Replies

Caught in the act is indeed the right expression. This is just one more example of the convoluted thinking of evolutionists. What she describes here is a process whereby those lizards with the long-legged gene were best adapted to their new fire-ant environment. They did not “develop” the long-legged gene. It was already part of their genetic information. Those that possessed the long-legged gene survived, multiplied and soon became the dominant population in those areas where fire ants were active. This is something that Darwin described as micro evolution or natural selection and with which no one is in disagreement. Rather than describe this process of natural selection, however, this scientist couches the events in the language of progressive evolution, as though the lizard had evolved the genetic information and sprouted the longer legs out of thin air. Wrong again.

Evolution is achieved through natural selection exactly as you described. Bacteria ‘develop’ resistance to drugs through the same process, by exposure to the drug, some survive to continue the specie with the new ability passed to future generations. It is no different here.

Where I part with evolutionist and where they dread to thread is the Origin of Life. That, I believe is a divine process. Physical substances are organized to contain the divine force: LIFE.

Just MHO on the origin issue.

Caught in the act is indeed the right expression. This is just one more example of the convoluted thinking of evolutionists. What she describes here is a process whereby those lizards with the long-legged gene were best adapted to their new fire-ant environment.

You are describing the theory of evolution precisely. This is an instance of microevolution ... changing characteristics within a species. The article acts like nobody has ever observed this before, but it has been documented several times. What hasn't been observed is macroevolution ... the creation of a new species from an old one.

Caught in the act is indeed the right expression. This is just one more example of the convoluted thinking of evolutionists. What she describes here is a process whereby those lizards with the long-legged gene were best adapted to their new fire-ant environment. They did not “develop” the long-legged gene. It was already part of their genetic information. Those that possessed the long-legged gene survived, multiplied and soon became the dominant population in those areas where fire ants were active. This is something that Darwin described as micro evolution or natural selection and with which no one is in disagreement. Rather than describe this process of natural selection, however, this scientist couches the events in the language of progressive evolution, as though the lizard had evolved the genetic information and sprouted the longer legs out of thin air. Wrong again.

No new genetic information, NO EVOLUTION. The standards for evolution are almost as low as those for global warming.

This is something that Darwin described as micro evolution

Can you give any evidence that Darwin ever described anything as micro evolution? Otherwise, I think you're just making it up.