Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Theory of evolution » How would we have evolved, if macro evolution were true

How would we have evolved, if macro evolution were true

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


How would we have evolved, if macro evolution were true

Why do we not see genus homo in all variations and evolutionary stages ? why are there not different stages of homo sapiens, some with a much more primitive language , others with a more advanced one  ?  some with bigger brains, some with smaller brains ? why do we have all the same morphology, why not wings, super legs, different skins, super ears like bats, different eyes,  lungs  to remain one hour in the water, echo location, why do we die all with about the same age , why can we not be without dying, like Box Jelly fish ? why can we not orient ourselfs with electro magnetism, like pigeons, dogs, and cats ? why can we not kill our enemies with electro schocks, like eels ? why do africans in the savannah not be able to evolve to run fast like usain bolt ? why do men have beards, and woman not ? why do eskimos not have all their skin with fur , to prevent from cold ? Let say someone mutated perfectly formed wings on their back to fly (Or you may imagine one of the x-men mutations for example as well). As ridiculous as this may sound, proponents of evolution have to accept this as possible, for how did reptiles learn to fly?

If Darwin’s theory is true science, why are there no samples of ongoing evolution today? There are currently about 30 million different species that inhabit the earth. Out of that 30 million, evolutionists cite as proof on ongoing evolution: (1) bacteria that can eat nylon and others that become resistant to antibiotics, (2) flies that don’t mate with other flies after two groups have been separated for a time, and (3) the peppered moth in England that changed colors from white to black, supposedly due to a change that occurred in it’s environment. If anything, this is overwhelming evidence that evolution is not taking place. Any true science would come to that conclusion. But evolution is is made up of mostly imagined fables as proof, and it is so completely lacking in hard evidence, anything that they can find is considered evidence. In any case, the bacteria, flies, and moths are not the kind of evolution that would bring about sight, hearing, or pumping blood; I don’t care how many billions of years are available. Of the trillions of fish in the ocean, aren’t there any that would like to move to land to avoid man’s hooks and those pesky sharks? Where are the fish with gradually growing legs today, or animals with hemi-ping-pong ball eyes? Why is it that evolution only happens when no one is looking? Why are all fossils that would prove evolution in the “not found yet” category? For evolution to be true, we should be living in a world prolific with examples. We should see an ongoing miraculous overwhelming biological phenomena, prevalent everywhere. It isn’t.

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color.

Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate.

Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas.

The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

To each of the examples above, there is a equivalent in the animal world.
Tibetans in the Himalayas have evolved to better adapt to low oxygen at high altitudes over just a few hundred generations, according to research published last year.

But thats a far less giant variation, than we see in the animal world.

There, we see :

Rats evolving in Flying squirrels:

Why should that be possible in the animal world, but not with us, humans ? Why did we have to evolve first advanced brains, to then invent and biomimic flight ?
Would it not be more direct, and more perfect, if we would evolve wings, for example ?

Last edited by Admin on Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:04 pm; edited 6 times in total

View user profile


Teenage Mutant Ninja People: Evidence of Evolution?

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima; Why are these names associated with fear and foreboding? Because we know the potential dangers, albeit often overstated, of radioactive materials leaking from damaged nuclear power plants. We have read about the disastrous effects they can have on people, crops and stock.

But, isn’t there an upside to this? Surely the believers in evolution should be jumping with glee, hoping for some new mutation that will propel the human race to a new level of evolutionary progress? After all, we know about Spiderman, the Hulk, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the X-men, all of whom fictionally benefited hugely from contact with radioactive materials. Comic strips, movies and other popular publications have entrenched this positive idea of ‘mutants’ being superior to the ‘normal’ in the public mind. The reality, however, is vastly different.

Darwin’s theory of evolution relies on the selection of the ‘fittest’ from a continually varying population; but at the time he was writing, the Austrian monk and scientist, Gregor Mendel, was demonstrating that there are definite limits to the variation possible. Darwin provided no mechanism for broadening these limits, but modern ‘Neo-Darwinism’ suggests that extra variation can come through ‘mutations’. These are alterations to the normal genetic material that often produce alterations in the offspring, and these alterations can be selected for. They can and do occur naturally, as copying mistakes during cell replication, or under the influence of chemicals or radiation. They are the hope of evolutionists.

However, if these mutations are so desirable, and are responsible for the marvellous supposed success of accidental evolutionary invention and progress, why do we want to keep people from living near the Fukushima power plant amongst the leaked radioactive materials? Won’t there be lots of mutations? Can’t we expect some beneficial ones to appear and elevate the human race to a superior level?

Unfortunately not. The reality is that mutations caused by such influences as ionizing radiation are much more damaging than helpful. Mutations damage DNA. They don’t invent new, more complex traits.

While geneticists may make ‘improvements’ by deliberately transferring genes from one creature to another, this is using already-created information from the biosphere. Random changes due to radiation are not going to produce a ‘super’ creature, and especially not a new kind of creature. The genetic information God originally gave each kind of creature represented the full measure of genetic information for that organism, and chance mutations will never add coordinated instructions for the kinds of ‘improvements’ required to make microbes-to-mankind evolution possible.

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum