In London, they have made a museum out of Darwin’s house. They have idolized him and put his quotes on the walls as certain truth. In one room, they have a copy of Gen. 1 on the wall, saying in big, bold letters above it, “Darwin put these writings to shame.” In reality, Darwin’s ideas are not Gospel truth, and they have been undercut by recent discoveries in genetics and other areas.
Darwin said that in the course of the time, organisms reproduce quickly. They reproduce so quickly that they out-grow their food source. Thus, a struggle for survival takes place. The “fittest,” which have variations that enable them to survive better, eventually dominate the group of organisms, and breed with other “fittest.” Thus, over a period of time, some new “fittest” replace the old “fittest;” and the species progressed. This process is known as natural selection.
First of all, Darwin did not explain the beginning of the group of organisms. He just dropped us into this situation where all the animals are engaged in “the war of nature.”
Second, he did not explain how the fittest got to be so fit in the first place. If evolutionists would worship anyone, they should worship the person who came up with the “benevolent mutation” theory. That one too has its problems of course.
Thirdly, it needs noting that in order to make any significant progress in advancing a species, two animals that are different from each other need to mate and make a new species. The problem with this is that a very important part of the definition of species is that it can breed within it’s own and have productive young (a cycle). Not only is the idea that two very different animals breeding with each other implausible; but also the next generation would have a problem because they would be unique and therefore could not breed and thus die out (a dead-end).
Darwin got around this by saying that the changes took place over a long, long, long period of time. (It seems they keep on changing the earth’s age by a billion years or so every six months. Let’s see, is it up around 4.5 billion now? I can’t keep up with it!) If the “fittest” were progressing at such a slow rate, they wouldn’t be distinguishable from the rest of the species, and would interbreed with the “lesser” forms; which would diminish the species advance.
Also, if there were gradual changes taking place over a long period of time, there would be definite traces of progress and difference in the fossil record. These transitional forms Darwin called “missing links,” which he said must exist because they are fundamental to proving his theory. Therefore, we are told, we must take for granted that they exist. This circular reasoning is very prevalent in Darwinian circles. Besides, we still haven’t found any real missing links. If Darwin is correct, then there should be millions of missing links in the fossil record showing the progression of each and every of all the animals that we see today. They don’t just need one or two here and there, but tons of them everywhere. Darwin predicted in his book that many would show up in the coming years. It’s been 150 years now, and we still haven’t found one. Yes, Axinar, I hate to tell you, but Tiktaalik Roseae and Archaeopteryx have been disproven. Those were merely desperate attempts to clutch at something that would provide a leg for a faulty theory. They are so frantic for some conclusive evidence, that they are willing to accept blindly something like Piltdown Man. True science follows Mendel’s basic laws of genetics, and not wishful thinking.
What Darwin did prove conclusively is what no one doubted in the first place: that there is variation in a species, and that by selecting animals (e.g. sheep) within a group with favorable characteristics and breeding them together, you can get different kinds of sheep. Breeders have been doing it for centuries. What is done by isolating a trait with a “fit” animal is narrowing the gene pool even more, which is counter-productive to evolution. In fact that’s de-evolution.
7 comments:
Its funny how people make Darwin out like some kind of hero but in reality he was one of the biggest racist out there. Have you ever read his book the Origin of Species? It has racism on every page yet we teach it to are childrean and they become racest too. Some people have my have never read the book but they need to, if the America population new what was in his book evolution would be gone.
Yeah, most people don't know that the full title of his book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, The Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."
That sounds pretty racist to me.
I posted on that whole thing of racism and evolution here
Perhaps "survival of the fittest" was not the best choice of words.
Fact of the matter is that random chance plays a very large role in the whole process.
You see, say you and 20 other kids from your 2nd grade class were lined upon on the side of a hill near your school for a school portrait. Suppose, just by accident, half of the hill collapses and the kids near the bottom are all crushed but the kids near the top all live and grow up and go on to have lots of babies that all look just like them.
TOTAL random chance.
However, there's no denying the fact that if you happen to be born SO ill-adapted to your environment that, say, you can't even properly process oxygen, probably you are NOT going to have a whole bunch of children that share this trait with you.
"Tiktaalik Roseae and Archaeopteryx have been disproven"
How do you figure?
Yes, obviously. If you can't process oxygen because of a particular mutation, you're probably not going to live to advance the trait. If you're so totally loaded with mutations that might allow you to sprout wings and evolve, than you're still going to die because you don't have the body systems to support those wings. And the mutations might have cancelled out something that you normally need to survive (like processing oxygen). It's impossible that you would just happen to have benevolent mutations in just one area of your genes, but not in any other area. If you're exposed to that kind of radiation, it's going to affect other things than just a few genes, and magically have a good effect. Again, see my post on Global Warming that I referenced in the post.
However, the chances of the 1st scenario (with the kids getting killed) are so remote as to be impossible. We do not live on the basis of exceptions, but according to rules.
I didn't mean that they're hoaxes, I just meant that they're not missing links.
Archaeopteryx was a true total bird. Feathers are much more similar to hair than scales. There are practically no similarities between feathers and scales. They even have different types of keratin. Feathers have a-keratin, scales have f-keratin.
At a conference on bird evolution, the attending scientists (all Darwinists) all said that Archaeopteryx was a complete bird. But they still said it was a transitional form because they didn't want to disappoint their buddies.
Archaeopteryx had all the features that birds have today for flight:
A large skull with big vision areas.
A flexible wishbone.
A grasping hallux toe.
A good digestive system. etc.
Archaeopteryx isn't the only fossil bird that has teeth. Besides even mammals have teeth, and a lot of reptiles don't.
Archaeopteryx's feet aren't desgned to fly.
Sorry, I meant "run" in that last comment
Post a Comment