Galapagos finches

This is a patently false premise propounded by creationists over and over:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.htmlThis though, LOL: I'm not sure what science journals you read but they aren't the ones actual scientists are publishing in. To date there has been not one single iota of scientific evidence supporting the "creationist axiom". Your third sentence displays a complete lack of understanding of ice core dating and the general climate of Antarctica, the DRIEST continent on the planet. So please cite some sources for a plane found under miles of ice. Aside from that check out a few laymen’s sites on how ice cores are dated:
http://www.chem.hope.edu/...ik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html
Ice core - Wikipedia
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php
and a fairly recent (2004) technical Nature paper that displays, with great detail, the dating back to 780,000 years ago:
TYPO3 Exception
This doesn't pertain to finches so further discussion should be continued in a new post (after you've read the ascribed above).So far, finches or no, your science is bad.PS, the "evolutionary axiom" postulates nothing about abiogenisis. That too is a creationist attempt to make the argument philosophical rather than evidential.Back to finches somebody.

Actually, I should have quoted the entire paragraph that was contained in because Murky states that: Which I took as meaning random recombination cannot produce anything but informational loss. A statement that has been shown to be untrue in the lab (see above) as well as through computer modeling once selection is applied. (I believe Dawkins put something like this together). I should have been more thorough(I'm also tired of that argument), sorry.As for The Lost Squadron, I'd never heard of it, but active glaciation, 50 years and not being miles under ice certainly explains it.