We continue to debunk a list of supposed examples of evolution. This list is layman accessible and is thus dangerous, particularly since it defines evolution as “change over time”, which is fundamentally incorrect. If all evolution was, was change over time, I’d be an evolutionist. This is an example of bait and switch that the evolutionist engage in continually. They define evolution one way, they change the meaning as they go through the conversation. In part one, we defined the terms microevolution and macroevolution, as well as adaptation to make it clear what we mean by the terms. Check that out to see how the evolutionist define those terms. Note, we are assuming these statements are accurate (see the peacock example below for an example where they are not).
- Darwin’s Finches
Darwin’s Finches are the classic example of evolution. They are frequently displayed in textbooks and museums as proof that evolution is true. They were not always the classic example. However, a long term, exhaustive study by Peter and Rosemary Grant of the species of finches on the Galapagos brought these little birds to the forefront in the evolution debate. What the Grants observed is that based on environmental changes, bill sizes and thicknesses changed in population. Because of this, a new species formed. This fits the definition of evolution as change over time. But that is not the technical definition of evolution. And creationists have no problem with this! Speciation has been part of creation models since before Darwin, and evolutionists have known this since at least the 1960s when Mayr pointed it out in his mammoth tome on speciation. Darwin’s finches cannot provide any evidence for evolution. Both creationists and evolutionists can account for the natural selection that produces variation in finch populations.
2. Blue Moon Butterfly
The Blue Moon Butterfly population that lives in Samoa was hit with a parasitic infection that specifically targeted the males. The male population plummeted. However, within a few generations, the population began to return to a normal ratio between the sexes. The males that had survived were immune to the parasite. This is a very cool adaptation that was strongly selected for by the parasitic invasion. Essentially, the parasites were an example of strong artificial selection, forcing the immunity to become the dominant trait in the population. Importantly, no new trait was formed. The immunity was pre-existing in the population. It was just strongly selected for and thus became dominant. Simple. No evolution in the macroevolution or even microevolutionary sense has occurred.
3. Rat Snakes
The article points out that Rat snakes are well adapted in their coloration to their environments. That is completely true. I grew up catching rat snakes. However, how this is evolution I have no idea. This is called adaptation, organisms being well suited for their environment. This fits just as well with a creation worldview as with an evolutionary one. I really struggle to see how this is evidence for evolution, when evolution is properly defined.
4. Insect Pesticide Resistance
The argument here is that when insecticide is applied to insect populations, they can become resistant over time, nullifying the pesticide. This is completely true. However, this is not an example of evolution when evolution is properly defined. Instead, artificial selection is being applied to the insect population, resulting in most, if not all of the insects that lack immunity to the pesticide dying. However, the few insects that have a resistance, often because of a deleterious mutation, survive and, in the absence of competition, thrive. Under normal conditions, the resistance would not proliferate, but, because of the strong artificial selection applied, they get a chance to thrive. This is not evolution, it is artificial selection for existing traits.
5. Peacock Tail Colors
The claim here is that female peacocks prefer males that are brighter in color. Over time, male peacocks supposedly have become brighter in color. Turns out, this is patently false. Pea hens do not have a preference for the color or length of the pea cock’s tail. This was discovered by the evolutionists and published in their literature. The females simply did not care about the male’s tail features. For this to be considered evidence for evolution despite being debunked nearly two decades ago is patently absurd. Yet this is what happens when evolutionists have absolute control over the messaging. They feel no need to correct the record when they are wrong.
Pt3 will run next week.
Do you know what’s going to happen when you die? Are you completely sure? If you aren’t, please read this or listen to this. You can know where you will spend eternity. If you have questions, please feel free to contact us, we’d love to talk to you.
In His Image 