In
memory of Charles Darwin
1859 - 2024
„Natural Selection
Natural selection is the process through which species adapt to their environments. It is the engine that drives evolution.On
the Origin of Species
English
naturalist Charles Darwin wrote the definitive book outlining his
idea of natural selection, On the Origin of Species. The book
chronicled his studies in South America and Pacific islands.
Published in 1859, the book became a best seller.
English
naturalist Charles Darwin developed the idea of natural
selection after a five-year voyage to study plants, animals, and
fossils in South America and on islands in the Pacific. In 1859, he
brought the idea of natural selection to the attention of
the world in his best-selling book, On
the Origin of Species.
Natural
selection is the process through which populations of living
organisms adapt and change. Individuals in a population are
naturally variable, meaning that they are all different in some ways.
This variation means that some individuals
have traits better suited to the environment than others.
Individuals with adaptive traits—traits that give
them some advantage—are more likely to survive and reproduce. These
individuals then pass the adaptive traits on to their
offspring. Over time, these advantageous traits become more
common in the population. Through this process of natural
selection, favorable traits are transmitted
through generations.
Natural
selection can lead to speciation, where one species gives
rise to a new and distinctly different species. It is one of the
processes that drives evolution and helps to explain the
diversity of life on Earth.
[Important
addition: it can explain variation within species - not the existence
of the original basal species. The emergence of new, significantly
different species is the slippery slope, the banana peel that is the
bankruptcy of Darwinism, because you cannot extrapolate from it to
the emergence of the original species, because their origin is not
from those that already exist -
as here - but from those, which did not exist at all before.]
Darwin
chose the name natural selection to contrast with “artificial
selection,” or selective breeding that is controlled by humans. He
pointed to the pastime of pigeon breeding, a popular hobby in his
day, as an example of artificial selection. By choosing which pigeons
mated with others, hobbyists created distinct pigeon breeds, with
fancy feathers or acrobatic flight, that were different from wild
pigeons.
Darwin
and other scientists of his day argued that a process much like
artificial selection happened in nature, without any human
intervention. He argued that natural selection explained how a wide
variety of life forms developed over time from a single common
ancestor.” - https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/natural-selection/
THE
NATURE OF NATURAL SELECTION
The
workings of natural selection were described by Charles Darwin in his
1859 book The Origin of Species by analogy with artificial selection,
as we have seen above.
HUMAN
SELECTION - AND CULLING
In artificial selection /selective
breeding/, breeders prefer animals and plants based on their own
judgement when breeding. So humans choose which animals to breed and
when. While those that are not suitable for further breeding are
excluded from breeding in the strictest sense.
NATURE
CHOOSES - AND WEED
Natural reproduction is when nature chooses
which animals can pass on their genes to their offspring. Through
natural selection, individuals that are well-adapted to their
environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, producing
offspring that share these well-adapted traits. Those less adapted to
the environment are more likely to die before they reproduce.
In
nature, heritable variants that are unviable or unable to reproduce
die out of populations. The remaining heritable variants may be
selected for by environmental factors (e.g. temperature, quality of
available food, natural enemies, etc.).
EVOLUTIONARY
TASK - BREEDING ELEPHANT
"Life,
driven by evolutionary processes and adapting to a changing
environment, is an unpredictably creative construct. In other words,
it can evolve into anything, even human-like intelligence."
/Stuart
Kauffman: What is life? - John Brockman: The next 50 years. Vince
Publishing House, Budapest, 2002, p. 129./
Let
it be anything, say an elephant. The simplicity of its evolution was
put like this by an atheist chemist:
"If
there are atoms, and there is opportunity, there will be molecules;
and if molecules are in a warm, humid place, sooner or later they
will become elephants." /P.W.
Atkins in Genesis p.17./
A
chemist should know. Or is he bluffing? Let's take a closer look at
the credibility of the claim.
It
is thought that all living things can trace their ancestry back a few
billion years to microscopic, single-celled organisms such as
bacteria. These unicellular organisms evolved multicellularity
through a specific series of adaptations. Modern evolutionary biology
holds that each organism is the descendant of a unique ancestor,
usually referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of
all life on Earth. At least, that is what it is traced back to.
Well,
let's take this as a theoretical basis from which to start. From a
single bacteria-like single-celled organism /LUCA/, let the atheist
biologist, chemist or newspaper deliverer /whatever/ evolve an
elephant with the tools of science. This can only be done by
selective breeding /theoretically deriving the process as we have
seen in pigeon breeding the choice of individuals to mate/.
This
is the artificial selection or breeding process, in which the
selection pressure is specifically controlled, as in all other human
breeding. The problem is that in nature there is no controlled
breeding process by selection pressure that controls the development
of a given organism to full maturity.
Because,
as we read,
"a process similar to artificial selection occurs in nature,
without human intervention." How
similar, or not similar, we shall examine more closely.
In
human supervised breeding, the aim is to produce a new breed or
population by combining genotypes of two or more varieties. In this
way, the favourable characteristics of different varieties can be
combined and concentrated in a single variety. Producing a new
variety by crossing is therefore by no means a simple task. A great
many factors have to be taken into account, all of which influence
the result.
The
individuals to be used for breeding must be carefully identified and
selected. The husbandry conditions must be such that the desirable
qualities of the new breed can be fully developed. This complex and
highly experienced breeding work can only be undertaken by highly
skilled professionals, because in this type of breeding, the
production of /synthetic/ breeds requires several decades.
[It
is noteworthy that in the natural process there are no highly trained
professionals, i.e. intelligent factors!]
In
the present task, we cannot talk about concentrating the beneficial
traits of different breeds into a single species (i.e. the elephant),
we cannot talk about the conscious application of selection methods
of this kind, because there are no different subjects, but we have a
unique common ancestor, LUCA, from which we have to extract.
What
does Charles Darwin say in his autobiography about how natural
selection works?
"... there is no more design in the operation of natural
selection than in the direction in which the wind blows." What
did Richard Dawkins say about the same thing?
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it
cannot foresee, because it does not plan consequences, because it has
no purpose in mind... biological evolution is essentially a random
wandering in a field of genetic possibilities." This
is exactly the opposite of the process of human breeding.
Let's
ask the extremely high profile question: If biological evolution is
essentially a random wandering through the field of genetic
possibilities, what does this random wandering have to do with the
evolutionary design and conservation of elephant genetic traits? What
is the role of natural selection as a consequence of uncontrolled
selection pressures?
If
the strategic goal of living organisms is survival through immediate
adaptation - "some
individuals are better adapted to the environment than others.
Individuals with adaptive traits - which give them certain advantages
- are more likely to survive and reproduce"
- then the ongoing design and construction of anatomical features of
a complete structural architecture that did not exist before must be
a completely different strategic goal for the elephant.
After
all, the improvement in adaptability must occur immediately, but the
new elephant-specific structure must undergo a long process of
evolution, with the aim of developing and maintaining the genetic
characteristics that correspond to that structure, otherwise the
anatomical structure and traits that are specific to that organism
will not be produced. This then ensures the continued survival of
that particular organism through adaptation.
We
read that natural reproduction is when nature chooses what animals to
breed. Through natural selection, individuals that are well-adapted
to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, so
that offspring are born that share these well-adapted traits. Those
that are less adapted to the environment are more likely to die
before they reproduce. This is the essence of natural selection -
without human intervention, that is, without conscious selection.
But
what does this have to do with the development of the elephant from
stem cells? Since when does the long-term development and
conservation of the genetic characteristics of a species coincide
with its immediate adaptation to a changing environment, which is
reflected in a continuous improvement of its adaptability?!
It
is quite another to evolve something purposefully /conscious
breeding/, and quite another to spontaneously select those best able
to survive in a given environmental situation. Then the goal of
spontaneous evolution is not to evolve the elephant, but to seek
survival of the best adapted by natural selection. And if it does not
even strive to evolve, how does it evolve? How does a molecule
roosting in a damp, warm place eventually become an elephant?
How
does that ancient cell know that it must evolve towards the elephant?
Or does it not know, but it evolves in that direction? So what does
it do? What selective force is giving it the right direction? Which
force of selection, influenced by the whims of nature, is subject to
the incessant processes of change?!
In
the case of conscious human breeding, if someone can only develop
anything by selective breeding /in this case, developing an elephant
from a non-elephant cell, i.e. consciously/, and ignorantly blame
nature for having bred it, and moreover, both males and females
optimally adapted to each other, optimally attuned to each other,
this is not science, but pseudo-scientific atheistic philosophy,
which has nothing to do with biological laws.
Or
that would be the main insight of Darwin, the biological genius, that
this is how it works, because "a process similar to artificial selection takes place in nature without human intervention." Now, what's the similarity? That in one there is conscious selection for breed, and in the other there is selection for survival regardless of breed?!
That
unicellular organisms can evolve to become multicellular organisms up
to a certain level through evolutionary processes, since when is it
evidence that this evolutionary process leads to the evolution of the
elephant in the long run without a purposeful breeding strategy? If
it works in nature without a guiding force, why do breeders in
artificial selection consciously prefer animals and plants with
specific parameters based on their own judgement when breeding? Then
it would be enough to select the most productive ones, without taking
into account the breed characteristics - or not?!
BREEDING
OF HOLSTEIN-FRIESIAN CATTLE
The
Holstein-Friesian is the world's most populous and largest dairy
cattle breed capable of producing milk. If the breed's reproductive
traits have been perfected using modern techniques to achieve the
highest possible milk yield, how did nature develop the genetic
potential of an elephant with unrivalled anatomy and characteristics,
wandering aimlessly and at random in a field of genetic
possibilities?
If
the elephant did not have a specific breed characteristic /as the
Holstein-Friesian does/, after a few generations the characteristics
of the elephant would be lost /as the Holstein-Friesian would lose
the characteristics of its breed/, but it is precisely natural
selection that does not allow the breed to degenerate /as artificial
selection breeding does not allow the Holstein-Friesian to
degenerate/.
So
how did nature create the elephant blindly, without intelligent
intervention, like conscious human breeding created the standard
Holstein-Friesian? Were breeding animals spontaneously bred on the
most viable, breed-less stock of the time, and did time and chance
solve the problem of the world's most populous and largest dairy
cattle breed?
Because
there is a huge difference between the unconscious and conscious
creation and preservation of high quality genetic endowments. If
conservation by natural selection is not conscious, then evolution
cannot be conscious either. And if it is not conscious, then where
did the elephant with its excellent character and conformation come
from? Blindly evolved by natural selection without any guidance?
If
the standard of the Holstein-Friesian is consciously established by
artificial selection, then its conservation cannot be unconscious.
And if it is conscious, how can the development by nature of an
elephant with excellent character and conformation be unconscious?
Does conscious and non-conscious breeding develop the same standard
of living? Is this a serious claim or is it a gullible, manipulated
pseudoscience known to mankind as Darwinism?
If
fruit flies (of which more than 20 generations are easily bred every
year) are used to provoke some microevolutionary,
species-boundary-breaking freak (e.g. wing or eye variation), what
kind of macroevolutionary hopeful monster would be bred from LUCA?
Would they further confusingly breed that into an elephant, or some
furry-feathered, woolly-scaly gawking stork-crocodile-gnome with big
flat palms, a droopy nose, eyebrows that drift over the eyes, a
donkey-toothed duck's beak, a fluffy rabbit tail, or what?
They
would not even be able to create a fly with compound eyes providing a
360-degree field of vision, which play a very important role in the
environment. If there were no flies, there would be garbage and dead
animal carcasses everywhere. As scavengers, flies digest decaying
organic matter, participate in pollination, etc., so they play a very
purposeful role in different ecosystems. [Of course, existing without
any strategic purpose, as nature has none.]
The
human brain processes about 60 images per second, while a fly can
process about 250 images in a single second. If reproductive
incompatibility has been shown to have occurred on numerous occasions
in laboratory populations of fruit flies, i.e. speciation has
occurred according to the most commonly used reproductive species
concept - an absolutely arbitrary, evolution-friendly species
definition category - does this prove that evolved from LUCA an
ancestral fly due to some spontaneous gene exchange?
And
then the same LUCA /or another LUCA/ went on to evolve the elephant?
And did that particular LUCA evolve to as many as the millions of
living creatures that exist, just because evolutionary biology has
created a species concept that it can manipulate as it pleases?
Because
that's what academic power science tests: "Describe
the Darwinian model of evolution by natural selection." /Biology
i. detailed examination requirements/ And the examinee has no say in
the matter, if he does not biflagate the spontaneous self-organizing
theorems of Darwinian evolution, he can go wherever he sees fit, his
future career will have "no
more design than in the direction the wind blows." The
existence on which he builds his life will be the result of
"essentially
random wandering" in
the very uneven field of possibilities provided by academic science.
"Can
the state allow its citizens to decide how the world is? If there is
a form of knowledge that is honoured today, it is scientific
knowledge. Can a contrary view be taught to millions of children? If
so, the status of one of the most important institutions in society -
science, which is responsible for the creation of knowledge - would
be undermined."
/Gábor Zemplén Creationism - pro and con LUCIDITY, 2006/6-7./
However,
they cannot deny anyone the right to investigate, with the level of
responsibility that everyone feels for themselves and their children,
what are they building their present and their future on? On the
hypothesis of evolutionary theory, which is thought to be proven, or
on creation, which is rejected. It is everyone's personal, sovereign
right to decide. /For those who care about the outcome of their own
fate./
Evolution
is the process by which the heritable characteristics of biological
populations change over successive generations.
-
We who doubt evolution are still at the LUCA, when there are no
heritable traits anywhere, because first the specific traits and
their continuity of heritability must be acquired! -
As the process of evolution works, the composition of the living world is constantly changing /despite
this, living organisms still reproduce according to their own sex,
the dog reproduces the dog, etc./, species
are constantly changing
/Darwin's finches did not change, but only varied according to
natural conditions/.
New species are created and dieout /these new species would be new species if they evolved from the LUCA level, but their novelty is only a kind of novelty according to evolutionary theory, in reality they are species variations of a given species showing variability, they have nothing to do with the actual speciation/.
Elephants
are thought to have evolved from the evolutionary tree group known as
proboscidea. But the point is not here, but how did the evolutionary
tree group known as proboscidea evolve from LUCA? Furthermore, where
is the controlled application of selection pressure that coordinated
evolution through the evolutionary tree group known as proboscidea in
the direction of the elephant? And of course in a million other
directions without direct control!
A
study published in an issue of the American Academy of Sciences'
journal PNAS suggests that it takes about 24 million generations for
mammals to reach maximum body size, which is about the time it takes
for an animal the size of a mouse to grow to the size of an elephant.
For a slightly less drastic but significant change, such as a cat to
elephant size in terrestrial mammals, it takes 10 million
generations.
It's
about the same philosophy as saying to a taxi driver in a
cosmopolitan city: - "please turn right or left at every street
corner at your convenience, and I'll let you know when I get home"
- because why would nature make an elephant out of a mouse, when in
fact it didn't, there are mice and there are elephants today. That
the elephant evolved from the mouse on its own is just like how first
there was the wooden sledge, then the iron sledge, then the Nissan.
Completely by accident, of course, because no conscious designer was
involved in the evolutionary process.
Is
this real science or a version of Grimm's best fairy tale?
If
humans choose what animals to breed and when to breed them, why is
natural selection analogous to artificial selection - as Charles
Darwin argued in his 1859 book The Origin of Species? After all, in
artificial there is consciousness, and in natural there is
spontaneous selection. Do I select what I need for a particular
purpose, or do I let the most highly evolved survive spontaneously,
and the result is the same either way?
And
see again: "...
in the operation of natural selection there is no more design than in
the direction which the wind blows." /Charles Darwin/ "Natural
selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it does not foresee,
because it does not plan consequences, because it has no purpose in
mind... biological evolution is essentially a random wandering in the
field of genetic possibilities." /Richard
Dawkins/ This is the exact opposite of the human process based on
artificial selection!
Then
the two have nothing to do with each other if the elephant is to be
consciously evolved, so this evolution could not have brought about
this evolution by the random application of selection pressures, by
the uncontrolled application of selection pressures, but it had to be
FORMED by God.
Then
evolutionary change is possible, when the elephant adapts to external
environmental changes, but this is simple microevolution, not
macroevolution, not the evolution of a phylum from some ancient cell.
Microevolutionary
changes can be observed in animals and even within humans. The
problem is that a species cannot change beyond the range of its
genetic code (DNA). That is, a 'breed of dog' can adapt and reproduce
within its own species, but dogs never grow a tribe and become
elephants, they never become a completely different, distinct species
from their own.
As
it is written in the Bible, James 3:12 "Or,
brethren, can a fig tree bring forth olives, or a vine figs?
The
origin of evolutionary capacity
A
pre-existing capacity cannot be developed afterwards, and if the
capacity for evolution is not there, the evolutionary process cannot
begin. So evolution fails when organisms with the capacity to evolve
from the beginning are created by an evolutionary process that takes
place afterwards. So if there is no creation, there is no evolution.
None!
No
one can become a magician until they have developed the skill of a
magician. But evolution is a magician whose pre-existing magical
ability gives rise to the possibility of developing magical ability,
that is, evolutionary development.
Where
did the origin of mutanscopy come from?
Furthermore, any subsequent mutation cannot create the genetic base in which the mutation first occurs, which would be the imaginary engine of such evolution. /Where does the evolutionary process get the possibility of mutational divergence / imprecise inheritance/, which it subsequently uses as a tool?
LUCA
is not a real fund, but merely a reference fund. Moreover, it has to
be created, because the mixing of atoms and molecules does not create
an information-driven system base, because then paper writes the
book, as naturalism claims.
"If
there are atoms, and there is a way, there will be molecules; and if
molecules are in a warm, humid place, sooner or later they will
become elephants." /P.W.
Atkins in Genesis p.17./ - But this can hardly happen by undirected
evolutionary processes at the whim of the wind, as we have seen the
necessity of consciously influencing processes according to the
purpose.
SPECIFIC
PARAMETERS FOR ELEPHANTS
Adjustment of the gestation cycle and
hormone levels; emission of different sounds and detection of
subsonic rumbles through the sensitive skin of their legs and trunk;
vibration communication; free flow of temporal gland fluid; the
development of the role of the most dominant breeding male; their
intelligence, ensuring their ability to learn; the development of
150,000 muscle units in their proboscis; water-retaining thick skin
folds and wrinkles; their large and dense temporal lobes, ensuring
their memory. Stb. How can these be conceived of as the result of
uncontrolled natural processes, since even consciously they would be
incredibly difficult to design and create.
"Elephant
Knees?
Elephants
are the only mammals that have four knees. An elephant’s knees are
an extraordinary feat of engineering. Elephants weigh up to 8,000 kg,
yet their unique knee structure helps support their immense weight.
The back of an elephant’s knee is very different from that of a
human’s. There is no single joint as seen in vertebrates like
humans, but rather a series of smaller joints that fit together in a
‘polygonal’ shape. This allows the elephant to move their legs in
multiple directions and adapt to different surfaces and terrain. The
importance of their knees is highlighted in their gait. While they
may appear slow, their joints allow them to maintain a relatively
fast pace. Keeping their feet in contact with the ground for a longer
time helps to give them a more stable and secure movement. It is no
surprise that it is not uncommon to find elephants running as well as
walking. Despite their weight, the unique structure of their knees
allows them to run at speeds of up to 25km/h. The anatomy of an
elephant’s knees is an incredible example of the wonders of
nature.”
- https://elephantfreedom.org/hu/25-amazing-facts-about-elephants/
But where does imaginative nature have the imagination to invent elephant trunks when there are much simpler feeding methods and anatomical formulas, such as for bison, horses, sheep, etc. Why does nature invent a more complex system without design, which does not work until it is fully developed?! How does it survive, reproduce and survive until then?
Did
nature blindly develop eyes so that he would not be blind? And while
one eye is being developed by nature, are the other organs waiting to
develop, or are all the organelles developing at the same time, and
can survive in the intervening period just as well as the finished
system after full development? A fairy tale with whipped cream sauce
evolutionary style!
The
Darwinian selection of evolutionary theory for a strategic purpose is
a fictional theory, at least it uses the stacking of short-term
evolutionary steps to form the long-term strategic purpose, and
attributes their existence to these imaginary stackings. But it
cannot, because this stacking leading to a strategic goal is alien to
nature.
A
natural being is like a man walking through a jungle, avoiding the
obstacles that are in front of him, and then being where he is. He
may go around the jungle, he may not come out of it, but as he goes,
he keeps surviving. And he doesn't aim to go in a particular
direction to avoid obstacles according to his chosen purpose.
In
contrast, man looks at a distant goal, fixes his gaze on it, and
tailors his path according to a strategy of artificial selection,
taking into account the possibilities.
In
nature, it is a matter of selecting the most favourable options, the
most productive ones, with the aim of survival and not of achieving
some strategic goal. Evolution that goes far beyond mere survival and
aims to create entirely new species over millions of years exists
only in the imagination, not in reality!
So
that molecules camping in a warm place will produce an elephant has
no scientific basis whatsoever. Not even a trunk is created by blind
selection of the most productive, let alone an elephant trotting
behind a trunk.
The
evolutionist's eye sees, only the evolutionist himself is blind to
see them, to see through them and to draw the right conclusions about
conscious creation, about purposeful breeding. He doesn't need that,
because that would impose a moral order on him. And that is
intolerable for an evolutionist.
Creation
is not scientific. The life-sustaining complexity of the Earth's
parameters: the size and density of the planet, the planet's rotation
speed, the planet's position in the galaxy, the size and number of
the planet's moons, the amount of water on the planet, etc. are, in
scientific terms, completely meaningless factors, despite their
alignment.
Whether
mathematics describes the universe the way an engineer uses
mathematics to design a building or an aeroplane is irrelevant. That
the universe appears to be clearly designed, and that there are
peer-reviewed scientific papers on all the parameters of the design -
it doesn't matter. It is scientific that the existence of the
universe makes no sense, let everyone live as they wish. Without any
consequences of course.
As Atkins, who turned molecules into
hip-hop elephants, said, "We
are children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At
its root is nothing but corruption and an unstoppable wave of chaos.
The destination is gone; only the direction remains. This is the
BLEAKNESS
we must accept as we look deeply and dispassionately into the heart
of the Universe."
/Peter Atkins (1984), The
Second Law (New York:
Scientific American), p. 200.
"Darwin
made it possible for us to be intellectually fulfilled atheists."
/RichardDawkins, The Blind Watchmaker/
Intellectually fulfilled amidst an unstoppable wave of chaos and corruption. This is what Satan and the prevailing science do: promise much, give little, and ultimately take all.For science proclaims the utter futility of existence!
"People
cannot tolerate the belief that the Universe and life are
meaningless. In
fact, that is what science tells us.
Meaningless in the sense that there is no externally determined
purpose or point in the Universe. As atheists, this is obviously true
for us. We
determine our own meaning and purpose."
/Jerry
Coyne Jerry Coyne Professor of Biology, (2012), "The Odd Couple:
Why Science and Religion Shouldn't Cohabitate," Speech to
Glasgow Skeptics, December 21./
"The
whole genetic programme is at the service of DNA, not of the people
themselves. We are merely temporary containers of life-bearing
molecules. In this case the packaging, ourselves, is merely there to
be discarded."
/Rudi Westendorp, Dutch professor of genetics/
If
man himself is meant to be thrown away, how can his garbage not be
meant to be thrown away?! Thank science for this telling,
far-reaching moral teaching.
Special
thanks to Charles Darwin for making this human animal origin and
perspective accessible. As modern science proclaims: modern man
originated in Africa and mixed with Neanderthals some 50,000 years
ago.
Consequently,
given our animal origins, we now have the possibility to be
intellectual atheists. Darwinism makes us happy. Let each man use his
free choice to his own benefit and to the detriment of society.
"There is probably no God, so enjoy life at your leisure."
/Dawkins' bus campaign in England/
The
Darwinian theory itself is where Darwinism fails.
All
it does is make people throw banana peels.
With
serious attention, such a theory worthy of being thrown around would
not, could not, have come about.
Darwin's
main assumption was that, primarily through variation and natural
selection, all kinds of different organisms could arise naturally on
their own. In reality, however, he
was only discovering limited biological principles, variation within
a species, and not those dealing with macroevolution /change from one
species to another/.
Adaptation
and specialisation are fundamentally very different things from
macroevolution, from strain evolution.
Evolutionary
factor isolation and genetic drift do not answer questions about
macroevolution. Darwin inferred not only subsequent racial diversity
from formal variation, but also racial origin, even though the two
are two entirely different things.
"All
life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived about
3.5 billion years ago..." - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor
"Darwin's
greatest achievement was to show that the complex organisation and
functioning of living things can be explained as the result of a
natural process - natural selection - without recourse to a Creator
or other external agent." /Francisco
José Ayala : Darwin's greatest discovery: design without a designer
/ -https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0701072104
In
the light of the evidence above, we can see that these claims do not
hold water.
Species
variation /natural variation within a species/ can occur in nature,
but the species in which it occurs can never occur by natural
selection. Darwinian evolution cannot take over the creation of the
foundations, it can only make them plausible through various
manipulations.
Darwinism
is a fantasy product used by the atheist to make the impossible
believable to the gullible.
- - -
"I believe
that one day the Darwinian myth will become the greatest hoax in the
history of science." /Soren Lovtrup's Darwinism: a myth
debunked (Croom Helm, 1987) p. 422,/
As Phillip Johnson, a law professor at
the University of California, elegantly put it, "Darwinian
evolution... resembles a great battleship on the ocean of reality.
Its sides are heavily armored with philosophical barriers to
criticism, and its decks are loaded with big rhetorical cannons to
intimidate any would-be attackers... "But the ship has sprung a
metaphysical leak [due to the growing arguments for intelligent
design], and the more astute among the ship's officers are beginning
to feel that the ship cannot be saved with all the firepower at its
disposal unless the leak is plugged. Of course there will be heroic
efforts to save the ship... The spectacle will be impressive and the
battle will go on for a long time. But in the end, reality will
prevail." /Darwin on Trial, 1993, pp. 169-170/.
Darwin's bicentenary has arrived, but
as Phillip Johnson predicts: "Darwin's
ideas will eventually end up in the dustbin of history. Johnson
states. Yet Marx and Freud failed... I am convinced that Darwin is
next in line. His failure will be the greatest of the three."
/Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 113/.
*
* * * *
PROCLAIM
TO THE WORLD AT LARGE THE TRIUMPH
OF
CREATION OVER DARWINISM!
„You
alone are the JEHOVAH!
You created the heavens, the heavens of heavens and all the host, the
earth and all that is in it, the seas with all that is in them; and
you give life to all, and the host of heaven falls down before you.”
(Nehemiah
9:6)
„And
I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the
everlasting gospel, to preach the gospel to the inhabitants of the
earth, and to every kindred, and to every branch, and tongue, and
people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him:
for the hour of his judgment is come; and worship him that made
heaven and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”
(Revelation
14:6-7)
