Evolution is Dead, Darwin Too
In today’s society the banner of greatness has been bestowed upon Darwin. Science should be that which is observable and testable. The study of origins does not involve either of those things. It is neither observable, nor has its events ever been repeated.
However, the doctrine of Evolution has become scientifically infallible. Why? It has not been observed actually occurring, and from the fossil record as it is, it seems that creatures in that record from “millions of years ago” which are still observed today remain unchanged (consider the shark or the coelacanth).
There are two parts to the theory of Evolution. There is Evolution with a big “E” and evolution with a small “e.” The big “E” Evolution is what we call macroevolution. We have been told by Evolutionists for years that this has been happening for millions of years. A very long time ago on a planet not far away at all, we are told, a single-celled organism developed. From it developed other organisms, which over generations mutated and gave birth to other organisms, until eventually mankind evolved after millions of years. Mutation and death are the hallmarks of Evolution. The ones who adapted the best survived.
One of the greatest problems of the fossil record were missing links, supposed to show Evolution in progress. Creatures with partially formed limbs, eyes, or lungs would give rise to newer, better adapted organisms. When those weren’t found, some Evolutionists suggested that Evolution happened quickly in giant leaps. This is all fine and good, except that none of this has ever been observed. A hallmark of good science is that it should be observable, testable, and repeatable.
Macroevolution has never been seen occurring. There is another part of Evolutionary theory which has been used to “prove” that it is really occurring. This is evolution with a small “e,” also known as microevolution. Microevolution is simply stated, “adaptation.” When a creature has characteristics that are more favorable for its survival, it is supposed to survive.
The color of human skin is a characteristic that has helped different groups of humans to survive in different kinds of environments. Black, brown, white, yellow, red, whatever skin color depends most importantly on the amount of pigment (melanin) in the skin. Color has nothing to do with superiority. However, the skin colors of differently “colored” people are suited to different environments. Skin color has nothing to do with the ridiculous idea that we each evolved from different kinds of monkeys or apes millions of years ago. It has everything to do with the quantity of a chemical in our skin.
Adaptation has always been claimed as a step on the road to macroevolution, “molecules to man” evolution. Take for example the idea of two people walking on the street. If a car comes along and the driver doesn’t see them, and only one of them gets off the street, the other one will get hit, maybe even killed. The survivor could have survived as a result of a number of characteristics. Maybe he could hear or see better. Maybe he was faster. Maybe he was younger and hardier. Now that he has survived, is he going to go off and mutate into some other creature? It is illogical to think that adaptive characteristics lead into the greater idea of Evolution (macroevolution). Microevolution does not lead to macroevolution.
Darwin’s theory had only one use. That was for describing how creatures adapt to environmental factors by surviving and passing along their genes. Macroevolution is dead. And while we’re at it, to eliminate confusion, why don’t we call microevolution something else. How about “adaptation?”
The example of the peppered moth in industrial England has long been glorified as an example pointing to Evolution, but it is yet another example of microevolution or adaptation. You can look up the details of that example, but rather than going into all the tired details of an example many people have heard of, let us just say that there were always light and dark peppered moths! One’s survival over another does not lead to a new creature. In the same respect, when one animal goes extinct and another survives, it doesn’t mean that the survivor evolves into another kind of creature either.
Over the hundreds of years of scientific discoveries, new theories have replaced old ones. Think of all the ridiculous things which have been discarded which are no longer mentioned today. Darwin’s ideas are more than one-hundred years old, and there’s still no evidence to support “molecules to man” Evolution. It just doesn’t happen. Let’s take this tired old theory off life support and lay it to rest. Let’s put Darwin to rest too. –Cal Samuel August
Leave a Reply