| Subject: Galapagos, From our own correspondent BBC |
Author:
Graham
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Sunday 30 November, 2014 05:04:19
In reply to:
Horatio
's message, "Re: Down to the Sea in Ships" on Monday 21 April, 2014 01:45:34
Dear Horatio
Interesting to hear you state that you were surrounded by the evidence of evolution by natural selection in your opening to From Our Own Correspondents.
So, did you see any species being transformed into another species whilst you were there? Did you see any punctuated equilibrium happen where one species might give birth to a completely different species, as some evolutionists theorise?
Or did you see gradual evolution over millions of years during your short stay there?
What you may have seen is micro evolution where diversity within the species can be seen. For example, an African looks different from a Caucasian or an Eskimo looks different from an Arab; but they are all Homo Sapiens, the same species. Therefore variation is not evidence for macro evolution. A turtle with a long neck is a turtle as a turtle is with a short neck is. A finch with a large beak is a finch as is a finch with a short beak; all the same kind of animal, not transformed into another kind.
The theory is exactly what it is a theory and not a fact; it is still controversial amongst even many eminent scientist. Unfortunately, it seems that lay people have been indoctrinated with the theory as fact and do not critically investigate it.
Genetic mutations do not add information but mostly cause disease as sickle cell anaemia, multiple sclerosis or down syndrome. There is no evidence for macro evolution in the fossil record, quite the opposite, in fact. Stasis in species is found and no transitional links whatsoever are found! Palaeontology has been littered with fraud as in Piltdown man, Nebraska man and morphological reconstruction of Simians has been creative in the extreme (Bones of Contention, Marvin L. Lubenow 2004.) There is a lot of vested interest in continuing the presentation of the theory as fact and any scientist who questions it (as scientists surely should do) is ridiculed and papers are not published.
.
The irreducible complexity of the eye or cellular cilia in biochemistry stand against evolution (Darwin’s Black Box, Michael J Behe 2006) See also Darwin on Trial by the eminent Harvard lawyer Phillip E Johnson.
Your introduction was, in my view, misleading and serves only to perpetrate the fairy story for grown ups.
If you have arguments which support your introduction I would be happy to hear them.
Graham Oliver
B.Sc. M.Sc.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 