Multiplying EntitiesResearch out of Australia not only elucidated these tactics but demonstrated that they work, increasing the survival rate of the young fish by an amazing five-fold. And while the researchers had to admit that all of this was “an amazing feat of cunning for a tiny fish,” they nonetheless ignored Occam’s advice and multiplied entities when they added nothing to the science by ascribing it all to random chance (No natural selection does not induce the good mutations to occur, it merely kills off the bad ones—every mutation leading up to the damsel and its “amazing” capabilities must be random with respect to need. Selection doesn’t magically make fantastic designs appear.):
It all goes to show that even a very young, tiny fish a few millimetres long have evolved quite a range of clever strategies for survival which they can deploy when a threatening situation demands.
It all goes to show? In fact, to be a bit more precise, none of it shows the damsel evolved. That’s right, even though the evolutionists claim that “it all goes to show” that the clever strategies evolved, from an empirical science perspective, none of the evidence shows any such thing.
All versus none—that’s quite a gap between evolutionary thought and science. As usual evolution is the contra indicator. It abuses science, turning it upside down to support its preconceived, mandated result.