Evolution and Flightless Insects

Darwin's votaries keep their vows to promote evolution, and to "see" it when nothing is happening. Evolution is so flexible, so malleable, it explains anything — therefore, nothing. The acquisition of flight is a problem for evolutionists, then they evosplain the loss of flight as evidence for it.

Carrion (my wayward son) beetle image credit: Flickr / Pavel Kirillov (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Back in 2012, researchers published a "Hail Darwin! Blessed be!" paper that disregarded logic and used circular reasoning (assuming evolution to prove evolution). Then things got...truly bizarre. Scientifically, at least. Loss of flight is a good decision (careful with that reification axe, Eugene; evolution is not an entity) for some insects.

Some flying insects get blown out to sea by high winds, but those that couldn't fly thrived and reproduced. They were examples of real natural selection — while still remaining beetles. Well, I reckon that the "tree lobster" would have chosen to have flight so it wouldn't have gone almost all extinct-like because it became rat chow. Try as they might, evolutionists cannot overturn the truth of creation through obfuscation and machinations.

Evolutionary researchers recently [2012] published a paper in Nature Communications which is an archetypal example of what we’ve been saying for years.

. . . key elements are there in their paper: the grandiose presumption that evolution brought everything into existence, the specific highlighting of one evident design feature as something that evolution has produced, followed by the bait-and-switch to mutational degradation or shifting allele frequency and/or reproductive isolation as being evidence of ‘evolution’ (which it most definitely is not, in the sense of being support for the idea that microbes turned into man, over millions of years).

You can read the full article and watch how evolutionists can get mighty sneaky by clicking on "Researchers: Evolution of insect flight? Let’s look at flightlessness instead".