Page 88 - The Errors the American National Academy of Sciences

The Errors of the American National Academy of Sciences

tronomy and physics from the University of South Carolina, says that
this fluctuation in beak size is no evidence for evolution:
And so if you have supposed microevolution one direction and then
later it reverts right back to where it started from, that's not evolu-
tion, it can't be. 22

Therefore, any increase or reduction in the size of finches' beaks
depending on food resources proves nothing in regard to evolution.
Evolutionists' belief that they have found proof of evolution in the os-
cillation in finch beak sizes is a purely ideological one.
Grant and his team analyzed thousands of ground finches
(Geospiza fortis) from the 1970s until the 1990s and found no tendency
towards either a net increase or reduction in beak size. Moreover, no
new species or feature appeared, and there was no change in any spe-

cific direction. This is what the observations show. The duty of an ob-
jective scientist is to report these facts without distorting them or
engaging in speculation. It is unac-
ceptable to exaggerate this phenom-
enon or distort its meaning solely for
the sake of producing evidence for
evolution. Yet, Professor Grant made

a totally contradictory analysis,
claiming a phenomenon he did not
observe—namely, that a species of
finch could turn into another species
in as little as from 200 to 2,000 years,
and thus casting a shadow over his
entire study. As the biologist Dr.
Jonathan Wells puts it, this is "exag-
gerating the evidence." 23

Jonathan Wells

86