How "evidence" for "transitions" is presented and actually shows the opposite of evolution.
There is no way for an evolutionist to look at any fossil and show it even had a single descendant significantly different from itself. They will tell you that you came from Lucy. There are 2.5 to 5 million Darwin years worth of "missing" links between you and her. So, how do you tell "missing" from non existent?
Now if we didn't come from fish, then the whole evolutionary scenario breaks down, doesn't it? Really it breaks down in countless ways, but I will analyze their use of their favorite, and basically only, example of a fish to amphibian transition that supposedly, eventually, let to you. If you don't see the gross pseudoscience going on, I can't help you. I can't help anyone see the obvious.
Here isTiktallik, a supposed transition to you: Take a quick peek at Tiktaalik's fossil and have your eyes opened to the actual facts.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tiktaalik+fossil&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=3h3LRBfeemp57M%253A%252CJfQpmsce0MgauM%252C_&usg=__r48ClG1TAIW07mlLWT9C6BOw5Yw%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj96M2C5rTaAhVO2FMKHR3mA9oQ9QEIYjAK&biw=1366&bih=637#imgrc=3h3LRBfeemp57 Notice it does not even have any fossilized material for the hind end, "legs", or even a fin, there. The highly fragmented frontal fins are mostly missing and going in a horizontal direction. not a vertical direction as would be needed for legs. (Frankly, when some claim to see legs forming on that fossil I have to laugh. It's knee slapping hilarious.) See any evidence - you know, what real
Science uses - that water breathing lungs are turning into air breathing lungs?
.
Lobe finned fish don't have legs. No fish have legs. Having a bigger pelvis and shoulder girdle, as they claim shows it evolved into you, just shows it had a bigger pelvis and shoulder girdle, i.e. minor variations such as we see constantly in nature. It doesn't show legs.
.
Though evolutionists want to tell us Tik evolved into a tetrapod amphibian with the cutsey nickname of "fishapod", ichthyologists call it a lobe finned FISH. Evolutionism presents theories that have no data and ignores the real data. Dont let evo-think rob you of your common sense and common knowledge about fish. Maybe read The Emperor's New Clothes.
.
The person who discovered Tik was Neil Shubin. (He claims to have predicted its discovery but I have seen no literature supporting that claim before the find. When I ask others, who believe the claim, to provide documentation, they never respond.) In his book Your Inner Fish he says himself that there is no way to be sure Tik was a transition of any kind. But he says that, if not, "something like it" was.
.
The evidence he presents for something like it? Zero. So, that's the big data showing you supposedly are a fish update? One incredibly fragmented, very incomplete, fossil which even its biggest supporter admits may not be a transition - while we are supposed to ignore the countless billions of fossils, and living exmples, that always show fish stay fish?
.
We have a planet overflowing with data! It shows fish in the real world and in the fossils. Fish never have had legs or even parts of legs. They stay fish.
.
Also, let's look at the artistic replicas of Tik that are pictured along with the fossil. Though the actual fossil has only small, close to the body, highly fragmented frontal fins, the artistic renditions show it with long, strong, muscular leg-like structuress as it makes its amazing "ascent" to land. Fictional artwork, including computer simulatioms which do not match the observable evidence, are consistently used to defend evoutionism.
.
Now, one artist's fictional, small and flat, tail could presumably slide onto land. Also those artists who providced Tik with a snake- like tail present a scenario that makes a climb to land seem somewhat feasible. What about the tails lobe finned fish really have, however? Well, they have broad vertical tails - not exactly the kinds that would be most useful for climbs to land.
.
Let's look at what some secular scientists have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism.
.
We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said....
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331.
.
Now I hasten to add that in his next sentence Mueller went on to say "Nevertheless we can infer..." to support evolutionism anyway. That's how it goes in the politically correct, fiercely self protective, orthodox world of Neo Darwinisn. If the hard fought for research data doesn't agree with the sacred cow theory, no problem - just "infer" something that has goes in the exact opposite direction of what the data showed.
.
Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing.
.
As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc.
.
But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS. In other words show that a species went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) a new family. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past. Why don't we see any species transitioning to a new family today?
.
Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution.
.
Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
"We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
.
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no
Science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
.
"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
.
On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts
.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HErmp5Pzqw
.
Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in that fantastic truth for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo
Science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.
Evolution Image Gallery
Last 30 Uploads
supersport
18 y
17,368
tomi777
6 y
1,655
