An Ex-Evolutionist Looks at Darwin

An objective look at the timeline for the appearance of species must be included in any discussion of evolution. The timeline of species shows that very early one-celled plants and animals gave rise to more complex versions, and eventually humans. Carbon dating and layer dating make the given ages for the appearance and extinction of species look pretty accurate and acceptable. My beef is not with the biological timelines, but with the explanation of those timelines. Most will contain utterly astounding entries, like "410 MYA: evolution of hearing". Just like that, hearing evolved. How? Not a clue can be given. It's just as if saying it makes it true. Certainly species are related biochemically, through genetics, and physical appearance. Vestigial organs are further proof of relationships of different species. Five digit hands and paws, two eyes, two ears, etc. are the norm. Some species are far more closely related than others. Of course, humans are closely related to chimpanzees when looking at the DNA of both. They are 99% similar. Another piece of evidence that favors evolution is the fact that on each continent a different set of fauna and flora exist. Giraffes and lions are solely African, coyotes and grizzly bears North American, etc. How could this be the case if evolution did not occur? My answer is that I have no answer. I do not know. The difference here is that evolutionists say they have the answer. My answer is honest. Where are the fossils of animals that are precursors to the giraffe? If evolution indeed did take place, morping one species into the next, where is the evidence for this? Where are the fossils that show the growth of limbs and bird wings; gradual evolution of eyes and hearts? None exists at all. And until these fossils are found, evolution will remain the figment of Darwin's imagination, added onto by an enormous number of pseudo-scentists, supported by a massive amount of group psychology.

A great way to test the TOE is to think backwards and do a mental experiment showing what the fossil record should look like if evolution indeed did bring about the species that appear on earth today. If you do that, you will soon note that the fossil record does not at all back up evolution. There should be fish with gradually protruding arms and legs over hundreds of thousands of years.. There should be skulls with small dents that grew larger and larger to accommodate the evolution of the eye. There should be skulls that show gradually enlarging ear canals. There should be birds that show gradually lengthening wings, and we should have an idea of when the first birds took flight. There should be a plethora of fossils that show these changes. We should be able go to the Field Museum in Chicago and view samples of all of these fossils that clearly show the steps to evolution. Then, evolution could be called a real science. But, in reality, evolution takes fossils that do not at all show the changes that are required for proof, and pretend like they do. Evolutionists cite the changes in color of a moth population as a current proof of evolution. The lichens on the trees that the moths frequented changed color from white to black, due to smoke coming from local factories. The moth majority also changed from white to black, due to the fact that birds ate the white ones, as they were easier to see. Sorry, but this is not a proof of evolution of species at all. Nor is the increasing resistance of bacteria to an antibiotic a proof of evolution, as is cited by evolutionists. The least resistant die, the more resistant live and reproduce. This is explained by a simple mathematics, and is in no way proof of evolution of species.

TBA