The "Convergent Evolution" Evasion

By -
Darwinists have a corral-full of rescuing devices to be utilized when observations do not fit their paradigm. One of these is convergent evolution, where different organisms independently evolved similar traits, even though there is no plausible mechanism or evidence. Some of these convergent evolution evasions are quite outlandish.
One evasion technique of evolutionists used when facts do not fit the story is "convergent evolution". There is a far better explanation.
Image credits:
Burmese python (top), Pixabay / skeeze
Emperor boa (bottom), Pixabay / sipa
There are distinct differences in critters, but since they have some aspects in common, it's "evidence" that they evolved from a common ancestor. It's disallowed to even consider the more reasonable explanation: they were designed and equipped by their Creator to diversify within genetic limits and fill ecological niches. (That's right, creationists do accept speciation.) A recent study of pythons and boas reached the stunning conclusion that, even though they diversified, they did not change into something else.
Convergent evolution is the idea that the same trait, or set of traits, in completely different organisms were somehow produced through independent evolutionary processes. Now a new study shows how two different types of snakes have adapted to a diversity of environments by expressing the same traits (skin color and skull shape), but the study describes no mechanism for it. The authors simply attribute the highly repeatable process to the mysterious black box of convergent evolution.

 Although both constrictors, pythons and boas are two different types of snakes that evolutionists believe share a common ancestor in the mid-late Cretaceous about 63-96 million years ago during the last alleged age of the dinosaurs. Many creationists maintain that pythons and boas are simply different created kinds. A common design explains much of the same genetic programming for some traits since the snakes' lifestyles and habits are similar. However, there are many fundamental differences between them. For example, boas bear live young while pythons lay eggs.
You should be able to squeeze in a little time to read the rest of the article. Just click on "Convergent Evolution or Design-Based Adaptation?" 

 

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more