This article was written as a summary of a debate with some Christadelphians, notably one gentleman named Gilmore.
It presents a detailed summary of objections to the theory, which I raised in the course of the debate, and to which there has never been any refutation. Enjoy.
SUMMARY OF REFUTATIONS inc Rock lobster’s eye
I have presented a huge number of facts which are inexplicable on any theory of evolution.
The evolution team, with no answers at their disposal, have resorted to silly responses, have presented no facts that are contrary to the evidence I have presented, are incapable of doing so, and now have to fall back on other methods of upholding their straw hut.
Each point brought up by that armchair supporter Gilmore, who has no qualifications in evolutionary biology, palaeontology, genomics or any other relevant science such as he required me to have(and by implication others on my side), without which we are deemed to be uninformed, armchair critics, has now been refuted quite comprehensively.
The Endogenous Retroviruses
1 The endogenous retroviruses, whose genomes can be read both forward and backward, cannot, by virtue of that single fact, be the products of any chance construction. Therefore, for whatever reasons, they were divinely constructed and inserted, and provide no proof of common descent from anything.
The Chromosomal Similarities between Primates and Humans
2 The fact that the primates have 2 chromosomes more than humans cannot be explained on any grounds of common descent, similarities notwithstanding. As we all know from experience, a single chromosome added to the normal human complement produces the abnormality known as Down's syndrome. If common ancestor A had a smaller number of chromosomes than either primates or humans, then the addition of the chromosomes required to make up the number of 46 or 48 chromosomes would, as observation shows very clearly, have resulted in the decimation or entire destruction of both groups: humans and primates.
If A had more chromosomes than either primates or humans, then the necessary LOSS of chromosomes, would be no less destructive, and could not have produced viable groups.
That does not leave much room for manoeuvre.
Tiktaalik
3 Tiktaalik was described by its discoverers Ahlberg and Clack as having typical features of fish, most notably large gill arches, which showed that it was an aquatic animal, not a tetrapod in waiting.
In addition, there has never been any adequate accounting for the method by which a fish of any description could have emerged on to land and survived. Latimeria failed to save that plank from extinction. Further, tetrapod tracks have been found which predate Tiktaalik, which therefore could not be any sort of ancestral tetrapod, since its descendants were walking around in Australia before Tiktaalik existed.
There is the further fact that the pectoral fins of fish are the larger than the pelvic fins, and neither are attached to the axial skeleton. In a true tetrapod, the hind limbs are larger than the forelimbs in EVERY instance, AND ATTACHED to the axial skeleton very securely.
I was fascinated to see the diagrams, which perfectly illustrate Denton’s point that the missing parts of an organism, BOTH SOFT AND HARD, can make complete nonsense of a reconstruction. (Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) And that the reconstruction depends entirely on the prejudices of the re-constructor! The amount of guesswork that has to go into this particular example (Tiktaalik) IS GREATER THAN 90% OF THE WHOLE ANIMAL!
In addition, I may also mention a previous article on Tiktaalik in this blog, where Nature announced tetrapod fossil footprints 18 million years OLDER than Tiktaalik.
There is also the curious fact that the pentadactyl forelimb is built on exactly the same plan as the pentadactyl hindlimb. Homology would require that the hind limb evolved from the forelimb or vice versa. But no such claim is ever made!
Speciation
4 Some speciation does occur, but never above genus level, and certainly not at or above family level. Such speciation is invariably the result of reproductive isolation for whatever reason. The other name for reproductive isolation is inbreeding to one extent or another, and inbreeding has curious effects to say the least, which may result in speciation to a limited extent.
This, however, is and has never been, a problem to creationism, because Adam named the 'kinds' - and those could not have been species since there are millions of those. Therefore, if we interpret 'families', superfamilies or orders as being the 'kinds' referred to in Genesis, then there has been, is, and will never be any 'evolution.' Variation aplenty - but only within very severe limits, as Luther Burbank and other authors such as Cuvier and Owen have pointed out.
Parasites and Hosts
5 The extremely close relationship existing between some parasites and hosts, is so close that if two birds are closely similar and might be the same species, then the only feature which can be called upon to distinguish between them is the species difference between the parasites.
This is a hallmark of creation, not evolution.
Those, I think were Gilmore's main points.
The Other Side
On the other side, there are innumerable, unrefuted and unaccounted-for phenomena, and I mention a few of the more serious ones:
Instinct
1 The biggest, and least explicable of them all, is the intangible phenomenon of instinct, which powers the behaviour of all living organisms. We have the basic, instinctive functions of life itself. Animals and plants eat, move, respond, reproduce and so on as a direct result of the possession of the instincts which power those behaviours. Without the instincts, the apparatus for any or all of those behaviours is entirely useless. Without the apparatus, the instincts are equally useless: and that leads to the inexorable conclusion that both instinct and apparatus were created simultaneously: and no amount of fudging will obscure that simple fact.
It is the spectacular example which most convincingly destroys any possibility of evolution having occurred. And we have many such to hand – not one of which can be explained by any theory of evolution and common descent, and which await any reasonable response.
I may remark on the equally spectacular and utter failure of talkorigins to even begin handling this subject.
Those spectacular and specific examples (of which many are already on this blog)include:
1 The yucca moth
2 The bucket orchid
3 The swallows of Capistrano
4 The migration of the red knot and arctic tern
5 The fungus growing ant (genus Atta)
Cellular Level
2 At cellular level, we await reasonable explanations of the origins of meiosis and mitosis
Molecular Level
3 We also, at molecular level, await any reasonable explanations of the origins of the endogenous retrovirus DNA sequences which can be read both forward and backward, and still make sense in the construction of the proteins for which they code.
On the same point, we also await explanations of the findings of the Oxford biochemical geneticists who discovered that a viral DNA sequence could be read starting at point A and producing a protein, and also be read starting at a different point B to produce a different and equally functional protein.
We may also remind readers of the Tool Kit Proteins, which having performed one function, break into two parts, each of which subserves another function and then in turn, break and repeat the procedure.
How could such ingenious devices have originated without Divine construction, and by methods of natural selection?
Anatomical Level
4 At anatomical level. we await explanation of the origin of the rock lobster’s eye: which to remind readers, is made up of SQUARE cross-sectioned cells,
a shape almost unheard of in nature, and which uses the principle of REFLECTION on to a retina (into whose origin we won’t inquire too closely at this stage), instead of the REFRACTION principle used in every other known animal eye apart from the scallop, whose eye is even MORE complex and reflection based than the rock lobster’s.
“The eye of the lobster shows a remarkable geometry not found elsewhere in nature – it has tiny facets which are perfectly square, so it looks like perfect graph paper”. Even more intriguing is that each of the sides of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This light is focused on the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tube are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus on to a single point” http://www.scribd.com/doc/7800502/Harun-Ya...esign-in-Nature
Embryological Level
5 At embryological level we await any explanations of the origins of the vast differences between the amphibian and reptile egg. Denton is particularly cruel on the point:
“Every textbook of evolution asserts that reptiles evolved from amphibia but none explains how the major distinguishing adaptation of the reptiles, the amniotic egg, came about gradually as a result of a successive accumulation of small changes. The amniotic egg of the reptile is vastly more complex and utterly different to that of an amphibian. There are hardly two eggs in the whole animal kingdom which differ more fundamentally… The origin of the amniotic egg and the amphibian - reptile transition is just another of the major vertebrate divisions for which clearly worked out evolutionary schemes have never been provided. Trying to work out, for example, how the heart and aortic arches of an amphibian could have been gradually converted to the reptilian and mammalian condition raises absolutely horrendous problems.(Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, Adler and Adler, 1986, pp. 218-219)
The Birds Lung
6 We await any sort of convincing explanations of the origin of the one-way flow of the air in the lungs of all 10,000 species or so of birds, completely unparalleled in the animal kingdom, and therefore incapable of having originated by natural selection from anything else. The origin of flight itself, is also another evolutionary nightmare, occurring as it does in FOUR distinct and entirely unrelated groups of animals, viz. the birds, the bats, the insects and the pterosaurs.
Palaeontology
7 We await any explanations of the fact that the palaeontological record consists of series of spectacular bursts of creation of species, genera, up to phyla as in the Cambrian. We also wait for explanations of the phenomenal number of new species right up to phyla in the Cambrian layer, which is the oldest but one of the fossil bearing strata.
Non-speciation by Lenski
8 I may remind them of Lenski’s failure to produce a single new species from E. coli in 31,500 generations of the organism. At that rate of non-production of new species, we are entitled to question the likelihood of the vast number of Cambrian species evolving in the given time frame. After all, 0 new species in 25 years equates to 0 new species in 250 million years.
The Plant Kingdom
9 I may remark here that the limitation imposed upon the introduction of new material has prevented me from introducing these major causes of evolutionist insomnia which are presented in accounting for the origin of any of the major plant groups. I have in mind specifically, the origin of the angiosperms (about half of the plant kingdom), which Darwin called ‘that abominable mystery’. He had good reason to do so, since to this day, there is no adequate accounting for the origin of about half of the whole plant kingdom. The other half fares no better either.
I don’t know whether the evolution supporters know any of the relevant facts, but I do recommend that they perform some searches on the evolution of the angiosperms. Here is a good starting point: http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/~karyla/angio where the author states:
“The flowering plants arose in the early Cretaceous (120-130 mya); however, no fossils showing a transition from gymnosperm to angiosperm have been discovered. This makes the origin of the angiosperms mysterious. From the fossil record we do know that the angiosperms underwent a rapid radiation and by the end of the Cretaceous (65-70 mya) most flowering plant families had evolved.”
Summary
That is but a sprinkling of the available material. Any claims that these points have been “answered” must include intelligently selected quotations from the relevant ‘answers’, and not merely fraudulent and strident claims that ‘they have been answered here.’ Some critical faculties should be exercised before the word ‘answered’ may be applied, and some assessment of the quality of the ‘answers’ given.
Given the inability of the theory to account for so many huge facts – and these are but a selection - I submit that supporters of the view should seriously review their position in the light of these intractable FACTS, and abandon this ‘science falsely so-called.’
Saturday, 17 September 2011
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
HO DAWKINS! HO RUSE! HO THEOBALD! HO HO HO!
HIDING FROM A HIDING I SEE!
I'm glad to see a few crawling out from their hidey holes to attack the thesis I am presenting. Welcome! And good luck - you'll need it!
Unfortunately, none seems able to address the question being asked on this humble blog!
So I again challenge any R-E-A-L-L-Y S-E-N-I-O-R evolutionists to come forth and debate this vital topic.
Ho Dawkins of Oxford! Ho Ruse! Ho Theobald of Talk Origins!
Ho Anybody! Ho ho ho!
This is the internet - you MUST have seen, and be seeing this challenge.
So where are you guys?
Come forth and defend your miserable theory! Let the Sword of Instinct slice your hopeless defence into little pieces and serve them up for breakfast.
After you get your faces out of the cornflakes, that is.
Then perhaps you can explain to your poor, misled and misguided undergraduate and postgraduate students why you couldn't answer a few simple but very serious questions.
Go to the naked scientist forum for a taster of the questions you have to answer - then put my book on your required reading booklists. If the universities don't apply the boot to your tender spots, that is!
Isn't Biology pathetic! Can't face a few nasty questions!
Here's the forum link:
(http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16535)
Hey! I just noticed - there have been over 54 THOUSAND VIEWS of my thread!
Heck, I must have made those organisers a real packet if they get paid on clicks! They threw me off because they couldn't answer the points I raised.
What a surprise! (Hey you organisers of naked scientists - if I am misrepresenting you, then either come over here and argue the toss, or let me back on to carry on ruining evolution theory for you!)
I'm glad to see a few crawling out from their hidey holes to attack the thesis I am presenting. Welcome! And good luck - you'll need it!
Unfortunately, none seems able to address the question being asked on this humble blog!
So I again challenge any R-E-A-L-L-Y S-E-N-I-O-R evolutionists to come forth and debate this vital topic.
Ho Dawkins of Oxford! Ho Ruse! Ho Theobald of Talk Origins!
Ho Anybody! Ho ho ho!
This is the internet - you MUST have seen, and be seeing this challenge.
So where are you guys?
Come forth and defend your miserable theory! Let the Sword of Instinct slice your hopeless defence into little pieces and serve them up for breakfast.
After you get your faces out of the cornflakes, that is.
Then perhaps you can explain to your poor, misled and misguided undergraduate and postgraduate students why you couldn't answer a few simple but very serious questions.
Go to the naked scientist forum for a taster of the questions you have to answer - then put my book on your required reading booklists. If the universities don't apply the boot to your tender spots, that is!
Isn't Biology pathetic! Can't face a few nasty questions!
Here's the forum link:
(http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16535)
Hey! I just noticed - there have been over 54 THOUSAND VIEWS of my thread!
Heck, I must have made those organisers a real packet if they get paid on clicks! They threw me off because they couldn't answer the points I raised.
What a surprise! (Hey you organisers of naked scientists - if I am misrepresenting you, then either come over here and argue the toss, or let me back on to carry on ruining evolution theory for you!)
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Some amazing facts about Velvet worms
Velvet worms
Source: Vishesh Jain, Wonders of Evolution, on www.harkerbio.com
Readers please note that Vishesh Jain is a believer in evolution, and in no way does he support the opinion I express on this blog.
While spiders shoot silk, velvet worms shoot stringy goo.
Admittedly, velvet worm slime is far from silk molecularly, and spider silk departs from spinnarets on their abdomen while velvet worms use oral tubes.
Nevertheless, the slime is amazing.
Without congealing within the worm's own body, the slime is still a quick-hardening, sticky substance that sprays from two oral tubes, intertwining and lacing over its prey. This substance does not adhere to the water-repellent skin of the velvet worm, which can therefore safely approach its victim, bite a hole in its skin, and suck out its vital systems after digesting them with powerful saliva....
If you're still curious about that "weird sex," velvet worms use spermatophores, or packets of sperm, to transfer the male gametes to the female. Now this is weird enough, but there are several arthropods that do it too.
What really begs explanation is that the spermatophores are transferred from spikes on the the head of the male to the back or sides of the female. Enzymes in the female's body then break down both the spermatophore casing and the female's own skin, allowing the sperm to flow through this self-inflicted wound to her reproductive organs.
For one reason or another, the wound usually escapes infection, and velvet worms have apparently been successful enough to survive hundreds of millions of years without modification.
Velvet worms give birth in a variety of forms, ranging from oviparous(egg-laying) to ovoviviparous(egg-hatching within the body and then live-bearing) to viviparous(live-bearing). Weird.
by Vishesh Jain
Source: Vishesh Jain, Wonders of Evolution, on www.harkerbio.com
Readers please note that Vishesh Jain is a believer in evolution, and in no way does he support the opinion I express on this blog.
While spiders shoot silk, velvet worms shoot stringy goo.
Admittedly, velvet worm slime is far from silk molecularly, and spider silk departs from spinnarets on their abdomen while velvet worms use oral tubes.
Nevertheless, the slime is amazing.
Without congealing within the worm's own body, the slime is still a quick-hardening, sticky substance that sprays from two oral tubes, intertwining and lacing over its prey. This substance does not adhere to the water-repellent skin of the velvet worm, which can therefore safely approach its victim, bite a hole in its skin, and suck out its vital systems after digesting them with powerful saliva....
If you're still curious about that "weird sex," velvet worms use spermatophores, or packets of sperm, to transfer the male gametes to the female. Now this is weird enough, but there are several arthropods that do it too.
What really begs explanation is that the spermatophores are transferred from spikes on the the head of the male to the back or sides of the female. Enzymes in the female's body then break down both the spermatophore casing and the female's own skin, allowing the sperm to flow through this self-inflicted wound to her reproductive organs.
For one reason or another, the wound usually escapes infection, and velvet worms have apparently been successful enough to survive hundreds of millions of years without modification.
Velvet worms give birth in a variety of forms, ranging from oviparous(egg-laying) to ovoviviparous(egg-hatching within the body and then live-bearing) to viviparous(live-bearing). Weird.
by Vishesh Jain
Friday, 25 June 2010
An interesting 'how does instinct evolve' fact about orchids
Here is a quote from the Naked Scientists Forum (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/latest-questions/question/2605/) - beautifully written till we get to the last idiotic sentence. But you must judge for yourself. I've broken it up into smaller paragraphs for easier reading.
There was a wonderful paper written by a lady called Jennifer Brodmann, who is a researcher at the University of Ulm, and she was on the Chinese island of Hainan looking at an orchid called Dendrobium sinense.
Now, this is a really interesting orchid because no one knew what pollinated it. It makes these beautiful flowers. It's a white flower with a red centre, but it's rewardless.
In other words, the flower doesn't give anybody anything if they come and visit it. So she decided to do a stakeout and she watched this flower , 121 hours of footage to see what came by. And 35 insects paid a visit of which the majority - over 30 - were a kind of hornet.
And she thought, "That's interesting." At closer inspection, revealed that these hornets didn't come in and spend much time loitering there. They flew in and pounced on the flower and then abruptly left.
But when they looked more closely, they saw that as the hornet was doing the pouncing, it was actually depositing a bit of pollen on the orchid, fertilizing it and also picking up some pollen to take to another flower.
So they thought, "There must be something which is attracting this hornet to this flower." So they made extracts of all the chemicals that come out of the flower and they found one really interesting one.
It's eicosen-1-ol. And this particular molecule is a pheromone made by bees. And, in fact, it's an alarm pheromone that bees make when they want to tell other bees about something exciting going on.
And what they realized is that this hornet species eats bees and it feeds the bees to its young hornet larvae.
So what the orchid is doing is making itself smell like a bee to attract a hornet, to get itself fertilised. And it's doing it by making the same chemicals that the bees would and, thereby, fooling the hornet, so a wonderful example of sexual kind of subversion going on.
The point is that the plant has evolved to have the same genetic pathway or the same synthetic pathway that can produce these chemicals because this is the way in which it gets itself pollinated, and very effectively too by the look of it.
If you want to read it, it was actually published in Current Biology, last year, Jennifer Brodmann, a wonderful bit of science.
Here's the evolutionary madness in full swing!
The plant somehow 'evolved/ figured out' how to perform this miraculous piece of biochemical wizardry!
BEFORE it did so, it wasn't pollinated at all. Remember what Brodmann found from her stakeout:
"And 35 insects paid a visit of which the majority - over 30 - were a kind of hornet."
Only hornets/wasps did the job.
Therefore, in the time BEFORE any wasps/hornets appeared on the scene, the plant was unable to be pollinated! And therefore couldn't exist!
But it did somehow (heh heh!), and then, miracle of miracles, it performed this miraculous biochemical feat, producing this wonderful chemical which attracted the wasps/ hornets and conned them into fertilising its flowers.
Do you see the role that instinct plays in all this?
The wasps MUST HAVE HAD the instincts in them which caused them to be attracted to the chemical - whether produced by the flower or not. How did they get that instinct? And how did it enter their genome?
The plant MUST HAVE HAD THE INSTINCTS and biochemical mechanisms IMPLANTED completely in ONE GO - or it would have perished! No instinct, no chemical. No chemical, no fertilisation. No fertilisation, extinction followeth immediately.
So dear evolutionary friends, explain to us how this happened.
It is a huge pity that this utterly brilliant piece of research, which deals with the wonders of the natural world, and not with test tube Biology, should be made to serve such an idiotic theory.
Just to remind you of the stupidity:
"So what the orchid is doing is making itself smell like a bee to attract a hornet, to get itself fertilised.
Heh heh heh! It knows what a bee smells like, you see, and has figured out that if it makes itself smell like one - how to do that, one wonders! - then it'll get pollinated!!!
And it's doing it by making the same chemicals that the bees would and, thereby, fooling the hornet, so a wonderful example of sexual kind of subversion going on.
Heh heh heh! It figured out how to make the chemicals, guys! I bet there are millions of graduate chemistry students who couldn't figure that one out! And look! It knows about 'subversion'! Quite a brain in that little plant!
The point is that the plant has evolved to have the same genetic pathway or the same synthetic pathway that can produce these chemicals because this is the way in which it gets itself pollinated, and very effectively too by the look of it.
Oooooh! Just look! The plant 'evolved' to have the same 'genetic pathway' or the 'same synthetic pathway' to get itself pollinated!!!!!
Somebody - allegedly intelligent - wrote that nonsense! Should get a PhD in fairy tale writing.
Come on BenV, how can you remain attached to such nonsense?
There was a wonderful paper written by a lady called Jennifer Brodmann, who is a researcher at the University of Ulm, and she was on the Chinese island of Hainan looking at an orchid called Dendrobium sinense.
Now, this is a really interesting orchid because no one knew what pollinated it. It makes these beautiful flowers. It's a white flower with a red centre, but it's rewardless.
In other words, the flower doesn't give anybody anything if they come and visit it. So she decided to do a stakeout and she watched this flower , 121 hours of footage to see what came by. And 35 insects paid a visit of which the majority - over 30 - were a kind of hornet.
And she thought, "That's interesting." At closer inspection, revealed that these hornets didn't come in and spend much time loitering there. They flew in and pounced on the flower and then abruptly left.
But when they looked more closely, they saw that as the hornet was doing the pouncing, it was actually depositing a bit of pollen on the orchid, fertilizing it and also picking up some pollen to take to another flower.
So they thought, "There must be something which is attracting this hornet to this flower." So they made extracts of all the chemicals that come out of the flower and they found one really interesting one.
It's eicosen-1-ol. And this particular molecule is a pheromone made by bees. And, in fact, it's an alarm pheromone that bees make when they want to tell other bees about something exciting going on.
And what they realized is that this hornet species eats bees and it feeds the bees to its young hornet larvae.
So what the orchid is doing is making itself smell like a bee to attract a hornet, to get itself fertilised. And it's doing it by making the same chemicals that the bees would and, thereby, fooling the hornet, so a wonderful example of sexual kind of subversion going on.
The point is that the plant has evolved to have the same genetic pathway or the same synthetic pathway that can produce these chemicals because this is the way in which it gets itself pollinated, and very effectively too by the look of it.
If you want to read it, it was actually published in Current Biology, last year, Jennifer Brodmann, a wonderful bit of science.
Here's the evolutionary madness in full swing!
The plant somehow 'evolved/ figured out' how to perform this miraculous piece of biochemical wizardry!
BEFORE it did so, it wasn't pollinated at all. Remember what Brodmann found from her stakeout:
"And 35 insects paid a visit of which the majority - over 30 - were a kind of hornet."
Only hornets/wasps did the job.
Therefore, in the time BEFORE any wasps/hornets appeared on the scene, the plant was unable to be pollinated! And therefore couldn't exist!
But it did somehow (heh heh!), and then, miracle of miracles, it performed this miraculous biochemical feat, producing this wonderful chemical which attracted the wasps/ hornets and conned them into fertilising its flowers.
Do you see the role that instinct plays in all this?
The wasps MUST HAVE HAD the instincts in them which caused them to be attracted to the chemical - whether produced by the flower or not. How did they get that instinct? And how did it enter their genome?
The plant MUST HAVE HAD THE INSTINCTS and biochemical mechanisms IMPLANTED completely in ONE GO - or it would have perished! No instinct, no chemical. No chemical, no fertilisation. No fertilisation, extinction followeth immediately.
So dear evolutionary friends, explain to us how this happened.
It is a huge pity that this utterly brilliant piece of research, which deals with the wonders of the natural world, and not with test tube Biology, should be made to serve such an idiotic theory.
Just to remind you of the stupidity:
"So what the orchid is doing is making itself smell like a bee to attract a hornet, to get itself fertilised.
Heh heh heh! It knows what a bee smells like, you see, and has figured out that if it makes itself smell like one - how to do that, one wonders! - then it'll get pollinated!!!
And it's doing it by making the same chemicals that the bees would and, thereby, fooling the hornet, so a wonderful example of sexual kind of subversion going on.
Heh heh heh! It figured out how to make the chemicals, guys! I bet there are millions of graduate chemistry students who couldn't figure that one out! And look! It knows about 'subversion'! Quite a brain in that little plant!
The point is that the plant has evolved to have the same genetic pathway or the same synthetic pathway that can produce these chemicals because this is the way in which it gets itself pollinated, and very effectively too by the look of it.
Oooooh! Just look! The plant 'evolved' to have the same 'genetic pathway' or the 'same synthetic pathway' to get itself pollinated!!!!!
Somebody - allegedly intelligent - wrote that nonsense! Should get a PhD in fairy tale writing.
Come on BenV, how can you remain attached to such nonsense?
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
The Herring Gull Chick and its Mother's Red Spot
by Wilfred Alleyne
How Well-Researched Modern Science
Helps You to See That
DARWIN DIDN’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
The Most Completely Overlooked and Fatal Question
Evolution Has Ever Had to Face!
A Herring Gull Chick Taps the Red Spot on Its Mother’s Beak. The Mother Then Regurgitates Fish She Has Caught – So the Chick Can Eat and Survive.
But How Does the Chick Know about Tapping Her Beak? And How Does the Mother Know About Regurgitating?
INSTINCT!
( A BBC video showing this is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p007xvj5)
But How Did this Instinct Start? And How did it get into the Bird?
The instinct was there in the very first Herring Gull – however many millions of years ago that may be. And it was there complete and fully formed: or there would be no Herring Gulls today.
If the chick didn’t tap, it would have starved. If the mother didn’t regurgitate, again the chick would have starved. BOTH BEHAVIOURS had to appear at exactly the same time.
How did this happen?
THIS MAY BE THE MOST STARTLING AND DEVASTATING COLLECTION OF SCIENTIFIC FACTS YOU HAVE EVER READ, DEAR FRIEND...
After all...
Whoever heard of a new-born baby making a 3000+ mile journey home – on its own? Underwater, at that!
That is exactly what young eels do. Their parents migrate from rivers in Europe 3000+ miles south and southwest, down the west coast of Africa, then turn right and swim to the Sargasso Sea. They spawn there, THEN THEY ALL DIE, AND NEVER RETURN to Europe.
The young eels then swim home to Europe, which is 3000+ miles away. With no guides, no adults to lead them home.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8273000/8273877.stm)
How can they possibly manage such a navigational feat? INSTINCT is the only answer that can be given.
But how did the instinct start? And how did it get into the fish in the first place?
And it had to be there perfectly right from the word ‘go’ – or eels would be extinct too.
They HAVE to get to freshwater – there’s none in the Atlantic Ocean - or they would never reach sexual maturity, and the species would perish. So if the navigational instinct misdirected them, they would swim till they died in salt water, in the Falklands, the Azores, the Arctic Ocean or some other unsuitable place.
‘Extinct’ is probably not too strong a description.
Those are just two of the many startling illustrations of instinct in action found in this book. They are beautiful, bizarre, unbelievably complex examples – and evolution cannot account for the origin of a single one of them.
In every case as you will see, if the instinct is absent, or imperfect, species extinction would immediately follow.
HOWEVER, AND THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY MADE AND DETAILED IN THIS REMARKABLE BOOK:
WITHOUT INSTINCT, LIFE ITSELF WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.
Not only these virtuoso displays of startling behaviour like those above, but EVERY SINGLE FUNCTION, of EVERY SINGLE LIVING CELL, in EVERY LIVING ORGANISM depends absolutely on instinct for its survival.
Evolution argues about how legs, wings, lungs and every other organ could have evolved. Did birds’ wings evolve from reptile forelimbs? Did feathers evolve from scales? Did fish develop legs and walk on land?
All the scientific papers written to prove any of the above cases, and many others, are now irrelevant in the light of this discovery. Imagine that! A single discovery uprooting a major scientific theory!
This happens from time to time. A very recent discovery (published in the January 2010 issue of Nature journal – one of the most prestigious scientific journals on the planet) showed that a major plank of the evolution of four-limbed animals (called Tiktaalik) was totally mistaken. Hailed as the first species of fish to walk on land, and one possible ancestor of all tetrapods, imagine the absolute horror all round when tetrapod tracks, some 18 or more million years older than Tiktaalik were found!
The Law of Asynctropy, first formally stated in this book, at a single blow destroys all such arguments and makes them totally irrelevant to the facts of every case ever presented as support for the theory of evolution...
It is the most powerful and destructive single piece of evidence ever raised against evolution, which is helpless in the face of the Law.
Take Respiration as the most important example possible.
Today, we can possibly mix all of the chemicals found in the respiratory cycle in a test tube. But respiration will not take place. The powering instinct is absent, the driving force is missing.
This simple fact has huge spin-off consequences for the existence of life itself, and for the inadequacy of evolution theory, which are drawn out in full in the text.
Instinct crosses the barrier of death, somehow.
As in the case of the eels above, there are innumerable examples where the parents die, and the offspring do the same marvellous things that the parents did, WITHOUT EVER SEEING THEM! The young of the Yucca moth (Pronuba spp) does just that.
Just as remarkably, a wasp (Eumenes spp) somehow knows the gender of its young before it collects food for it to eat when it hatches! And provides an escape route for it if the prey gets too frisky in the mud igloo the mother somehow knows how to build!
And just to add more fuel to the fire, the mother anaesthetises the grubs it catches for the young – why? So the young wasp can have fresh, non-putrefying food to eat.
She then dies. The young wasp never sees its parents – but goes on to do exactly the same things the parents did.
The naturalist who first made these observations was stunned at the ingenuity displayed – but this is not intelligence, but instinct in action.
And we’re back to the original problem. How did the instinct originate? And in some ways even worse, how did it ever enter the genome? (Assuming, of course, that it is located there. If it isn’t then the problems for evolution become even more horrendous than they are already).
Again notice – if the instinct was absent or incomplete in any way, then the species would have perished immediately it first appeared on the planet. If the young couldn’t feed, then a single generation was all that could ever have existed.
If it only had putrefying food, it would perish – and without training in anaesthesiology – the mother is able to inject a non-lethal, paralysing dose of venom into the grubs which are going to be eaten by the young wasp.
And all of that so far, is meaningless without the ‘igloo’ she builds. The young would have to forage for itself, the food grubs would scatter to the four winds, and the species would be extinct.
The full development of this concept is given in the text.
SO FAR, WE HAVE ONLY MENTIONED EXAMPLES FROM THE ANIMAL WORLD. THE PLANT KINGDOM PRESENTS NO SMALLER PROBLEMS.
One of the very biggest problems for evolution, is that plants ‘act’ with purpose. This is most obvious in the reproduction of plants (and animals, as shown in the Section on ‘Reproduction’ in the text).
That wonderful, and extremely common species called Vallisneria is a pest because of its reproductive success. But the way it reproduces is simply mind-blowing. The female flower - UNDERWATER! – produces a stigma which grows up to the surface of the water, and there is produces a substance which creates a small depression in the water round it. The male flower .... well, you’ll just have to read the book, as that would be giving the wonderful game away!
There are other huge problems too. The second biggest, is the fact that the land plants we see everywhere are supposed to have evolved from the algae (like the seaweeds). How did they get on to land and survive? The process as one evolutionist says ‘ must have been very difficult’!
Plants produce roots, which normally grow downwards into the soil and shoots which grow upwards. They could have done the exact oposite – and perished.
What makes them do this? Instinct. And how did that originate and enter the genome?
The flowering plants appear with extraordinary abruptness in the fossil record. Darwin rightly called their appearance ‘that abominable mystery’. That mystery still remains, and the instinctive behaviour of plants is an embarrassment to the evolutionary botanists. Why do they produce flowers, with pollen and ovaries?
Instinctively, in order to reproduce – because they do not learn how to do so – it is inbuilt into them, and that is a definition of instinct. But where does it come from, and how did it enter the genome?
We could go on, drawing wonderful example after wonderful example from the text, and from nature. But you owe it to yourself to read it.
Read it, and ask your evolutionary friends, teachers and professors for comment and explanation of these facts. Make sure they get a complimentary copy (it’s cheap enough for the time being), and let their cup overflow.
Are you tired of the failure of conventional biology to explain how evolution could have occurred?
Do you need examples to confound the evolutionary establishment?
Why not buy a copy today, and equip your armoury with these armour-piercing shells and bombs that can blow evolution sky-high?
Share the facts and concepts with your children. If you believe in evolution, then forewarn them of the coming deluge.
If you don’t, then here is your battle-axe with well-sharpened blade. Teach them about these facts, and let them go fearlessly into the world of evolution theory and demonstrate its inability to provide explanations for these fatal facts.
It is probably not overstating the case to say that just as Darwin’s Origin of Species overturned the existing scientific world opinion, just so this book will destroy Darwinism and everything that goes with it.
As a special introductory price, this will only cost you £4.97. Go here to order.
How Well-Researched Modern Science
Helps You to See That
DARWIN DIDN’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
The Most Completely Overlooked and Fatal Question
Evolution Has Ever Had to Face!
A Herring Gull Chick Taps the Red Spot on Its Mother’s Beak. The Mother Then Regurgitates Fish She Has Caught – So the Chick Can Eat and Survive.
But How Does the Chick Know about Tapping Her Beak? And How Does the Mother Know About Regurgitating?
INSTINCT!
( A BBC video showing this is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p007xvj5)
But How Did this Instinct Start? And How did it get into the Bird?
The instinct was there in the very first Herring Gull – however many millions of years ago that may be. And it was there complete and fully formed: or there would be no Herring Gulls today.
If the chick didn’t tap, it would have starved. If the mother didn’t regurgitate, again the chick would have starved. BOTH BEHAVIOURS had to appear at exactly the same time.
How did this happen?
THIS MAY BE THE MOST STARTLING AND DEVASTATING COLLECTION OF SCIENTIFIC FACTS YOU HAVE EVER READ, DEAR FRIEND...
After all...
Whoever heard of a new-born baby making a 3000+ mile journey home – on its own? Underwater, at that!
That is exactly what young eels do. Their parents migrate from rivers in Europe 3000+ miles south and southwest, down the west coast of Africa, then turn right and swim to the Sargasso Sea. They spawn there, THEN THEY ALL DIE, AND NEVER RETURN to Europe.
The young eels then swim home to Europe, which is 3000+ miles away. With no guides, no adults to lead them home.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8273000/8273877.stm)
How can they possibly manage such a navigational feat? INSTINCT is the only answer that can be given.
But how did the instinct start? And how did it get into the fish in the first place?
And it had to be there perfectly right from the word ‘go’ – or eels would be extinct too.
They HAVE to get to freshwater – there’s none in the Atlantic Ocean - or they would never reach sexual maturity, and the species would perish. So if the navigational instinct misdirected them, they would swim till they died in salt water, in the Falklands, the Azores, the Arctic Ocean or some other unsuitable place.
‘Extinct’ is probably not too strong a description.
Those are just two of the many startling illustrations of instinct in action found in this book. They are beautiful, bizarre, unbelievably complex examples – and evolution cannot account for the origin of a single one of them.
In every case as you will see, if the instinct is absent, or imperfect, species extinction would immediately follow.
HOWEVER, AND THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY MADE AND DETAILED IN THIS REMARKABLE BOOK:
WITHOUT INSTINCT, LIFE ITSELF WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.
Not only these virtuoso displays of startling behaviour like those above, but EVERY SINGLE FUNCTION, of EVERY SINGLE LIVING CELL, in EVERY LIVING ORGANISM depends absolutely on instinct for its survival.
Evolution argues about how legs, wings, lungs and every other organ could have evolved. Did birds’ wings evolve from reptile forelimbs? Did feathers evolve from scales? Did fish develop legs and walk on land?
All the scientific papers written to prove any of the above cases, and many others, are now irrelevant in the light of this discovery. Imagine that! A single discovery uprooting a major scientific theory!
This happens from time to time. A very recent discovery (published in the January 2010 issue of Nature journal – one of the most prestigious scientific journals on the planet) showed that a major plank of the evolution of four-limbed animals (called Tiktaalik) was totally mistaken. Hailed as the first species of fish to walk on land, and one possible ancestor of all tetrapods, imagine the absolute horror all round when tetrapod tracks, some 18 or more million years older than Tiktaalik were found!
The Law of Asynctropy, first formally stated in this book, at a single blow destroys all such arguments and makes them totally irrelevant to the facts of every case ever presented as support for the theory of evolution...
It is the most powerful and destructive single piece of evidence ever raised against evolution, which is helpless in the face of the Law.
Take Respiration as the most important example possible.
Today, we can possibly mix all of the chemicals found in the respiratory cycle in a test tube. But respiration will not take place. The powering instinct is absent, the driving force is missing.
This simple fact has huge spin-off consequences for the existence of life itself, and for the inadequacy of evolution theory, which are drawn out in full in the text.
Instinct crosses the barrier of death, somehow.
As in the case of the eels above, there are innumerable examples where the parents die, and the offspring do the same marvellous things that the parents did, WITHOUT EVER SEEING THEM! The young of the Yucca moth (Pronuba spp) does just that.
Just as remarkably, a wasp (Eumenes spp) somehow knows the gender of its young before it collects food for it to eat when it hatches! And provides an escape route for it if the prey gets too frisky in the mud igloo the mother somehow knows how to build!
And just to add more fuel to the fire, the mother anaesthetises the grubs it catches for the young – why? So the young wasp can have fresh, non-putrefying food to eat.
She then dies. The young wasp never sees its parents – but goes on to do exactly the same things the parents did.
The naturalist who first made these observations was stunned at the ingenuity displayed – but this is not intelligence, but instinct in action.
And we’re back to the original problem. How did the instinct originate? And in some ways even worse, how did it ever enter the genome? (Assuming, of course, that it is located there. If it isn’t then the problems for evolution become even more horrendous than they are already).
Again notice – if the instinct was absent or incomplete in any way, then the species would have perished immediately it first appeared on the planet. If the young couldn’t feed, then a single generation was all that could ever have existed.
If it only had putrefying food, it would perish – and without training in anaesthesiology – the mother is able to inject a non-lethal, paralysing dose of venom into the grubs which are going to be eaten by the young wasp.
And all of that so far, is meaningless without the ‘igloo’ she builds. The young would have to forage for itself, the food grubs would scatter to the four winds, and the species would be extinct.
The full development of this concept is given in the text.
SO FAR, WE HAVE ONLY MENTIONED EXAMPLES FROM THE ANIMAL WORLD. THE PLANT KINGDOM PRESENTS NO SMALLER PROBLEMS.
One of the very biggest problems for evolution, is that plants ‘act’ with purpose. This is most obvious in the reproduction of plants (and animals, as shown in the Section on ‘Reproduction’ in the text).
That wonderful, and extremely common species called Vallisneria is a pest because of its reproductive success. But the way it reproduces is simply mind-blowing. The female flower - UNDERWATER! – produces a stigma which grows up to the surface of the water, and there is produces a substance which creates a small depression in the water round it. The male flower .... well, you’ll just have to read the book, as that would be giving the wonderful game away!
There are other huge problems too. The second biggest, is the fact that the land plants we see everywhere are supposed to have evolved from the algae (like the seaweeds). How did they get on to land and survive? The process as one evolutionist says ‘ must have been very difficult’!
Plants produce roots, which normally grow downwards into the soil and shoots which grow upwards. They could have done the exact oposite – and perished.
What makes them do this? Instinct. And how did that originate and enter the genome?
The flowering plants appear with extraordinary abruptness in the fossil record. Darwin rightly called their appearance ‘that abominable mystery’. That mystery still remains, and the instinctive behaviour of plants is an embarrassment to the evolutionary botanists. Why do they produce flowers, with pollen and ovaries?
Instinctively, in order to reproduce – because they do not learn how to do so – it is inbuilt into them, and that is a definition of instinct. But where does it come from, and how did it enter the genome?
We could go on, drawing wonderful example after wonderful example from the text, and from nature. But you owe it to yourself to read it.
Read it, and ask your evolutionary friends, teachers and professors for comment and explanation of these facts. Make sure they get a complimentary copy (it’s cheap enough for the time being), and let their cup overflow.
Are you tired of the failure of conventional biology to explain how evolution could have occurred?
Do you need examples to confound the evolutionary establishment?
Why not buy a copy today, and equip your armoury with these armour-piercing shells and bombs that can blow evolution sky-high?
Share the facts and concepts with your children. If you believe in evolution, then forewarn them of the coming deluge.
If you don’t, then here is your battle-axe with well-sharpened blade. Teach them about these facts, and let them go fearlessly into the world of evolution theory and demonstrate its inability to provide explanations for these fatal facts.
It is probably not overstating the case to say that just as Darwin’s Origin of Species overturned the existing scientific world opinion, just so this book will destroy Darwinism and everything that goes with it.
As a special introductory price, this will only cost you £4.97. Go here to order.
Saturday, 12 June 2010
Hey Dawkins, Ruse, whoever supports evolution come forth and debate!
Hey you evolutionists - stop slithering around, and come out and fight like men!
I have an increasingly interesting track record.
I regard these as Medals of Honor, won in the heat of battle! I have now been thrown off
1 The Richard Dawkins forum. not surprising, where I challenged him or his supporters to emerge from hiding and debate like a man. I repeat the challenge.
Dawkins, Dawkins, Dawkins, if you ever read this, stop skulking in the undergrowth and come forth and fight for your pestilential theory. You might like to read my new book here: www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com and scare yourself silly. It's only £4.97, and I'm sure professorial salaries can run to that.
If any reader is interested in reading high quality abuse and vilification then go here:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=109119
These guys are really foul-mouthed. Understandable: when you've nothing to say, abuse is the next best thing.
They really can't stand any informed opposition and intelligent questioning of their theory. Poking the sacred cow with a sharp stick in the behind is not the done thing, obviously.
2 I have been thrown off Physics Forum. Trolling, they say. No answers either! Well, what's new?
3 I have been thrown off the Naked Scientists forum (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16535.0)where they couldn't stand the facts either. But give them their due, they took the blows for a few months before becoming punch drunk.
(Hey, BenV, this is your old friend, Asyncritus again. I should have the democratic right of reply to all these comments that are being made by the readers, as a few of them are at my expense. I've now got your forum nearly 45,000 views of my thread.
Interest is obviously very high - higher than in any other topic or even section of the board - and you've shut me up! Now act like a man. Show some guts and get me back on there so I can lay about me with the sword of instinct!)
4 I engaged in a debate on the Bible Truth Discussion Forum, with Bible-believing Christadelphians, believe it or not, but the debate got shut down just when I'd got the opposition sweating profusely.
5 The saga continues.
But anyone really wishing to read the arguments which I present about instinct, and which are not on this blog, should get a copy of the book here:
www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com
It is truly the finish of the theory. It proves that every living function is based on instinct, and since instinct is immaterial it cannot be subject to the usual alleged evolutionary processes.
Therefore evolution is incapable of explaining something which is a universal feature of all life - it's even more essential than DNA, which only functions when the instincts are present.
Worth looking at.
I have an increasingly interesting track record.
I regard these as Medals of Honor, won in the heat of battle! I have now been thrown off
1 The Richard Dawkins forum. not surprising, where I challenged him or his supporters to emerge from hiding and debate like a man. I repeat the challenge.
Dawkins, Dawkins, Dawkins, if you ever read this, stop skulking in the undergrowth and come forth and fight for your pestilential theory. You might like to read my new book here: www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com and scare yourself silly. It's only £4.97, and I'm sure professorial salaries can run to that.
If any reader is interested in reading high quality abuse and vilification then go here:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=109119
These guys are really foul-mouthed. Understandable: when you've nothing to say, abuse is the next best thing.
They really can't stand any informed opposition and intelligent questioning of their theory. Poking the sacred cow with a sharp stick in the behind is not the done thing, obviously.
2 I have been thrown off Physics Forum. Trolling, they say. No answers either! Well, what's new?
3 I have been thrown off the Naked Scientists forum (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16535.0)where they couldn't stand the facts either. But give them their due, they took the blows for a few months before becoming punch drunk.
(Hey, BenV, this is your old friend, Asyncritus again. I should have the democratic right of reply to all these comments that are being made by the readers, as a few of them are at my expense. I've now got your forum nearly 45,000 views of my thread.
Interest is obviously very high - higher than in any other topic or even section of the board - and you've shut me up! Now act like a man. Show some guts and get me back on there so I can lay about me with the sword of instinct!)
4 I engaged in a debate on the Bible Truth Discussion Forum, with Bible-believing Christadelphians, believe it or not, but the debate got shut down just when I'd got the opposition sweating profusely.
5 The saga continues.
But anyone really wishing to read the arguments which I present about instinct, and which are not on this blog, should get a copy of the book here:
www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com
It is truly the finish of the theory. It proves that every living function is based on instinct, and since instinct is immaterial it cannot be subject to the usual alleged evolutionary processes.
Therefore evolution is incapable of explaining something which is a universal feature of all life - it's even more essential than DNA, which only functions when the instincts are present.
Worth looking at.
Thursday, 3 June 2010
A fish walking on land!
Let's discuss this business of a fish coming on to land.
Have you ever seen a fish on land after a fisherman has caught it? I have. I've caught many, dropped them on the bank - and they died. You know the expression - 'like a fish out of water'.
Now what makes you think there's any survival advantage in dying when the fish has dried out?
Look at it the other way. How long would you survive if you tried to live underwater? Not very long at all, unless you had diving equipment of some sort. Do you think, for example, that if somebody held your head underwater for 1 minute today, 2 minutes tomorrow, 3 mins the day after that, and so on, after a year like that you'd be able to live underwater? I very much doubt it, because you'd drown somewhere around 7 minutes.
Why do you think things would be different for a fish?
Here's the problem stated very nicely:
"In trying to decipher the evolution of tetrapods from fish, scientists face formidable problems. The transition from water to land occurred long ago, and various family trees suggested by the fossil record are so tangled that scientists acknowledge they may never be able to sort them out definitively".
For a fish to come out on to dry land - which is what we're talking about - it has to have breathing apparatus, like lungs. No fish has lungs - not even the lungfish. Their lungs are totally different to our lungs, and bear no relationship to them.
You ever heard about the coelacanth?
Well. once upon a time, in this sea far away, there lived a fish called Latimeria. Scientists thought that it was a very special fish which could walk out on to land and somehow breathe air! Hoo boy! This great fish was the ancestor of all the land animals or something. It got out and walked in swamps and such places.
And then you'll never guess what happened.
Evolutionists needed evidence to back up the supposed transition of vertebrates from the sea to dry land. For that reason, they took the fossil coelacanth, whose anatomy they believed was ideally suited to this scenario, and began using it for propaganda purposes. They interpreted the creature's fins as "feet about to walk," and a fossilized fat-filled swimbladder in its body as "a primitive lung." The coelacanth was literally a savior for evolutionists bedeviled by such a lack of evidence. Evolutionists had at last laid hands on "one" of the countless missing links that should have numbered in the millions.
Heh heh!
And then.... ta daaaa!
This evolutionist excitement was short-lived,when a living coelacanth specimen was captured by fishermen in 1938. This inflicted a terrible disappointment on evolutionists.
James Leonard Brierley Smith, an instructor in the Rhodes University Chemistry Department and also honorary director of various fish museums on the South Coast of England, expressed his astonishment in the face of this captured coelacanth:
"Although I had come prepared, that first sight hit me like a white-hot blast and made me feel shaky and queer, my body tingled. I stood as if striken to stone. Yes, there was not a shadow of doubt, scale by scale, bone by bone, fin by fin, it was true Coelacanth."
The discovery of this imaginary missing link, once believed to have close links to man's alleged ancestors, in the form of a living fossil, was a most significant disaster for Darwinist circles.
The coelacanth, the greatest supposed proof of the theory of evolution, had suddenly been demolished.
The most important potential candidate in the fictitious transition from the sea to dry land turned out to be an exceedingly complex life form still alive in deep waters and bearing no intermediate-form characteristics at all. This living specimen dealt a heavy blow to Darwin's theory of evolution.
So back to the old drawing board and some more idiotic inventions.
Don't you see how stupid this whole thing is? You take any goldfish and drop him on the floor, then let me know what happens. If he gets up and walks off into the distance, you are the greatest scientific discoverer of all time, and you'll get 25 Nobel prizes for your discovery.
But I think you'll have a big pile of dead stinking goldfish on your floor before that happens. Try it, and see. Let me know how long he can survive out of water. grin
Here's another nice creationist site for you to laugh at: http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_II/atlas_creation_II_05.php
Have you ever seen a fish on land after a fisherman has caught it? I have. I've caught many, dropped them on the bank - and they died. You know the expression - 'like a fish out of water'.
Now what makes you think there's any survival advantage in dying when the fish has dried out?
Look at it the other way. How long would you survive if you tried to live underwater? Not very long at all, unless you had diving equipment of some sort. Do you think, for example, that if somebody held your head underwater for 1 minute today, 2 minutes tomorrow, 3 mins the day after that, and so on, after a year like that you'd be able to live underwater? I very much doubt it, because you'd drown somewhere around 7 minutes.
Why do you think things would be different for a fish?
Here's the problem stated very nicely:
"In trying to decipher the evolution of tetrapods from fish, scientists face formidable problems. The transition from water to land occurred long ago, and various family trees suggested by the fossil record are so tangled that scientists acknowledge they may never be able to sort them out definitively".
For a fish to come out on to dry land - which is what we're talking about - it has to have breathing apparatus, like lungs. No fish has lungs - not even the lungfish. Their lungs are totally different to our lungs, and bear no relationship to them.
You ever heard about the coelacanth?
Well. once upon a time, in this sea far away, there lived a fish called Latimeria. Scientists thought that it was a very special fish which could walk out on to land and somehow breathe air! Hoo boy! This great fish was the ancestor of all the land animals or something. It got out and walked in swamps and such places.
And then you'll never guess what happened.
Evolutionists needed evidence to back up the supposed transition of vertebrates from the sea to dry land. For that reason, they took the fossil coelacanth, whose anatomy they believed was ideally suited to this scenario, and began using it for propaganda purposes. They interpreted the creature's fins as "feet about to walk," and a fossilized fat-filled swimbladder in its body as "a primitive lung." The coelacanth was literally a savior for evolutionists bedeviled by such a lack of evidence. Evolutionists had at last laid hands on "one" of the countless missing links that should have numbered in the millions.
Heh heh!
And then.... ta daaaa!
This evolutionist excitement was short-lived,when a living coelacanth specimen was captured by fishermen in 1938. This inflicted a terrible disappointment on evolutionists.
James Leonard Brierley Smith, an instructor in the Rhodes University Chemistry Department and also honorary director of various fish museums on the South Coast of England, expressed his astonishment in the face of this captured coelacanth:
"Although I had come prepared, that first sight hit me like a white-hot blast and made me feel shaky and queer, my body tingled. I stood as if striken to stone. Yes, there was not a shadow of doubt, scale by scale, bone by bone, fin by fin, it was true Coelacanth."
The discovery of this imaginary missing link, once believed to have close links to man's alleged ancestors, in the form of a living fossil, was a most significant disaster for Darwinist circles.
The coelacanth, the greatest supposed proof of the theory of evolution, had suddenly been demolished.
The most important potential candidate in the fictitious transition from the sea to dry land turned out to be an exceedingly complex life form still alive in deep waters and bearing no intermediate-form characteristics at all. This living specimen dealt a heavy blow to Darwin's theory of evolution.
So back to the old drawing board and some more idiotic inventions.
Don't you see how stupid this whole thing is? You take any goldfish and drop him on the floor, then let me know what happens. If he gets up and walks off into the distance, you are the greatest scientific discoverer of all time, and you'll get 25 Nobel prizes for your discovery.
But I think you'll have a big pile of dead stinking goldfish on your floor before that happens. Try it, and see. Let me know how long he can survive out of water. grin
Here's another nice creationist site for you to laugh at: http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_II/atlas_creation_II_05.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)