So I'm taking a college general biology course this summer and came across this chart:
The interesting thing about the above chart is that this was talked about in Was Life Created? (p. 21). The writers conclude that "prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner," as if to imply the Watchtower does not. Their evidence of such a claim? The research of Peter and Rosemary Grant showed how during years of drought survivors had much larger beaks, and suggests if this type of selective pressure continued in the long term a new species could evolve. However, the Watchtower writers thinks there is bias in this explanation as they mention, "the [National Academy of Sciences] brochure neglects to mention that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population."
That NAS brochure they are referring to was from 1999, so "the drought" is the first one in this graph. The irony here is that the Watchtower claims scientists omit information, but it turns out this is exactly what Was Life Created? is doing. The missing fact is that the arrival of a competitor species (G. magnirostris) with larger beaks was the reason for the decline in G. fortis beak size in the years following the drought. There were two, not just one, selective pressures going on (drought and competition), and importantly, these two pressures acted in opposite directions on the beak size of the finches under study. That's a pretty big omission!