It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I thought it might be interesting over the next few weeks to examine the evidence from the above mentioned National Geographic article. I would like to start with one that seems to impress Kondracke and is often referred to as "evolution right before our eyes". It involves the well-known ability of microbes to become immune to our antibiotics and insects to become immune to pesticides. Influenza viruses are known to undergo changes that require us to develop new flu vaccines each year, and plants can become immune to herbicides. Just what is really known about this ability? What does real observational science show?
First of all it has never been observed that a flu virus, microbe, insect, or plant has ever changed into a different life form. Vaccine resistant flu viruses are still flu viruses, pesticide resistant houseflies are still houseflies, antibiotic resistant streptococcus bacteria are still streptococcus bacteria. What actually happens, according to evolutionist Francisco Ayala, is that "Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."
Research shows the same conclusion with respect to antibiotic resistance. In 1990 scientists at the University of Alberta revived bacteria from the bodies of members of the ill-fated Franklin expedition to the Artic nearly 165 years ago. Of the six strains revived, three of them had resistance to the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin. Thus it appears that the genetic variants are already present. No new genetic information is needed.
Current believers in creationism, masquerading in its barely disguised incarnation, "intelligent design," argue similarly, claiming that only a designer could generate such complex, perfect wonders. But the living world is shot through with imperfection. Unless one wants to attribute either incompetence or sheer malevolence to such a designer, this imperfection points incontrovertibly to a natural, rather than a divine, process, one in which living things evolved.
Consider the human body. Ask yourself, if you were designing the optimum exit for a fetus, would you engineer a route that passes through the narrow confines of the pelvic bones? Childbirth is not only painful in our species but downright dangerous and sometimes lethal, owing to a baby's head being too large for the mother's birth canal.
Anyone glancing at a skeleton can see immediately that there is plenty of room for even the most stubbornly large-brained, misoriented fetus to be easily delivered anywhere in that vast, non-bony region below the ribs. (In fact, this is precisely the route obstetricians follow when performing a Caesarean section.)
Why would evolution neglect the simple, straightforward solution? Because human beings are four-legged mammals by history. Our ancestors carried their spines parallel to the ground; it was only with our evolved upright posture that the pelvic girdle had to be rotated (and thereby narrowed), making a tight fit out of what for other mammals is nearly always an easy passage.