Many scientific findings get labeled with “evolution” even though neo-Darwinism has nothing to do with them.
Reversible evolution: A study on dust mites reported by Science Daily claims evolution can run backwards to previous states – a violation of an evolutionary principle called Dollo’s Law. For one, the supposed phylogenetic analysis began and ended with dust mites, not with one kind of creature turning into another. For another, a violation of Dollo’s Law (“evolution is unidirectional and irreversible”) amounts to a falsification of neo-Darwinism, not a confirmation of it.
Predictable evolution: An article on PhysOrg and another on Science Daily claim long-term evolution is “surprisingly predictable,” contrary to a key tenet of neo-Darwinism that evolution is aimless and purposeless. The first study involved just a computer model of a particular protein connection, irrelevant to evolution anyway. The second began and ended with E. coli (one species), of doubtful relevance to the issue of Darwinian “origin of species.”
Gambler evolution: Can studies of living gamblers provide any insight into human evolution? Science Daily thought so (“It’s in the Cards: Human Evolution Influences Gamblers’ Decisions”), but the big question left begging is whether humans’ ability to make “rational decisions” is a product of neo-Darwinism. If they think so, they have refuted their own thesis: the scientists’ own decision to study rationality is undermined by an aimless, purposeless process, leading a critic to question whether their own rationality is rational.
Swallow evolution: Several science sites, like Nature News, toyed with the idea that swallows are evolving to dodge traffic. This is based on findings that fewer swallows are winding up as roadkill. This again, though, even if the statistics are legitimate, does nothing to confirm neo-Darwinism. It does not find that a mutation has created an innovation. It might just mean that the clumsiest birds have already died. The remainder are all still members of the same species.
Cicada evolution: An open-access paper on PNAS struggled to understand the evolutionary dynamics of periodic cicadas. Often, those with 13-year cycles coexist with others on 17-year cycles. That fact alone refutes the neo-Darwinian position that fitter species displace others. Moreover, they’re all cicadas, members of the same genus Magicicada. Even strict creationists allow for that amount of variation within created kinds. The ending part of the paper’s Discussion section included a mixture of hubris and humility: “Our results support the idea that life cycle plasticity has been a creative force in the evolution of Magicicada,” they said. “However, the regulatory system of Magicicada life cycles and the mechanism of putative life cycle shift are completely unknown and require future comparative genomic studies of 13– and 17-y periodical cicadas.” What, exactly, was known?
Survival of the fattest: An article on Science Daily about polar bears appears to be about evolution, but really is just about challenges polar bears face with sea ice changes. Any reporter touting “survival of the fattest,” needless to say, is stretching the idea of “fitness” far astray from what Darwin envisioned.
From frog to Beatle: Any connection between the little hairs on frog toes and human locks of hair seems a stretch. Nature News, though, claimed that there’s an evolutionary relationship: “Frog feet share human hair origin.” Surely they did not mean to imply that frog hair evolved from Beatle moptops. Because of similarity in the genes for keratin between the distant species, researchers advanced this leap of faith: “The authors say that these proteins must have arisen in an early tetrapod ancestor before diverging to become hair in mammals and toe pads in frogs.” Exactly how a suite of complex proteins “arose” was left unexplained.
In each of these crazy articles, evolution was assumed, not demonstrated. “Evolution” has become such a flexible term, it means nothing any more. Darwin tried to link progress from molecules to man to a mechanism that produced innovation without a designer, but where is it? These stories are all nonsensical in that context. Whatever is observed, evolved. Whatever exists, emerged. That’s the new rule, no matter how contrary to expectations, no matter how trivial the change, no matter how illogical. Even strong evidence for design is twisted into supposed evidence for evolution. Evolutionists have succeeded in committing the perfect crime, the ultimate scam. It’s time to unmask these charlatans. Send them back to basics. They have completely lost their way as to what science is and what it’s supposed to be. Sadly, their way is leading millions astray. They need a healthy dose of shame.