This program about domestic cats recounted evolutionary tall tales concerning these animals” vision and their immunity to the AIDS virus. The Discovery Channel provided information about domestic cats” light-sensitive eyes and explained that these animals were also distinguished by their immunity to the AIDS virus. It interpreted these two features of the domestic cat from a Darwinist perspective and claimed that cats had “developed” them.
As frequently shown on the “Evolutionary Tall Tales of the Week” section of our site, such accounts are of no scientific value. That is because these statements, which appear on the surface to be offering an explanation, have no scientific foundation. It is of course quite out of the question for cats, or any other living thing, to develop an organ or feature within their own bodies, nor to eliminate one which already exists. The so-called “evolutionary process” which is sought to be suggested by such figurative accounts cannot add living things any new features. For that reason, the evolutionary accounts in question are no more scientific than fairy tales. (For further details, see “Why telling stories about a living thing does not demonstrate that that it actually evolved”)
The only reason why the Discovery Channel resorts to such methods is that it seeks to cover up the fact that these features, which so clearly point to intelligent design, are created by God. In order to demonstrate the invalidity of these efforts let us now briefly examine the Discovery Channel”s evolutionist claims in the light of modern scientific findings.
Let us first make it clear that claiming that superior vision such as that in cats came about through evolution means we have to accept that eyes had a simpler structure at some time in the past. A direct transition from the simple to the complex requires a natural mechanism whereby genetic information must be gradually added to the DNA of the cat”s so-called ancestor which did not possess that information before. Evolutionists maintain that this mechanism is random mutations. Yet none of the effective mutations ever observed have ever improved already existing genetic information, but have always damaged it. This means that attempting to account for the complex design in the cat eye in terms of evolution is in effect to claim that a digital camera can result when an ordinary camera is struck with a hammer.
Another phenomenon which the Discovery Channel tries to portray as evidence of evolution is immunity to the AIDS virus. Saying that this immunity to the AIDS virus is only found in domestic cats, and that other cats such as lions lack such protection, this was portrayed as a result of the so-called evolutionary process. Yet as we have just pointed out, there is not a single piece of scientific evidence to show that mutation could have carried out such an acquisition of genetic information. The acquisition of immunity to antibiotics, portrayed by some as evidence of evolution, is no exception to this rule. The immunity which emerges in bacteria is not in fact a genetic improvement as proposed by the theory of evolution. As the result of a mutation in the bacteria, damage is caused to the protein to which the antibiotic will attach itself, and immunity comes about because the antibiotic is unable to join onto the protein. Even if this represents an advantage for the bacteria, which will lead to antibiotic immunity, it is still the consequence of a loss of information in the protein the antibiotic would have attached itself to, or rather in the gene which synthesizes it. Evolution, however, requires an acquisition of genetic information, not a loss.
As we have seen, there is no evidence to show that cats developed their visual ability and resistance to AIDS by natural means. The mutations on which the theory of evolution relies as a mechanism damage genetic information rather than improving on it. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why the Discovery Channel glosses over these features in cats with tall tales of “development.” The Discovery Channel is well aware of the helpless position in which evolutionists find themselves with regard to a mechanism which enhances genetic information, and seeks to keep the Darwinism in which it so blindly believes on its feet through misleading stories.