[Elsie]

(I.e. the results of the droughts were such that the sizes and natures of seeds available to the birds shifted significantly, and so did the average beak sizes. There was already a range of available beak sizes in the population, so differential survival rapidly shifted the average or typical beak size.)

Big deal... NOT! This ain't "Evolution", so quit trying to use it as such.

---

Go here for the same kinda stuff. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/predation/predation.html

[Stultis]

(I.e. the results of the droughts were such that the sizes and natures of seeds available to the birds shifted significantly, and so did the average beak sizes. There was already a range of available beak sizes in the population, so differential survival rapidly shifted the average or typical beak size.)

Big deal... NOT! This ain't "Evolution", so quit trying to use it as such.

Same answer as previously. It certainly is "evolution," even if it's far from being all there is to evolution. And again it was directly responsive to the posting to which it was directed: johnnyb_61820's claim that "coevolution" (the linkage of adaptive evolution in two species: e.g. the prey develops thicker fur or hide so the predator develops longer teeth to bite through them) must be driven by Lamarkian evolution because waiting for new mutations would take too long.