Flip-side News: Scientist Highlights a Problem with Evolution While Doubling Down [Science Myths]

L.A., CALIFORNIA. Most of us have heard of the merging branch theory of evolution that fails to sufficiently hide the fact that evolution should be able to be consistently traced in an unbroken succession to previous forms. Evolutionists try to hide it because they have never found evidence for it in even a single animal species.

The "tangled branches" model is a modified version of Ernst Haeckel's "tree of life", or "evolutionary tree". The latter version takes Darwin's theory, modeled as a tree, and tangles the branches, supposedly making it impossible to trace how the branch relates to the trunk. This represents that groups that split off often remerge, so that it is difficult to trace the lineage. This is known as "reticulate evolution", meaning that the evolution spreads out in an interwoven network.

Of course, the difficulty that evolutionists ran into with this analogy is that no matter how tangled up the branches are, you can still trace them back to the trunk. The logic thus falls apart on evolutionists every time creationists, or adaptation creationists, confront them with this logic hole.

Like a Python Skin

But now, in an article at Aeon, Juli Berwald, an ocean botanist and educator at USC, instead of abandoning this fallacious route of explanation, has doubled down on the merging lines aspect by abandoning the tree illustration altogether and replacing it with another. With the first illustration, she says: "The tree of life doesn’t look like a tree so much as the reticulated pattern of a python’s skin." To explain it, after she describes the hybridizing of corals, she says, "Roving genes have been found in every branch of the tree of life where geneticists have looked."

Do you see the problem? If genetics is so well blended among all species, it should be even easier to find connecting forms randomly selected out of this vast treasure trove of blending, called "introgression" or "admixture". Even though there are many differences, their commonalities would stand out even more.

The Problem Visualized

She then showed an image of this "introgression" among one kind of fish. Completely opposite to being unable to trace back to a common ancestor, it traces back to a fish, not some early intermediate form, but a fish with all the same essential traits. Yes, they blend along the way, but the two original ancestral lines were able to be identified. All the differences can be attributed to preprogrammed adaptation and every single member of this introgressive mesh is a fish. But not only a fish, but following a very specific body plan. Though the list terminates with two hypothetical breeds at the beginning (Read: dead end, or rather, the first creation of the species).

Likewise, The article spoke of a man's confusion over trying to clearly identify corals. The problem is that there are no intermediary forms between corals and any other species. No untraceable blending between species, just corals whose adaptations are built into their DNA.

Just Another Evolution Dud

Though offering reticulating evolution as a solution and illustrating it in the scales of a snake, Ms. Berwald highlights its weaknesses through gene security in hybridization causing great difficulties in adaptations taking hold. Her collegue, Misha Matz, concurred, saying, 'Maybe hybridisation would mix things together. Or maybe not,'

Though the article is labeled "The Web of Life", it never mentions a web illustration. That would be easily torn apart. A spider's web is made up of radiating strings from the center held together by a single thread in a spiral pattern. The webs never merge and every single string is traceable to the center. Besides this, each one has a different starting and ending point and all are separate strings.

Thus an evolutionist has taken themself out of the frying pan and jumped straight into the fire in hopes that we would not notice that not only has the original problem remained, but now they have compounded the difficulty for themselves. It has become as flemsy as a python's discarded scales, but without its flexibility.

So what she identified was not proof of evolution, but another roadblock to proving evolution. Yet this otherwise very intelligent scientist treats it as if affirming her faith in evolution and being one step closer to properly explaining it, though having taken two steps back. Evolutionists like Ms. Berwald are so bent upon their faith that they refuse to recognize clear evidence of God's hand.