- Apr 1, 2016
- 1,166
- 342
- 52
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
The very notion of human evolution is contradictory to human beings. The notion of evolution, as first posited by Darwin, is more along the lines of natural selection, or survival of the fittest. An animal is born with a minor genetic variance that gives it some sort of edge over others of the same species. But these genetic variances are minor changes that give advantages. Nothing more. When these variances are passed down genetically to their offspring, over time the minor change becomes more widespread and ultimately dominates the species because of the advantage it affords. So in the long term, a species may evolve in basic traits. This is an observable fact.
But as Darwin also noted, his theory was not proven, because the fossil record was not, in his day, sufficient to prove the evolution from one species to another; the "missing link" was not there. There were no fish-dogs, hippo-birds, or snake-gazelles.
Modern discoveries have actually proven the exact opposite. The Cambrian layer shows the almost spontaneous existence of most known phyla of life, in almost the same forms as they exist today. There have been no findings of substance beyond the Cambrian layer. And we still don't have a missing link.
Now, as it concerns humans ... the concept of evolution is, again, natural selection. A small trait makes an animal more survivable, and so it flourishes. Giraffes did not grow long necks so they could eat leaves from the tall trees. They eat leaves from the tall trees because they have long necks. People on a sinking island aren't going to develop gills because they need to breath under water. They'll just drown.
So when one considers the fact that human beings will die from exposure in virtually any climate on earth without artificial aid, the idea that we evolved to a lesser version of a survivable species contradicts the very foundation of natural selection. We have become less survivable. Our changes from the alleged previous forms of our species have not made us more survivable. They have made us more fragile.
We evolved also in mind, some might say. Well, if the first smart human with less hair, a weaker constitution, and weaker muscles was born to a less intelligent, hairy mother who could knock down trees ... but who didn't use fire ... we wouldn't have survived to pass on our more intelligent, less hairy, weaker selves to a new line of offspring. We would have simply died, being ill-equipped to survive, lacking the necessary traits common to our alleged ancestors.
Then there are things like the human eye (or any eye in general), which is not a small change, but a complex one. No blind species, by accident or genetic mutation, would ever produce an offspring with complex sight.
All in all, the concept of evolution is pure speculation, and it's not based on any real findings of science. Darwin had an idea. The idea in its simplest form is tangible. But the idea on the scope and level that evolutionists propose is preposterous. It's not real. Evolution is a farce.
But as Darwin also noted, his theory was not proven, because the fossil record was not, in his day, sufficient to prove the evolution from one species to another; the "missing link" was not there. There were no fish-dogs, hippo-birds, or snake-gazelles.
Modern discoveries have actually proven the exact opposite. The Cambrian layer shows the almost spontaneous existence of most known phyla of life, in almost the same forms as they exist today. There have been no findings of substance beyond the Cambrian layer. And we still don't have a missing link.
Now, as it concerns humans ... the concept of evolution is, again, natural selection. A small trait makes an animal more survivable, and so it flourishes. Giraffes did not grow long necks so they could eat leaves from the tall trees. They eat leaves from the tall trees because they have long necks. People on a sinking island aren't going to develop gills because they need to breath under water. They'll just drown.
So when one considers the fact that human beings will die from exposure in virtually any climate on earth without artificial aid, the idea that we evolved to a lesser version of a survivable species contradicts the very foundation of natural selection. We have become less survivable. Our changes from the alleged previous forms of our species have not made us more survivable. They have made us more fragile.
We evolved also in mind, some might say. Well, if the first smart human with less hair, a weaker constitution, and weaker muscles was born to a less intelligent, hairy mother who could knock down trees ... but who didn't use fire ... we wouldn't have survived to pass on our more intelligent, less hairy, weaker selves to a new line of offspring. We would have simply died, being ill-equipped to survive, lacking the necessary traits common to our alleged ancestors.
Then there are things like the human eye (or any eye in general), which is not a small change, but a complex one. No blind species, by accident or genetic mutation, would ever produce an offspring with complex sight.
All in all, the concept of evolution is pure speculation, and it's not based on any real findings of science. Darwin had an idea. The idea in its simplest form is tangible. But the idea on the scope and level that evolutionists propose is preposterous. It's not real. Evolution is a farce.
Upvote
0