Ever see those evangelical evolutionists with the little icthys (fish) symbols on their cars that Christians use to identify themselves? Inside the pagan fish symbol is the words DARWIN or EVOLVE and the little fishy symbol has little stick feet. Which is very cute because, besides my little buddy Fred illustrated here, those cartoon fish are the only fish to ever have feet.
This is very important because fish with feet is the most important animal on earth to the evangelical evolutionist. A fish with feet is the holy grail of Darwinian Evolution and finding fossilized evidence of a fish with feet would prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution is real and that man is just hairless monkeys. The truth is that except on the back of Volvo's in Boulder Colorado, there are no fish with feet and there never have been fish with feet.
What about mudskippers? What about walking catfish? What about handfish? What about walking anglerfish? All of these fish look like they have feet, but in the end these fish are pulling themselves around with fins. There is no evidence in biology or in the fossil record that any relative of these critters ever evolved into something other than what they are: a fish with odd fins. You might say that one of these fish could evolve into something else, they could grow legs and really make something of themselves. At the same time you might also say that Major League Baseball could become a more exciting game if the base runner could pick up blockers as he rounded the bases. Neither is going to happen. The base runner is not going to be behind a flying wedge, and a fish is not ever going to become a parakeet.
A fossilized fish with feet is something that the entire cult of Darwinian evolution is desperately looking for but has yet to find: a transitional fossil. Something, anything, to prove their theory that life began in the sea and moved to land. One of their current finds is the fossilized remains of Pezosiren portelli, which they claim is a 50 million year old ancestor of the manatee, it's main feature is that it has legs. That's nice, but it's still a manatee. It's not a dinosaur, it's not a hummingbird, it's not a fish. If it evolved, it evolved from a walking manatee to a swimming manatee, but it's still a manatee.
Species change in responce to changes in their environment, but they remain the same species. There's a vast difference between a Yorkshire Terrier and a Wolf due to breeding and environment, but in the end they're still canines and neither is an example for Darwinian evolution. Species cannot change from one species to another, ape cannot evolve to human, just has a butterfly cannot evolve to a dolphin. This is because there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. To evolve from ape to human you need new genes in order to have morphological changes, such as fins into feet or rewiring the brains to work more efficiently. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake that's single sex bacteria humans and apes reproduce quite differently and there is no way that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.
No fact is too small or insignificant for evolutionists to hide - Eddy Eddings at Calvinist Cartoons points this out quite nicely:
When considering evolution there's three questions to ask: Can it be observed? Can it be reproduced? and Can it be tested?
Can it be observed? No, there's no evidence to show that it has been observed. Changes to species have been observed - in the past 5000 years the average height of a human male has changed from 5' 3" to 5' 9", that's not evolution, that's change due to environmental and dietary conditions. Regardless of how tall a human was or is, there's been so sightings of people growing scales, gills, or feathers.
Can it be reproduced? No. Decades of laboratory have produced thousands of mice of different size, shape, and colors, but in the end they're all mice. None of them have grown scales, gills, or feathers. We can prove that laboratory animals react differently to different environments and slowly adjust to that environment, but none have sprouted wings and have flown to a more suitable environment.
Can it be tested? No, the fossil record is full of 'gaps' which if filled would support the theory of evolution. However once you eliminate all the fraud perpetrated by evolutionary "science" there's not enough data in the fossil record to test, let alone support a theory.
At best evolution is a hypothesis, fraudulently characterized as theory, duplicitously taught as fact, and scandalously used to undermine our faith.
What about mudskippers? What about walking catfish? What about handfish? What about walking anglerfish? All of these fish look like they have feet, but in the end these fish are pulling themselves around with fins. There is no evidence in biology or in the fossil record that any relative of these critters ever evolved into something other than what they are: a fish with odd fins. You might say that one of these fish could evolve into something else, they could grow legs and really make something of themselves. At the same time you might also say that Major League Baseball could become a more exciting game if the base runner could pick up blockers as he rounded the bases. Neither is going to happen. The base runner is not going to be behind a flying wedge, and a fish is not ever going to become a parakeet.A fossilized fish with feet is something that the entire cult of Darwinian evolution is desperately looking for but has yet to find: a transitional fossil. Something, anything, to prove their theory that life began in the sea and moved to land. One of their current finds is the fossilized remains of Pezosiren portelli, which they claim is a 50 million year old ancestor of the manatee, it's main feature is that it has legs. That's nice, but it's still a manatee. It's not a dinosaur, it's not a hummingbird, it's not a fish. If it evolved, it evolved from a walking manatee to a swimming manatee, but it's still a manatee.
Species change in responce to changes in their environment, but they remain the same species. There's a vast difference between a Yorkshire Terrier and a Wolf due to breeding and environment, but in the end they're still canines and neither is an example for Darwinian evolution. Species cannot change from one species to another, ape cannot evolve to human, just has a butterfly cannot evolve to a dolphin. This is because there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. To evolve from ape to human you need new genes in order to have morphological changes, such as fins into feet or rewiring the brains to work more efficiently. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake that's single sex bacteria humans and apes reproduce quite differently and there is no way that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.
No fact is too small or insignificant for evolutionists to hide - Eddy Eddings at Calvinist Cartoons points this out quite nicely:
Can it be observed? No, there's no evidence to show that it has been observed. Changes to species have been observed - in the past 5000 years the average height of a human male has changed from 5' 3" to 5' 9", that's not evolution, that's change due to environmental and dietary conditions. Regardless of how tall a human was or is, there's been so sightings of people growing scales, gills, or feathers.
Can it be reproduced? No. Decades of laboratory have produced thousands of mice of different size, shape, and colors, but in the end they're all mice. None of them have grown scales, gills, or feathers. We can prove that laboratory animals react differently to different environments and slowly adjust to that environment, but none have sprouted wings and have flown to a more suitable environment.
Can it be tested? No, the fossil record is full of 'gaps' which if filled would support the theory of evolution. However once you eliminate all the fraud perpetrated by evolutionary "science" there's not enough data in the fossil record to test, let alone support a theory.
At best evolution is a hypothesis, fraudulently characterized as theory, duplicitously taught as fact, and scandalously used to undermine our faith.
Doug, do you agree that MSRA is an example of mutation? Do you agree that our large apples are a mutation from earlier apples?
ReplyDeleteNot sure what the Minnesota Street Rod Association has to do with evolution, unless you're considering the evolution from hot rod to ricer a mutation, but larger apples? Are they a mutation any more than larger people? Or are they a product of their environment and breeding. Regardless, an apple will never evolve into a banana.
ReplyDelete