Welcome to Friday fun at God of Evolution. Congratulations on surviving your latest week.
This week’s meme was inspired by a Facebook comment on our post about a fascinating study about three variations of a plant-eating stick insect species from California called Timema cristinae.
Two of the variants have adapted coloration that bests suits them to life in two different types of shrubs — typically a good recipe for eventual divergence. However, in this case the third variant happens to have developed a lovely shade of brown that lets it camouflage itself among the stems and branches of both shrubs.
Apparently, this caramel-colored party pooper is serving as a genetic bridge of sorts, swapping genes back and forth between the two variants that would otherwise be unlikely to come into contact with one another (I smell a reality show!).
Phys.Org published its article on the research under the accurate but way too easy-to-take-out-of-context title “Natural selection, key to evolution, also can impede formation of new species.” Bizarrely, we haven’t seen the usual suspects like Answers in Genesis jump on this yet, but
news organizations media outlets Christian-exploiting web adverganzas like ChristianNews.net certainly have.
CNN’s (lol) write-up hilariously called the study “a potentially devastating setback for evolutionists.” Once Ol’ Hambone catches wind of such news, I’m sure AiG’s panel of scientific experts will be trotted out in short order to tell us all about how this obscure stick bug provides powerful evidence that the universe is younger than this tree that lives in Sweden.
As this meme demonstrates, this is their usual modus operandi, after all. When the evidence directly contradicts the model they claim is necessary to understand the gospel, they twist it and obfuscate it, and above all, claim that scientific inquiry is ultimately impotent in answering any questions whatsoever, because it is so hopelessly and inextricably tied to the inquirer’s underlying presuppositions about the universe.
…Er, except in those rare instances in which the findings produced by those exact same atheistically blinded, deliberately ignorant “secular scientists” seem to sort of vaguely be somewhat in line with the creationist model. In those cases, it’s “Aha! See? Told you so! Science is wonderful and awesome and it shows how right we are!”
This is exactly what we saw recently with the “young” surface of Pluto (or, as I call it, “the boondocks of the solar system”). Never mind that, in this particular instance, “young” is still in the neighborhood of 100 million years, or about 15 thousand times older than AiG thinks it is.
Never mind that no one in the scientific community really expected Pluto to be 4.6 billion years old in the first place (scientists have no objection to celestial bodies forming at different times; in fact, the Cassini probe picked up photos of a new moon forming in Saturn’s rings just last year).
Never mind that AiG’s take on Pluto’s relatively crater-free surface completely contradicts how the organization explains the heavily cratered surfaces of the other small, atmosphere-poor bodies in the solar system.
Having recognized this Answers in Genesis-approved version of the scientific method, I took the liberty of improving another one of their beloved cartoons, which turned out to be slightly inaccurate (imagine that!).
Here’s the original:
And here’s the correct version:
Also, don’t miss the new ICR article by Jason Lisle, who though he is a little later to the Pluto party than AiG, is nevertheless eager to do his part to spread ignorance and lies in the name of Jesus.
Then, cleanse your palette with Dan MacMillan’s guest post at Age of Rocks, which is a superb and devastating response to the young-earth attempts to misrepresent the data from the Pluto mission.