.
.
S i t e  S e a r c h

A_B_C_D_E_F_G_H_I_J_K_L_M_N_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_V_W_XYZ

List of Topics__Ask Suby__Free Stuff__Questions Lists
Terms of Use__________________Privacy Policy

C r e a t i o n  I n d e x

C r e a t i o n  p a g e  9

Sudden events are irreconcilable with Darwinian gradualism. Sudden events crucify any explanatory power of Darwinian gradualism. 

The possibilities of gradualism are being eroded with the latest information obtainable.

A fundamental principle of evolutionary biology is that no organism evolves in isolation; that is, the environment being necessary. An environment conducive to evolutionary life support must therefore be extant. That being the case, then the interdependency of the Earth's system with its plants, atmospheric influences, etc. came before evolution's alleged beginnings.

If so, evolution then contradicts the pollenation methods by claiming species like bees, bats, etc. have evolved, contradicts because evolution must also account for the effect an evolutionary environment.(changing/developing environment).might have on any changes it claims are in process of occurring, i.e., if the environment changes rapidly.(whatever time that entails), then any benefits.(for evolution).won't be long lasting. 

The effects of environment should be.(as required by evolutionary tenets).passed on to offspring, but if the environment changed so rapidly, how did the long process of evolution have time to accomplish anything? We'll soon see that a fundamental principle of biology really is, that no organism evolves at all, at least not in the sense of the word evolutionary proponents utilize it.

Every child must reinvent immunity to measles, chicken pox, etc. Every child must learn the alphabet, multiplication tables, etc. Not even a simple 'dada' is mastered without coaching; but a 'miracle' does occur in learning language. The more one examines evolutionary theory, the more one sees its gaping flaws. The problem for evolution passing on acquired.traits is, which ones does it pass on?

The harebrained idea that acquired traits can be passed on violates the way God set DNA up to work. It just doesn't happen! There is no evidence for this. Instead it's philosophical evolutionary wishful thinking. 

Any two non identical objects will differ in more ways than they are similar, so using analogies based upon sequence similarity data in order to explain evolution, limits the expositor's. credibility

Knowing that all cars, trucks and airplanes have tires, indicates what regarding origin of the automobile, apart from a need for tires? Looking at the whole system would at least be a step in the right direction. Throughout here we look at the systems supporting complete formations.

Are evolutionists, in effect, asking us to accept that.(in modern terms).the tires evolved as a result of the first automobile sensing need for travel? and the first land bound creature originated in the ocean and developed legs because it wanted to walk on land. This is insanity! Believing in evolution being the beginning of all living organisms is proof intelligent people refuse to check information out prior to its adoption.

Is it more reasonable to assume that the need for travel dictated that tires evolve by mysterious natural processes, than it is to presume that the complicated biochemical systems possessed by all living things, evolved by natural selection acting upon random.mutations?

So much for sequence similarities. As to the other two ways.(unsupported attributions of a feature and, comments on the ancestry of cells), they are explained as we go through. Keep them in mind.

Evolution results from speculation on the mutations that might have produced the anatomical changes required to produce the fully functional complex based interactions of organisms evidenced in life. 

Neo-Darwinism.(neo = new).is the combination of 20th century genetics with Darwin's ideas. Darwinian theory.(a biological theory).includes 'descent.(from our supposed ancestors).with modification', that is, species are modified.(evolving).from a common ancestor by a mysterious 'natural selection' process that produces a better species in that it has become more adaptable to its environment

Those teaching evolution can't provide proof positive about its tenets, instead.resorting to authoritative.influence, such as 1, 2, 3, 4.

The authoritative influence approach involves expecting others to accept something as true because it's based on the word of some so-called authority figure. This 'have faith in what I say' dictum.bespeaks evolution to be a religion. The concept of neo-darwinisn remains ludicrous after over a hundred years since its inception.

Evolution says, due to competition for survival, the impetus being the particular environment, there exists a struggle necessary to produce a new species with similar characteristics, but with better adaption to its environment. Well then, just what similar characteristics are retained and which ones were unsuitable within the previous environment and needed to be moved on from?

Evolution avoids specifics in order to maintain a stance of credibility.

The tenet of evolution's 'descent with modification', implies.improvement.over time.

Darwin was sure that the continuance of his postulate 'descent with modification' idea produced all organisms from one or maybe two, or maybe three, eons of time in the past. 

Darwin in his.Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, 1868, says what random variation and natural selection results in and says it has nothing to do with any design. If humans are the result of many past ages of undesigned organisms.(if entropy be true), we are left with thinking humans must have come from no design at all.

Modern evolutionists believe life's complex design gradually occurred, somehow magically, by an unintelligent process referred to by some as cumulative selection.

Design, however, cannot be excluded except by scientific analysis.(unless, of course one is fabricating an evolutionary story).evidencing particulars of non design. Although a sincere man, Darwin was not at all scientific in his research. 

It's really too bad what was popularized was way off base thanks to the media at the time emphasizing Thomas Huxley's falsified.aspects of Darwin's work. Unlike Thomas Huxley and the media at the time, Darwin was honest

Accepting the idea of descent with modification, is nothing more than readily accepting the phrase as true that pigs can fly.
 


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*