Evolutionist Study Supports Creationist Contentions

A favorite bait-and-switch tactic of proponents of evolution has been dealt a serious blow by a recent study conducted by evolutionists themselves.

Evolution, at least as the idea that all living things came from a common ancestor through natural descent, is broke. Unfortunately post-modern science has been high-jacked by the philosophy of naturalism and by government as its major funding source. This means that favored conclusions are those which give the ruling class moral permission to mess with their fellow men. That is to say the idea that man is a created being made in the image of God, and therefore endowed with unalienable rights, is rejected. The permitted hypothesis is that man evolved through a series of naturalistic steps shaped by chance and the environment. This moral framework justifies ruling class efforts to shape our environment in the belief they can make us into whatever they want us to be (as opposed to who we were Created to be).

I used to debate these naturalists posing as scientists. They would say that evolution was an "established fact" that is "happening all around us." The examples they would give involved tiny changes in things like coloration. The examples represented a shuffling of existing genetic information rather than novel new traits emerging. I always argued that this was merely microevolution, and as long as new novel traits were not emerging that it was different from true, or macroevolution.

They would answer that there was no such thing as "macroevolutin" or "microevolution", only evolution. Their claim was that large scale evolution was simply a continuation of small scale evolution over a longer time frame.

At last evolutionists themselves (the only ones to get funding to conduct studies in our current government-model for science advancement) performed a study on the question. It turns out that there is a difference between fast-acting mircoevolution and longer term evolution that really changes a species. They did not use the terms "microevolution", but their conclusion was exactly what creationists have been maintaining all along.

"Rapid evolution is clearly a reality over fairly short time periods, sometimes just a few generations," said Josef Uyeda, lead author of the study and a zoologist at Oregon State University. "But those rapid changes do not always persist and may be confined to small populations. For reasons that are not completely clear, the data show the long-term dynamics of evolution to be quite slow."

Across a broad range of species, the research found that for a major change to persist and for changes to accumulate, it took about one million years. The researchers wrote that this occurred repeatedly in a "remarkably consistent pattern."

In other words, the permanent changes took place over too long a time scale for us to observe in the act. We must take it on faith, in them, that the series of bones they string together over a million years of time really represent one animal evolving into another kind. The "remarkably consistent pattern" of one million years whether one is talking about critters with the life cycle of a mouse or of a whale, is better explained by observers of fossils putting their own interpretation on the data than some sort of principle of evolution.

The bait and switch tactic of pointing to some microevolutionary change amongst the coloration of a moth species and then using that as “proof” that jellyfish, T-Rexes, and people have a common ancestor has been dealt a blow. Microevolution exists, but it does not say much about how, or even if, macroevoltion occurs