A huge number of readers call shennanigans on that Darwin-Finch story.
Maybe I am a little slow, but I am having a hard time grasping the
concept of evolution (natural selection) in “one bird generation.” That
would basically mean that all of the offspring of a group of normal
finches hatched with smaller beaks. Hmm . . . Why? It may be true that
smaller beaks would be more beneficial for ultimate survival, but how
could that affect the species in just one generation?
If that is true, everything that I have ever known (or believed) about
evolution has to be false.
Yippee, someone has shown an example of adaptation, a completely uncontroversial subject upon which there is no disagreement. It is still a Finch after all.And while I’m at it, doesn’t anyone ever take exception to the whole European Jews thing. I mean, the whole reason that the region was chosen in 1947 was for the previous 50 years, millions of North African and Arab Jews who had been expelled from their respective countries had been gathering and made up a majority of the population. Sheesh.
I believe this is called variation or by some: micro-evolution. It’s the same reason why we have different types of dogs. The bird did not become something other than a bird did it?
When scientists claim that one small variation proves a larger theory, be very cautious.
Next year, when it’s offspring are born with a large beak, they’ll be claiming that it “evolved” back into what it was.
Keep up the good work.