In the evolutionary world, scientists cry out, “Evolution doesn’t work that way!” Biologists for years have been very interested in learning how naturalism grows the body grows to certain sizes. Kaustuv Roy commented on the conflict of scientific observations with conflicting models in evolution. He writes;
Models of body size evolution need to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory observations–a general tendency of size to increase over evolutionary time, yet the overall size frequency distribution staying biased toward small-bodied species.” Science
Let’s quickly go through the models the author is talking about…
1) Cope’s Rule states that animals are suppose grow larger while the smaller animals disappear from the face of the earth.
2) Bergmann’s Rule says that animals generally grow larger in colder climates than warmer climates. But this is also refuted by the author himself, Kaustuv Roy who states;
“Translating these “rules” into predictions about trajectories of size evolution is not straightforward. If bigger really is better, then we should have a world full of giants, yet most species are small.”
“Clearly there are costs to getting bigger, which prevent a runaway Cope’s rule. Such costs involve complex interactions among a multitude of factors including development time, population size, and patterns of resource use…
In addition, the temperature-size rule suggests that the external environment, which changes in a complex and nonlinear manner over geologic time, is also important in driving size evolution. So, not surprisingly, simple process-based models of size evolution (such as one based on energetics) have not been widely accepted.”
So evolution doesn’t work that way while we see in nature that it does! Then questions remain, what natural law does work without having exceptions, and counter-claims? Is this their best evidence? Saying it can happen by just luck isn’t science. Evolutionary scientists struggle all the time with conflicting data which is not matching up with traditional observational science.
Yet, evolutionists will snub their nose at creationism or intelligent design claiming it doesn’t have any observational models. Their quest in which I agree, is highly complex as it attempts to reconcile conflicting evolutionary models. But in the end it leads to a dead end with more questions than answers.