Wednesday, May 23, 2012

When Do Fundamental New Features Ever Evolve?

Of course our government is insistent that we accept the notion that all life evolved directly from previously existing life by strictly natural means (macro-evolution).    A population which accepts this will be much easier to shape, rule, loot, and abuse than one which believes we are created in the image of God and endowed by Him with certain unalienable rights.   Therefore, the version which is most convenient to the ruling elites will be relentlessly pushed by the federalized education system which they control, as well as the universities whose researchers are now their hirelings, and in the classrooms where their students attend by virtue of federal aid.

But when do new features ever evolve?   That is the question I keep asking myself time and time again when I read yet another story about how scientists discover some "advanced" feature in some fossil dated quite close to the time the earliest extant phyla appear in the fossil record.

The latest example is this article where they discover that a "primitive" eel has a back bone of a type thought only to exist in land animals.   Apparently, the land animal backbone "evolved" (because of course you know these things must have evolved) before it ever became a land animal.   And as usual, we don't have the fossils showing it evolving, rather we find, near the base of the fossil record, that animals with these sorts of back bones just show up.   If all these features show up at or near the beginning, where exactly is the evolution?    All I see is that the parts you started with get arranged in different ways.   That argues against evolution as even necessarily being the arranger, much less original maker, of those parts/structures.   That's not the way the article spins it mind you, for they keep a wary eye on their government funding I am sure.

This article is another example.   They found a genetic switch for limbs and digits in a "primitive" fish.  Again, what really evolves here when genes like that are already present in "primitive" organisms.   All I see is a pile of original material, complex from the start, getting arranged in a countless number of ways.   Most of what they are calling TRANSITIONAL forms appear to be merely a COMPOSITE form. 

Another example is this recently discovered eel.    It has a double upper jaw which is common only in fossilized eels from over 100 million years ago.  But it also has a set of raked teeth present in fishes but not present in any eels living or dead.   It is not a TRANSITION from eel to fish.   It is a composite.   There is no "evolution" from fish to regular eels or any such thing.   This is something different and has been classified as such.

So what's new in macro-evolution?  Not much.  All I see is loss of information and shuffling of existing information.   It is hard to get from molecules to man that way, unless the potential for a man was already built into the first living creatures.   That is not the creation story I am used to, but its implications for Divine Creation are no less obvious.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home