According to the Science article,2 in 1977 beak size in the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis) began to increase due to a drought which lessened the availability of small seeds as a food source. Only the finches with large beaks could break open the large seeds and survive. At that time, G. fortis had no competition for the large seeds. Then in 1982, the large ground finch (G. magnirostris) settled on the same island and because of its large beak size competed with G. fortis for the large seeds. This still was not enough to change the beak size of G. fortis. In 2003 and 2004, drought conditions caused the food supply to decrease, resulting in the death of a large number of G. magnirostris and G. fortis with large beaks. G. magnirostris seemed less able to deal with the drought as its beak size did not change. Possibly it had lost the genetic information to make a smaller beak. G. fortis apparently still had this genetic information and its beak size has declined since the drought, making it better able to compete for the food sources available. (Although this seems contradictory to what occurred in 1977 when the beak size became larger in response to the drought, the Grants do not have an explanation.)
Adaptation/ natural selection has been hijacked and wrongly used by evolutionists as the underlying mechanism of evolution. The Grants were surprised at how rapidly the change in beak size had occurred. Many have extrapolated finch adaptation as evidence that molecules-to-man evolution can occur rapidly. Once again, it’s about defining the word evolution. As creationists, we fully accept the fact that adaptation / natural selection can occur rapidly. In fact, such processes (and perhaps other genetic factors) would have occurred rapidly after the Flood, producing variation within the animal kinds. Such effects are largely responsible for generating the tremendous diversity seen in the living world.3 In addition, as seen with G. magnirostris, natural selection leads to a decrease in genetic information and only those with already-present greater genetic.
This is from a Christian based site! They sugar coat it alot, use lots of disclaimers, but the info's true. Describes the exact process I desribed. Things fit to live do, those that arent' die, animal changes. The ONLY missing piece is that you need a change that makes the 2 species incapable of mating and producing offspring. Which is what actually defines a species. There is no reason why a mutation couldn't cause that.
As far as their comment about evolutionists "hijacking" natural selection. Darwin himself said that natural selection is the primary way in which a species would evolve, even it if wasn't the only way.
Asking for empirical evidence is nice, but wouldn't it be easier to bring up your actual point of contension? Exaclty what part of natural selection/evolution don't you believe in?
