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 pollination methods by claims
species like bees,
bats,
etc. have evolved, 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? – the first land bound
creature originated in the ocean and developed legs because it wanted to
walk on land.
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
ancestors) with modification', that is, species are modified (evolving)
from a common ancestor by a mysterious 'natural selection' due to competition
for survival, the impetus
being the particular environmental items providing the struggle necessary
to produce a new species with similar characteristics. The tenet
of evolution 'descent with modification', implies
improvement over time.
Darwin
was sure that the continuance of his postulative
''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 has nothing to do with any
design. Humans are the result of many past ages of undesigned organisms,
and therefore (if entropy
be true) must be the least designed of all. Amazingly, 'modernists' continue
to parrot Darwinian concoctions.
Many modern evolutionists
believe life's complex design gradually occurred, somehow magically, by
an unintelligent process referred to by some as cumulative
selection.
Design, however, can not
be excluded except by scientific analysis (unless, of course one is fabricating
an evolutionary story) evidencing particulars of non design. Otherwise,
accepting the idea of descent with modification, is nothing more than readily
accepting the phrase as true that pigs can fly.....continues
