These blatant misrepresentations of the Theory of Evolution have no place in our schools and definitely no place in our churches. I do not understand why Brian Thomas insists on making things up.
The same can be said about cormorants. The flightless Galapagos variety has stunted wings. Though they are effective divers, they can no longer fly like other cormorants. Loss of wing size, loss of flight wing feather structure, and loss of flight are the opposite of Darwinian evolution.
[1]
Evolution maintains that as more time passes, living things evolve to acquire better and more useful traits. As such, shouldn't the loss of a useful trait, such as eyesight, be regarded as the opposite of evolution? Not so, say recent news reports on blind fish...
...But obtaining the fish sight system required an input of a massive quantity and quality of information. And making the fish blind merely required the loss of some of that information. How could attributing these opposite processes to "evolution" be scientifically accurate?
The study of blind cavefish can undoubtedly contribute valuable insight into the genetics of trait variations and the fishes' potential to adapt and survive in varied environments. But because evolution is supposed to make new traits or develop new and useful genetic information, mere losses and variations should not be called evolution.
[2]
The Theory of Evolution has maintained since the beginning that attributes can be loss through "disuse".
No comments:
Post a Comment