The Evolution of Tusks

Here’s an evolutionary article from Scitech Daily that sheds some light on the flaws of evolution.

Evolution is a mainstream scientific belief, and it permeates our culture in movies and books, as well as public schools and educational institutions. Those who espouse evolution want to convince as many people as possible that all life is related to a single common ancestor, and any organism can evolve into anything else, given enough time. But does the evidence bear this out?

In this article, evolution is touted and championed as fact, but instead of providing evidence, only bare assertions are made; meanwhile, the evidence goes on to contradict evolutionary theory.

Researchers were studying an odd, extinct animal called a dicynodont to understand the evolutionary origins of tusks, and the first thing they had to do was define what a tusk is. A tusk, they explain, extends past the mouth, keeps growing, and is made of dentine. Today, only living mammals (elephants, warthogs, walruses) have true tusks. But, as it turns out, several species of dicynodonts also had tusks.

The article claims dicynodonts lived about 270 to 201 million years ago and proclaims that mammals are their closest living relatives. To be objective, however, we need to keep in mind that these claims are merely assertions, not fact. Science has not confirmed these claims, nor does it have the power to do so. From a biblical perspective, however, these animals lived just thousands of years ago and died out after Noah’s flood, according to the Bible.

There’s a lot to unpack in this article, but the results of the study are what’s important. As it turns out, some dicynodonts had true tusks, while others only had large teeth. What I find pertinent is that they found no progression from non-tusk to tusk. In other words, there’s no evidence of evolution. Nonetheless, this forced the researchers to draw some remarkable claims; they concluded that some dicynodonts ‘evolved’ their tusks independently, which came as a complete surprise.

One of the consistent things I find when studying evolution is how surprised evolutionists are at evolution. They expect one thing and get something else, and then marvel at how great evolution is, and that’s exactly what we find here.

For example, according to researcher Megan Whitney, “I kind of expected there to be one point in the family tree where all the dicynodonts started having tusks, so I thought it was pretty shocking that we actually see tusks evolve convergently.” What she’s actually saying is that they were expecting to find an evolutionary line of descent, but didn’t. Instead, what they found were tusks popping up in unexpected places, over and over, with no rhyme or reason. That is problematic for evolution, which is why these researchers found it ‘shocking’. Instead of providing evidence for evolution, they’ve provided counter evidence, and then embraced it. This is a typical pattern for evolutionists.

Supposedly, according to evolution, there’s no driving-force. There’s no compelling reason why evolution should happen. It’s supposed to be a random, unpredictable process that is not evitable. So when they claim evolution happened convergently, they’re making evolution out to be a driving force that inevitably happens on purpose, and this contradicts evolutionary theory. Evolution doesn’t happen this way. There’s a statistical problem that is being ignored. But that doesn’t stop them from pushing the narrative.

That’s the main failure of this article. There’s no coherent explanation for this phenomenon. The researchers are touting evolution, even though it’s been refuted.

What I would suggest is happening is something simple and logical. According to the Bible, God created animals according to their kind. If God created some dicynodonts with tusks, and others with teeth, then there’s no need to invoke evolution, and this would explain the fossil record. Or perhaps God created original dicynodonts with the genetic diversity to grow tusks or teeth based upon environmental or other factors, according to their DNA. We know very little about the very first dicynodonts, but this explanation solves the riddle quite neatly and without contradiction.

The rest of the article is filled with evolutionary assumptions, none of which are necessary to explain why some animals have tusks, or why others do not. The researchers routinely ignore the possibility of genetic diversity being the driving factor.

There are a few quotes worth checking out. According to Ken Angielczyk, “Dicynodont tusks can tell us a lot about mammalian tusk evolution in general.” I would argue that these tusks tell us no such thing. First, tusks are inanimate objects that cannot speak for themselves. It’s human bias that draws the conclusion they want. Second, these researchers are merely peddling just-so stories based upon an unprovable assumptions. Lastly, from a creationist perspective, mammals are unrelated to dicynodonts, so their tusks can tell us nothing about how mammals got their tusks.

Researcher Brandon Peecook said, “The fact that in reality only a few have true tusks, and the rest have big teeth, is a beautiful example of evolution we can document.” What this tells me is that these people don’t really understand evolutionary theory. They’re just throwing the term around recklessly, hoping to sound persuasive. They’re ignoring how their own research contradicts evolutionary theory.

This last question by Christian Sidor is a good one. He says, “Tusks have evolved a number of times, which makes you wonder how—and why?” Hmmm. I’d suggest that their evolutionary beliefs will make it impossible to answer this question satisfactorily. Only a creationist explanation can offer a coherent explanation based on genetics.

The more we understand about evolution, the easier it is to refute it. Articles like this are a prime example. When evolutionists tout evolution as fact, examine the evidence.