OPINION:
We’ve been sold a bill of goods. Namely that mutations and natural selection have produced the animal kingdom from the first cell to the human race and we have bought it. Mutations are random transcription or reproduction errors and natural selection determines which ones survive. So random errors produce arms and legs, livers and kidneys, heart and lungs and eyes and ears and natural selection determines what survives. Never mind that no one has ever seen this happen other than the occasional survival and reproduction of an adaptive mutation. How many hundreds of thousands of targeted, not random, creative mutations (not errors) would it take to produce the essential parts of the body?
Despite evolutionist’s claim to the contrary, the only proof of evolution are minor adaptations that may allow a species to survive in a changing environment. There are no parent/child or intermediate species in existence despite conditions like physical separations and different environments that would support such findings. There are a couple claims to new or enhanced species, however, like a recent study of Galapagos Finches and the Italian Wall Lizard that are interesting but neither are new species in the classic sense of the word. The first appears to be a hybrid and the second an environmental adaptation to a changing food supply. Some evolutionists are saying today that there is no parent/child because the species are constantly mutating and converging. You only see the current version. But wouldn’t you have many different versions separated by physical or environmental barriers. Even if some degree of modification is conceded through mutation, that doesn’t account for new species or the thousands of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, etc. we have today. The claim is that evolution produces new species. To prove this you need a baseline, a known quantity. Since there are no living predecessor species, evolutionists look to extinct fossils. But finding extinct fossil remains that have DNA similar to current species doesn’t constitute proof of evolution any more than the observation that wolves and coyotes look a lot alike is proof. Even before we knew anything about DNA we knew animals were a lot alike. Many have the same organs, four legs, two eyes, etc. DNA just provides genetic confirmation of what we already knew through observation.
Mutations, the supposed engine behind evolution, are random DNA transcription or reproduction errors by definition which have never shown the capability to produce enhancements on a scale that would create a new species. To produce complex organisms, mutations would by necessity have to be targeted (not random) and be beneficial additions to previous mutations to continue an enhancement. For example, a potential enhancement to the foot is not going to make a previous enhancement to the ear better. What would be the astronomical odds that random errors in heredity would create all the parts of the eye sequenced just so they would provide functional benefit before being eliminated themselves though natural selection?
Natural selection is the means of determining survivability of competing members of a species. Because there is a limited food supply only the best suited survive. Other than helping the strongest or fastest or those with some other beneficial trait to survive there is no proof that one of the competing populations (one mutated and one not or mutated differently) of the same species gets exterminated. Of course we can’t even find competing populations of the same species even though there are physical conditions which might provide environments for more than one population of a species to survive and evolve, thus providing direct evidence of evolution. We also see different species eating the same food supply existing side by side without one being exterminated. Despite claims to the contrary evolution is still just a theory.
• For more info on these and other related evolutionary topics go to www.evolutionexposed.net.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.