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 those of the cabal
utilize 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.
