Evolutionists Promise Without Delivering
Some science news reports lead the reader to think that some major new understanding into evolution is under the headline, but they often fail to deliver.
- Darwinian abomination: Science Daily promised, “Toward Resolving Darwin’s ‘Abominable Mystery’: Patterns of Flower Biodiversity Point to the Importance of Having ‘Room to Grow’.” The article was accompanied by a photo of a cheerful biologist, Dr. Jana Vamosi [University of Calgary], looking like she had a breakthrough answer to Darwin’s great mystery about the origin of flowering plants and their diversity. Below the headline, though, was nothing of the sort. Her team found some measurements of biodiversity as a function of living space, but that’s all.
Yet she claimed that “the findings of this research mostly shed light on what produces the world’s diversity,” without any hint of where flowering plants came from and how they evolved into orchids, daisies, tomatoes, buffaloberries and a host of deciduous trees. To say that living space “drives the incredible diversity of flowers” would be like saying the multiplicity of stars drives the emergence of aliens.
- Abomination, take two: An article in Science Daily from the Journal of Botany tried to explain the emergence of land plants, but ended up comparing living plants. “By comparing green algae and bryophytes, [Linda] Graham [U of Wisconsin, Madison] and her co-researchers obtained insight into the evolutionary hurdles that plants needed to overcome to transition successfully to life on land, and how early plants’ success influenced carbon cycling.” Identifying the hurdles does not generally win races, unless the racer has the goods to get over them. The article gave no clue about how plants even knew hurdles existed, let alone succeeded in surmounting them. The article merely assumed evolution without evidence: “All plants descended from a group of ancestral green algae, whose modern representatives thrive in aqueous environments.”
- Crow bar: Last week, Science published another paper on the amazing tool use of New Caledonian crows.1 (For background see 05/26/2009). “Tool use is so rare in the animal kingdom that its evolutionary origins cannot be traced with comparative analyses,” the abstract began, tantalizing the reader that insight into this mystery was at hand. “Valuable insights can be gained from investigating the ecological context and adaptive significance of tool use under contemporary conditions, but obtaining robust observational data is challenging.”
The authors took up the challenge, but only delivered this tidbit: tool use seems to help the crows’ diet – “just a few larvae can satisfy a crow’s daily energy requirements, highlighting the substantial rewards available to competent tool users.” The rewards are clear, but how did tool use evolve? It just did. They asserted, “basic stick tool use is heritable, and hence an evolved adaptation.”
This team also thought that opportunity alone produces the evolutionary goods. Humans brought candlenut trees to Malesia, they noted; “In light of our findings, it seems possible that the anthropogenic introduction of this tree species to New Caledonia created foraging opportunities (i.e., lipid-rich, but hidden, larvae) that, presumably in combination with other factors, led to the rapid evolution of tool use in NC crows.” Possibly, presumably, in combination with other factors; does that lead to anything? Does that constitute an evolutionary explanation?
Without the assumption of evolution, these explanations make no sense. There is nothing about opportunities, hurdles or living space that cause complex traits or behaviors, with all the genetic information behind them, to just “emerge” on their own. The American westward expansion had opportunity and living space, but required intelligent agents with purposes and goals and motivation to construct the towns, ranches, farms and railroads to utilize it. If new foraging opportunities alone were sufficient to induce crows to make tools, why didn’t other animals learn how? Foraging opportunities are presumably common throughout the world; why, then, is tool use so rare? How could living space alone drive bryophytes and conifers to evolve into angiosperms and explode into hundreds of thousands of tremendously varied species, alongside the conifers? These are the questions Darwinists need to answer; they cannot merely assume that evolution did it, then call that a scientific explanation.
1. Rutz, Bluff et al, “The Ecological Significance of Tool Use in New Caledonian Crows,” Science, 17 September 2010: Vol. 329. no. 5998, pp. 1523-1526, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192053.
This is how the Darwin Party creates the illusion of progress, pushing a dead hulk without an engine and announcing it as a powerful sports car. It’s fakery running on dogmatism, masquerading as science. These articles are representative of the tricks of the charlatans. They must be exposed.