Sunday, 28 June 2009

Creationists can't see evolution when it's right under their noses

From the Creation Science Movement blog:

Peppered moths back to form - Creation Science Movement

This creationist clearly doesn't understand what evolution is. His very words explain what's happening in evolutionary terms, but still Andrew Sibley denies that evolution is happening.
Scientists are reporting that the peppered moth, Biston betularia is now reverting back to its light form because of improvements to the environment. Of course this story is presented as evidence of evolution, but in reality it is just a change in the ratio of the numbers of the light and dark form. In other words, evidence of natural selection on pre existing genetic material, not an example of evolution at work.
Pardon me? Just a change in the ratio of the numbers of the light and dark form? How does this creationist imagine evolution works? If changing conditions now favour the lighter form, it's the lighter form that will reproduce more, and their offspring will also be the lighter form. The ratio of lighter to darker will increase further. It's evolution in action, and this creationist can't see it. This is the very definition of closed-minded.

Prior to the above, Stephen Hayes posted about laughter in humans and apes being homologous:

He who sits in the heavens laughs - Creation Science Movement
But why not 'homology', with a Creator in whose image we are made? This is the real 'alternative' which is always assumed to be unworthy of consideration. As Psalm 2 says 'He who sits in the heavens laughs'. Read the whole Psalm for the context - God laughs at arrogant, foolish men who seek to reject His rule, and warns them to 'pay homage to the Son' while there is still time.
Sorry, but invoking a supernatural being isn't in any way congruent with valid scientific research. Creationism will get nowhere if it continues to fall back on the ubiquitous "Goddidit" as an alternative to theories it doesn't like.


  1. Sorry, but I think that you're talking at cross principles. No one disputes the micro-evolution that's described here. Macro-evolution is the rub. I for one find it find it pretty ludicrious to think that this kind of variation in an existing species can lead to two separate species that are not genetically compatible. You'd need a genetic mutation that doesn't result in sterility and the same mutation in both a male and female specimin. Rinse and repeat for each unique species on the planet. You may want to play those odds, but it doesn't pass muster to me.

  2. The distinction between micro- and macro-evolution is by no means clear cut. With regard to speciation, in the case of sexual reproduction the distinction between species isn't simply a matter of whether individuals can interbreed.

    I see no reason why variation (of the kind under discussion) in an existing species could not lead towards two separate species, given changing conditions over sufficient time. As for requiring "the same mutation in both a male and female" - males and females of the same species do not evolve separately: the child's DNA is a combination of the DNA from both parents. It's populations that gradually evolve, rather than individuals.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...