Emory Moynagh
[Originally published as Examples of Evolution Debunked Pt2]
An evolutionist posted a list of examples of “evolution” to an evolutionary group I lurk in. While the list is hardly scientific, I’m going to take the list apart and debunk it anyway because it is easily accessible to the layman and is thus dangerous, particularly since it defines evolution as “change over time,” which is fundamentally incorrect.
If all evolution meant was change over time, I’d be an evolutionist. This is an example of the bait and switch fallacy all too common in evolutionist circles. They define evolution one way, they change the meaning as they go through the conversation. In part one, we defined the terms microevolution and macroevolution, as well as adaptation, to make it clear what we mean by the terms.
Darwin’s Finches
Darwin’s finches are used as a classic example of evolution. They are frequently displayed in textbooks and museums as proof that evolution is true. But this was not always the case. A long-term, exhaustive study by Peter and Rosemary Grant of the species of finches on the Galapagos was what brought these little birds to the forefront in the evolution debate.
Grants observed that, based on environmental changes, bill sizes and thicknesses changed in population, causing new species to emerge. This fits the definition of evolution as change over time. But that is not the technical definition of evolution.
Creationists have no problem with this. Speciation has been part of creation models since before Darwin, and evolutionists have known about sideways — not upward — changes in appearance and habits since at least the 1960s when Mayr pointed it out in his mammoth tome on speciation. Darwin’s finches do not provide evidence for upward evolution.
Blue Moon Butterfly
The Blue Moon Butterfly population (shown above) living in Samoa was hit with a parasitic infection that specifically targeted the males, causing the male population to plummet. However, within a few generations, the population began to return to a normal ratio between the sexes. The males that had survived were immune to the parasite.
This is an adaptation that was strongly selected for by the parasitic invasion. Essentially, the parasites were an example of strong artificial selection, forcing the immunity to become the dominant trait in the population. Importantly, no new trait was formed. The immunity was pre-existing in the population; it was just strongly selected for and thus, became dominant. Simple. No evolution in the macroevolution or even microevolutionary sense has occurred.
Rat Snakes
The article points out that rat snakes have coloration that is well adapted to their environments. This is completely true. However, this is not evolution. It is called adaptation, when organisms are well suited for their environment. It says nothing at all about how they changed to fit into a specific environment so well. Creationists have answers to this question that rely on the intelligence and care of a genius Designer. Evolutionists assume that random mutations that allowed the snake to survive a harsh environment are all that is needed. One of these offers a more satisfying answer, but it comes with moral and metaphysical implications the evolutionists are uncomfortable acknowledging.
Insect Pesticide Resistance
The argument here is that when insecticide is applied to insect populations, they can become resistant over time, nullifying the pesticide. This is true. However, this is not an example of evolution properly defined. Instead, artificial selection is being applied to the insect population, resulting in most, if not all, of the insects that lack immunity to the pesticide dying. However, the few insects that have a resistance, often because of a deleterious mutation, survive and, in the absence of competition, thrive.
Under normal conditions, the resistance would not proliferate, but because of the strong artificial selection applied, they get a chance to thrive. This is not evolution, it is artificial selection for existing traits.
