The Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technique) magazine published in its April 2003 issue an article titled "Life in the Old Ponds Highlight Origin of Species." It was based on an article published by the American Science magazine on the 31st of January 2003 in which, the habitat of Lake Baikal (Asia) and Lake Victoria (Africa) with its variety life forms was misconstrued and claimed that the life forms in the lakes were in a process of ongoing diversification and supposed evolution.
But these claims are invalid. The diversity described by the Science magazine is not evolution. In an interesting sort of way, instead of acknowledging the findings of genetics disproving evolution, the magazine chooses to misconstrue them for its own purposes. In this article, we will expose Science misreading the facts.
The article deals with the Lake Baikal, the largest fresh water lake on the planet in general and with the amphipods in particular. The lake is home to 350 types of amphipods, a species of shellfish growing to a size of between 2 and 80mm. The Science and also Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technique) magazine asserts that the geological conditions at the bottom of the lake are responsible for the huge diversity of the species and also, that they are an important factor in the evolution of new species. It says:
…. The composition of Lake Baikal effects the evolution of species, we observe. For instance, the six closely related subspecies of the amphipod species Plesiogammarus" choice of living environment diverges considerably from one another. The big-eyed P.zienkowiczii with its long antennae lives on the rocky grounds of freshly formed depressions. The small-eyed P.Brevis, with its short antennae, on the other hand hides in burrows it digs into gravely depressions. I have to mention here also that the two species have a cousin with medium sized antennas and eyes. An animal species in the process of adapting to an environment type can even lose the ability to interbreed with its cousins living in a different habitat nearby.
Following the claim that the different species in Lake Baikal evolved according to ecological specialization, the Science magazine moves on to discuss the research projects investigating the evolution of the Cichlid fish living in the Tanganyika, Malawi and Victoria lakes of Africa. However, despite discussing the subject of evolution, no scientific evidence is offered, instead, a lot of speculation is delivered. There are 1400 sub-species of a diverse range of appearance of the Cichlid fish living in these lakes, many of which, it is claimed, have evolved in the recent past, but instead of explaining how this evolution could have happened, the researchers speak of their efforts to locate the fast changing areas of the DNA and by-pass thus the need to provide evidence for evolution with wishful thinking. No explanation is given for the newly coined term "fast changing DNA areas" either. The Bilim Teknik (Science and Technique) magazine, in this article titled "Life in the Old Ponds Highlight Origin of Species" does not provide any scientific data as to which evolutionary mechanisms created the amphipods or the cichlid fish; it does not bring light into the so-called evolution of these species. It only applies the Darwinist dogma to the fish in the lakes and throws around freely with illusionary terms like adaptation, formation of species, evolution, and "fast changing DNA areas." Among these evolutionary expressions, there is no explanation to be found for the diversity of the life forms in these lakes and the relationship between them, not even within the general framework of evolution, though the Darwinist dogma is imposed.
The Truth Behind The Propaganda
The basics of the evolution propaganda consist of "speciation" and the accompanying adaptation ability. In the Science magazine, it is asserted that the different ground composition at the bottom of the lake plays a role in the diversity of the amphipods or that it even creates the different species. But for the amphipods to adapt by diversification to the ground composition at the lake bottom does not constitute "evolution," because this diversification or change (in the eyes and antennae) does not aid the theory of evolution"s "species gradually evolve from the more simple to the more complex" thesis in any way. If we consider that in the theory of evolution, the complex life forms evolved accidentally from the imaginary, simple single cell organisms, then, throughout the imaginary evolution processes of the living beings, there must have been continuously genetic data added to their DNA, which would be observable in the diversification claims of the amphipods" sub-species. But there is not the slightest increase in the genetic data in the diversification of the amphipods.
The changes to the eyes and antennae of the amphipods did not change the genetic data potential of the species. Long or short antennas as well as big or small eyes are not characteristics developing because of new genetic data added to the amphipods DNA, but are already present in the DNA anyway. The diversity in the appearance of the amphipods is not because they are new species but because they are variations created by breeding within the "gene pool." The resulting variations (as is between the Great Dane and the Pekinese), no matter how different the appearance, are always considered to be within the same species.
Great Dane ve Pekinese
Pekinese Great Dane
For instance, the pitbul breed of dog is a species created by "selective breeding" in the recent past. The fact that no dog of this appearance existed before does not show that the pitbul was produced by evolution. Those who breed dogs with the view of developing new breeds, pair the dogs each time to create different genetic data by which they then develop new breeds. The genetic data of the pitbul, along with all the other breeds" are to be found within the gene pool of the Canis familiaris, in other words, in the dog. In the diversification of the amphipods, instead of selective breeding, the ground composition at the bottom of the lake fulfills the role of selecting. The rock conditions play a restricting role over the suitability of eye size and antennae length, thereby "selecting" a type of amphipod with a certain eye and antennae structure for survival and enable it to feed and protect itself. Amphipods migrating at the bottom of the lake go through this process wherever they come across a new type of rock composition and this is how amphipods are formed which have "adapted" themselves to the rock.
But no amphipod, which has adapted to the environment turns into another species, for instance a lobster, because species are separated from one another by genetic barriers and variations never constitute a new species. This is acknowledged to be so by every scientist, whether they are of an evolutionist disposition or not and voice this reality on occasions. For example, the author of Darwin Retried, Norman Macbeth says in this respect:
The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an unlimited extent... The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point only to see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. Despite strenuous efforts for two or three centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue rose or a black tulip. (1)
The Biologist, Edward Deevey explains that variations occur always within certain genetic limitation:
Remarkable things have been done by cross-breeding ... but wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. We can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs." A more contemporary example is the average increase in male height that has occurred the past century. Through better health care (and perhaps also some sexual selection, as some women prefer taller men as mates) males have reached a record adult height during the last century, but the increase is rapidly disappearing, indicating that we have reached our limit. (2)
Interbreeding Between New Variations Does Not Show That They Are New Species Merited By Evolution
The Science magazine, on the subject of the diversity of amphipods, says that an animal species adapting to an environment can even lose its ability to mate with its cousins in a nearby living environment and this then is presented as if it forms the basis for the development of a new kind. In truth though, the reality of a new variety not showing the tendency to mate with an old variety does not make them a new kind. For instance, the Great Dane and the Pekinese, pictured above, tend to mate with dogs of a similar constitution but nevertheless they both are dogs. On the other hand, it is possible for different species to mate, for instance horse and donkey or wolf and dog. The claim that mating tendencies form a dividing wall between species is to do with prejudices. The new amphipod varieties did not acquire any new genetic characteristics, which would prevent them from mating with the old. Under laboratory conditions, they mate easily and produce healthy offspring.
It is obvious that the ability of the amphipods to adapt to the environmental conditions and the accompanying changes in their appearance are been misconstrued as new kinds for the purpose of giving the theory of evolution a footing. We come across misrepresentations of this nature almost every day in which similar adaptation examples of animals from different parts of the earth are being reported, whereby the "evolution works" propaganda is made. In none of the animals in these examples are there any new genetic characteristics but claims of new species having evolved make headlines. The purpose of the wholly fraudulent "evolution works" propaganda is clear: to create the impression or maybe the illusion in the masses of evolution being a process functional on a wider spectrum.
For example, we are expected to believe tales of whales evolving from dogs, which adapted to living in the sea or, that birds evolved from reptiles, which learned to fly by jumping from tree to tree. In truth, it is only possible for an animal to adapt to an environment if the required characteristics for this ability are present in the creature"s DNA. The adaptation of an amphipod by which it develops shorter antennae is only possible with the present data in its DNA. But no dog has the genetic data of a whale and no reptile the data of a bird"s…
It is obvious that the claim of the amphipods and Cichlid "evolution" does not provide the evolution theory with scientific evidence. If the Science as well as Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technique) magazine wants to support the claim that beings evolved from the simple towards the complex, or in other words, that the imaginary first single cell organism evolved into magnolias, eagles, elephants, man and dinosaurs as claimed by the evolution theory, it must deliver evidence of coincidental mutations adding to the DNA of life forms thus creating new abilities. It must also show examples of the signs of these great changes in the fossil records. But every effort in this respect on behalf of the magazine will be a waist of time:
When effective, random mutations are always damaging on the organism and never minds turning them into more complex life forms, leaves them either disabled or even kills them. Researching the fossil record hoping to find there, even if it is a slim possibility, a life form evolved by coincidental mutation, is no good either. The science of paleontology shows that all living beings appear of a sudden in the fossil record and preserve their form for hundreds of millions of years without change.
The claims put forward by the Science magazine show the desperation of the evolutionists lacking scientific evidence. The magazine cannot find what it hopes to in the findings of science, so it resorts to making small changes in variations the subject of its propaganda and tries to make believe the masses that the millions of different life forms existing today are the product of evolution.
(1) Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, New York: 1971, p. 33.
(2) Edward S., Jr. 1967, The Reply: Letter from Birnam Wood, Yale Revie,. 61:631-640.