Just Another Ridiculous Bias in Evolution Research Article (on plants this time)

So scientists who were studying just how plants could make the incredible evolutionary leap from ocean to land found a big surprise. It turns out that ancient alga already possessed the suite of genes necessary for them to adapt to land and a co-dependent relationship with fungi.

"However, scientists were not clear how the algal ancestor of land plants could have survived long enough to mediate a quid pro quo arrangement with a fungi. This new finding points to the alga developing this crucial capability while still living in the earth's oceans!"

So what did they have to do to adapt to this new environment? Well, nothing genetically. The genes they needed to make the leap were already present. Here is a quote from lead researcher Dr. Delaux:

"Our discovery shows for the first time that the alga already knew how to survive on land while it was still in the water. Without the development of this pre-adapted capability in alga, the earth could be a very different place today."

Ok, so what evidence did they present that this "pre-adapted capability" actually "developed" via evolution instead of being created by an Intelligent Designer? Well, none is presented, and none need be presented, because macro-evolution is true because macro-evolution is true. No other options need be considered by government-funded naturalism posing as science. Even when, especially when, the evidence they do find is far more supportive of the Intelligent Design Theory than a Macro-evolutionary hypothesis. They can never question the paradigm. It is getting to the point where science's capture by the philosophy of naturalism is really starting to hold back discovery and progress.

The whole idea of "pre-adapted capability" in animals who have no use for it is anti-evolutionary. Capability is supposed to grow in fits and starts only in response to the environment. It isn't supposed to just show up in case it is needed for something later.

I cannot keep up with all of the articles coming out about research whose results are perfectly in line with what one would expect if Intelligent Design were true and the opposite of what one would find if Macro-Evolution were true. The case for Macro-evolution seems to grow more difficult each and every week that passes- it is too bad post-modern "science" is not permitted to re-examine the strength of that case.