An interesting thing about Evolution is that, for every single proof of every single proposed mechanism for Evolution, there is an equally imaginative, usually contradictory mechanism proposed to explain away the anomolies. The more we study the natural world, the more evidence surfaces against Evolution. However, when this evidence becomes too public to censor, Evolutionists will usually attempt to come up with a new mechanism to explain why the other mechanism didnt work this time. For example, the original theory proposed by Charles Darwin posits that tiny changes throughout generations will eventually lead to a new species (a term so devoid of fixed definition that it is almost meaningless, and can be moulded to suit the users purpose). It therefore follows that the more similar a species looks to another, the closer they are in the Evolutionary tree. For example, humans and chimpanzees do look rather similar. This is undeniable. This is often used as proof that Darwin was right, humans did evolve from apes, or more recently an ape like ancestor. However, there are many creatures on the planet that look alike, but supposedly did not evolve together. For example, dolphins and icthyosaurs look VERY similar to each other. They look so similar, in fact, that were it not for the different shaped tail, it might be possible for a young child to get the two mixed up. However, according to Evolutionists, the two are not related. The fact that they look alike essentially comes down to its a coincidence or well they both had the same pressures. Returning again to Darwins original hypothesis, Darwin himself predicted that there should be countless transitional forms found in the fossil record. Darwin attempted to answer why these fossils did not appear, claiming the fossil record was incomplete. He did, however, predict that there would be more found in the future. However, as time went by, there have been masses of fossils found. Aside from the great many species which are not seen alive today, such as dinosaurs, well over 90% of all living species have representatives, near enough exactly as they are now, in the so-called fossil record. Despite this near completeness of the fossil record, Evolutionists have failed to present these much needed transitional forms, bringing forward only a handful of questionable examples. These transitional forms just do not exist. Every single creature, living or dead, is separated from every other creature, to the extent where different Evolutionists bicker like little children over where each one belongs on individual trees. With a reputation of the most honest Evolutionist ever to walk the Earth, Stephen Jay Gould accepted this fact as a huge problem for Evolution. Darwins original theory stands or falls on the existence, or lack thereof, of innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record, and those transitional forms just arent there. Rather than accept Evolutions demise, Gould proposed a new mechanism. He proposed a theory known as punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium essentially boils down to most members of a species remaining exactly as they are, but a small population of them did evolve, rather quickly, so the transitional forms are not too likely to be preserved. Now, the first time I heard this theory (at which point I was still an Evolutionist myself), I couldnt help remembering a joke about a boy who drew a cow. Boy: Look miss, I drew a cow eating grass. Teacher: Well wheres the grass? Boy: The cow ate it all. Teacher: But where is the cow? Boy: Its gone to find more grass. And thats exactly what the doctrine of punctuated equilibrium is. Its taking what we dont see and using it as evidence for the previous proposition. As you can see, the evidence does not fit Darwins proposed mechanism of Evolution. This would cause anyone who is not looking for a reason to believe Evolution to reject it, or at the very least accept it as an unproven hypothesis. Evolutionists, however, choose to use evidence against Evolution as evidence FOR Evolution. When the evidence seems to fit with Evolution, people assume Evolution is true. When the evidence does not fit with Evolution, people assume Evolution is true. Either way, no matter WHAT we find, Evolution is always assumed to be true. This is because Evolution is not a theory that can be tested, it is a paradigm by which the evidence is tested by those who already believe it.
Posted on: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 22:54:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015