Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Evidence for Evolution Can Be Illogical
Colossians 2:3
In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
In a previous Creation Moments broadcast, we looked at why chimps and humans have similar features, and showed that it is because they have a common designer. Evolutionists use the similarities...

Peppered Moths Change to Pygmy Grasshoppers!

"Evolution More Rapid Than Darwin Thought" was the headline that accompanied a story this week on the evolutionary website ScienceDaily. According to the story, "It has been the accepted view among evolutionary biologists since Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859 that measurable evolutionary changes occur slowly, often taking hundreds of generations. This view may now be about to change."

And why is it about to change? Because Magnus Karlsson, a doctoral candidate at Linnaeus University in Kalmar, Sweden, wrote in his dissertation that the color patterns of pygmy grasshoppers can change very rapidly. He observed that these grasshoppers - which exist in many different colors - are predominantly black in recently burnt-over areas, where birds aren't able to see them and have them for lunch.

What Creation Moments wants to know is this: Why is this "news" and what does it "prove" about evolution? Had doctor-to-be Karlsson discovered a grasshopper that had changed into a salamander or a beetle, now that would have been news! But just because there are more black grasshoppers in burnt-out areas proves only one thing - that evolutionists are still fond of using the ancient and discredited peppered-moths story that still contaminates many school textbooks today.

Creation Moments challenges ScienceDaily and doctor-to-be Karlsson to show us one undeniable case that proves macro-evolution to be true. Just one, that's all we ask! And it's what we've been waiting for ever since Creation Moments opened our doors 47 years ago.


You'll find that it's very common for evolutionists to point to differences — even minor ones — among members of a species as evidence that species change into entirely different ones over time (or sometimes quickly, if that suits their argument).

Differences among members of the species prove nothing except that the Lord has created all beings to be individuals. Is a human with a long nose a different species from one with a short nose? Of course not. Neither is a dark-colored grasshopper anything but a grasshopper.

Mutations are often cited as the impetus for speciation, but we never see that happen, either. For example, there is albinism in humans. That's not the makings of another species, but evidence that genetic mutations are a detriment rather than an advantage.

The peppered moths story lives on! Why is it so impossible for people to understand that a moth of a different color is still a moth? Just as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name smells as sweet, and creatures of different varieties remain each within their own kind, just as the Bible stipulates.

Would a parent say that a redheaded child is of a different species than a blonde one? Of course not. I know a family that has a child with shades of hair color all completely different from one another, and yet they all look like their parents.

Likewise, no matter how we differ, we are all still children of God, made in his image.

Nothing you observe in the real world goes against what is taught in the Bible, and yet evolutionists make up the most incredible stories and call them science. They aren't the ones being scientific!

I saw a video by Kent Hovind in which he described an evolutionist's reaction to seeing human footprints present in the same sedimentary layer as dinosaur tracks. The evolutionists refused to even look at them and then said, "I have seen nothing here to disprove evolution."

Evolutionists, rather than admit the obvious fact that dinosaurs were here with man, literally look away from the evidence staring them in the face. Their whole theory is based on unscientific propaganda that crumbles in the face of reality.

First, Kent Hovind is hardly a credible source, as he has made many sensational but unfounded claims that are rejected even by most creationists. Among them are the Paluxy 'man tracks" which no major creation group still supports. As far as I know, I don't know any rigorous work that Hovind had done in the Paluxy (where I myself have worked extensively). Your comment does not even make sense, as you say "upon seeing.." and then say "the evolutionistrefused to even look at" the tracks (which is it?), and that he said he had never seen... implying that he had already examined the evidence. If you are suggesting that there are clear or even likely human tracks at the Paluxy, they why does no major creationist group support and document that? For more info on the Paluxy man track controversy, please see: <a href="http://paleo/cc/paluxy.htm" title="http://paleo/cc/paluxy.htm">http://paleo/cc/paluxy.htm</a> Last, fossil tracks and trace fossils are extremely pervasive throughout the fossil record, conform to patterns of body fossils, and are thoroughly incompatible with YECism, as explained further at:
<a href="" title=""></a>
By the way, Hovind is also still serving jail time for tax evasion (even the Bible says we should pay our taxes).

I also have watched animals change color when changing environments. I just watched a show on octopi changing color in mere moments! Does that mean that evolution occurred then? No! The animal was designed by GOD to change its coloration as a protection from predators. It's not from survival of the fittest, nor from evolution! It's from the genes that changes occur! Macro changes can not occur! Micro changes are occurring in all species here on the Earth, and sorry, this is not proof of evolution, its proof of diversity! Only GOD has the key to the gene! Through creation from nothing!

I laughed from his statement that evolution was occurring quicker than Darwin assumed. Just because they changed their color? I wonder, did Magnus Karlsson get his degree for this statement? If he did, just how much is his Ph.D. really worth?

You've got to understand, Bart, that evolutionists have no evidence for their theory, none at all. So they rely on things that are completely unrelated to the theory to back it up. For example, they use the fact that moths come in different colors to support the theory that all life came about by random chance and moths can change into something other than moths. This is preposterous. Not only is it a non sequitur, but it doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that because people have different skin pigmentation, they are not all the same species.

Yes, let's see grasshoppers change into salamanders. I'll settle for a beetle. Or even a transitional one that's half beetle and half grasshopper. That ought to be easy enough! After all, it's happened millions of times, in millions of different ways, over millions of years. All we need is one. Let's see it.