Genetics of Darwin’s Finches

The study focused on the shape of the bird’s beak and its’ associated gene, the ALX1 gene. Blood samples were gathered from 120 captured finches and grouped by location; the Galápagos and Cocos Islands and two closely related tanagers from Barbados.

Once the samples were collected, the groups were released back to their original location. Genetic analysis was performed in the laboratory using the Genome Analysis Toolkit.

Team Findings

Lamichhaney’s team of scientists reported finding “important discrepancies with the phenotype-based taxonomy.” Specifically, the shape and size of the beak, also known as the “phenotype,” did not correspond to the ALX1 gene, known as the genotype, as predicted by Darwin’s theory.

Rather than finding genetic differences between presumed distinct species, the evidence indicates gene sharing within the same species. As Lamichhaney explains –

“Extensive sharing of genetic variation among populations was evident, particularly among ground and tree finches, with almost no fixed differences between species in each group.”

A pattern of “slight, successive” evolutionary changes, as predicted by Darwin, was not observed. The evidence points to interbreeding rather than speciation. Gene flow between the groups is compatible with interbreeding. As the investigators reported –

“We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow [interbreeding] throughout the radiation [groups].”

Noting the “considerable amount of genetic diversity [variability] within each population,” the investigators issue the following warning –

“The exact branching order of the… ground and tree finches should be interpreted with caution.”

Geoffry Mohan writing for the Los Angeles Times reported that the “species that were genetically similar on one island were not as closely related on others… [that] can be interpreted as evidence of interbreeding.”

Interbreeding can only produce fertile offspring within a single species. Based on the genetics of Darwin’s finches, then, the evidence points to a variable single species population on the Galápagos Islands.

Corroborates Findings

Lamichhaney corroborates the findings of previous investigations. Stephen O’Brien (pictured left), Genome 10K Project co-founder, had earlier anticipated in 2012 that “the genome sequence empowerment of Darwin’s finches will initiate the solving of evolutionary riddles that have puzzled biologists for a century.”

Even though the Genome 10K Project had announced that “scientists have sequenced the genome of one of the iconic Galapagos finches as described by Darwin,” the Genome 10K-Project has still not published any evidence to solve the problem.

Akie Sato of the Max-Planck-Institut für Biologie, Germany, a decade earlier in the paper entitled “Phylogeny of Darwin’s finches as revealed by mtDNA sequences” failed to separate the finch populations into distinct sequential species, either –

“The traditional classification of ground finches into six species and tree finches into five species is not reflected in the molecular data.”

Peter and Rosemary Grant, the husband and wife team who had dedicated their professional careers to the study of Darwin’s finches, confirmed Sato’s observation. In their paper “Comparative landscape genetics and the adaptive radiation of Darwin’s finches” published in the September 2005 issue of the Molecular Ecology journal, they said the scientific evidence points to a “decoupling of morphological and molecular evolution.” The genetics of Darwin’s finches point to interbreeding, not evolution.

Genomic Revolution Overturning Evolution

“The genomic revolution [has]… effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology, the Tree of Life,“ argues Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information in his book The Logic of Chance.

The number of replacement approaches to Darwin’s tree scheme is numerous. This radiation tree scheme (pictured right) was published in the journal Nature by Nipam H. Patel entitled “Evolutionary biology: How to build a longer beak.” However, Patel’s revision has the same problems as Darwin’s tree, common ancestry and transitional links, the defining features of evolution, have not been scientifically validated.

John Archibald of Dalhousie University in his book One Plus One Equals One (2014) finding common ground with Koonin notes, “the tree of life has come upon hard times… [with] the “overall picture emerging is one of mosaicism” – not one of the evolutionary changes of “one species… taken and modified” into a new species. Darwin’s dilemma intensifies.

Amazingly, David Baum and Stacey Smith in the book Tree Thinking, an Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology (2013), push the envelope further, arguing that “Our knowledge of the molecular process is not good enough to definitively rule out independent origins.” In short, the probability of the Genesis account of creation is not scientifically invalid – an inverted way to say that Genesis may have it right after all. The management of the scientific evidence from Darwin’s finches by the evolution industry has parallels to the twentieth-century version of the Piltdown man.

Genesis 

The genetics of Darwin’s finches fail to demonstrate any evidence of evolution resulting in speciation, as argued by Darwin. Concepts of biological evolution continue to be undermined by the genomic revolution. Rather than evolution, scientific evidence demonstrates a mosaic pattern of nature, a pattern compatible with the Genesis account written by Moses.

Refer to the Glossary for the definition of terms and to Understanding Evolution for insights into how and why the investigative approach to examining the validity of evolution often results in vastly different conclusions.