For years scientists have observed that organisms intelligently respond to environmental threats and challenges. The usual examples, such as altitude acclimatization, are biological adjustments not observed to be passed on to offspring. But there are also plenty of examples that are passed on to the next generation. It is yet another falsification of a fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory which, in this case, holds that biological change is random with respect to need and helpful changes persist only via natural selection.
The latest paper deals with flax plants which, when grown under stressful conditions, modify their genome. The genomic changes help the plant to thrive under the new conditions, and the changes are passed on to the progeny.
The flax plant’s genomic changes are not just a lucky strike—the same precise additions, in the same precise location, occur when the experiment is repeated. For the changes are “the result of a targeted, highly specific, complex insertion event.” Sounds just like evolution doesn’t it.
Remember evolution is that clever idea that everything happened for no particular reason. Biology, and everything else for that matter, is a fluke. All biological variation arose from random events such as mutations. Yes all biological variation. With evolution there are no intelligent biological variations—no design, no teleology, no final causes. Just random events. Somehow this world arose on its own. Everything around us just happened to happen. As one paper explained:
Mutation is the central player in the Darwinian theory of evolution – it is the ultimate source of heritable variation, providing the necessary raw material for natural selection. In general, mutation is assumed to create heritable variation that is random and undirected.
What would we do without evolutionists?
Targeted, highly specific, complex insertion events that directly and instantly respond to environmental shifts is not exactly what today’s Epicureans had in mind. But that is not all. For the flax plant’s thousands of new DNA nucleotides are just that, new. At the very least evolutionists needed the DNA additions merely to be rearrangements of existing segments. That would still leave much unexplained, but as it is biology does not even leave evolution with that consolation. The plant creates a new DNA segment, as needed. As one evolutionist admitted:
the evidence for some kind of massive programmed rearrangement upon environmental induction in flax is unequivocal. Inheritance of acquired changes has been an anathema to evolutionary biologists ever since Darwin’s time, but that is because claims of Larmarckian inheritance were never accompanied by plausible mechanisms. However, in the case of flax at least, we may not be far from meeting this requirement.
Plausible mechanisms? You’ve got to be kidding. It is always humorous to hear evolutionists insist on “plausible mechanisms.” Trust me, the lack of mechanism is not why evolutionists vehemently oppose Larmarckian inheritance. If they required plausible mechanisms then by definition they wouldn’t be evolutionists.
Swift and precise adaptation to environmental shifts, such as observed in flax, is not evolution. Instead of evolution’s long, slow arduous process of random mutations that eventually, somehow against all odds, happen to find a helpful change, what biology reveals is instantaneous adjustment. Like shifting gears when you encounter a hill, biology adjusts designs in real-time. You can read more examples of such epigenetic change here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
As is typical evolutionists have resisted the science. As one report explains, due to the controversy surrounding the flax plant adaptability findings, “many scientists are hesitant to accept them as true.” Hesitant to accept scientific findings?
According to a paper, “The role of the environment in generating adaptive mutations is still a contentious subject.” For as one evolutionist admitted, “The really heretical thing to say is that the environment could be pushing the epigenetic information in a direction that is beneficial … that raises the hackles.” Evolutionists are at war with science.
The real Warfare Thesis
Ironically, while evolutionists have constructed a Warfare Thesis (which historians have explained is contrived) in an attempt to enlist the history of religion and science, these evolutionists actively engage in their own religious war against science. Once again, evolution is, if anything, hypocritical.
Darwin’s religiously-motivated theory was scientifically unlikely when he first proposed it, and since then it has become even worse. Evolution has repeatedly been contradicted by science. This has left evolutionists battling science every step of the way. Scientific results cause controversy and “raise the hackles,” because they refute the evolutionist’s religious mandates. And so evolutionist’s make a mockery of science as they invert findings to support their ridiculous dogma. Religion drives science, and it matters.