Evolutionists’ despair and state of panic in the face of living fossil exhibitions continues unabated. The latest indication of this came with an evolutionist distortion announced under the headline “Four-legged dolphin found” in the pages of the Turkish daily Bugün on 6 November, 2006.
Uneasy at the public display of large numbers of fossils belonging to various plant, fish, insect and bird species that clearly reveal the invalidity of the theory of evolution, evolutionists remained silent when called on to display, if they have one, a single fossil to prove their intermediate form claim in the main square of any city they choose. Turkish evolutionists, the scientific invalidity of whose claims regarding intermediate forms and whose hesitations when it comes to pointing to any supporting evidence are both becoming plainer with every passing day, have begun trying to cover up this state of affairs by distracting people’s attention from the fossil record with all kinds of sleight of hand.
In its report, daily Bugün described the capture of a dolphin by Japanese fishermen. The dolphin in question had an extra pair of fins on the rear part of its body. Daily Bugün distorted this state of affairs, which in any case represents no evidence for evolution, and claimed that “the thesis that dolphins had previously been four-legged terrestrial animals has been proven.”
“The four-legged dolphin” myth
It needs to be made clear at the very outset that the concept of “leg” here is as ridiculous as it is groundless. As can be seen from the picture accompanying the report, the anatomy of these is completely that of a fin. References to “four-legged dolphins” are therefore as nonsensical and unrealistic as referring to “four-wheeled ships.”
What is more, no examination of this extra pair of fins using scientific methods and materials has been performed. That being the case, declaring them to be “legs” or “the remains of what had once been legs” can only be the product of a sensationalist and biased conception of journalism that is far removed from being in the slightest scientific.
Why does an extra pair of fins not support the theory of evolution?
The answer to that question is perfectly clear: The extra pair of fins cannot be regarded as an evolutionary structure. The necessary genetic information for the building of the dolphin’s fins, the architecture of the tissues that comprise it, already exists in its DNA. We are therefore dealing with extra copying of already existing structures, not with an evolutionary development. In the same way that a copy of this article you are reading will not contain any additional information to the original, so the dolphin’s extra fins contain no new genetic information and cannot be regarded as evidence that can be proposed in favor of the theory of evolution.
There is also a matter of contradiction in terms of the evolutionist prejudice in this claim. As we know, mutations may lead to the emergence of six fingers rather than five in human beings, or to four wings instead of two in flies. As with the dolphin, what we are looking at here is the construction of an extra bodily organ. As a result, evolutionists should have maintained that human beings had evolved from a six-fingered forebear or that flies had evolved from a four-winged ancestor. However, although they make no such claims with regard to human beings or flies, they now maintain that the dolphin evolved from four-legged ancestors. What they are doing here is to “filter” developmental abnormalities that have nothing to do with evolution through their own preconceptions and adapt them to their own fantasies. This is not science, of course, but dogmatism.
It is suggested in daily Bugün that the dolphin’s fins prove that these animals evolved from land-dwelling ones. This is an entirely unrealistic interpretation. It must at once be made clear that the hypothesis that dolphins evolved from terrestrial mammals that subsequently moved to the sea is one that faces insuperable obstacles.
Dolphins possess flawless and unique systems not found in the land mammals that are alleged to be their ancestors. (For details, see http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_18.html and http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_19.html) It is obvious that such complex systems cannot emerge by way of the unconscious mechanisms (natural selection and mutation) of the theory of evolution that are known to be unable to account for the formation of even a single protein. This claim, supported out of a blind devotion to the theory of evolution, consists of mere fantasy. (You can obtain further information about the invalidity of the mechanisms in question here, and about the invalidity of claims regarding the evolutionary origins of marine mammals, including dolphins, here.)
This report of daily Bugün’s is solely the product of evolutionist preconceptions and contains not a speck of evidence that can be regarded as supporting the theory of evolution. Defeated in the fossil record and unable to display even one single intermediate form fossil when challenged to do so, evolutionists are still looking for evidence to back up the theory. We would once again remind them that this is a pointless exercise, and call on daily Bugün to put an end to this unscientific propaganda.2006-11-06 00:00:00