You should probably read up on the finches. What was found is that the finches beaks adapt and then return to there former size.
Hello again, buffalo,
On the contrary, I suggest that you avoid giving inordinate attention to YEC chemists writing reviews of popular science articles in biology at the expense of attention to biologists discussing empirical evidence in the pages of professional journals of biology.
Let’s face it, every human endeavor has its cranks, and science is no exception. Dr. Young is an example. He’s no better positioned to redefine evolution for biologists than he is to redefine information for information theorists (such as myself). To wit, there is no molecular process that occurs in reproduction that is not directly reversible via another molecular process. To the extent that any such process, such as base deletion, involves loss of information, its reversed process, base insertion, must necessarily represent a gain in information, lest the very idea of information be made meaningless. Any claim that reproductive processes only lose information is simply wrong, and its proponents are simply quacks.
The Galapagos finches have undergone speciation since the time of the island’s formation. This much is empirically evident through investigations of palaeontology and molecular biology such as that given in the linked article you certainly have not yet had time to examine in any detail. There are thousands of such articles linked in my earlier post. Life on earth goes back billions of years, and is characterized by massive extinction events followed by repopulation and diversification of surviving species. Observations of speciation during this period are everywhere in the literature.
and from your second link, this - “This rejects the development of reproductive isolation in allopatric divergence, but supports the potential for ecological speciation, even though full speciation has not been achieved in this case.”
Now, we do know that creatures can adapt to their environment but still are the “kind” they started as. We also now know that DNA actively fights against mutations taking hold and go through several iterations to stop them.
Again, you really do need to read the articles if you’re interested in examining the evidence. The authors here are presenting the case for ecological speciation as stronger than that for allopatric (geographical isolation) speciation on the island of Martinique. This is a discussion of differing drivers of speciation. Though incomplete, ecological speciation is observed to be in progress there. Nor is this the only such example. From the same article:
Anolis (small insectivorous lizards) is the most speciose amniote genus (circa 400 species) [18] and show little inter-specific hybridization [19]. Just two colonizations of the Caribbean islands have resulted in 150 species, so they may be thought of as exemplifying allopatric speciation in island archipelagos [11]–[14], [18], [20].
The biblical “kinds” has no bearing here. No one really knows what’s meant by it or how it can be related to the more useful taxonomic classifications that have since been developed. It certainly doesn’t relate directly to species, or even genus. There are examples in the creationist literature of individual kinds crossing even family barriers. Without belaboring the obvious, the authors of Genesis had not a clue about the very existence of the principle form of life on our planet, representing far more than 90 percent of both genetic diversity and biomass itself. Here, I’m referring to microbial life, of course.
As to the error-correction processes in DNA, it is a mistake to assume they prevent mutation. There are on the order of 150 base mutations in every human. Interestingly enough, these mutations, multiplied across the million generations separating us from our closest cousins, the chimpanzees, is sufficient by itself to account for the numerical differences in our genomes.
As ever, Jesse
Can we just discuss the case?