Quite a party

That's great Keith Thomsen spoke. On what, should I ask? His work on coelecanths, evo-devo, or something else?

Talk was entitled "Who was Charles Darwin?", partially about his book The Young Charles Darwin.

Galapagos: Showcase for Creation
This year evolutionists
are
celebrating
Charles Darwin’s
200th birthday and
the 150th anniversary of
the publication of his
book The Origin of Species. In preparation for
this celebration, last December ICR sent Dr.
Steve Austin to the Santa Cruz River Valley in
southern Argentina to follow up on Darwin’s
trip on the Beagle. On board, Darwin read
Charles Lyell’s new book on uniformitarianism,
advocating that today’s “uniform” processes had
dramatically sculptured the earth over long ages,
accomplishing much geologic work.
The Santa Cruz River was the Beagle’s
fi rst major stop, and thus Darwin’s fi rst chance
to apply Lyell’s ideas. Dr. Austin discovered Darwin
had made numerous errors in Argentina
as he attempted to interpret the river valley according
to uniformity, and mistook major Ice
Age fl ooding for great ages of minor processes.
Darwin’s voyage continued, sailing
around to the west of South America where the
ship encountered the Galapagos Islands, straddling
the equator. Here Darwin applied uniformitarianism
to living systems, and eventually
proposed slow-acting evolution as the source
of life’s diversity. ICR was certain he was equally
as wrong on Galapagos as he was in Argentina,
and desired to demonstrate it.
This became a reality when Doug Phillips
and Vision Forum asked me to accompany
them to the Galapagos during the week of
March 9-15. They were shooting a Christian
family fi lm about a Christian father teaching
his son about creation and the dangers of evolution.
The fi lm featured interviews with several
experts, including me. The project’s leading
question was: Is Galapagos a living laboratory
for evolution or a showcase for creation?
As has been pointed out in these pages,
the one thing that Darwin didn’t mention in
his book The Origin of Species was the origin of
species. He discussed at length variety within a
species (i.e., pigeons or fi nches), and merely assumed
that these minor, observed changes (microevolution)
add up to large changes (macroevolution).
This is the unsupported “faith” of
the evolutionist. ICR’s previous investigations
on the Galapagos Islands had convinced us that
no evolution is going on there.
The islands abound with unusual life.
Going there was a wonderful “animal experience”
for all of us, for the animals show little fear
of humans. The rather barren volcanic islands
afford unencumbered visibility of giant Galapagos
turtles, sea lions, land and marine iguanas,
Darwin’s fi nches, “booby” birds, fl ightless
cormorants, fl amingos, frigate birds, etc., along
with sea creatures accessible by snorkeling.
Evolutionists make much of the adaptation
of land-based iguanas to ocean life. But
is this evolution? No! The two rather different
“species” freely interbreed in the wild. Evolution
is about the origin of new species from existing
species, but here we see the amalgamation of
species, the opposite of evolution.
Evolutionists trumpet the several Galapagos
fi nch “species” as arising by adaptation from
one species. Creationists agree, but this did not
happen through evolution. Normally the fi nch
types segregate by lifestyle according to their
beak shape, but in times of stress they interbreed
and combine. No evolution here. The
fl ightless cormorants are recognizably related to
other species of cormorant on other continents,
but these have lost the use of their wings. Since
when is the loss of a useful structure an evolutionary
development? The real question is how
animals acquire wings in the fi rst place, not how
they lose them.
No, there is no evolution happening on
the Galapagos Islands. They really are a showcase
for creation. On display is God’s wise creative
design in preparing robust gene pools in
each created “kind” that enable all of God’s creatures
to adapt and survive varying conditions.
Darwin got it wrong at the Galapagos Islands.
The Genesis account stands.
Species
John D. Morris, Ph.D.
PRESIDENT

So...

Animals are found in separate populations which are "rather different", but among which some individuals still interbreed, but they can't be speciating. No, no, of course not. The reverse must be happening. Yeah, that's it. We know this to be true, because.

Vestigial wings demonstrate that, um, the Creator decided to afflict a bunch of cormorants out on some islands (where, by sheer coincidence, there are no effective terrestrial predators) just on account of that's the way He did it, and we're not allowed to enquire why. Yeah, sure, that'll work. Oh, and they walked there from Mount Ararat. Cormorants walk real good. Uh-huh.

Idiots.

Dave Luckett said: So... Animals are found in separate populations which are "rather different", but among which some individuals still interbreed, but they can't be speciating. No, no, of course not. The reverse must be happening. Yeah, that's it. We know this to be true, because. Vestigial wings demonstrate that, um, the Creator decided to afflict a bunch of cormorants out on some islands (where, by sheer coincidence, there are no effective terrestrial predators) just on account of that's the way He did it, and we're not allowed to enquire why. Yeah, sure, that'll work. Oh, and they walked there from Mount Ararat. Cormorants walk real good. Uh-huh. Idiots. "No evolution here. The fl ightless cormorants are recognizably related to other species of cormorant on other continents, but these have lost the use of their wings. " Nice try.

The flightless cormorants of the Galapagos have not "lost the use of their wings". They have vestigial wings, much reduced structures that work fine as balancing and directional aids when diving, and for display, but they can't fly with them. The reason is that they don't need to fly. Their fishing grounds are right by the rocks where they live, and there are no terrestrial predators that can reach them. Flight is therefore unnecessary, but it's expensive. So it is not selected for, and the cormorants' wings become vestigial.

Islands isolated from effective terrestrial predators, especially rats, weasels, cats, etc, always develop a population of flightless birds - keas and kiwis in New Zealand, dodos in Mauritius, flightless rails in Hawaii, many other examples. The problem for the creationist is to explain why this is so. Evolution has an answer. The creationist answer is "because God did it that way".

Unsatisfactory.

Dave Luckett writes... So it is not selected for, and the cormorants’ wings become vestigial.

I am using 'vestigial' to mean 'much reduced, and not used for a former function', not 'functionless' or 'entirely vanished'. Otherwise, quibble accepted and applied.

Steve Austin? Didn't we spend six million dollars on that guy?