Evolutionary scientists recently announced a study that many are claiming is proof of evolution in vertebrates. However, as usual with evolutionary ideas, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on which obscures the facts. Words are being thrown around which are being used to mean multiple things without a clear change in meaning. There has been no observational proof of evolution. It’s all in the words the evolutionists choose to use. Instead, evolutionists are conflating natural selection with evolution….again.
The study was incredibly thorough and well constructed if the point was to prove natural selection exists. Scientists captured hundreds of light and dark colored mice from a habitat area in northern Nebraska. The genotypes of each group of mice were sequenced. The researchers then constructed two massive enclosures and released mice into each. Half the dark-colored mice were released onto dark soil where they were more naturally camouflaged and half were released on lighter soil where they were easy to spot. The same strategy was used for the lighter colored mice. The researchers then left and came back after three months of allowing the mice to live in their new enclosure, exposed to the elements and the possibility of predators. Upon their return, to the surprise of absolutely no one, the light colored mice had survived much better on the light soil and the darker mice had survived much better on the darker soil.
The researchers found that a mutation in the genome of the mice had an impact on their survival. This particular mutation deleted an amino acid in the darker colored mice, allowing their offspring to become lighter. In the lighter colored environment, this mutation was favored, leading to an increase in lighter colored mice. In the darker environment, this mutation was not favored and did not proliferate in the population. From this, the evolutionary scientists deduced that evolution had occurred. “So I think this is a very satisfying illustration of the full process of evolution, from the ecological consequences of these phenotype changes down the molecular details.” Lead researcher Hopi Hoekstra told ScienceDaily.
Critical examination reveals that, as usual, evolutionists are equivocating on the word “evolution”. Evolutionists use the term “evolution” about as loosely as they can. In this instance, the word is being used to mean variation produced by natural selection. However, the implication is that all live somehow evolved from nothing and that this study is proof. That is a serious over-extrapolation from the available data. While there certainly was change, apart from some old earth heretics, no one denies that change occurs within a group. What creationists argue is that change is limited to within the group and that no new groups are formed. This study is certainly evidence of natural selection guiding changes within the group. It is not evidence of the rise of a new group.
Further, this mutation is not beneficial, which some evolutionists will assuredly argue. A truly beneficial mutation must be beneficial across the board and have no drawbacks. This mutation is only situationally beneficial. If the mutation occurred in a population living in dark soil, natural selection would weed it out. Light coated mice would stick out like snow on asphalt in a dark-colored environment. Predators would feast on the veritable smorgasbord of essentially free food. That hardly qualifies as a beneficial mutation in any meaningful way.
This study is very illustrative of the traditional evolutionary way of arguing. They attempt to define evolution as simply the results of natural selection. They then redefine the word mid-argument to mean vast amount of changes over long periods of time. Some of them do it deliberately but most have simply been conditioned to believe that the results of natural selection are the same as macroevolution. They saw the examples in their textbooks in high school and college which were undoubtedly examples of natural selection working on a population, and were never taught to critically analyze them. Unfortunately for their dogma, natural selection is not the same as evolution. Change over time happens, no doubt, but this change is small and limited to small changes, such as the change in coat color in a population this study demonstrated. No new kinds have arisen. Mice have remained mice.