evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

melatonin:
The reason we have to consider combinations, is that despite what you believe, every combination of mutation is NOT successful as I have said ad nauseum, and there is simply not enough time to cater for the unsuccessful combinations. Firstly, you are assuming that we are here today as a result of evolution. Secondly, your calculation didn't even create enough possible mutations for one instance of man and ape, let alone all of the instances that would be unsuccessful. You seem to think that mutations which are neutral or unsuccessful should be disregarded. They are just as important as the successful ones, as they eat up precious time which evolution is so utterly dependant on.

I can explain all of your data with one simple word, coincidence.

Xtal_Phusion:
The misuse of probability melatonin is referring to is the requirement to come up with the genetic replica of apes and humans after the fact. In regards to this, I agree, there should be no requirement to come up with the same species. The purpose really was just to show how many mutations are required for two very similar species, and apes and humans is something most can relate to. However, the probability equation I have demonstrated is not misuesed at all if applied to a generic similar species, thus the misuse of the probability equation provides little opposition to the resulting figures.

You are quite correct. To do an accurate calculation would take a great deal of time, which I have no intention of giving. The equation I have shown simply gives an idea of what type of odds evolution is up against. For this purpose, I feel it is quite adequate. In regards to evidence for evolution, I will reiterate again, there is none. You are confusing data which appears to support evolution from your perspective as evidence for evolution. As I have previously stated, unless the data can only point to one possibility, it CAN NOT be considered evidence for that possibility.

I appreciate the time and effort you have put into your post. Some of the data on the effects of radiation on mutation rates is quite interesting.

Originally posted by speaker
Once again, where is the proof of your claims about the Big Bang Theory? Show me a link, an extract, something please!!?

Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago.

Hence, the universe did not start with 'nothing'. There's always been 'something', and there has always been the same amount of energy, in one form or another. Again you ask for 'proof', there is evidence, there are observations etc. You need to understand the difference between proof and evidence.

Originally posted by speaker
Fair enough about the Einstein comment and the egg on your face down further, I get carried away sometimes and I apologise. However, the contradiction and fool assessments are purely based on what you have written, they are not personal attacks.

They're not even accurate. Just because what I write, you'll fail to understand, you jump in with all guns blazing. That's fine, it's childish nonetheless, but if that's the way you are, then so be it.

Originally posted by speaker
Well, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the difference between science and other religions was that scientific theories don't require you to believe in them?

I believe evolution is a logical theory and explanation about the diversity of life on this planet. I believe the big bang is a plausable, although can never be proven, theory about how the universe began. You can 'believe' things to be right. Or maybe should I substitute the word 'believe' with the word 'think'? Would that make you less arguementative?

Originally posted by speaker
As far as I'm aware, in regards to how random evolution is, the mutations are supposedly random giving rise to successful and unsuccessful results. The susccessful results produce more and less efficient models. The less effficient models are eliminated and the more efficient models take over, survival of the fittest. From what I can gather, evolution dictates that the humans with 4 legs and 50 toes did exist at one point, but due to there inefficiencies, they weren't able to prosper leaving the two legged, 5 toed, opposite thumbed version we have today. I may be mistaken, but I think this is how evolution is supposed to work in a nutshell.

I don't think evolution 'get's it wrong, before it gets it right'. As with the finches, their beaks are suited for whatever food they eat. Narrow beak for the ones that eat insects, and wider beaks for the species that eat large seeds. It's not by 'chance' that their beaks are perfectly suited for each of their diets.

There's a species of turtle that lay their eggs on one specific beach in the entire world. These eggs then hatch, and little baby turtles swim off in to the ocean, many not surviving, maybe about 1% surviving to mature adulthood. When they then have eggs to lay of their own, they make a journey over 1000s of miles back to the exact beach where they were born. Science can't explain this phonomenan. Natural instinct would best be served here, yet again it would just be an idea.

That's what evolution is, an idea to explain life on this planet. It's not about science being better than religion or science knowing everything. It's an idea, and albeit quite a logical one when you step outside and just look at everything.

Originally posted by speaker
melatonin:
The reason we have to consider combinations, is that despite what you believe, every combination of mutation is NOT successful as I have said ad nauseum, and there is simply not enough time to cater for the unsuccessful combinations. Firstly, you are assuming that we are here today as a result of evolution. Secondly, your calculation didn't even create enough possible mutations for one instance of man and ape, let alone all of the instances that would be unsuccessful. You seem to think that mutations which are neutral or unsuccessful should be disregarded. They are just as important as the successful ones, as they eat up precious time which evolution is so utterly dependant on.

By 'unsuccessful' combinations I can only think you mean 'detrimental' changes, which are weeded out. In any one generation we have multiple events (descendents). Natural selection will be favouring the adaptive changes.

Again, you are misusing probability. There was no specification in advance, only the specification you have decided to place post-hoc, there is no specified target - as species move through time they are not aiming towards a target, just to be reproductively successful and adapted to their environment. The combinations are of no consequence when we look back, that was not the route taken. But I don't expect you to understand why.

Here's another example. I shuffle and deal two decks of cards. What is the probability of the order I just dealt?

The probability of one specified order is around 1 in 10^166 - quite a big number, eh? So what is the probability of the order I just dealt on the table?

Also, where do you get the idea that there were not enough possible mutations?

ABE: We'll try another analogy for evolution when you reply. This time we'll use dice. We will use a target, as I don't think you can actually get past this idea. Hopefully, it will show why your use of probability, even with a specified target, does not conform to evolutionary processes, and the power of non-random selection from random variation:

To start, we have 100 6-sided dice. The target is 100 sixes. What is the probability of an evolutionary process producing this target? On average how many trials would it take to hit the target using evolution?

I can explain all of your data with one simple word, coincidence.

Heh, yeah, OK. It's all a coinky-dink. I suppose the fact your DNA is closer to your mother and father than mine is just another coinky-dink. No biology involved at all.

[edit on 21-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by speaker
Xtal_Phusion:
misuse of probability...is the requirement to come up with the genetic replica of apes and humans after the fact. In regards to this, I agree, there should be no requirement to come up with the same species...To do an accurate calculation would take a great deal of time, which I have no intention of giving. The equation...gives an idea of what type of odds evolution is up against...I feel it is quite adequate...evidence for evolution...there is none. You are confusing data which appears to support evolution from your perspective as evidence for evolution. As I have previously stated, unless the data can only point to one possibility, it CAN NOT be considered evidence for that possibility.

It seems to me that you are attempting to back-engineer humans using probability (feel free to correct me if I misunderstood you). That is not the way evolution works. Our morphology is dictated by environmental selection pressure. If our environment had different characteristics than it had historically, then we would not look like we do today. The concept of ecological niche also needs to be considered. New species tend to gravitate towards survival tactics where there is less competition for food. If for instance, you have a species of fish attempting to survive in a lake at intermediate depth where food has become scarce, these fish will employ various tactics to search for food. Again, those that find enough to eat, survive. Those that do not, die before reproduction.

Now, these fish have 2 choices: search deeper or shallower water. Inherent diversity within the population (esp. oral structure) means that some fish will find it easier to feed closer to the surface & others will find it is easier to eat the detritus off the bottom. Over time, those with downturned mouths are going to get more to eat off the bottom, lay more eggs & breed with other fish occupying deeper areas of the lake, which magnifies the downturned mouth trait that is beneficial in this location. Over time, these fish have fewer opportunities to breed with those feeding near the surface so upturned mouths these surface-feeders require for feeding at the surface of the lake, seems to disappear from the bottom-feeders. Once in a while, a fish hatches with the upturned mouth but in this environment, it dies of starvation before reproducing due to other related traits that require a detrital existence.

Geographical separation effectively drives speciation this way. Sure, top or bottom-feeders could on occasion attempt to reclaim the old niche (location and food source) once shared by both species but their new oral morphology and associated traits make feeding there more difficult than feeding on one's home turf. Unless there is some environmental change (i.e., oil spill on the surface that kills all of the surface-feeders), both new species will stay where feeding is easiest for them.

Now, let's say the oil spill does occur and all the top-feeders go extinct. The only ones left to breed are bottom feeders. Though rare, the original mid-level genes still reside in the population. If 2 carriers of this gene breed, the wild-type trait is restored and their offspring will re-populate mid-level depths if feeding is easier there because there is little competition from their bottom-feeding relatives. Also, without top feeders skimming the surface food source, more food falls through the water column and more becomes available at greater depths to feed the mid-level fish. Speciation resumes, driving the production of new surface-feeders. The result of speciation is never the same, though because the environment changes constantly.

I am not sure why you say there is no evidence for evolution when evidence of this process is clearly observable in many organisms. Since I have not seen any evidence that speciation results from something else, it is the only possibility. What's your proof?

shaunybaby:
That's interesting "evidence" on what existed before the Big Bang. Can you point me to that external source? In all honesty, as I mentioned previously, your idea that evolution involves some sort of "strategy" is much more plausable, than the actual evolutionary theory which is completely reliant on random muatations.

melatonin:
By 'unsuccessful' I mean unable to begin life, like an embryo that does not make it to birth. The purpose of the example was simply to give an idea of how different the genetic makeup is between similar species. There is no misuse of probability in this regard, only when you refer to specifics. You can bring up all the card and dice examples you like, because it is you who seems unable to understand that not all combinations are successful.

You say evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we have today and the evidence is in all the similarities between supposed ancestors among other things. I refute this because the probability of evolution being responsible for the diversity of life today is far too unlikely.
I say all of your so called evidence for evolution is merely a coincidence, and I can only assume you refute this because the probability of all of this so called evidence being a mere coincidence is far too unlikely. Would you agree with this? You are using the same argument as mean to support a different conclusion, the only difference is, the probability of evolution is less likely than the probability of coincidence in this instance.

Xtal_Phusion:
I understand how natural selection works. What you say in this regard makes perfect sense. However the problem with evolution is not in the process of how some species survive and some do not. The problem lies with evolution's explanation of how these multiple species came into existence in the first place. This is where probability works in strong opposition to evolution. I'll reiterate, there is no evidence for evolution in regard to how multiple species came into existence, all of the so called evidence merely shows that many different species share commonalities which seem to create some sort of pattern.

I must say, most of what you write is very sensible and well thought out, which is why it comes as a real surprise to read your logic behind why evolution is the only possibility. You are approaching this from the wrong end of the spectrum, rather than starting with infinite possibilities and narrowing them down, you are starting with none and working your way up. Currently you have reached one, evolution, thus believe this is the only possibility. What exactly are you asking me to prove? An alternative theory? Coincidence?


All:
I don't really think that all of the so called evidence for evolution is a mere coincidence and nothing more. It would appear that some sort of link exists between many species. However, I fail to see why I should assume that because of this, I should accept a theory which defies the laws of probability merely because it gives one possible explanation of how the species are linked. This is something all of you need to understand. We don't know everything, so why can't we keep our options open, without being forced to select from a few inadequate explanations derived from an extremely insufficient knowledge base? There is so much we don't understand, yet we consistently think we have enough pieces of the puzzle to make definitive assertions.

Originally posted by speaker
melatonin:
By 'unsuccessful' I mean unable to begin life, like an embryo that does not make it to birth. The purpose of the example was simply to give an idea of how different the genetic makeup is between similar species. There is no misuse of probability in this regard, only when you refer to specifics. You can bring up all the card and dice examples you like, because it is you who seems unable to understand that not all combinations are successful.

But we are not worried about all the combinations. If we look at the past evolutionary history, one path was taken. The idea of the probability examples is to show why your probability argument is wrong. But if you'd rather not see it to be so, your problem, but if you want to criticise something, best to have at least half an idea what you are criticising.

You say evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we have today and the evidence is in all the similarities between supposed ancestors among other things. I refute this because the probability of evolution being responsible for the diversity of life today is far too unlikely.
I say all of your so called evidence for evolution is merely a coincidence, and I can only assume you refute this because the probability of all of this so called evidence being a mere coincidence is far too unlikely. Would you agree with this? You are using the same argument as mean to support a different conclusion, the only difference is, the probability of evolution is less likely than the probability of coincidence in this instance.

No, I take evolution to be the best explanation of the evidence by far. I know people suggest other explanations, but they fall well short of the ability of evolution to explain this evidence consistently and coherently.

We see evolution happening now, in real time. Mutations and changes in fitness, new species, natural selection. All real facts, readily explained by the theory of evolution.

Science 21 January 2005:
Vol. 307. no. 5708, pp. 414 - 416
DOI: 10.1126/science.1105201
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species

Darren E. Irwin,1* Staffan Bensch,2 Jessica H. Irwin,1 Trevor D. Price3

Ring species, which consist of two reproductively isolated forms connected by a chain of intergrading populations, have often been described as examples of speciation despite gene flow between populations, but this has never been demonstrated. We used amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers to study gene flow in greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides). These genetic markers show distinct differences between two reproductively isolated forms but gradual change through the ring connecting these forms. These findings provide the strongest evidence yet for "speciation by force of distance" in the face of ongoing gene flow.

Your mission, if you accept it, is to explain these facts in some other way. If you mention coincidence, this board will self-destruct in 10 seconds...


[edit on 24-4-2007 by melatonin]

Fine.

Elements of the environment, the flora, fauna, atmosphere, in a given location are able to interact with this particular species' DNA, altering it's structure to a certain degree. As the area increases, so to does the environment. Some elements that are present in one area, are absent in another. There is also an area in between where all the same elements are present but the concentration varies. The subtle changes in environment are mimmicked in this species DNA due to the ability of the DNA to bond with it's environment, giving the impression that the species has "evolved" differently in two different locations.

Next!

Originally posted by speaker
shaunybaby:
That's interesting "evidence" on what existed before the Big Bang.

Why is it interesting?

Originally posted by speaker
In all honesty, as I mentioned previously, your idea that evolution involves some sort of "strategy" is much more plausable, than the actual evolutionary theory which is completely reliant on random muatations.

I don't think it was one day, no thumbs, the next day, oh random mutation, we have thumbs, oh we have dexterity.

Originally posted by speaker
It would appear that some sort of link exists between many species. However, I fail to see why I should assume that because of this, I should accept a theory which defies the laws of probability merely because it gives one possible explanation of how the species are linked.

Do you think a polar bear looks white just for the fun of it?

Originally posted by speaker
This is something all of you need to understand. We don't know everything, so why can't we keep our options open, without being forced to select from a few inadequate explanations derived from an extremely insufficient knowledge base? There is so much we don't understand, yet we consistently think we have enough pieces of the puzzle to make definitive assertions.

If Jesus came down tomorrow, I'd be the first to repent. Fact is, he hasn't come back in 2000 years. How long are people going to wait? Another 2000 years? Will the human race still be here in 2000 years if we haven't already destroyed ourselves and made our planet an inhospitable environment for ourselves to live in. Religion offers a lot of answers for people out there 'searching for more' and not wanting this life to be the end of it, and that's why religion is popular and gives people the belief that there's heaven, an after-life, an eternal life somewhere after with god, reincarnation and so on. Evolution is just an alternative, an alternative that says 'you're probably not going to heaven when you die.. you're worm food'. Alot of people don't want to accept that, we've evolved to the point at which we can fear death, we somewhat know too much about our own destiny and know that our existance as a person is going to be short-lived (70 years if you're lucky). It's a scary thought for some people, and some people won't accept it. Fact remains you're no different to any other species on this planet. Lions, monkeys, spiders, ants, blue bottle flies, bees, wasps, seals, sharks are all not going to heaven, and neither are you. This really is it. It sucks I know, but it's all we got, make the most of it.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by speaker

All:
I don't really think that all of the so called evidence for evolution is a mere coincidence and nothing more. It would appear that some sort of link exists between many species. However, I fail to see why I should assume that because of this, I should accept a theory which defies the laws of probability merely because it gives one possible explanation of how the species are linked. This is something all of you need to understand. We don't know everything, so why can't we keep our options open, without being forced to select from a few inadequate explanations derived from an extremely insufficient knowledge base? There is so much we don't understand, yet we consistently think we have enough pieces of the puzzle to make definitive assertions.

You fail to see why you should accept the theory of evolution?? But you have no qualms on accepting that an invisible sky monkey created everything in 6 days??




G

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by speaker

All:
I don't really think that all of the so called evidence for evolution is a mere coincidence and nothing more. It would appear that some sort of link exists between many species. However, I fail to see why I should assume that because of this, I should accept a theory which defies the laws of probability merely because it gives one possible explanation of how the species are linked. This is something all of you need to understand. We don't know everything, so why can't we keep our options open, without being forced to select from a few inadequate explanations derived from an extremely insufficient knowledge base? There is so much we don't understand, yet we consistently think we have enough pieces of the puzzle to make definitive assertions.

You fail to see why you should accept the theory of evolution?? But you have no qualms on accepting that an invisible sky monkey created everything in 6 days??

G

This thread is pure silliness. I am soooooo out of here! I simply cannot believe how you can possibly ignore such an avalanche of evidence! Were you the sort of person who insisted that 1+1 just might be something other than two? I believe in having an open mind but there comes a point when we absolutely MUST draw the line.

As for the so-called, "Laws of Probability", I don't believe I have ever heard of this! Can you cite a reference for this law? Now there are PLENTY out there for the laws of physics (esp. thermodynamics) which are the fundamental basis for all scientific laws, including evolution. I think ID/Creationism only holds attraction for people who find it easier to say, "God did it" than to actually take the time to study science. This is not unlike explaining to small children that the stork brings babies rather than telling them the truth in an age-appropriate, yet scientifically accurate way.

I have tried time and time again to explain this but I feel like I am speaking to a brick wall... perhaps I am. What exactly was the original sin? I believe it had something to do with a particular apple that represented something.... They say ignorance is bliss, but science reveals the most beautiful things in nature and the most incredible aspects of reality. We do not need to believe in deities to see the magic in nature; we just have to open our eyes. It saddens me deeply that so many are still so blind to the wonders all around us. Nothing in science must be taken on faith (it's all about being reproducible and testable!) and everyone (or so I thought) has direct access.

Buy a microscope/telescope (most hobby shops have them), invest in a few kits from scientific supply companies (I can give you some names if you like ), go to the library, take some classes at a community college, take up a non-violent outdoor hobby like birdwatching or horticulture... there are plenty of ways to study evolution on your own through hands-on involvement. Heck, even your local farmers need to have some understanding of the concept to improve each year's harvest. They may not call it evolution, but by breeding the best, they impose an artificial selection process akin to those nature impresses upon natural populations of organisms. If you want to study evolution independently (I respect you for not taking our words on faith alone but be reasonable!), those are some ways to do so. If however, you are not so inclined, then I can only shake my head...

I wish they had a wee smiley for a 'clap your hands' cos what you just said is spot on. People need to get their heads out of their arses and stop listening and start figuring out stuff for themselves.

Well said (or wrote as the case may be!)


G

Originally posted by shihulud
You fail to see why you should accept the theory of evolution??

Idea of evolution, not theory. It fails The Scientific Method.

Originally posted by shihulud
But you have no qualms on accepting that an invisible sky monkey created everything in 6 days?

Irrelevant. Have you evidence or have you not? This is the question.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Xtal_Phusion
Buy a microscope/telescope (most hobby shops have them), invest in a few kits from scientific supply companies (I can give you some names if you like

), go to the library, take some classes at a community college, take up a non-violent outdoor hobby like birdwatching or horticulture... there are plenty of ways to study evolution on your own through hands-on involvement. If you want to study evolution independently (I respect you for not taking our words on faith alone but be reasonable!), those are some ways to do so.

Done, next? I've completed all my biology courses for a bachelor's in biology degree as well including Genetics, Ecology, Molecular Biology of the Cell, Organic Chemistry, Microbiology, Physiology, and Vertebrate Natural History. Speak to me in a language I can understand instead of this "I'm better than you" nonsense.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Idea of evolution, not theory. It fails The Scientific Method.

Is this the 'we can't observe evolution' arguement?

I thought evolution had been observed to a certain extent, Darwin's finches. Or are these excused as 'mutations'?

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by saint4God
Idea of evolution, not theory. It fails The Scientific Method.

Is this the 'we can't observe evolution' arguement?

No, this is The Scientific Method argument which I've repeated on a number of occasions including:

1. No data
2. It cannot be tested
3. There is no working model
4. Cannot be reproduced
5. Cannot verify the data

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I thought evolution had been observed to a certain extent, Darwin's finches. Or are these excused as 'mutations'?

Did Darwin observe evolution or did he observe finches?

Originally posted by saint4God
1. No data

Data can be collected from the finches.

2. It cannot be tested

What needs to be tested to prove evolution?

Ruler, pen and paper, catch finches, measure and take notes.

3. There is no working model

Finches are the working model.

4. Cannot be reproduced

It wasn't just one finch that was different, there were many that had different beak sizes, so more than one test on one bird could be carried out, many on many birds could be carried out.

5. Cannot verify the data

Surely after all this field work, date could easily be varified.

The finches with narrow beaks have a diet of small insects. The finches with the wider beaks have a diet of large nuts/seeds. I think I've got that the right way around. However, surely this is an amount of evidence, so you can see that environment can affect a species. In this case, it was the food that was on offer. If there was no evolution, then these finches would all have beaks that were the same size.

Did Darwin observe evolution or did he observe finches?

He observed the evolution of finches.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Data can be collected from the finches.

Please display the data of evolution. Not height, size and weight measurements from just a bunch of birds, but a change in species

Originally posted by shaunybaby
What needs to be tested to prove evolution?

To see if genetic material can change over time to a different species.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Ruler, pen and paper, catch finches, measure and take notes.

Observations do not for a theory make. Physiological measurements are physiological measurements. No more, no less.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Finches are the working model.

I've read no studies that show something changing into a finch, or a finch changing into something else, but am certainly open minded. Whatcha got?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
It wasn't just one finch that was different, there were many that had different beak sizes, so more than one test on one bird could be carried out, many on many birds could be carried out.

So...where are these tests? We've had a hundred and fifty years to get them. Science hardly seems cutting edge in this case.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Surely after all this field work, date could easily be varified.

You're giving suppositions, not substantiation. You realize this, yes?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
The finches with narrow beaks have a diet of small insects. The finches with the wider beaks have a diet of large nuts/seeds. I think I've got that the right way around. However, surely this is an amount of evidence, so you can see that environment can affect a species. In this case, it was the food that was on offer. If there was no evolution, then these finches would all have beaks that were the same size.

Variation was proven by Mendel. Genotypic and phenotypic variation is a no brainer. The Hardy-Weinberg principle discusses how a given species will have variation within it's genetic ability. Evolutionary idea says that it is possible to change from one species to the next via subtle changes over time.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
He observed the evolution of finches.

You're telling me that Darwin SAW physical changes of finches from one species to the next? That he even SAW a change in finche's beaks over time due to their environment?

This argument is always going to be between complete. obsessive fundamentalist people from the US and reasoning intelligent people. I have never seen someone outside the US go on a tirade against evolution. Just what do they teach you in church over there.

Is it a coincidence hat the bible says otherwise. No. So, if you are right faithfully, just leave the science alone. It has not place for faith. I think people, deep down, are scared of science and cannot face a world where we are not ruled by dogmatic principles. I think that's pretty sad really.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Xeros]

Originally posted by saint4God
Please display the data of evolution. Not height, size and weight measurements from just a bunch of birds, but a change in species

But the change in beak size is the data. And the beak size is the change in the species.

Observations do not for a theory make. Physiological measurements are physiological measurements. No more, no less.

You asked if it can be tested. And It can be tested. You take two birds from the same species and compare. You can then repeat this until you feel you have a varied set of results.

I've read no studies that show something changing into a finch, or a finch changing into something else, but am certainly open minded. Whatcha got?

Why does a finch need to change in to something completely different? That's not what evolution is. A finch does not suddenly give birth to a frog. The evolution here is the evolution of the beak. More specifically 'natural selection'.

So...where are these tests? We've had a hundred and fifty years to get them. Science hardly seems cutting edge in this case.

Peter and Rosemary Grant

Do you deny that beak sizes vary with these finches? Or are you accepting their beak sizes are different, yet it's not because of evolution or natural selection, but merely they change because.. What's your reasoning for the change in beak size?

Variation was proven by Mendel. Genotypic and phenotypic variation is a no brainer. The Hardy-Weinberg principle discusses how a given species will have variation within it's genetic ability. Evolutionary idea says that it is possible to change from one species to the next via subtle changes over time.

Surely subtle changes over time 'is' variation within it's genetic ability? If you add up enough subtle changes over time, then those changes become pretty significant.

You're telling me that Darwin SAW physical changes of finches from one species to the next? That he even SAW a change in finche's beaks over time due to their environment?

From observation, you seem to assume a lot.

There's enough data from our friends mr and mrs Grant, they seem to have gone back to those islands time and time again. Notice, that sometimes due to weather factors, small beaked finches are actually better suited, than large beaked finches, and vice versa depending on the state of the climate.

So your idea of observing evolution is so wacky, that it's basically impossible to fulfill your concept of 'observing'. It can't be observed to the extent you want it to be.