modern creationists with victorian christians, a logical fallacy, ignoring the non-christian thinkers, and ignoring the "foundations" that existed before christianity was even "created" (and long before it "evolved" into american fundamentalist creationism).
Further, the sciences have moved on, unfettered by erroneous past thinking, including that of creationist mis-preconceptions (such as flat earth and geocentricism) in their pursuit of knowledge of {HOW} things work based on the evidence that is available.
Because you can cite {SOME} evidence for a position does not make it true or valid, most especially when you ignore {OTHER} evidence that disproves the position. The denial of {CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE} means that the position is false, regardless of any claims otherwise, until such time as you can show how the evidence is wrong or explain it in terms of the position claimed.
Enjoy.
ps
type
[qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy
You can also pick "Peek Mode" on the message you are replying to in order to see how others do special formating.
And Welcome to the fray
Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
