There are so many items in nature that cannot possibly evolve in small steps. The list would be enormous. If any one of these items could not possibly come into existence through the TOE (Theory of Evolution), then the TOE is not a possible scenario for how species came into existence. Six examples are:
- Sexual Reproduction
- Birds and Eggs.
- Eyes and Hearts
- Maxillary jaw teeth forming and articulating perfectly with concurrently forming mandibular jaw teeth.
- Survival of the fittest eliminating all weather skin/fur from human beings
Sexual reproduction is an all or none event.
Would an evolutionist say that one multi
-cellular animal grew an appendage after millions of years, then decided to insert it into a fold in another multi
-cellular animal that didn
’t possess the appendage just to see what would happen?
How could perfectly matched male and female sexual organs evolve in separate individuals of a specie? What microsteps
to sexual reproduction could possibly have occurred? Any explanation of gradually evolving sexuality would be preposterous. The same would be true with flight.
Evolutionists explain flight by saying that insects were the first to fly.
Somehow because insects are small, evolutionists think that they will provide an acceptable explanation for the beginnings of flight evolution.
However big or small a species might be, evolution cannot in any way explain flight.
Did an insect grow appendages over the millennia
that eventually flapped up and down, causing the insect, or bird, to fly?
Just think what a heckuva
surprise that must have been for the first individual that flew! There simply is no possible scenario that would explain the origins of insect or bird flight that would include evolution.
Birds and eggs cannot have possibly originated through the “wonders” of evolution.
Not much explanation is required here.
Do your own mental experiment and, of course, you will see.
Eyes and hearts are two excellent examples of organs that cannot have possibly evolved, as any pre
-functioning steps to a fully functioning organ would be completely useless.
Evolutionists poo poo the eye/heart challenge, however they never answer it with more than fairy tales. Essentially, if hearts and eyes evolved, the pre
-functioning organ would be no more than a useless tumor.
Species would have to carry around these useless tumors for hundreds of thousands of years before they would become functioning organs.
What force would cause these useless tumors to continue to evolve into the incredibly complex organs represented by hearts and eyes? In the case of the heart: over 800 million years ago there were no pumps on the entire earth of any kind. Evolution would have to start knitting a few cells together with each generation, with the end result, hundreds of thousands of years later, being a sealed pump and valve capable of moving blood. Of course, the blood couldn't exist until there was a heart to pump it. Add to that, there were no lungs to oxygenate the blood, and no vessels to get oxygenated blood to the needy cells. It is not even imaginable that a heart and all systems required to run it could be produced by mutations and natural selection. It is also not even imaginable that maxillary teeth could form through survival of the fittest and natural selection, and articulate like a perfect puzzle pieces with mandibular jaw teeth. You would have to believe in miracles to go for this one, which would make evolution no more than a religion. Add to that the fact that humans have primary teeth, an entire separate set, also with perfect matching of the anatomy of the maxillary teeth with the mandibular, and you have a nightmare for evolutionists.
There are actually thousands of items in nature that could not possibly evolve in slow steps, due to their complexity, and the fact that all parts must be present initially for them to function at all. These items are said to have "irreducible complexity". Evolutionists diminish IC
, and act like they can prove that IC
is not a factor in disproving evolution. They have come up with outlandish tales (see below) of how these items evolved, but the tales are nothing more than the figments of their imaginations, and not proven at all in the fossil record.
Thinking about how Homo Sapiens
"evolved" from Primates: Primates, of course, are/were animals, all of which are capable of living and surviving in nature in the immense variations of weather. Primates, of course, and all animals, have the skin and fur to do so. Humans are the only animals on the planet who cannot. What transition could have possibly taken place that removed the fur and all-weather skin from humans? Since animals with fur and weather-resistant skin would survive far better than humans, why didn't "survival of the fittest" allow humans to keep their outer covering? They would be able to survive far better than they are capable of today. Humans, in reality, are extremely weak as far as all-weather survivability goes, and can survive unprotected only in a very narrow temperature range. Did humans evolve the ability to make clothing and blankets because they were gradually getting less able to withstand cold? Is this scenario gradually taking place imaginable? Could clothes gradually appear?
The fact that any one of these items above could not possibly "evolve" destroys the entire foundation for the TOE.