Here’s yet another example of evolutionary indoctrination. According to this article from Phys.Org, wild animals are evolving faster than anyone could imagine!
But I’d suggest there’s more going on here than meets the eye. What’s actually happening is interesting, but not so sensational. One common trick evolutionists use is a bait-and-switch tactic. When they use the term ‘evolution’, it becomes elastic, meaning just about anything and everything. Any change from one generation to the next is considered evolution. But so is unobservable change that supposedly happened millions of years ago- such as the evolution of various kinds of eyes. First, they provide ordinary examples of animals adapting to their environment, call it evolution, and then imply that that is the same process that turned fish into amphibians and apes into humans.
The first thing the author does is ask the question, “How fast is evolution?” Most people imagine evolution as a slow, gradual process taking millions of years… maybe picturing in their mind that well-known illustration of a chimp on all fours, gradually standing, walking upright, becoming a brutish caveman, and finally a modern human. But this article wants to convince us that evolution can happen “over a handful of generations”. But what do they mean by that? Are they suggesting that snake scales could evolve into feathers in three or four generations? Of course not! That would be ridiculous.
My answer to their question would be, “Well, that depends on how you define ‘evolution’”. That’s the rub. And the author realizes this, so he starts with the traditional answer, explaining that “Charles Darwin thought the process occurred over geological timescales”. But after the bait comes the switch, and he offers us something different, called “adaptive evolution”. Okay, what’s that? Well, the article doesn’t provide an actual definition, but provides some examples, such as elephants losing or reducing tusk size due to poaching and fish becoming resistant to water pollution.
According to the site Open Oregon, “Natural selection only acts on the population’s heritable traits: selecting for beneficial alleles and thus increasing their frequency in the population, while selecting against deleterious alleles and thereby decreasing their frequency—a process known as adaptive evolution.”
Now that we know what we’re talking about, we can see that this article is NOT referring to anything that has to do with traditional evolution, at least not in the sense that an organism is acquiring new genetic information. No, it’s talking about heritable traits- something that already exists in the organism’s genome and is passed on from one generation to the next- like tusk size in elephants. Depending upon the environment and other factors, smaller tusks (or no tusks) would be a clear survival advantage for elephants. Notice that this has nothing to do with elephants “evolving” tusks from a tuskless ancestor, but how tusk size is selected naturally. And that’s important to understand.
However, even though we’re now told that evolution happens over a handful of generations, the author is kind of wishy-washy, stating that “it is still hard to tell how fast adaptive evolution is occurring.” He explains that the study found that certain populations of birds and mammals evolved two to four times faster than previous studies showed. And then he tells us, among the populations studied, the rate of evolution happens at an 18.5% per generation. That’s pretty fast. But it’s not really evolution.
Then the author then tells us there are other forces- evolutionary forces- that cause change in a population besides natural selection. Those forces include “mutations, random chance and migration”. Fine. I wouldn’t refer to any of those as “evolutionary forces”, but evolutionists do. They believe these natural processes are mechanisms for evolution to act upon and can lead to novel body plans over millions of years, like a featherless organism evolving feathers over millions of years, but, remember, that’s not what this study is about. The study is referring to observable, naturally occurring forces.
The article finally completes the bait-and-switch in the very last sentence, stating that “we are thrilled to witness Darwinian evolution, a process once thought exceedingly slow, acting observably in our lifetimes”. Did you catch that? I thought they were talking about adaptive evolution, not Darwinian evolution. Remember, adaptive evolution is where one population inherits genetic information from previous generations, which is natural and observable, but Darwinian evolution is unobservable because it happened in the distant past (a featherless organism evolving feathers) and is no longer happening today. It sure sounds like they’re trying to convince the reader that Darwinian evolution is the same thing as adaptive evolution, and that we can observe Darwinian evolution, even though we can’t. Got it? Explaining why elephants have shorter or no tusks is not the same thing as explaining how elephants evolved tusks in the first place. But they want you to think it is.
So no, we did not witness Darwinian evolution. We witnessed natural selection. There’s a difference. The article casually assumes Darwinian evolution, never substantiates it, only discusses heritable traits, but asserts that that they’re one-in-the-same.
In contrast to evolution, the Bible tells us that God created organisms to reproduce after their kind, and this is exactly what we observe, and this is what the article finds in the study. What we don’t see is animals evolving into other kinds of animals. So, while the article asserts that animals are ‘evolving’ faster than anybody thought, they’re not really evolving. Animals are reproducing after their kind and inheriting traits from their parents, just as they have done throughout history. There’s nothing new about this. I’ve reported on this for years, so it’s not a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention.