Using the example of the changing color of the moth (or the many similar examples from artifical breeding programs) as support for evolution is like arguing that seeing something move back and forth horizontally (like billiards on a pool table) is evidence that they will eventually move up vertically (like an elevator). To extrapolate change of increasing complexity from observing change at the same level of complexity is equally tenuous.
University textbook examples, like that of the evolution of the Soapberry bug, continue to show natural selection and change – but not evolution in the sense of new functional information Finally, it was pointed out to me that what I had thought of as similarities between organisms proving the existence of a common evolutionary ancestor (technically known as homology) could also be seen as evidence of a common creator.
For example, it explained: All that was true of human life – struggle, competition and lust; what was observable of the biological world – mutations, changing species, and similarities between species, was all explained by chance and natural selection operating on the evolving descendants of our common ancestor over millions of years.
Evolution seemed so obvious that I was impatient with any who questioned it, especially those who did so because of their ‘religion’.
Here are some pertinent pages: University debate with an evolution professor Human Evolution?
– video of a presentation I did in a university anthropology class Consider Design?
And this is a Designer who has showed some amazing craftsmanship – including the design of you and I.
Call him God, or perhaps something else, this awareness will be an important first step in determining our sense of meaning, purpose and self-worth as we live out our lives.
In other words, is it possible for a lung to work at all if it is part-way between the bi-directional structure of reptiles and the uni-directional structure of birds?
Even the supposed evolution of such a simple thing as the elongated neck of the giraffe, cannot be explained by the small successive steps of natural selection. I hope that this page will encourage you to start taking a closer look about this because how you and I understand our origins will have an impact on how we see our world and ourselves.
We will either see ourselves and the people around us as products of chance, only here on earth due to a long series of lucky ‘mistakes’, or we will see ourselves, and people around us as created by a Designer.
like starfish, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, sea lilies etc.) supposedly took 2 billion years. And this supposedly involved two billion years of evolution! And why is there no trace of earlier intermediate forms? 144) This can be shown when one looks at the evolutionary ‘trees’. You will see from this textbook figure that there is no start, or transitional fossils connecting the major groups of mammals – all appear with their characteristics complete. Then I started to realize that the explanatory power of evolution that I described earlier was not as impressive as I had first thought.
You can imagine the number of intermediates that would have existed as nature by chance and natural selection evolved biological life from an amoeba-like organism to some complex animal similar to one of the invertebrates mentioned above. 102.) The fossil record is of little use in providing direct evidence of the pathways of descent of the invertebrate classes. no phylum is connected to any other via intermediate fossil types. Valentine, The Evolution of Complex Animals in What Darwin Began, L. This same absence of intermediate fossils also occurred in the supposed evolution from invertebrates to fish (as attested by these leading evolutionists): Between the Cambrian [invertebrates] … The American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils…You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organsim was derived’. For example, though we can see changes in animals over time, these changes never show any net effect of increasing complexity.