Developmental Genetics Paper Fails to Show Evolution

If my experiences online are any indication, denizens with Atheism Spectrum Disorder seem compelled to attack biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents and defend particles-to-peer-reviewer evolution. Some will falsely claim to be scientists, others demand a creationist's "credentials." I lack belief that many scientists are interested in trolling.

On occasion, someone with knowledge joins a discussion. David Coppedge briefly interacted with Dr. Ralph Marcucio. Dr. Marcucio was involved in a paper on genetics (the science started by Gregor Mendel, peas be upon him). He claimed that the paper supported evolution.

Background image: The Passion of Creation, Leonid Pasternak, 1880s

Apparently Ralph's work has some good science, but his emphasis on canalization (an organism's tendency to go back to its earlier form when provoked) actually works against him. Further, canalization is compatible with teachings of biblical creationists! This illustrates a frequent problem: Whether ignorance or dishonesty, Darwin's disciples do not seem to know what evolution really is. They often call any change or variation evolution, but a critter does not turn into something else.

Before looking at the paper, readers must understand the real issue in Darwinian evolution: it is molecules to man by unguided natural processes. Let’s abbreviate this m2M. It is not about minor variations within an individual, differences between individuals of a species, or even differences within genera or families. Even the most ardent young-earth creationists accept that much variability. Ken Ham, for instance, teaches that today’s animals look quite different from those Noah took on the ark just a few thousand years ago. Creationist presentations commonly show charts of the large differences between dog breeds that all descended from a “dog kind” (something like a wolf) after the Flood. The point is this: if the most ardent creationists accept variation within created kinds, Darwinians must show that their blind processes of selection are capable of generating the entire biosphere. They must account for the major leaps: dogs from pre-dogs, birds from flightless animals, and (at the extreme) molecules to man—m2M. That is the issue. Does Professor Marcucio’s paper show this?

To read the entire article, follow the link to "Evolutionists Show that Nature Fights Evolution."