The last sign, #7, is “Lizards lose limbs”
Australian lizards called skinks are dropping their limbs to become more like snakes. And, according to a genetic family tree, some skinks have gone snaky in just 3.6 million years, relatively fast in evolutionary time. Scientists said the skinks’ lifestyle appears to be driving the change: They spend most of their time swimming through sand or soil. Limbs are not only unnecessary for this, they may be a hindrance. Once a skink goes snaky, they never go back, the researchers add. One of the snakelike skinks is shown here.12
If amoebas are going to evolve into avocados and archaeologists the organisms continually need to produce new structures. For natural selection to change a fish into an amphibian, for example, it needs to put legs on a fish. But here we see a process, a mutation that takes legs off. Mutations also remove eyes from fish. Mutations are going the wrong way. So, how did the legs get on the lizard in the first place? Not by natural selection. Note too that it does not take millions of years for a lizard to lose its legs. Just one mutation in one generation will do the trick. The loss of legs on lizards is consistent with, and thus points to the truth of, the biblical account of how the world came to be the way it is today—lizard leg loss is not a “sign of evolution”.
Source: Creation Ministries
It seems you don't have an appropriate understanding of evolution. It's wrong to say that "mutations are going the wrong way," since evolution is not hierarchical. There is no such thing as de-evolution, which you seem to be suggesting. Any mutation that survives through natural selection is the "right way," whether or not we judge an organism to be more or less complex. Mutation doesn't have to produce new structures, it can also eliminate unneeded ones.
ReplyDeleteWith your example of the skink, it is clear that limbs are a hindrance in their ecological niche. Skinks with a mutation for smaller or weaker legs appear to have an evolutionary advantage, and thus natural selection means these skinks are surviving and reproducing more than their legged kin. The Australian skink is currently in a transitional phase between what we think of as lizards and what we call snakes. This process is quite similar to land mammals becoming sea mammals, although I doubt you believe that happened either, but the example still stands.
When you suggest that "just one mutation in one generation will do the trick," I think you're grossly mistaken. Such a mutation would die quickly and not survive natural selection. You might as well test the theory by cutting the limbs off a baby lizard. How well will it move about to capture prey? Not all mutations are beneficial, which is why it must be mutation and natural selection together which is evolution. A lizard that is born with weak or no legs in an environment not suitable for it will perish.
Furthermore, your example of blind fish doesn't support your case at all. The fish are in an environment that doesn't involve the necessity of sight. As such, it is not surprising that mutations which cause blindness manage to survive. However, in different populations different mutations occur. Sight is a very fragile system, and there are a number of things that can go wrong. By cross-breeding two populations with different mutations, it is no surprise to an evolutionist that the functional genes dominate and the offspring can see. This is pure mutation and natural selection. The article you cited also relies on the false notion of de-evolution, or that evolution is some sort of progressive process. Evolution doesn't necessarily make something higher or lower, or more or less complex - it makes something that works, and survives to procreate.
In looking over your blog further, I'm surprised to find almost no original content (at least on the first few pages). I didn't realize at first that your evolution post was lifted from another site, as is most of the writing on this blog. Did you receive permission from the authors to republish their work on another site? I think if you're going to blog, it would best be your own work and not simply a reposting of others' content.
ReplyDeleteI especially love the irony in posting on the scientific inaccuracies of the Qur'an and Hadith, while at the same time you are attempting to counter the scientific inaccuracies of the Bible. You are no different than the Muslim apologists you try to counter, both defending ancient texts by authors with no rational or scientific understanding of the natural world.
BTW, I found your blog via a link on BeliefNet.
@Brad
ReplyDeleteThese are just kids who are a little deluded. There is no point torturing them with evidence and truth.
PS: Yeah, they aren't original either.
ReplyDeleteIt seems you don't have an appropriate understanding of evolution. It's wrong to say that "mutations are going the wrong way," since evolution is not hierarchical.
ReplyDeleteNo Brad that is not the point, the article quoted in the post is claiming that this is evidence of evolution. The mutations are going the wrong way to prove evolution. For it to proove evolution there must be evidence that mutations can create new structures not remove present ones.
Loss of structures easily fits into the creationist world view - loss of information and structures occurs with the mutational change. The point is that this is not an evidence that supports evolution against creationism but rather one that fits both systems. We're back to insufficient support again.
This process is quite similar to land mammals becoming sea mammals, although I doubt you believe that happened either, but the example still stands.
No the example fails, unless you come up with something better than the few articles I've read on that progression. Most of which are an embarassement to palaentology and the peer review process. Give me some of your supporting articles I'd love to have a read (nothing from www.talkorigins.com please!).
@ Alex
Odd isn't Alex that these "deluded kids" as you call us are still waiting for a response from you on more than 6 major issues to do with morality, biology, palaentology and physics. Patronising doesn't change the facts, you are still the one running from the discussion.
Remember we are still praying for you!
@David
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, I have already dealt with all those issues - its just that you don't accept what I say. The exact thing you would expect from a deluded kid.
God back and have another look at my responses and don't just dismiss them out of hand. You may learn something.
"God back..."
ReplyDeleteHA! Great typo! ^_^
Lol - whoops.
ReplyDelete:) you either have amnesia or are disembling again alex.
ReplyDeleteI've read the arguements again and again, have you noticed that at the end of them there is a long string of me asking you when you will get back to me on central issues. The articles you quoted out of context don't help you. And your long list of why you will not answer doesn't cut it. So here it is again. Try harder this time.
1. Morality - where did your sense of outrage at wrongs and evil in the world come from?
1a. Justice - related to 1. where did your sense of justice for the poor come from?
2. Birds - how did this impossible form arrise and why do they breath, fly and sing in impossible ways in your evolutionary world view? (proof alex please)
3. Insects - why do they arrise vertually fully formed and never change in "millions of years"? (again proof please)
4. Evolutionary religion - as per Ruse you believe in a religion by faith, will you admit this or not?
5. The "myth of Jesus" - we need some support for your assertion here, and not a bibliography again please.
6. Dating methods - how do you explain the geological column in light of our article on dating
There is a long list Alex, we're waiting