Posted by: Rob Lester | May 25, 2011

Picking flowers and redefining terms

A 6/30/09 ScienceDaily article reports on a study of Columbine flower populations. Researchers found that hummingbirds preferred to pollinate red Columbines while hawkmoths chose pale colored flowers. “Because of this relationship, natural selection can hypothetically work to change flower color in a population. For example, if hawkmoths were to replace hummingbirds as pollinators of a population of red columbines, natural selection would favor the paler columbines, and the population would gradually shift toward more white and yellow flowers.” However, Answers in Genesis points out, “Note that individual flowers would not change color; rather, individuals of the population that are of a certain color would be more successful at reproducing than those of another color, causing the entire population to change over time.” Ironically, the ScienceDaily article begins: “Ecologist Scott Hodges and graduate student Nathan Derieg of the University of California–Santa Barbara conducted the investigation into the genes that control the color of columbine flowers.” But the genes did not control the flower population—the pollinators did!!! The hummingbirds and moths get all the credit for any changes in color percentage, not Darwinism. Imagine a field of 50 red Columbine flower plants and 50 white plants. Hawkmoths move in and hummingbirds move out as pollinators. The white flowers flourish as the red flowers die out due to lack of reproduction. So their genetic information is removed from the equation. Only someone with an agenda could look at this situation and call it “progress” in any evolutionary sense. Natural selection only removes things from the genepool, it doesn’t add any genetic information. It can never turn a red flower into a white one. Not even after millions of years. This is a classic case of atheistic Darwinists redefining terms to bolster their own failing system of faith. They try to attribute any change in populations to godless evolution. Change within kinds indeed occurs in nature, but not across genetic lines into another kind of creature. Evolution has never produced a florist from a flower.

University of California – Santa Barbara. “Study Of Flower Color Shows Evolution In Action.” ScienceDaily, 30 Jun. 2009.  (item #5)



  1. I love how there are no arguments in some of these articles. Why? Because they’re hard to refute 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: