The 22 November, 2005, edition of The New York Times carried a report headed “In Give and Take of Evolution, a Surprising Contribution from Islands.” The subject matter of the article in question, written by the scientific writer Carl Zimmer, was a genetic sequencing analysis performed by American Museum of Natural History biologists.
Scientists Christopher E. Filardi and Robert Moyle examined DNA samples from monarch flycatchers, from the family Dicruridae, that live on the Pacific islands, and used the data they obtained to produce an imaginary evolutionary history of these birds. The scientists went on to claim that these birds evolved from a common ancestor that lived in Australia or New Guinea between 2 and 5.6 million years ago, and that the Pacific islands served as a factor that accelerated the emergence of new species during this evolutionary process.
Based on the results of the study, Zimmer wrote that “Animals can spread from island to island, giving rise to an explosion of new species, and even colonizing the mainland again,” claiming that not just movements from the mainland to the islands, but also movements from island to island and even from the islands to the mainland may have played a significant role in the imaginary process of evolution taking place on the islands.
However, the study in question actually reveals no scientific finding to the effect that the bird family Dicruridae emerged as the result of evolution, and the evolutionists have simply interpreted the data they obtained in the light of their own preconceptions. According to this perspective, which regards similarities as the consequence of evolution, they develop imaginary scenarios as to how and when the birds might have evolved.
In addition, the idea of “speciation” on the islands is again a description based on evolutionists’ own preconceptions. Evolutionists overstate variations within bird species in the light of their own prejudices and maintain that variations all represent distinct species. The research into the famous Galapagos finches, based on 30 years of observation, shows how they are mistaken on this subject. These studies revealed that the variations interpreted as “evidence of speciation” by evolutionists in fact exhibit no unrestricted change and that the change observed in the finches’ beaks reversed in such a way as to return to the former beak type.
Not just this, but also the general question of the origin of birds represents a major problem for the theory of evolution. The examples of speciation assumed by Zimmer in his article represent no solution to this. Should you wish, you can obtain more information about the structures unique to birds and the dilemma they pose for the theory of evolution from this link.