I will try to keep my post to the point. In my opinion, Evolution has no place in schools; however, science has no other way to explain how mankind is
in its existence. So at the least, Evolution and Creation should be taught in schools. Hopefully my grammar and spelling isnt to bad.
The Law of Biogenesis
All observations have shown that life comes only from life. There is no way, according to observations and this accepted law, that life can come from
nonliving matter using a natural process. One either believes that life (mysteriously) came to and evolution began, or life was created and evolution
began from that point.
(some call it)
Characteristics cannot be passed to the off spring that was acquired after birth, for example, a body builder's physique. Another example, Giraffes
could not get long necks because they began having to reach higher and higher for food (stretching their necks).
Breeding experiments and other common observations have confirmed his law. Genes are simply "reshuffled" from one generation to another. No new
genetics are created, but simply changed around. Another example, microbials have massive numbers per species, un countable numbers, and are dispersed
throughout most of the world's environment types. However, there are only a relatively few species. Apparently, variations in characteristics are
bounded, or otherwise these microbials would have many varieties species. According to Macroevolution, microbials have the greatest opportunity to
evolve new features and species, which they are failing to do.
True, and has been observed. I do no dispute this. I am unsure how this supports evolution personally; it is just an observation. Natural selection
only "selects" from pre-existing genetics and does not create new ones. The gene pool actually decreases with Natural selection; variations are
eliminated. For example, people believe that insect or bacterial infections can evolve to form new species.
- Why couldn't the bacteria have reestablished a trait that was it was no longer using in its genetics pool? The environment or anti-biotics activates
this trait through stress that it began to replicate in the replications process. Making it seem like it evolved.
- Perhaps it had a mutation which made it harder for pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism's proteins, or a mutation changed the regulatory
function / transport function of certain proteins.
- Perhaps a few resistant insects and bacteria were already in existence to that specific antibiotic or pesticide. We finally killed off most of the
competition for the resistant bacteria or insects, and now we are left with those that we are having a hard time killing. Natural selection.
Natural Selection stops major evolutionary changes ...
Almost all mutations are harmful, meaningless, or are simply lethal. As far as we know or have observed, no mutation has ever created a more complex
life form than its parents.
- Fruit flies, for example, 3000 consecutive generations prove, for now, that no natural or "artificial" act can make a life form more complex or
viable. None of the experiments used to try to cause a meaningful mutation has worked.
DNA, RNA, and proteins are very complex. So complex, in fact ... there is absolutely zero experimental evidence supporting they can evolve "create"
new genetics, other than mutations, which again, has never produced a more complex or viable organism.
- The human eye, ear, and brain are very complex. The brain alone has 10 to the fourtenth (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections. Some
how, radiation caused that to mutate into existance? Right?
All species seem to be fully developed, and not partly into the evolutionary process. No feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (internal - veins, and
intestines) show part way developed. For example, a leg of a lizard or reptile is not half mutating into a wing. The leg would become a hazard way
before it became a functional and viable wing. Natural Selection would obviously kill off this mutation.
If evolutionists are right, one would see small transitions or gradual, I should say, among most living things. For example, a dog might be veritable
with a cat. The platybus is an excellent example. The animal's organs are total unrelated to its supposed ancestor's organs. It has fur, warm-blooded,
and it acts more mammal like than anything. It also has a single ventricle opening. It literally looks like a bunch of random animals coming into one
animal. This is called "Mosaics." I have no idea how this animal would fit into the evolutionary chain.
Children as young as 7 months old can learn and understand grammatical rules. There are also 38 documented cases of kids raised without human contact
(feral). They show that language is learned only from other people, humans do not automatically speak. There is no evidence supporting language
evolved. If it did, our earliest languages should have gone from being simple to being more complex. Exactly the opposite happened. We went from
complex languages to simpler languages. For example, Latin, Greek, Linear, and Vedic Sanskrit was all complex languages, and we dumbed them down. If
we evolved, shouldnt we have had a very basic language forming into a complex language, evolving with us?
Only humans have a "pre-wired" brain (from birth) capable of learning and to convey abstract thoughts. We are also the only organisms made with such
an ability to produce such a wide range of sounds, only a few animals can approximate the sounds of humans. Apes do not have a "pre-wired" brain
remotely close to humans in terms of speech and abstract thought. Apes also do not even have the required physical traits to produce human speech.
Codes and Information
Morse Code and Braille are the form of code I am speaking of. The genetic "code" or material that control the physical aspects of life are obviously
"coded" information. The genetics code permits functions such as transmission, translation, correction, and duplication. Without the Genetic Code,
life would not be possible. If you think for a moment, doesn't it seem obvious that the genetic code and its accompanying processes it governs
transmission, translation, correction, and duplication were I don't know ... "created or came into existence" at the exact same time. You cannot have
one without the other. No natural process has ever been observed to create / make a "program." By definition (Program) is a planned sequence of steps
to accomplish some goal. Take computers, for example, we had to create the computer with our "intelligence," and it wasn't a natural process from
Evolution or Design?
It doesn't make sense to say that similarities between different forms of life always relate to a common ancestor. It seems to imply a common
"designer" more than a common ancestor. For example, the small bones in the ears of mammals came from the reptiles' jaw. That doesn't make sense, why
didnt natural selection destroy the transitionary species who couldn't hear because the bones from the jaws were growing slowly into their ears long
before they became their final product?
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)