Clicky

15 Evolutionary Embarrassments

Share on:

Nature magazine published what amounts to an evangelism tract for evolution called "15 Evolutionary Gems". The article claims to provide the best evidence that evolution is an "empirically validated principle." The article even states its purpose is to help Darwinian evolutionists be “secure in the knowledge that natural selection is fact.” (Incidentally, doesn't this phrasing sound awfully religious?)

I’m going to go through these 15 so-called gems, explain what they mean, and why they are more like dirty, jagged rocks rather than gems. As you read the explanations and rebuttals, keep in mind that this is the best evidence for evolution that Darwinists can provide.

1. “Land-living ancestors of whales”

Explanation: Evolutionists believe that life started in the sea. They look at very slight similarities between whales and land animals and draw the conclusion that land animals must have evolved from whales. They also believe that humans evolved from land animals.

Rebuttal: The whale is a mammal. Whales have more similarities to humans than they do to land animals, so it makes no sense to claim that land animals evolved from whales, as land animals' brains are so vastly different from whales'. It would make more sense to say that whales evolved from humans, which of course Darwinists will not say because it would blow their sea-to-land theory out of the water (no pun intended).

2. “From water to land”

Explanation: As stated above, evolutionists believe that life started in the sea and evolved into land animals. As evidence of a transitional form from sea to land, they held up a fish affectionately called Tiktaalik, which supposedly had fin-like feet and could walk on land.

Rebuttal: Evolutionists have refuted this themselves. They admit that footprints supposedly belonging to tiktaalik have been found in fossil strata formed long before Tiktaalik ever existed. Oops.

3. “The origin of feathers”

Explanation: Evolutionists believed dinosaurs evolved into birds. Their best evidence for this is a little fossil called Epidexipteryx, which they claim was transitional form from dinosaurs to birds.

Rebuttal: Evolutionists refute this one as well. There is nothing dinosaur-like about Epidexipteryx. They have admitted that Epidexipteryx was probably just a secondarily flightless bird, that is, a bird that was once able to fly but through genetic loss of information (genetic entropy) lost the ability to fly. One evolutionist considered the evidence so flimsy that he mockingly said a chicken could be considered a dinosaur.

4. “The evolutionary history of teeth”

Explanation: The article simply describes the order in which mice teeth form. It makes no attempt to tie this into evolution, or explain how the order of teeth formation evolved, but at the end it credits Darwinian evolution anyway.

Rebuttal: You might not believe me if I didn’t tell you to read the article yourself, but there is nothing to rebut. #4 is a wash, and downright embarrassing.

5. “The origin of the vertebrate skeleton”

Explanation: Again, you will not believe me unless you read “gem” #5 for yourself, but there is no evidence given for evolution. The article talks about how the theory of evolution can be used to reverse-engineer old fossils that are missing vertebrae. In other words, the theory of evolution is being used here to support itself. Circulus in probando.

Rebuttal: No rebuttal required, since there is no evidence to rebut. Just remember that the slightest variation in the spinal column will likely kill whatever animal is unfortunate enough to suffer it.

6. “Natural selection in speciation”

Explanation: Evolutionists looked at the stickleback fish and noticed that the fish would usually not reproduce with other fish of the same species if they came from significantly different environments. Based on this, they concluded that this “reproductive isolation” would lead to the stickleback species diverging into multiple species of fish.

Rebuttal: This is similar to saying that a St. Bernard evolved from a Chihuahua. Darwinists often confuse genetic expression or suppression with genetic change. A St. Bernard may not be able to mate with a Chihuahua, but that does not mean they are different species. No matter how many times you breed a dog with another breed of dog, you will still end up with a dog offspring. A particular breed of stickleback fish may not breed with another, but they are still both stickleback fish. No speciation (formation of new species from an old species) has occurred. Another thing to consider is this: Every time reproductive isolation occurs with the stickleback, genetic information is lost, not gained. And the loss of genetic information invariably leads to a decreased ability to adapt and thrive long-term. #6 unwittingly provides evidence against Darwinian evolution.

7. “Natural selection in lizards”

Explanation: Evolutionists studied lizards and saw that the introduction of a predator into their environments caused the lizards to behave differently. No lie.

Rebuttal: The introduction of a predator triggered a pre-programmed genetic response in the lizards that resulted in a change in behavior that rendered them less vulnerable. As usual, Darwinists shoot down their own theory with their own evidence and engage in begging the question. This evidence points to an already present genetic response in the lizard.

8. “A case of co-evolution”

Explanation: Water fleas vs. parasites. Darwinists claim water fleas and their parasites were in an “arms race” to evolve, with the water fleas becoming increasingly better at evading the parasites, and the parasites becoming sneakier and better at infecting the water fleas. Eventually the parasites won. Why? Evolutionists say the parasites “adapted” to the water fleas in “only a few years.”

Rebuttal: No explanation is given for how this adaptation took place, but we know that Darwinian evolution claims it had to have been through random genetic mutations. But how could these random mutations have occurred in just a few years? According to our Darwinian friends, evolution takes millions of years. That’s why we never observe it happening. Did the parasites win the lottery of lotteries? It gets better. The article once again refutes itself by saying that the “arms race” continues. The parasites really didn’t win after all. The evolutionists admit that no evolution took place after all! What we see instead is that water fleas and parasites respond rapidly to one another, in just the same way bacteria rapidly develop resistance to antibiotics across the globe in just a few years. Adaptation is not evolution, and it does not lead to evolution.

9. “Differential dispersal in wild birds”

Explanation: This is a rehash of #6 and #7, except with birds as the subject.

Rebuttal: The Darwinists shoot their own theory down by claiming that when introduced to a different environment, birds will rapidly change their nestling weight in just a few generations. And once again, this is not evolution, but a genetic expression of a pre-programmed response to a change in the environment.

10. “Selective survival in wild guppies”

Explanation: Guppies with less common colors have higher survival rates than those with common colors. According to evolution, the genetic pressure exerted against the common-colored guppies would drive them out of existence. But that is not the case. Instead, they noticed that despite the common-colored guppies being eaten at a higher rate, the proportion of the common-colored guppies did not decrease in the population. The Darwinian explanation? More evolution led to the common-colored guppies turning into the rarer-colored guppies!

Rebuttal: This is a classic example of begging the question. The example of the guppies provides powerful evidence against evolution by demonstrating that evolution did not result in “survival of the fittest”, but rather the survival of both the fittest and the least-fit. Instead of admitting this is a problem, the evolutionary scientists changed the definition of evolution to make the problem go away. The reason the guppies maintained the proportion of common colors to less-common colors is, again, an expression of a pre-programmed response. Both sets of guppies already had the genetic ability to be any color, but the expression varied based on the environment. If evolutionary theory were true, the common-colored guppies would have quickly died off and become rarer, while the less-common colored guppies would have increased in proportion.

11. “Evolutionary history matters”

Explanation: The moray eel grabs and swallows food differently from all other fish. Like #4 and #5, no evidence is given for evolution, but the article does mention that the jaw design is vaguely similar to that of snakes.

Rebuttal: None required because no evidence was given. My favorite quote from #11: “This is an instance of convergence, the evolutionary phenomenon in which distantly related creatures evolve similar solutions to common problems.” Talk about winning the lottery! This quote exposes yet another instance of assuming the conclusion.

12. “Darwin’s Galapagos finches”

Explanation: One of the most famous pieces of supposed evidence for evolution. Charles Darwin noticed that different types of finches had different sized beaks. He concluded that they all must have evolved from a common ancestor.

Rebuttal: This is my favorite one, not because I get to refute one of the oldest pieces of evidence for evolution, but because the evolutionary scientists do it for me! The article says

"shape differences coincide with differing expression of the gene for calmodulin, a molecule involved in calcium signalling that is vital in many aspects of development and metabolism.”

Nothing evolved here. Even the Darwinists admit that expression of already existing genes is to thank for the variation in beak sizes. They also admit that the change in beak sizes occurs over a few years, not millions of years. Calmodulin activation can occur as a result of exposure to a number of elements found in nature, which would be an example of adaptation, not Darwinian evolution.

13. “Microevolution meets macroevolution”

Explanation: Flies have a single gene that encodes for both pigmentation and wing development.

Rebuttal: Once again, no evidence for evolution is given. #13 starts out with a completely irrelevant discussion of genetic pressure scenarios (which evolutionists misleadingly call “microevolution”). The fact that a gene can encode for two completely different functions is just more evidence against Darwinian evolution. Now the evolutionary scientists are not only saying that a gene that evolved by random mutations confers a benefit to the organism, but that it confers two benefits, completely randomly!

14. “Toxin resistance in snakes and clams”

Explanation: Snakes and clams can develop resistance to some toxins by a single genetic mutation.

Rebuttal: One of evolutionary theory’s requirements is that genetic mutations be completely random. The genetic changes that snakes and clams go through to develop resistance to toxins occur far too frequently to be random. This is yet another example of already existing genes expressing themselves based on changes in their environment. I’d also like to point out that #14 gives no examples of evolution. The snake is still a snake, and the clam is still a clam.

15. “Variation versus stability”

Explanation: When fruit flies are put under stress, they undergo genetic changes, all of which are harmful.

Rebuttal: Despite all the genetic changes fruit flies endure when placed under stress, they never cease to be fruit flies. And the genetic changes are harmful and result in an overall decrease in information. By the way, evolutionary scientists have been experimenting on fruit flies for years trying to force them to evolve in controlled conditions. They have failed over and over again.

Conclusion

You may have noticed that these 15 so-called gems of evolution really boil down to two ugly rocks: Genetic responses and mistaken identities. All of the evidence given for evolution (that the Darwinists have not yet themselves rebutted) makes much more sense when explained as a pre-programmed genetic response rather than a mutation. There is no other evidence given.

Please let this sink in. What you have just read is the evangelism tract for Darwinian evolution, and it is pathetic and embarrassing all by itself. Had I left out the rebuttals, you might have picked out most of the shortcomings in these “gems” yourself.

One final word: Pre-programmed genetic responses aren’t accidental. They are information based, and information is never random. The genetic responses were designed by the Creator Himself, Jesus Christ, and they are far too incredible, complex, and amazing to be explained away as a series of random events.