Evolutionary Distortions From CBT

The Turkish magazine Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik (Cumhuriyet Science and Technology) carried a report titled ?The 10 Most Important Scientific Events? in its 7 January, 2006, edition. The article listed the advances described as the most important scientific developments of the year by the American magazine Science. The CBT sub-caption read ?Important findings have been obtained regarding the way that populations diverge in order to establish new species,? and the section regarding the theory of evolution appeared under the heading ?Evolutionary mechanism discovered.?

The Turkish magazine Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik (Cumhuriyet Science and Technology) carried a report titled “The 10 Most Important Scientific Events” in its 7 January, 2006, edition. The article listed the advances described as the most important scientific developments of the year by the American magazine Science. The CBT sub-caption read “Important findings have been obtained regarding the way that populations diverge in order to establish new species,” and the section regarding the theory of evolution appeared under the heading “Evolutionary mechanism discovered.”

These statements by CBT are completely unrealistic. When one examines the text under the heading one sees that no concrete facts are provided at all, and that the claim made in it is utterly groundless.

The report is a good indication of the hopeless situation in which evolutionists find themselves. Because CBT suggests that genome data show molecular changes in living things, which is an attempt to bring in this entirely dogmatic belief instead of evidence. It is clear that genome data can only document generic similarities and differences among living things. The claim  that these are “evolutionary changes” is an interpretation added to the data in the light of evolutionists’ preconceptions. There is no evidence as to how these might have evolved from one another. In any case, it is mathematically impossible for a single gene serving a purpose in a living thing to change into a different gene. Evolutionists are trying to portray their own evaluations based on no evidence whatsoever as the year’s most important developments concerning evolution!

CBT displayed the same dogmatic attitude under the heading “How did species diverge?” That section contained the following passage:

“In addition, 2005 was a year when a number of unknown issues regarding how new species emerge were resolved. New species emerge when a population belonging to an already existing species begins adapting to different conditions and reproduction between them comes to an end. It is normal to see this phenomenon on two separate shores of an ocean, or in regions divided by mountains. Sometimes, however, single, contiguous populations divide in two. According to the theory of evolution, this division begins with some members of the population no longer mating with others. However, there is little experimental evidence on this subject. This year scientists working in the field registered examples in connection with this process.”

The impression these words in CBT give is that evolutionists possess important information regarding speciation, and that only a few minor points remain shrouded in darkness. Yet evolutionists actually possess no information on the subject whatsoever. For example, evolutionists made the following confession back in 2003, in New Scientist:

 Not long ago, we thought we knew how species formed. It often occurred after a population had gone through a severe "genetic bottleneck", as might happen after a pregnant female was swept off to a remote island and her offspring mated with each other. The beauty of this so-called model, the ‘founder effect,’ is that it could be tested in the laboratory. In fact, however, it failed. Despite all the best efforts of evolutionary biologists, nobody even came close to creating a new species from a founding population. Moreover, he continues, so far as we know, no new species has ever formed from a few organisms being deposited into alien environments by man. (George Turner, "How Are New Species Formed?", New Scientist, June 14, 2003, p. 36)

The CBT article consists of deceptive fairy tales written with the despairing intention of the despairing position in which evolutionists find themselves. Let us consider the following sentence in the CBT text more carefully:

“New species emerge when a population belonging to an already existing species begins adapting to different conditions and reproduction between them comes to an end.”

On close inspection evolutionists are trying to give the impression as if the  cessation of reproductive behavior leads to forming of  new species. But this is completely misleading. Failure to reproduce contributes nothing to the claim, according to the theory of evolution, that one living thing can turn into another. There is no evidence to demonstrate such evolution. Indeed, there is nothing more than speculation on the subject in CBT, and no scientific evidence is put forward. For example, the dog breeds shown below do not mate with one another. Yet this does not, of course, alter the fact that they are both dogs and have not evolved into other animals.

A Pekinese and a Great Dane

The CBT text goes no further than being a reiteration of familiar evolutionist demagoguery. CBT distorts the issue and misleads its readers by publishing such captions as “How did species diverge?” and “Evolutionary mechanism discovered.” We call on the magazine management to put an end to this behavior.