Everyone is aware of the sort of evidence that would disprove evolution. It would have to be something that something verifiably observed that undeniably contradicts an essential feature of the theory. Piltdown Man could have done the job, as we explained in Where’s the Proof — Evolution’s “Smoking Gun”?, because man couldn’t have evolved on an island with no pre-human ancestral species, but generations of idiots think the exposure of Piltdown Man as a fraud was devastating to evolution.
Another example of something that could overturn evolution is an indisputably anachronistic fossil, like the proverbial Precambrian rabbit. But creationists have no such evidence.
Instead, they scream about the alleged improbability of evolution, or the fictitious deathbed recantation of Darwin, or some other irrelevant “evidence,” none of which means anything. Evolution is as well-established as any other scientific theory — better than many — and it keeps on delivering evidence that confirms it — see The Lessons of Tiktaalik.
So what do creationists do? They scream about irrelevancies. There’s a good example today at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: With Two New Fossils, Evolutionists Rewrite Narratives to Accommodate Conflicting Evidence. It was written by Günter Bechly, a Discoveroid senior fellow. Wikipedia has a write-up on him which says:
In 2015 Bechly criticised Neo-Darwinism and expressed his support for Intelligent Design theory on a new private webpage and blog. Bechly is a convert to philosophical theism. He emphasizes on his website that he strictly separates his private activities for Intelligent Design and theistic apologetics from his former professional work as museum scientist and in his paleontological publications.
. Here are some excerpts from his post, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Two new fossils, described in August and September 2017, have again forced evolutionists to rewrite their fanciful narratives of how major transitions in the history of life occurred. In this case the new fossils disarrayed, respectively, the origin of tetrapod land vertebrates and of bird feathers and flight.
[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] We’re in big trouble now! What were these two discoveries? Bechly says:
The first fossil, described by Lefèvre et al. (2017), is a feathered dinosaur named Serikornis sungei (nicknamed “Silky”), which lived about 160 million years ago during the Upper Jurassic era. Found in China’s Liaoning province, it is a beautifully preserved complete animal with visible dino-fuzz covering its body.
[*Yawn*] Wikipedia has a write-up on it: Serikornis. Why does Bechly think this is a problem for evolution? He explains:
1. The distribution and type of feathers on its body are not consistent with the currently preferred scenario about the evolution of bird feathers and flight. …
2. The new phylogenetic tree in the original publication by Lefèvre et al. again reshuffles the feathered dinosaurs and early birds into a new branching pattern, disagreeing with previous trees that, in turn, all disagree with each other. Constructing phylogenetic trees looks more and more like an arbitrary enterprise, evolutionary biology’s equivalent of other pseudoscientific methods such as psychoanalysis or the Rorschach test.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! All it means is that as more fossils are found, the pattern of evolution becomes more accurate. What else does Bechly have? He tells us:
The second fossil discovery, by Zhu et al. (2017), is a new species of lobe-finned fish named Hongyu chowi from the Late Devonian. Discovered at the Shixiagou quarry in northern China, it was about 1.5 metres long, and lived 370 to 360 million years ago.
[*Yawn*] PhysOrg had an article about it — see Devonian fish provides unique insights into the early evolution of modern lobe-finned fishes. Nice discovery, but nothing revolutionary.
Bechly, however, babbles for several paragraphs about how troublesome it is. You can click over to the Discoveroid article to read his reasoning, if you like. Then he tells us:
These two new fossils represent further evidence conflicting with previously accepted evolutionary narratives. But thank God evolutionary theory can easily adapt to such inconvenient evidence, simply by rewriting the story. That way, the new evidence fits perfectly.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If a new fossil discloses that something evolved earlier than previously thought, yes, of course there will be an adjustment made in the evolutionary narrative. That’s how science is supposed to work. It’s a virtue of science, not a vice. Creationists like Bechly want everything to be revealed once, perfectly, and never change. But he’s thinking about religion, not science. This is his final paragraph:
Dubious procedures like these would be unthinkable in other natural sciences, such as physics. They call into question whether evolutionary biology really qualifies as a hard science at all. Arguably it is not a testable theory, or even a well-defined one, but merely a loose collection of narratives that are forged to fit the evidence — any evidence whatsoever.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, physics hasn’t changed since the days of Isaac Newton. Nor has any other science. Only evolution keeps developing, as new evidence is found. That’s why evolutionists are fools! The most reliable unchanging doctrine is intelligent design. It will always explain everything!
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.