Evolution - or adaptation?!

It was a brief newspaper article that informed me that salamanders - those lizard-like amphibians - in the Applachian Mountains of the eastern U.S.of A., have shrunk in size by eight per cent over the past fifty years!  Scientists, it was reported, "... attributed the evolution to the species adapting to climate change." (Minicosm, 26/03/14).

I found that to be a very interesting comment.  In one sentence, it used two words as if they are almost synonymous - without, apparently, realising that they are totally different!   If these creatures had "evolved", they would now be something different.  That, after all, is what evolution is claimed to do.  There would also, especially after such a brief period, be an abundance of intermediate creatures - those that were part of the way between the salamanders of fifty years ago and the creature into which they had evolved.

The other word that was used in the quotation is, of course, much more accurate.  These salamanders have not 'evolved'; they have merely adapted to changes in climate - or other environmental changes that may even be fairly localised!   They are still salamanders!

Even as a non-biologist, I get annoyed at this loose use of the English language that leads those who take such statements at face value to pontificate that, once again, "science has 'proved' evolution"!

There is another thought.  If these salamanders had 'evolved' into a new form of creature in fifty years, that would shoot gigantic holes in the 'old-earth' theory, i.e. the theory that the planet is millions of years old.  These vast time periods are necessary to support the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, as they are required to permit the gradual changes that the theory promotes, and that allowed (to put it simplistically) amoeba to evolve into human beings.   Of course, if that had been the case, as it is often claimed is shown by the fossil record, then there would evidence in that record of those intermediate forms.  Even Darwin accepted that, and is recorded as having stated that, if such fossils were never to be found (and he expected that, in his very near future, they would) it would be a major blow to his theory!

As has been pointed out by many who are much cleverer than I, evolution is not a scientific fact.  It is an anti-God philosophy espoused by humanists and atheists.   True science has two basic requirements before a theory may be accepted as a fact: observation, and repetition.  In other words, I must be able to observe the experiment (or whatever) that I am performing, and I must be able to repeat it.  Obviously, neither of these is possible with regard to the past.

So don't allow the atheistic 'scientists' to fool you.  Often, they can't even differentiate between evolution and adaptation!