One of my Google Alerts pointed me to this article on the Christian Today website: "No evolution? Ancient lizards preserved in amber support Creationism, say Christian scientists" The article quotes a couple of Creationist mainstays, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Answers In Genesis (AiG). Here's a couple of quotes from the article, although you probably don't need them.
"Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research said the discovery of these ancient lizards clearly debunks the theory of evolution, since they did not evolve at all for 99 million years."
"Supporting Thomas' assertions, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell of Answers in Genesis pointed out that these newly discovered reptile species completely cannot be explained by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. 'There is no evidence for upward evolution through a transitional form in this lizard's amber tomb—just evidence for the sort of variation that ordinarily occurs within the created kinds of animals God made,' Mitchell said."
"The set includes creatures similar to modern-day geckos and chameleons, as well as a range of species that sport a mash-up of features from both ancient and modern reptile relatives, according to the study published Friday in Science Advances. These animals help fill in the patchy evolutionary history of pint-sized lizards."While the Creationists say that no evolution occurred, the Smithsonian article disagrees and points out several examples, particularly the . . . and I am going to use this term because I know how much it annoys Creationists . . . particular the Transitional Forms mentioned, although I am sure the Creationists simply neglected to mention the "species that sport a mash-up of features from both ancient and modern reptile relatives" in their article. What AiG's Mitchell did say was:
"'There is no evidence for upward evolution through a transitional form in this lizard's amber tomb—just evidence for the sort of variation that ordinarily occurs within the created kinds of animals God made,' Mitchell said."So, according to ICR there was no evolution, and according to AiG there was 'variation', just no transitional forms. How did they come to those conclusions? Oh wait . . . I keep forgetting. They already have their conclusion. They have to 'explain' as new evidence is uncovered how it absolutely has to fit into their already predetermined conclusion. Here is a quote from AiG's Statement of Faith which demonstrates that point, in case you thought actual evidence might change their minds:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "I do have to wonder if they even bothered to read the actual study. On last quote form the Smithsonian article:
"The fossils also help sort out when many of the modern reptile traits appeared. The tiny chameleon-like fossil shows early development of the lizards’ ballistic tongues—evidenced by the presence of a large bone that supports the modern chameleon’s sticky weapon, says Stanley. But the fossil did not have the specialized claw-like fused toes modern chameleons use to hang onto branches. Similarly, one of the gecko relatives has preserved toe pads with the modern designs already present."Certainly contradicts the Creationist claims of no evolution and nothing but 'variation'. Just in case you didn't catch it, the whole 'variation' argument is nothing more than a restatement of the whole micro-macro evolution nonsense that has yet to gain any actual traction with real scientists. We've discussed it multiple times, including "Macro - Micro Evolution" and "Micro-Macro re-dux". But you know it won't matter to most Creationists, especially hard-core ones like ICR and AiG. They really need to stop looking at everything through their Biblically-colored glasses.