In its August 2, 2003, edition, Hurriyet Bilim, the weekly supplement to the Turkish daily Hurriyet, carried a report titled ?Fruit Flies Refute Evolution.? The sub-caption to the article read, ?Scientists have made an astonishing discovery and, contrary to the theory of evolution, have observed that a fruit fly is unable to adapt to increasing conditions of drought.?
In its August 2, 2003, edition, Hurriyet Bilim, the weekly supplement to the Turkish daily Hurriyet, carried a report titled “Fruit Flies Refute Evolution.” The sub-caption to the article read, “Scientists have made an astonishing discovery and, contrary to the theory of evolution, have observed that a fruit fly is unable to adapt to increasing conditions of drought.”
The observations in question, the results of which were reported in the journal Science, were carried out by Ary Hoffmann, an Australian scientist. Hoffmann expected that fruit flies would evolve according to changes in climate, whereas he actually saw that no such evolution took place and, in short, encountered a total “lack of evolution.” The flies which had been hoped to exhibit “adaptation” were unable to adapt to drought even after “30 generations.”
Furthermore, this was not the only example of “lack of evolution” observed. Hurriyet Bilim continued:
“Moreover, this was not the only example. Another paper in Science refers to a species of crab which lives on the Pacific coast having great difficulty in adapting to rising sea temperatures. The greatest problem here lies in the fact that the animals live at their heat threshold tolerance and their habit is increasingly contracting.”
In truth, of course, none of this is astonishing at all. Living things encountering a different climate have remained “unadapted” because there is no variation potential in their gene pools which could allow them to exhibit adaptation to such climate, and they have come face to face with the danger of extinction.
In order to find this “astonishing” one first has to believe that every living species literally possesses a magical “evolution” ability to allow it to adapt to changes in nature. This belief, which is devoid of any scientific foundation, is part of the theory of evolution.
Yet nature fails to comply with this belief, for which reason the Hurriyet Bilim writers should accept and interpret the truth demonstrated by these examples of “lack of evolution” in a rational manner, rather than being astonished by them. They will then arrive at the following conclusion: There is no magic force in nature which causes living things to evolve. Living species have no unlimited capacity for change. Species may exhibit variety within the bounds of the gene pool set out at their creation. Yet they cannot develop new organs or new features. There is thus no “process of evolution” in natural history. What there is, are living groups which emerged all of a sudden with all their complex and particular features, which in other words were created.
If Hurriyet Bilim’s writers are to be astonished at anything, then rather than the examples of “lack of evolution” in nature, they should be amazed at the way they still blindly believe in Darwinism despite these and many other proofs to the contrary.
The astonishing thing is the way that Darwinism, a theory which rises up from some rotten foundations, manages to find such fierce support.
