An expert in “frog evolution” has demonstrated that frogs in different continents “evolved” the same sorts of characteristics. Now just ask yourself: what are the odds that “evolution,” which works via random processes, would “evolve” the same kinds of characteristics on different continents?
Yet, that is what our evolutionary biologist friends would ask us to believe. Do you believe? Do I hear an ‘Amen’? I guess not.
Yes, biogeography might explain some of this, but not in the cases our authors looked at.
Now, given that DNA is an information resource (prescribed by, and within, the genome), ID would fully expect that the common genome of the frog family would express itself in similar ways–even across continents–given that “new” information is unlikely (infinitely unlikely) to arise, and that genetic mechanisms present within the genome only need to be triggered (or, ‘found’ within the phenotypic phase space of the genome).
Here’s the Phys.Org article.
“All around the world, any given location is likely to have frogs that either climb trees, burrow, live on the ground or live in water,” Wiens says. “One of the things we’ve found is that frogs that use the same microhabitat tend to be very similar, both in their morphology and in their performance. For example, all around the world, frogs that live in trees usually have expanded pads at the tips of their fingers and toes that help them cling to smooth surfaces. Similarly, frogs that live in water have thick leg muscles and heavily webbed feet that help them swim faster.”
Given a certain “microhabitat”, a certain phenotypic response is triggered. This is called: ADAPTATION.
I’ve said a million times: if Darwin has called his book the Origin of Adaptations, and edited it accordingly, I’d be fully supportive of it. But “adaptation” is NOT “evolution,” no matter how much the Evo-Bio Brethren tell us it does.
“The really cool thing we found is what happened in Australia. There all the different habitat types have all evolved from tree frogs. After the tree frogs went from South America to Australia, some stayed in the trees, but others became burrowing, aquatic and terrestrial frogs,” Wiens says.“The species of tree frogs that evolved to use these new microhabitats show no trace of their tree frog ancestry, and are basically indistinguishable from unrelated burrowing, terrestrial and aquatic species on other continents.
Isn’t it amazing how “random forces” can make distinguishable frogs ‘indistinguishable’? Of course, based on ID thinking, this is what we would EXPECT: a genome that interacts with its environment will produce phenotypic changes driven by conserved, intrinsic DNA mechanisms.
Finally,
This pattern of evolutionary conservatism over time coupled with long-distance dispersal can explain similarity in many different organisms from all around the world, Wiens says. However, the pattern remains relatively poorly studied.
Why is it “poorly studied”? Because Darwinists run the show. IDers would have stumbled upon–actually have gone looking for–this type of pattern long ago.
And, “evolutionary conservatism”? Talk about your oxymoron.
Day after day, these kinds of experimental results are reported; but Darwinism, daily contradicted, lives on. We can kill bacteria. But we can’t seem to be able to kill this ‘bug.’