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

Evolutionists Admit Evolution is Impossible Part 3 :Darwin's Lament

from the same magazine and issue talked about yesterday ( Comments in regards to article found in, NATURE, v. 428, 15 April '04, p. xi )

"Lost and found," the News and Views article on pp. 703-704 asks in the introduction "Can we ever hope to pin down the genetic changes that underlie the big steps in evolution?"

Emphasizing how lacking they are in this area, and their desparation to make losing parts seem like a vital component of evolution now that they have some evidence for how it happens.

Well, look at the opening sentence: "Darwin's lament that 'Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound' has described one of the persistent problems in evolutionary biology for the past 145 years."

Wow, what a confession! Perhaps THE key issue in this "science" has been a no-go since its inception -- and reduced fish spines is all they've got even now?

Until Next Time,
David Bump

Evolutionists Admit Evolution is Impossible Part 2 :Limb Reduction Through Mutation

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

In the article "Speciation: limb on an out." We find yet another great example of evolutionists reaching for straws revealed here, in the article on p. 717, and the News and Views comments on p. 703 they point out that they're still searching for the "mechanisms" for one species to evolve into another.

The study referenced here finally points to a mechanism of change...but it is a specific kind of change allowed for in creation science! As the title indicates, all the fuss is about discovering the path by which a limb might be lost.

You can't evolve all forms of life from a relatively simple common ancestor by getting rid of parts! This item points out that limb loss was supposedly involved in "snakes, whales, and fish," but fails to note that for snakes and whales to evolve from something else would have required major additions and/or alterations.

Even this limb reduction through mutation is not directly observed, but inferred from the results of cross-breeding stickleback fish. They found several genes that control the development of the pelvic skeleton and spines. It is noted here that mutants totally lacking the most important gene "die at birth." Actually, according to the later, larger articles, it's not the gene itself, but a regulatory effect (perhaps by what would have been considered "junk DNA"?), because the genes themselves aren't mutated in spineless fish. But wait, it gets better... for creationists, that is.

Look for part 3 tomorrow!

Until Next Time,
David Bump

Evolutionists admit evolution is impossible, but they don't realize what they've done (part 1)

Evolutionists have made statements implying or boldly stating that belief in creation or doubting evolution is a sign of stupidity or worse.

Whenever it is proposed that science education should be changed so that students will not be given the impression that evolution is a well-established fact, some evolutionists are sure to say that "teaching creationism" will lead to students being very ignorant and unworthy to be accepted into the halls of higher education.

They may say that eventually the country would return to the Dark Ages and science will become a lost art entirely. They will say that evolution is one of the pillars of modern science, and is itself supported by many evidences, constantly presented in science journals.

So, a creationist without even a bachelor's degree in science should be totally overwhelmed, subdued, and finally converted after perusing serious science journals and even the latest science news, right?

Heh, heh, heh.

I should call these Comments "Evolutionists admit evolution is impossible, but they don't realize what they've done." If you think today's feature on the "evolution" of NOT having spines is a hoot [comments on fish loosing spines coming in a day or two] , wait until you see the next Comments, in which I hope to present evolutionists coming right out and saying a little bit of evolution is virtually impossible, yet still believing the whole great myth is true.

Until Next Time,
David Bump