.
Birds brought into North America
by European settlers have diversified into several different groups; selective
breeding can produce new breeds of the same species, AIDs
viruses mutate, some animals change their coats from season to season,
etc.
An interesting diversity
exists in the physical kingdom. Changes within a species provide us with
the diverse
kinds we see of all animal families and man – white, black and yellow races.
Diverse life (kangaroos, koalas, etc.) in Australia and not elsewhere,
seems
to provide fuel for the evolutionists.
Macro
evolution describes changes that require large jumps. Macro evolution is
the theory that one species
can change into another kind.–.given
enough time and chance, as the very smart
geneticist
Steve Jones believes. Saying he's smart doesn't mean he's correct in
what he is very smart
about. As you'll see in Steve's article, evolution is fighting for its
life, and
Steve struggles
pretty hard – ha ha!
Strange,
don't you think that no culture's history claims to go back further than
about 5,000 years. All over the world this is so.
There seems to be such pressure
to conform even hints of evolutionary 'evidence' to the theory, even with
competing 'acts' of importance being contradictory.
As Phillip E. Johnson of Harvard Univesity said in.Darwin
On Trial, 2nd edition, (1993), Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, pages
81 to 87 "...the proclivity
to rely upon subjectivism
is especially noticeable."
The fact free fable has now
encountered evidence to the contrary.
According to evolutionary theory, the fittest
survive. Perhaps for the first time since that Darwinian postulation
was fabricated, it may become true. In the light of accurate information,
the demise of
the 'fact free evolutionary theory' is in process of occurring.
Noting changes, as evolution
purports,
does not give rise to reasons for change. In any attempt to prove Darwinian
evolution, quantitative
calculations must be presented. Without these, and with evolution's qualitative.observational
methodology, the theory remains totally conjectural,
and, if exposed to others, such as being presented in school, should be
produced
as such. Ideally, a student should be taught to think, so as to ascertain
when, for example, answers presented in books on biology are ludicrously
oversimplified. Students should not be expected to repeat and remember
information regarding evolution as though it was a fait
accompli, when an option exists to objectively
confront material that is obviously analyzable.
Teaching them to think is better than creating brainwashed automatons,
as it allows intelligence to function superior to indoctrination.propaganda.
Darwin leaves unanswered
how it is that variant organisms came to be in the first place, focusing
instead upon similarities and arriving at a conjectural conclusion.
In modern terms, Darwin,
in essence,
looked at a bicycle, looked at a motorcycle, then an automobile, tank,
airplane, jet, space shuttle, etc., and saw their similarities; like, they
all could carry people, or they all have seats, all contain metal, etc.
Surmising
that similarities connote
association as to origin, he concludes (without addressing the complex
functions of each individual progression.he
believed occurred as the bicycle changed into the motorcycle, and so on)
that "it seems they all came from the wheel once the wheel sensed a need
for more complexity".
A gene
for a protein
might be duplicated, but duplication doesn't create or lead to sophisticated
new properties. It simply duplicates! It is utter
nonsense to assume,
as one evolutionary scientist has done (Russel Doolittle, Professor of
Biochemistry at Centre for Molecular Genetics, University of California,
San Diego) in his implicit.assumption,
that "a
duplicate
gene would
elicit
new, necessary properties". Perhaps he meant by mutation.
If he indeed meant that, did this man then understand etymological.derivations?
He
appears to have now. (I wish other evolutionary scientists were as
self
abnegating)
It is a conundrum
to explain why some biochemists assume Darwinism to be credible,
as the professional biochemical literature has published no papers
or books that explain in detail how complex systems may have arisen. They,
like most of us, have been taught Darwinism is credible.
"There is no book in the
libraries of the world; no scientific paper in the twenty thousand publications
(the large majority of which were in the life sciences) of the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences (1984-1994), that propose how detailed
routes of complex biochemical structures might have developed. There is
a total absence of papers on the evolution of biochemical structures in
the journals concerned with explaining the origin of life." ...Michael
Behe.
Many talk about molecular
evolution, but.all.pass
from dealing with specific
biochemical systems; the systems we all rely upon to live each day. Some
books deal with simple catalysts
(prebiotic {before life} chemistry), but not the complex machinery of known
organisms.....continues.
