Greetings, mortals! Apologies for my long absence. I have been focusing on my Twitter ministry (@angelofscience), which so far goes well. I have, admittedly, converted zero infidels and nonbelievers to Christ, but I feel I've come close on at least one occasion. Maybe. Towards the end of my proselytizing efforts, the person became intensely and aggressively interested in what I was wearing, and in what I would do to her or his nether regions. I was compelled to disengage and scourge myself as penance.
Anyway! Earlier this month, scientists at Yale University announced that through selective breeding, they were able to induce the butterfly Bicyclus anynana to "evolve" from having dull, brown wings to having wings streaked with violet. The researchers published their results in Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences.
The colors in butterfly wings -- whether brilliant or dull -- are, of course, merely expressions of the glory of God. Your sciences nonetheless say that such colors are the result of constructive interference of light reflected off of microscopic structures in butterfly wings. B. anyana has wings that are predominantly brown. Two other Bicyclus species, B. sambulos an B. medontias, have "evolved" more brightly decorated wings. The Yale researchers hypothesized that B. anyana, under selective pressure favoring the development of more colorful wings, could thus "evolve" similar nano-morphologies and begin to display more colorful wings. Their experiment was not only successful, the B. anyana butterflies developed wings streaked with violet in just six generations.
Now, is this shockingly quick change a demonstration that even slight changes in genotype can, in a very small number of generations, rapidly produce exactly the kind of phenotypic variations that would, given the various selective pressures in different ecological niches, account for the massive diversity of life, thus supporting modern theories of biological evolution?
No! No, of course not. The theory of evolution is contradicted by the entirely factual and internally consistent Creation story in Genesis, and so is necessarily false. Here's what the Yale researchers' work really means.
God felt bad for them. Truly bad for them. These were physicists studying butterflies. Do you know what other physicists are like if you're studying an observable, physical object that's subject to Newtonian mechanics but isn't a hypothetical frictionless sphere? They're awful. Just, I mean, awful. Incredibly derisive. And they never give up mocking you because your social cues of offense and shame aren't hypothetical frictionless spheres, and so bullying physicists don't bother to observe them. Given what these poor researchers were going through, God pitied them. He made their butterflies all pretty.
What proof of this do I have, you ask? Well, first, as always, stop questioning God lest you go to Hell. Second, since it wasn't evolution, it had to be the Christian God. There's no other God, per the Bible, so if a phenomenon was caused by supernatural means rather than evolution, it has to be Him instead of some other un-evidenced, supernatural cause. QED.
Thank you, mortals, for reading! As always, I look forward to your comments and questions.