Thursday’s editorial entitle “Devolution” is just another of the Post’s many instances of writing about something they know little about. Evolution as defined by the article, small changes over long periods of time, is totally uncontroversial. Everyone believes that, even creationists. Look at all the changes an infant goes through while attaining adulthood. What is controversial is that creationists say that there is a limit to change. The infant will never grow into something other than the mature form of its species.

These “significant biological changes” the article refers to, Tasmanian Devils reaching reproductive age earlier than usual, is nothing more than adaptation within a species. The anti-evolution crowd does not have any problem with this. From start to finish, it’s still a Tasmanian Devil, no macroevolutionary change of morphological body patterns. All recent “proofs” of evolution have been nothing but adaptation or variation changes within a species. From start to finish, eye migration of the flounder, color changes of the peppered moth, bacterial resistance, all are within a species, no new information is created.

Evolutionists are so hard up to find legitimate evidence for evolution that they have to fall back on these adaptive or variational changes to help bolster their theory. Again, macroevolution occurred in the past. We observe it after the fact. Its not empirical, but forensic. All the evidence we gather is circumstantial and can not be directly tested, and so must be interpreted. There are more ways than one to interpret the evidence.

John Chaikowsky 

Godfrey