Evolutionists Admit Evolution is Impossible Part 4 : Fish Lossing Spines

Comments in regards to article found in, NATURE, v. 428, 15 April '04, p. xi

I barely mentioned what may be the biggest bombshell: the study was based on cross-breeding. Specifically, they crossed "a female from a population that has a complete pelvic skeleton with a male from a population that lacks pelvic spines" and studied the resultant generations.

That's right, not only can fully spined and totally spineless fish crossbreed, their offspring are fully viable and fertile! These fish are of different species only because of geographical separation (and probably mating habits and such), but genetically there isn't that much difference.

The difference in spines would certainly be enough if they were seen in fossils. Note, however, that offspring in later generations would show a range of variation.

According to the fossils we do have, the original condition of the stickleback population was all spiney-type, and mutations apparently did cause the loss of spines. The evolutionists seem to be very impressed that "limb loss in sticklebacks has evovled in fewer than 10,0000 generations."

For one thing, I'd hardly call spines "limbs," and for another, why would it be surprising for a mutation to cause limb loss, even if it were only ONE generation? Well, phrasing it this way apparently makes them feel comfortable saying "Extrapolating these results to other taxonomic groups leads to the conclusion that major morphological change can evolve rapidly through regulatory changes in a small number of genes."

If all you were given was that sentence as the result of a scientific study, you'd think they'd proven that macroevolution had been strongly supported. What we actually have here is a prime example of the bankruptcy of evolutionary theory.

Until Next Time,
David Bump