Let me try to quickly comment on a few things, then maybe - if we continue - we can bring it back to being about bees.
...
Where I dissagree is, I am willing to leave it open that in a thousand years from now there may be no small beaks.
(kind of more off topic for a minute)
There was an article on the pepper moths which are common in England. It is seen either as a light grey or a dark color (two variations basically). The study showed that during the time when pollution in the UK was worse the darker moths were more plentiful in urban areas than the usually more plentiful lighter moths. The idea was that the sooty pollution caused a darker environment in which the darker moths were better hidden from birds that feed on them.
So during this time the darker moths prevailed (what they say is "out-compete") in urban areas while the lighter moths "out-competed" in rural areas.
When pollution was reduced the darker moth again became more noticeable and so the lighter moths once again "out-competed" them.
The article (encyclopedia article) claimed that this was "One of the clearest examples of natural selection". It said that had the pollution continued the lighter moths would have eventually become extinct in the urban areas, and the darker moths extinct in the rural areas. That eventually the two may have split into two separate species.
As you see this is very much like the article Rader posted. It could sound possible - but...
Let us consider - Before the industrial revolution, both moths existed (neither went extinct in the urban or rural areas). They continued to interbreed (i.e. they were the same species).
When the industrial pollution began - the lighter moth did not become extinct in the urban areas, and the darker did not become extinct in the rural areas (which would obviously not happen since they never were extinct before the pollution began). Since the industrial revolution began in the late 1700s you must admit there had been ample time for the darker moth to have gone extinct.
When the pollution cleared, the situation returned to normal (i.e. both variations - with the darker not as plentiful because [assumed] it was easier prey).
Yet the study and article came up with an entire theory that they could have eventually even split into two species. Yet the obvious evidence is that since they had never done so before the pollution began - there is absolutely no reason to think this had the pollution continued.
"Natural Selection" is a term that was created to mean much more than simply one organism currently reproducing at better rates than anther. Which is obviously what the pepper moth went through. Yet the article used that as "One of the best examples".
We also see albino bees and deer and.... Maby being taller is nutrition or maby it is breeding (unwittingly). Or maby it is both. To say it is nutrition relies on studies changes in food source and would be the same type study as all the others but one that would fit in your belief system and so therefor more palitable to you. Does that make sence.
Actually I think I mentioned that it was believed to be nutrition. I do not know if they know.
I do not (or at least try not) to accept something simply because it agrees with me or my thinking. It is something that needs guarding against.
My point was that it is not a mutation, and not a change in species.
You relie on studies based on reconizng creation but have firm views that you understand What is being told to you by your religion and studying the things of your religion.
I would be the last to deny that my Faith/religion does not influence my methods of thinking. Just as the scientific method influences those who rely on it.
Yet I would also suggest that I do not simply accept any study based on whether it agrees or not. If I put my faith in the knowledge man comes up with - my faith can be broken by the knowledge man comes up with.
If I accept a study it is because it makes sense - both in what they say and in agreement with what I know is True.
I have seen and heard of many "studies" that could basically agreed with my faith/religion, which I have rejected because they were obviously flawed.
When I choose to argue a point against a study or method of science - it is because I see flaws. I pass up on ones I do not understand and so could not argue (for or against).
I can look at the same religion and doing my best can see that there are many that are doing thier best to understand the very thing you think to understand in the religion but come up in differrent places then you do doing your best.
I realize that is how it is viewed. But I see flaws in that - just as in some of science.
If I study a subject in science - I will never understand it in piece meal (by taking one part deciding what it means, then another part and deciding what it means, and the next, and so on). I have to take the whole thing and use it to interpret it by itself.
The reason so many denominations do not agree on God's Word is because they define it in piece meal. I use all of God's Word to define any part of it. That is how I guard against personal interpretations.
A simple example is "You will not kill". Many denominations now have decided to define that as "murder". Yet if taken as a whole it can only mean "kill" because of Jesus words which prove it.
I agree that germs become resistant to drugs (but they do not become a new "species" [not the right term I know]). A flu germ is still a flu germ even if it becomes resistant to a drug.
We become resistant or sensitive (like bee stings) - but we are not mutating to something better. It is a naturally created ability to make limited changes.
Obviously if we could mutate would we not have already through "natural selection" beaten cancer and the flu - if we have had "billions of years" - why hasn't it happened? Why haven't we seen *one* instance of a species change into a new one?
...
I mentioned the seven deadly sins in a differrent thread and you said (me paraphrasing) not in my bible. Now I could take it that your bible is better then the catholic bible. You implication was that catholics were wrong. (by the way, I know it is not in all in one place in the bible that says the seven deadly sins I am refering to) It is teachings to explain things in the bible though.
I do not recall my exact comment - something to the fact that many denominations have come up with odd ideas.
The "seven deadly sins" was a list created by a pope (I had to look it up because I had heard it before but didn't pay much attention). God's Word says *any* unrepentant sin is deadly.
Again, it is the same as handling science right or wrong. I can handle God's Word right or wrong.
So I say you don't know squat even if you believe it hard....
I think I know a bit more than that.... but I would agree I have a lot to learn.
...cause doing out very best, no one can really understand the bible. That is why jesus talked in parables, so that simple people who did not understand it all could at least understand that one little thing.
It sounds arrogant (I am not, and I try not to sound like it) - I do understand God's Word. Or at least all the important parts. I do not need to understand the day Christ will return - all I need to know is, if I am obeying God in true faith - it doesn't matter, so when isn't an important part.... though so many people labor over that particular point.
But my understanding comes from taking it for what it says (rather than what I would *really* prefer it to mean). It isn't that hard to do, you simply use it to define itself. We as humans do it for so many other things, but somehow lose that ability with that one book (because we want it not to mean what it says).
That is a long post after all - sorry.... and I agree, we have wandered very far from the original topic (we could blame Rader
he brought the birds into this [joking]... but I think we lost him somewhere along the way)
I agree also - that will be my last off topic post on the thread.