Nature is highly complex with specified information in living organisms. So how do evolutionary scientists go about and showing the public how parts evolved? Take one of the more recent studies about the difference between the chewing of fish and mammals. Science Daily promises the readers this…“New research from Brown University shows chewing has evolved too.” Wow, sounds like they are going to demonstrate in real-time this remarkable feat? No, not quite! So let’s take a look at the evidence that was offered up from such a profound statement.
1) “Lungfish, which is believed to represent an early stage in the transition of some species from exclusively water- to land-dwelling.”
2) “Next came the task of figuring out where, when and with what species the divergence in chewing emerged. The thinking is that the transition likely occurred among amphibians.”
3) “The evolutionary divergence is believed to have occurred with amphibians…”
4) “The difference in chewing shows that animals have changed the way they chew and digest their food and that evolution must have played a role.”
How many times does one read about the promises of break through research about evolution and it falls flat? This is a typical example of gaps that get filled with assumptions! It’s not the fact one can answer, it is what you answer it with. Did commentary on how they believed or invoking evolution that it must have played a role in its creation enlighten anything about nature? Was this hard evidence of showing that chewing evolved as promised by Science Daily? Absolutely not!
This is once again, circular reasoning based on blind faith! A story that is assumed to be true with nothing more than human imagination. The real science conducted here was discovering how fish and mammals chew in different ways which is the actual observation.