According to Darwinism, fish evolved into amphibians, which then evolved into reptiles, which then evolved into mammals, Australian molecularbiologist Michael Denton studied these different animals on a molecular level, and found no evidence for the sequence. In his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton analises various molecular structures, such as that of cytochrome C, a protein involved in producing cellular energy. It is found in organisms ranging from bacteria to man. Based on cytochrome C, amphibians are just as distant from fish as people are In other words, on a molecular level, amphibiaians are not close cousins of fish. Denton writes:
Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of a cell might have occured, molecular biology has served only to enphasize the enormity of the gap . . . . No living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.
[T]he system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence for evolution is emphatically absent.31
Issues of Common Sense
In a popular evolutionary explanation, here's how reptiles evolved into birds: They wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.
But the theory suffers when scrutinized. A few years ago, I was walking through a zoo with my son. We saw uncaged parrots sitting on perches out in the open. My son asked me why the parrots didn't just fly away. We queried the zookeeper, who told us: "We clip their wings." Now, what would happen to these parrots if turned loose in the jungle? Unable to fly, they would make easy targets for predators and swiftly perish.
According to natural selection, a physical trait is acquired because it enhances survival. Obviously, flight is beneficial. One can certainly see how flying animals might survive better than those who couldn't, and thus natural selection would preserve them. But birds' wings and feathers are perfectly designed instruments. "Evolving" wings would have no genuine survival value until they reached the point of flight. The transitional creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would be a poor candidate for survival-it couldn't fly yet, nor walk well. Natural selection would eliminate it without a second thought.
Let's raise an even more fundamental question:
Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?
Why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't invertebrates evolving into vertebrates? Why aren't reptiles evolving into mammals? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
And why is man so incredibly different from animals? What animal can solve complex math equations? Write poetry? Laugh at jokes? Design compu ter software? How can we say man is merely "one more animal, just more highly evolved"?
James Perloff
According to Darwinism, fish evolved into amphibians, which then evolved into reptiles, which then evolved into mammals, Australian molecularbiologist Michael Denton studied these different animals on a molecular level, and found no evidence for the sequence. In his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton analises various molecular structures, such as that of cytochrome C, a protein involved in producing cellular energy. It is found in organisms ranging from bacteria to man. Based on cytochrome C, amphibians are just as distant from fish as people are In other words, on a molecular level, amphibiaians are not close cousins of fish. Denton writes:
Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of a cell might have occured, molecular biology has served only to enphasize the enormity of the gap . . . . No living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.
[T]he system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence for evolution is emphatically absent.31
Issues of Common Sense
In a popular evolutionary explanation, here's how reptiles evolved into birds: They wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.
But the theory suffers when scrutinized. A few years ago, I was walking through a zoo with my son. We saw uncaged parrots sitting on perches out in the open. My son asked me why the parrots didn't just fly away. We queried the zookeeper, who told us: "We clip their wings." Now, what would happen to these parrots if turned loose in the jungle? Unable to fly, they would make easy targets for predators and swiftly perish.
According to natural selection, a physical trait is acquired because it enhances survival. Obviously, flight is beneficial. One can certainly see how flying animals might survive better than those who couldn't, and thus natural selection would preserve them. But birds' wings and feathers are perfectly designed instruments. "Evolving" wings would have no genuine survival value until they reached the point of flight. The transitional creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would be a poor candidate for survival-it couldn't fly yet, nor walk well. Natural selection would eliminate it without a second thought.
Let's raise an even more fundamental question:
Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?
Why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't invertebrates evolving into vertebrates? Why aren't reptiles evolving into mammals? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
And why is man so incredibly different from animals? What animal can solve complex math equations? Write poetry? Laugh at jokes? Design compu ter software? How can we say man is merely "one more animal, just more highly evolved"?
James Perloff
No comments:
Post a Comment