[ Update: follow-up post here: Why I can’t accept the evolutionists 8th June 08]
The Madagascar Aye-aye.
Perhaps the worlds most scary looking creature .
And the aye-aye yet again. It gives me the willies!
This is a bit of a plunder from Shahids Suspect Paki blog. I’m putting it here cos I want to put this bloody scary looking creature here and I want to notch up my protestation of evolutionary fantasy here.
Evolutionists love ‘mutation theory’. They don’t just love it they need it. Another butter sword in their fantasy armoury.
The thing about ‘useful mutations’ is that its an ‘after the fact’ explanation. It relies upon the idea that a viable organism was capable of mutating in the first place (likely involing DNA various RNA’s and available nucleic acids, amino acids, lipids, etc… well the evolutionists have NEVER indicated a non traditional method of reproducible life so it is only fair to use today’s cellular biology as a guideline). It is the same tired evo stuff that the likes of Dawkins pump out. What made that organism in the first place, what gave it the ability to undergo genetic mutations? Is it feasible to attribute mutation rates to the diversity we have today. I researched a ‘transient’ species fossil evidence a few years back and it was false. National Geographic showed little embarrassment in blowing its evolution horns loudly yet whimpered an apology when it published stories based on fake fossils.
Scene of many lock-ins for Charles Dawson
Not only that but evolutionists try to have their cake and eat it. They say life evolves into niche areas of life e.g. pandas bamboo, dodo’s needing no wings from no predators, flowers needing specific insects to pollinate, the symbiosis of many species, or any animal which possesses acute specialisation such as the Aye-eye (pic above) and so on, but rationally, doesn’t the mutation theory means that the more complicated the organism, the less likely it can handle mutation? Surely the number of mutations that are not usefulin regards to a specialisation far outweigh those that could be useful. How could a homogeneous unicellular population evolve at the mercy of a single mutant? Wouldn’t the mutant strain be bread out? and what possible mutation would make a unicellular organism have an advantage over the rest of the organisms?
The leap of faith required to believe in evolution is surely far higher than the leap of faith some may require to believe that God created beings.
Even then, if one believes in God, in the religious scriptures, God says “We have the power to shape you and change you” allowing for the possibility that God created whole beings and may have altered their form over time. Funny how in the eyes of an evolutionist, God is never accorded to power to drive evolution. Its amusing to hear scientists allowed to say things “Force of Nature” or “its Natures way” without any qualification of what that force of way is. Well, actually its quite annoying like the rest of atheistic evolution.
Out of respect to the man who sparked this post, please comment HERE on Suspect Paki’s blog. Comments are disabled here on my blog.