Darwinizing Uncooperative Observations

It’s a fine art often associated with politics: spin doctoring.
Evolutionists are well trained in this art. They have to be.

Darwinists play a shell game with stories about eye evolution.

A well-trained press secretary can make inflation look like a benefit that middle-class citizens should feel blessed to enjoy. Good as they are, politicians are novices compared to Darwinians. They can spin an out-of-place fossil or a complex mechanism that clearly appears designed into a trophy of natural selection. This process of spin doctoring in biology we call Darwinization. It is acccomplished by speaking Darwinese, “a dialect in science reporting that embellishes tidbits of observation with wide-reaching conclusions and tries to incorporate the questionable tidbits into support for macroevolution” (Darwin Dictionary). Here are some recent examples of this art.

Seeing squid more clearly: Harvard researchers show how animals repurpose genes to develop both limbs, eyes (Harvard Gazette, 7 Jan 2022). The presence of camera-type eyes in squid and in humans should present a massive problem to Darwinian biologists, because the two kinds are unrelated. This calls for top experts in Darwinization from “Hahvahd.” They can give us “understanding” in “how squid eyes are made.”

Here’s how the Darwinization process works. Step one: Assume evolution. Step two: Assert evolution boldly. Step three: Admit the problem, but hint that the Darwinists are getting warmer; this makes them out to be the heroes in a great biological mystery, and who doesn’t root for the hero in a mystery story?

The last common ancestor of cephalopods and vertebrates existed more than 500 million [Darwin] years ago. In fact, a squid is more closely related to a clam than it is a to a person. Even so, the two lineages independently evolved camera-lens-style eyes with very similar features: a single lens in the front and a cup-shaped, image-sensing retina in the back.

The similarity has had scientists wondering for decades how squid and their cousins get their eyes. In research published this week in BMC Biology, a Harvard lab moves closer to unraveling the mystery.

See how it is done? This is a work of genius that would make Greek sophists envious. The two young researchers pictured, presumably grinning happily behind their obedience masks, identified a gene network and told a new just-so story about it.

The researchers from the FAS Center for Systems Biology discovered a network of genes important in squid eye development that are known to also play a crucial role in limb development across animals, including vertebrates and insects. The scientists say these genes have been repurposed in squid to make camera-lens-type eyes.

It’s like a miracle. Take highly complex sequenced digital information that makes limbs, and “repurpose” it to make camera eyes. Isn’t science wonderful! And you thought evolution worked without purpose or design. No. Natural selection personified becomes a skillful hijacker that works magic.

They also provide an innovative example of how different animal lineages can skillfully hijack the genetic tools in their arsenal and adapt them to accomplish surprising evolutionary feats.

The heroes boast of their achievement, saying, “By looking across the diversity of life, we actually might understand what these genes are doing more accurately.” Yes: evolution produces understanding. One would have to be crooked or stupid not to appreciate what evolutionists are doing for the good of society.

The reader is told four times that “scientists” found this out—got that? Not storytellers; scientists. If they were not evolutionists, they would not be “scientists” now, would they?

A new pterosaur from Skye, Scotland and the early diversification of flying reptiles (Martin-Silverstone and five colleagues, bioRxiv 16 Feb 2022). This classic case of Darwinization appeared today. Sure it’s a preprint with some redactions, but the Darwinists at University of Bristol know how to get published and this will likely pass peer review without a hiccup. The important thing is the fossil they found, and what it says about evolution (or the lack of it). They found a pterosaur with the labeled class “Darwinoptera” (Darwin-winged). With a name like that, they had better Darwinize it!

The Middle Jurassic was a critical time in pterosaur evolution, witnessing the inception of major morphological innovations that underpinned successive radiations by rhamphorhynchids, basal monofenestratans and pterodactyloids. Frustratingly, this interval is particularly sparsely sampled, with a record consisting almost exclusively of isolated fragmentary remains. Here, we describe new material from the Bathonian-aged Kilmaluag Formation of Skye, Scotland, which helps to close this gap…. [It] is one of the first pterosaurs to be fully digitally prepared and μCT scanning reveals multiple elements of the skeleton that remain fully embedded within the matrix, which are otherwise inaccessible. Novel anatomical features of this new Middle Jurassic pterosaur help to confirm the existence of the controversial clade Darwinoptera, greatly clarifying our understanding of Jurassic pterosaur evolution.

Artist conception of a Darwinopterus pterosaur. By Nobu Tamura, Wiki Commons.

A look inside the paper, though, shows no evolution. This specimen is a complete pterosaur, wings and all, that flew. The Darwinian authors position it in the middle of the mythological phylogenetic tree of pterosaurs—not at the beginning. They use the term “transitional” four times, but this creature was not transitioning; it was complete and fully functional. At best, they call it a “mosaic” of pterosaur traits, but that doesn’t help the Darwinian story, because Darwin did not propose a mosaic theory. Furthermore, this and other fossil pterosaurs create a mess that “results in an earlier divergence of Monofenestra and Darwinoptera than thought previously,” so now they have to rethink the evolution tale. What to do? The skilled Darwinizers at the University of Bristol get to work.

• They boast that this and other fossil pterosaurs “have a major impact on our knowledge of pterosaur evolutionary history.“
• They change the evolutionary process slightly, but only for pterosaurs. They say “These discoveries led to the proposal of modular evolution for pterosaurs, with different areas of the skeleton evolving at different times and rates.” They don’t explain how a skeleton of partly-evolved and mismatched bones could survive or fly. They don’t need to: they have a new buzzword: “modular evolution.”
• They blame a lack of evidence. They complain about “the patchiness of the pterosaur record at this important time in their evolution.“
• They offer alternative stories: pterosaurs evolved by “modular evolution” or by “mosaic evolution.” See; they’re generous; they give you a choice: Evolution type A, or Evolution type B. They prefer the former, but either way, evolution is the only option.
• They promise light. “Its Middle Jurassic age, phylogenetic position and status as one of the most complete darwinopterans further elevate its significance, as it helps to shed light on when and how Monofenestrata, Darwinoptera and Pterodactyloidea evolved.”

Taking stock of the evidence, we learn that a fully-functional pterosaur fossil was found in Scotland. It was not a transitional form. It did not fit Darwin’s picture of progress by slow, slight variations. It gives the appearance of having been designed to fly and live successfully in its environment, and as far as we know, it did not emerge from a non-pterosaur. Ever. But through the process of skilled Darwinization, readers are guided into thinking Darwinly about the evidence (or lack of it). In fact, this fossil becomes transmogrified into a victory for Darwinism, because it “helps to shed light on when and how [pterosaurs] evolved.”

New fossil reveals origin of arthropod breathing system (University of Manchester). This article claims that legs in a complex swimming Cambrian arthropod evolved into gills and then into wings.

Modern water dwelling arthropods have biramous limbs, legs that have two parts – one for breathing and one for walking – but how such specialised limbs evolved was a mystery….

“Thanks to this new fossil, Erratus sperare, we now have a much clearer idea. These gills also probably went on to evolve into the wings of insects and the lungs of terrestrial arthropods like spiders so were a very important innovation.”

All they found in the Chengjiang biota of China was a swimming creature – part of the Cambrian Explosion that Stephen Meyer documented in Darwin’s Doubt (see also this Illustra Media clip) causes a major problem for Darwinism. They don’t mention that, because it would falsify evolution: Darwin himself could not explain the instant appearance of whole body plans without ancestors. An important skill in Darwinization is not to mention falsifying evidence against evolution. Instead, the Darwinizers project even more miraculous “innovations” into the future, believing that this creature’s organs evolved into insect wings and spider lungs! They even call this creature a missing link—an important Darwinizing term. But a swimming flap is not a wing, nor is a gill a lung. And along with those complex organs, a creature would need new muscles and nerves to operate them, and new brain software to know how and when to use them. Organs are not isolated objects. They must be integrated into the whole organism.

Join the growing army of Baloney Detectors who see the shenanigans that Darwinists use to promote their theory in spite of the evidence. Learn how they spin-doctor the observations to fit an evolutionary narrative, all the while guiding readers to never consider any alternatives.

To become skilled at this vital mission, you will need practice. So the fourth example is left as an exercise. In the following press release, look for all the e-words (evolved, evolution, etc.). Then look at the actual observational, empirical evidence. Then identify tricks of Darwinization discussed above, and see how they are being used. Refer to the Baloney Detector as needed.

Scientists discover how plants evolved to colonise land over 500 million years ago (University of Bristol). “Scientists analysing one of the largest genomic datasets of plants have discovered how the first plants on Earth evolved the mechanisms used to control water and ‘breathe’ on land hundreds of millions of years ago.”