More blue science in action. 3000 is mis-representing "The Beak of the Finch", which field report's primary point was that the finches varied because their diets had specialized, with the beaks matching against the various food source specializations.That the beaks varied in size with availability is no more relevant to this central point than the fact that humans average size increases with dietary improvement.
You attack me for saying this is not evolution, yet if overeating (or undereating) makes a man a different species, you would be the first person to say it. The size of the beak goes up and down according to rainfall. Evolution would require this to be a uni-directional change (always growing larger or smaller). Instead beak size swings back and forth like a pendulum and hence is not evolution but adaptation. The facts however, do not matter to evolutionists so they continue to tell this lie.
It is the shape of the beak, not particularly the size, that differentiates finches. Different shapes--different food specializations. Just for fun, you could actually read something before reporting on it once in a while, or would that violate your religeous scruples?