Our first episode of this thrilling new series was Discoveroids: Evolution Is Fake Science, in which we said:
The Discovery Institute, still lacking anything even remotely resembling a scientific theory or evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, has embarked on yet another new propaganda theme: “Fake Science.” It’s ironic that a creationist outfit would accuse anyone else of engaging in such an activity, but that’s part of the fun. … In the immortal words of Bert Lance: “It’s like being called ugly by a frog.”
Today’s episode at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog is Fake Science: Mice Changing Color to Match Terrain Is “Evolution, Crystal Clear, in Every Detail”. Adding to our merriment, it was written by Cornelius Hunter — a Discoveroid “fellow” who teaches at a bible college. He’s famous around here as the author of The Discoveroids’ All-Time Strangest Essay. We’ll give you some excerpts from his latest, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
About 15 years ago researchers discovered genetic differences that probably explain the different fur coloring in desert mice populations in New Mexico and Arizona [links omitted]. Mice populations living on light colored terrain tend to have light colored fur, and those on dark colored terrain tend to have dark colored fur. Blending in with the terrain helps to camouflage the mice, protecting them from predators. And that is, apparently, exactly what the mice did about a thousand years ago when desert lava flows produced the darkened terrain.
Nothing remarkable about that; it’s just another example of protective coloration. Wikipedia’s article on Camouflage says:
Camouflage has been a topic of interest and research in zoology for well over a century. According to Charles Darwin’s 1859 theory of natural selection, features such as camouflage evolved by providing individual animals with a reproductive advantage, enabling them to leave more offspring, on average, than other members of the same species.
Then Cornelius says:
But that is where the science is overtaken by the dogma. … The first problem [bold in the original] in casting the dark colored mice as an example of evolution is that their genetic differences are not known to be the result of random mutations. For evolutionists there simply is no question that the genetic differences that are thought to cause the dark fur color arose from random mutations. Now that may be correct. But it may not be. We simply do not know.
What? Is Cornelius actually claiming that coloration isn’t caused by genetic mutations? Well, not quite. He explains:
This is not merely a technical objection — in spite of evolutionary theory which called for random mutations to be the source of change, in recent decades directed mutations have been found to be at work in an ever increasing number of cases. For many years evolutionists have ignored and even resisted these findings. Too often I have debated evolutionists who, when I point to this evidence, simply deny it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Cornelius places the burden on evolutionists to show — to his satisfaction — that fur colors are the result of “random mutations,” because he claims that a logical explanation is that they’re caused by “directed mutations” — presumably at the divine command of the intelligent designer — blessed be he! Cornelius elaborates:
This is an example of what philosophers refer to as a “theory-laden observation.” … This can become circular very quickly, and this desert mouse case is a good example of that. Evolutionists assume the genetic differences arose from random mutations, and then claim the evidence as a powerful confirmation of evolution.
That’s the first problem — evolutionists ignore the allegedly logical factor of Oogity Boogity! After that he tells us:
The second [bold by Cornelius] problem in casting the dark-colored mice as an example of evolution is that the dark coloration may be the result of multiple genetic changes. In one case, four mutations are identified, all of which perhaps are required to bring about the coloration change.
It very well could be that only a single mutation is required. But that is not known. And if multiple genetic changes are required, then this quickly transitions from an example of what random mutations can do to an example of what random mutations cannot do.
Huh? What’s the problem? Lots of features, including human hair color, are the result of more than one mutation. Cornelius continues:
If four mutations are required, then we’ve just found yet another hard failure of evolution. But again, the evolutionists give no hint of this interesting question.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:
The third [bold by Cornelius] problem in casting the dark colored mice as an example of evolution is that the coloration is too precise. The dark colored fur appears on the top of the mice, but not their underbelly. This makes sense since the topside is mainly what is exposed to predators. But in the evolution narrative, there is no fitness advantage to such precision. Darkening the entire mouse would, apparently, work just as well.
[*Groan*] Countershading may be unknown to Cornelius, but it’s commonly observed in nature. Wikipedia says: “Countershading is the pattern of animal coloration in which an animal’s pigmentation is darker on the upper side and lighter on the underside of the body. This pattern is found in many species of mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, and insects, and has occurred since at least the Cretaceous period.”
It’s not over yet. Cornelius has even more to say:
So far, evolutionists are proclaiming a slam-dunk, case-closed example when in fact there are many unknowns. But there is one big known we haven’t yet mentioned. It would be a deceptive equivocation to label fur coloration change via a few mutations as “evolution” when, in fact, this is nothing more than small-scale adaptation.
[*Groan*] Cornelius is playing word games. Mutations (and natural selection) are a mechanism of evolution; they aren’t evolution per se. He elaborates on this nonsensical point in our final excerpt:
This is an old technique evolutionists have exploited ever since Darwin. Demonstrate biological change, any biological change, no matter how trivial, and claim victory.
Okay, that’s enough. Cornelius may be a great bible college teacher, but as a serious critic of evolution, well, what do you think, dear reader?
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.