So-called evolution evidence of Darwin's Galapagos Island finches

In a nationally syndicated Associated Press story last week, science writer Randolph Schmid boldly announced that "finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping confirm it by evolving."

The one-sided story is based on report, and news release, by Peter Grant of Princeton University, which asserts that a species of "Darwin's finch" has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for its original food source. The altered beak size is alleged to show that species competing for food can undergo evolutionary change.

There is a special scientific word for this bold, new confirmation of evolutionary theory. Hooey.

The AP article regurgitates this news release as if it were some sort of news flash. In fact, many science journalists and scientists have been writing about this same finding for more than a decade. The article was also devoid of any balance from scientists who believe this finding to simply be an example of what's termed a cyclic variation.

"The changes are temporary," says Jonathan Wells, PhD molecular & cell biology, Univ. of California-Berkeley. Wells says the beak size oscillatess back and forth as the weather and seasons change.

"As evidence of Darwin's theory, Darwin's finches really don't work," says Wells. But since that perspective didn't make the press release that Schmid ripped and wrote from, it didn't get reported in the AP story -- or the numerous other TV and print stories it spawned.

David Berlinski, post-doc in biology at Columbia University, also believes the evidence is exaggerated to appear to support Darwin's theory. "What we are really seeing is one species oscillating back and forth, with no real change," says Berlinski.

"We may be seeing the development of a entire new species. The Galapagos finch starts off as a finch and in 100,000,000 years you have a Galapagos elephant," adds Berlinski with tongue firmly planted in cheek. "But we need a whole lot more evidence ... if this is to be serious science."

The one hint of balance that Schmid's article offers is mistakenly masked as further "proof." Robert C. Fleischer, a geneticist at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and National Zoo, is quoted as saying, "this was certainly a documented case of microevolution."

Ah, but even if this were an example of microevolution, that does not mean that this in any way represents evidence of macro evolution. Which means it offers no real proof of Darwin's sweeping evolutionary theory -- or hypothesis -- if you prefer.