Select Evolution

Select Evolution

A question of evolution

A

Question

Of

Evolution

A Question of evolution by Copyright © Howard Robinson July 1, 2010 SUMMARY:

INTRODUCTION

THE BASIC THEORY

Section 1: What Evolution say and what it means

Section 2 What Evolution explain?

Section 3 What explains the evolution not, then?

AND EVOLUTION Science Questions Science

Section 4 does not refute the science of creation?

Section 5 Where it all began with a single cell?

Section 6 What about natural selection?

Genetics Section 7 - Why Is it the use of evolutionary cause such problems?

Section 8 reviews genetic.

Section 9 bacteria and virus

BASIC QUESTIONS? Questions of nature

Section 10 If evolution is true why are there still "not changed" single-celled creatures?

What is it?

Section 11 Who comes first - the peak or oak? What larvae eat:

Article 12 Why so many species?

13What section on air people breathe water as whales and dolphins?

Section 14 What is the fruit does not change the factory?

Section 15 Why is everything about to illness, death and decay?

Section 16 does not explain why the evolution instinct?

Article 17 does Evolution explain "not safe?

FOR THE RECORD Questions from the fossil

Article 18 What actually caused the fossil record?

Section 19 Why is coal at the south pole?

EVOLUTION OF MAN?

Section 20 could a single cell into a human being?

Article 21 Why did we evolve feelings?

Section 22Why are we here?

Why Article 23 The various ethnic groups have the same blood type?

Why Article 24 religion?

Article 25 Why morality?

Article 26 Why do we age?

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

My first question is simple: Is it real change?

My second question is similar to this: Is this real science?

In writing this, I realize that many others have had much to say.

However, I found myself coming up with what I was thinking of original ideas without reference in the work of others, and I tried to continue on this path and not to repeat what I have read and heard on the issue already. All my references and quotations are from my reading of the Penguin publishing "On the natural selection."

If the theory of evolution is true, then it must correspond to the facts and shall withstand an examination by them. So what are the facts and how am I to question evolution about them?

Well, in short, the facts are the complexity of life, the great diversity of life forms and the fossil record. My question is simply: "What explains these changes?"

The problem with most of the evolutionists is that they seem to start with how things are, guess it must have evolved to get the job back and play again before yet somehow as if it was done.

I only ask readers to weigh my questions honestly and try to match my answers with the facts they know and to be fair and impartial appreciation of my answers and comments.

Evolution as a theory, has many shortcomings, not only missing links, which are unfortunately absent, I may add!

Finally, I do not claim a monopoly on truth. I have many questions, even if, as you'll see and I tried my best to seek answers.

The BASIC THEORY

Section 1

What changes mean and what does it mean?

On the cover of the book, "The natural selection," we read:

"From so simple endless forms most beautiful and most beginning were wonderful, and are being, evolved. "

 

This is the essence of the theory. Rather "Dreamy" do not you think? It is expected near the end of the book something like, 'and they all live happily ever evolved. "

The definition of natural selection (Page 20 to 21 of natural selection) is:

"Preservation of favorable variations and the discharge of harmful changes.

This is the basic assumption that there are many favorable changes little little over millions of generations to produce a new species and improved. There is no evidence given for this, nor one evolutionists arrive at all, it seems. The observable facts are clear that there are adaptations, but they are very few positive changes (mutations). 999 of 1000 mutations are very "harmful" and the other is quite dangerous. The most common mutations are genetic defects and none of them is always positive.

Interestingly, Darwin cites the calculations of Linnaeus. They say that "if an annual plant produced only two seeds "- And there is no plant so unproductive as this - and their seedlings next year produced two, and so on, then in twenty years there would be "a million plants. What Darwin does not seem to see is that the calculations of Linnaeus and any calculation of population growth are his theories of tens of thousands of generations over millions of years (even for minor changes) very unlikely because of large number of descendants that would be generated, even with limitations source of food and predation.

So what about natural selection? This is not evidence or proof of evolution. It is clear that natural selection occurs, but this does not change one species, it improves not only by a kind of adaptation in a variety of options pre-programmed into its DNA code. Like all the DNA codes are large, so there are many possible variants for a species. Some of them are available from the Human Reproduction and cons reproduction. Examples of changes in a range from apples to humans.

Section 2

What Evolution explain?

The theory explains the natural selection and nothing else. The survival of the fittest is seen in nature, but fortunately not seen in human morality.

Evolution tries to explain the diversity of life and the fossil record, but they are not explanations and assumptions.

However, to take the premise that evolutionary explanations for how things are, the theory must consider the facts and be asked about them.

Rather, what explanation does not propose changes? It highlights some rather fanciful explanation and despite some claims very strong and assertive, no real evidence can be found. For example, he says that all mammals are descended from an ancestor extinct reptile. Where is the fossil evidence of this ancestor? No transitional fossil can be found.

Section 3

What evolution to explain, then?

It does not explain why life began and how he survived. If the first proposal, unicellular organism is the ancestor of all missing, Evolution does not explain or even consider how he lived at all.

My point here is that all food chains, we are told, to start with plants. Since this organization was supposed ancestor of plants and animals, how did she live? Which gave him food to survive and reproduce?

It may be fed on itself for a few billion years until it evolved? Pizza Hut as the in Spaceballs she eats? I'm sorry. Just kidding.

The problem of spontaneous generation of living things died is difficult enough to believe, but would it survive? Remember, just because it is a unicellular organism that does not mean simplicity. To survive and reproduce much is required. He needs a "skin" membrane. He needs a way of eating - a mouth and a double helix of DNA in order to divide and multiply. These things are not likely even a majority time scales that have been introduced in the theory and remember these times are far from proven. Even dating Carbon may be erroneous, because it depends on the amount of carbon 14 in the world remaining absolutely constant.

Evolution explains why about half the fossil record are animals that live today and almost the same as when fossilized.

Evolution does explain why it takes millions of years for fossils, while we now know it only took about 50 years after a flood a river delta.

It does not explain why the remains are intact whole animals. Deaths in normal animals breakdown of bone, other animals eat or chew or move the bones and the wind, things are moving weather. The fossils are more consistent with rapid burial and are found in sedimentary rocks, if a sudden disaster like flooding is a likely cause. In addition, in a deluge marine animals just be buried lower and higher animals would be able to swim and survive longer if we would see the kind of stratification of the so-called "lower" and "higher" animals, if that were the case, was falsely assumed and taught millions of years of evolution, rather than a flood of large-scale or short-term disaster.

It does not explain the diversity of life - if so long then the most advanced and sustainable in large numbers and would naturally overwhelm everything else, so we only see the slightly more advanced species.

Biologists tell us food chains and food cycles. These mean that all organisms in the food chain has had to evolve simultaneously andappear. This is extremely unlikely.

Food chains work so well. What happened before? Evolution does not explain the chains food or the interdependence of species very well. They should all come together perfectly, both by accident and coincidence! I am not a statistician, but the chances must be at or near impossible, no matter how long you give it. Take, for example, the bumblebee and red clover proposed by Darwin (p. 14 of natural selection). In the view of Darwin, they are so dependent than red clover or heartease, disappear or become very rare, no bees. These bees, in turn, are affected by mice, which destroy their nests. The mice are based on the number of cats that destroy mice. Thus, the number of cats, mice and bees in one area could affect the wildflowers! (Darwin's natural selection new pg 14).

 

Flowers on plants and insects would have to evolve simultaneously: 1) to pollinate flowers, and 2) to feed the insects with nectar from flowers.

I suppose that insects such as butterflies and moths could have eaten other things before there were flowers, but if they follow the same pattern of other insects is unlikely. This coincidence or a combination of flowers and insects could occur by accident, but it is not evolution. It is highly unlikely. The insects may have evolved over thousands of years to eat nectar, but this has two problems. First the flowers pollinated would not be if the plants die. Second, without the equipment to achieve and how to harvest nectar they know has been there for them to eat so why they operate this way?

Flowers pollinated by insects involves intelligence, planning and design the plants and insects clearly do not have. Obviously, there are some advantages to be pollinated by other genetic plants, but plant evolve to be dependent on insects? We know that some fruits and other plants are self-fertile, why are not all self-pollinated flowers? Pollinating species are less evolved or more evolved, if evolution is true?. We still have the dilemma that the choice of being pollinated by an insect is far beyond the intelligence of a plant.

 

Evolution does not explain the drone. According science, it should not be able to fly. It is therefore highly unlikely to evolve to be that way.

Evolution does not explain how animals such as penguins and walruses have survived until they 'evolved' their fat layers and tolerance to extreme cold. It does not explain why they would choose a cold climate, in the first place. If it is a matter of being trapped in an Arctic environment, which forced them to "evolve", then they would have died before that could happen.

Evolution explains no plant or animal hibernation and events of autumn. Take the plants and trees in winter. How did they develop dormancy and how did they survived until they have done?

Evolution does not explain aging. Certainly, organizations evolve to live longer and longer so they can pass on their genes to a greater extent.

Evolution would expect that we genetically transmitting knowledge and wisdom. We are not. History repeats itself, even if it was written first! We do not share not much information this is a pillar of evolutionary theory and explanations, for example instinct. It takes less real "faith" to believe that instincts are programmed into them rather than just happened to be just by chance.

Evolution explains not how the characteristics and variations are inherited. Darwin clearly had no knowledge of genetics and the constrictions that putting on heritage organizations.

SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION

Section 4

Creation science has not disproved?

Although many biologists this evolution as a scientific fact, it's just bad science, because it goes against the scientific method. A theory must fit the facts, but there is no evidence for the theory of evolution. It no fossils between species and no transitions in the fossil record. Separate, distinct species are those that are found.

Science can not disprove the creation as well as science can prove evolution.

What about dinosaurs? What does changes mean? We're supposed to believe that only one minute unicellular organism during periods of large creatures become huge containing millions Cell.

Science can not tell us exactly how life began. Even our best science has been unable, after many attempts to create life or anything even close. A few amino acids are just what they got. This was done in an atmosphere very simplistic, without oxygen, because oxygen would break the desired products. There is no evidence or real science to say this kind of atmosphere has never existed. In addition, if so, where is all the oxygen come from? Our current atmosphere is in equilibrium maintain the same ratio of gas. This is reason enough to expect that this has always been the case with 19% oxygen.If things so-called life the first of a factory with walls and stairs and floors containing furniture, machines and people who exploit them, the best we've ever done would be equivalent a few empty cardboard boxes. In addition, the chemistry of DNA is against the formation in water from amino acids. Amino acids do will not form DNA in water because training requires DNA condensation (loss of water) no hydration (in contrast, molecules get water).

How could anyone think this all happened by accident? Life, even in a single cell, is very organized and things are not organized without intelligent intervention. Take your kitchen or bedroom as an example. Without determined effort and intelligent intervention (You), it will become increasingly dirty and disheveled.

Another thing, the environment of the earth proposed in early ammonia, lightning, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide can be toxic to most forms of life, what would "it" have a chance to survive even if it is impossible to become alive?

But creation science is not refuted? Is not the creation unscientific? No! True science is concerned how. Creation is concerned why. The two things are very different and mutually exclusive we can not compare against each other.

Science can not begin to seek answers to "why"? Creation is not concerned how it all. Saying that the universe and all life was designed by a powerful being can not be proved or disproved, but even if presented as a theory, it is instead of what we observe, contrary to developments with missing links and periods time ridiculous.

What about the Big Bang? The Big Bang theory can not tell us what happened initially. Creation helps answer the question of "where did all the matter in the universe come from? Energy should be against the forces of gravity to explode the question of the other. Whence comes this energy? The best theory at the moment is that there was a singularity early universe, where none of the laws of physics apply. For the amount of matter in our universe to condense into a small volume, would produce a gravitational singularity of the black hole. Since black holes do not explode, then there can be no Big Bang. I'm not saying he was not a Big Bang, but it does not seem very likely for this reason and for others. I would say that the Big Bang theory does not exclude God, because there a place for God to set initial conditions and provide the necessary energy and matter. We must be more careful in how we use science. To set up science as a kind of god, will, do-it-all of life and the universe is taking it out of context and out of bounds where it naturally and all is well.

Section 5 Where it all began with a single cell?

A single cell organism DNA is as complex as multicellular organism.

Development of simple unicellular creatures is surprising that growth hormones and off etc etc and then aging begins to occur. Would it if not more logical evolution, a life form has evolved and continued to evolve? But this is not the case. Currently we still see a large number of very simple organisms, organisms that remain as they are and become more complex.

If the first living creature was a single cell, what did he eat? Where have bacteria and viruses come from? Where did plants come from? Develop chlorophyll is a very complex thing to expect a crash. If the first single cell has been so effective or able to survive reasonably well and why he needs to develop more in plants and animals? What could be the "evolutionary pressure" or the driver?

Unicellular creatures have the same number of genes as humans. CHK Apparently frogs have more genes than humans.

Evolutionary biologists are well aware of the high improbability of what they offer, so they close their eyes with the smokescreen of periods incredibly long time. But if something is statistically impossible, giving him an enormous amount of time to reach does not make it more likely.

Evolution goes against a fundamental law of physics. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that disorder of the universe is increasing. How can evolution make us believe that the order increases life forms by accident?

Section 6

What about the selection natural?  

"Natural Selection" as "Nature" is apparently provided the intelligence and influence of a person. It is clear from observations of Darwin accurate and complete as any aspect of an organization can have a significant impact on his life and survival. By example smooth or hairy skin on the fruit. To assume, then that life forms exist, survive and even prosper by accident or chance is both naive and scientific. As in every theory of evolution, the conclusions arrived at first.

For fish scales, gills fish, ears, eyes and how the brain interprets signals from them there is no way they could develop by random events and changes or mutations. They must be said that Nature influenced orcaused. But what is this mystical compound other than a smokescreen to obscure the need for God? In other words, it gives "Nature" God as wisdom and powers.

A key causes of evolution is called mutation. Why, when exposed to radiation or mutagens (carcinogens) are not surprising we see ahead in the evolution of small or not natural selection? We are not. We see the weakness, illness, cancer and often death.

We find that certain mutations terrible. Thalidomide Down syndrome and spina bifida to name a few.

I saw a program on TV about a family who had a genetic defect. Even slight exposure to sun caused horrific burns. The whole family was prone to cancer. It was found that all inherit off to repair a "gene. Thus, UV light caused cellular damage and mutations resulting from severe burns and even cancer. If the mutation produces an improvement, some of them - there were about 20 or more of them - would have certainly evolved in some better shape. They did not, quite the contrary.

To work for Evolution while the majority of mutations must be favorable variations. In fact 999 of 1000 are unfavorable and the 1000 is pretty horrible. It is not sufficient to sustainable development.

Why is it probably highly evolved animals are extinct? Certainly their best would survive to exist and evolve. (Extinction is part of the theory of natural selection).

Darwin believes that due to natural disasters (P. 5-6 of "On Natural Selection, published by Penguin) and the inability to re-populate organisms die.

What is this "nature" Darwin seems to speak as a sort of god or power? It assumes that intelligently puts all the necessary checks and balances and complicated conserve all species in equilibrium (CHK).

Darwin observed (last Para on page 6 of Natural Selection) each species is something as complex, even scientists (and humanity) are ignorant and this applies even to ourselves. "Nature" must indeed be something! Life and species are not a happy accident. What Darwin called the "nature" corresponds exactly to the descriptions of God in the Bible.

Darwin described the life as a struggle. If there is such a struggle for existence, why some species survive in less robust all? It would be a bad idea to change our own fur coats when we were Eskimos or if we live in a cold country?

A more scientific approach to organisms and life would be to consider the possibility that DNA is coded with lots of information and therefore the potential for diversity that each agency is able to adapt to many situations and circumstances, it is likely to encounter, unchanged.

In "On natural selection, there are many subjective views and assumptions without factual evidence. comments Darwin, as contained in "On the natural selection are far reaching, but its findings are far from scientific. They are colorful by his vision of the world of power and intelligence of nature and natural processes, which he pre-judges to be in control and planning forms life.

This is not science to have a spirit made with conclusions and then seek to answer these comments. To quote from page 26, paragraph 2, the "natural selection will be able to act on and modify organic beings at any age." Where is the evidence for that? Darwin's theory is right and using his imagination.  

Section 7

Genetics - Why this cause evolutionists such problems?

Maybe because we do not change or the evolution of genes? At least for the normal reproductive health outcomes offspring.

Genetics tells us that the offspring will always have the genes of their parents. This means a pea green crossed with a pea green gives yellow, yellow / green and yellow peas in a ratio of 1: 2: 1. Some peas may have changed color but they are still peas, not a new organism.

Genetics tells us that the description of Genesis that animals reproduce "after their kind" is accurate. Genetics gives no room whatsoever for evolution from one species to another, even by a very gradual process.

Section 8 Comments genetic

Change comes to a sort of gene flow back must have taken place where the needs of the creature, once it has determined how it will develop, are fed back to transmit its genes to the next generation. This requires intelligence and adaptability that no creature on earth has ever shown, or even man.

Section 9

BACTERIA AND VIRUSES

Evolution does not explain the bacteria and viruses. It enough to say they evolved. Bacteria and viruses are smaller than single-celled creatures. So how the first unicellular organism become a virus or bacteria? It would have to divide or break into several smaller parts. This is extremely unlikely.

BASIC QUESTIONS Questions of nature

Article 10

If evolution is true why are there still "not changed" single-celled creatures?

If you are single-celled creatures have been around for millions of years, so why Have not changed? Instead, we see many single-celled organisms that are highly effective without the need to evolve. One could say the first single-celled creatures evolved into creatures single-celled success and that is why they are around now. The only problem with this is that this success would be extremely unlikely that these successes have yet to evolve in the higher animals and, eventually, you and me.

Section 11

Which comes first - the peak or oak? What it eats larvae?

What can cause this bird to look inside a tree for grubs? There would be no way of knowing that they were there. His development of a strong skull and beak would have meant a significant change in its DNA program. Before he played a larger beak and the skull that he hit himself in search of grubs. What would be the driving force for change so drastically anyway - there had other food or he would have died of hunger. There is no obvious reason for the change.

The sharp peak, noted that both acts beak scissors and forceps to remove the bark and find hidden insects. It has a very long tongue - up to four inches in some species - with a sticky substance on the tip for catching insects. Although most birds have one toe pointing toward the front and three on each foot peaks have two toes pointing strongly recovered in each direction to help them grip the sides of trees and balance while hammer. Many species of woodpeckers have also stiffened tail feathers, which they pressed against a surface of trees to help support their weight. Again, these attributes would require a significant change in the DNA code.

The largest species, the peak Imperial Mexico, is about 22 inches long. It has been classified under the U.S.. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act since 1970 and perhaps gone. The Pic Kogera, found Japan is the smallest species to six inches in length. Woodpecker live an average of four to 11 years

Pic can be found in wooded areas and forests of the world except Australia. Some woodpecker species require very specific conditions for their home. For example, the red-cockaded woodpecker can only live in mature pine forests in the states of South-Eastern United States. Again unlikely evolution.

Woodpecker feeding on insects, fruits, acorns and nuts.

The peaks are known for tapping the trunks of trees to find insects living in bark crevices and dig nest cavities. Some species drum on trees to communicate with other peaks, and as part of their behavior court. Pic to press an estimate of 8,000 to 12,000 hits per day. Without the right equipment for the Pic would simply knock itself. All This led to the design rather than evolution. To say that Nature has done this to give a hypothetical entity as god of wisdom and power.

Section 12

Why so many species?

There are about 28,000 species of fish by Buzzle.com.

Georgia-Pacific - Educational in Nature says there are over 4000 different types of mammals live on our planet. The Wikipedia says there are about 900 000 different types insects in the world that scientists have found about 250 000 different types of plants.

If evolution is true should not expect such diversity, as it should be the main highly evolved species. During periods of large cited by evolutionists would have been ample opportunity for the evolution of larger species, if evolution occurs, so it should not be "low" species.

Article 13

What about people breathing air water like whales and dolphins?

What happened to their gills? Why would they move into the lungs? There no benefit for her. Would not they all drowned on the way? Where are the remains of their gills?

What about amphibians? If these changed to earthlings why are there many of them today? It is not enough to say he was an amphibian ancestor that split two ways - one resident land and an amphibian. Why would he do? If there was evolution, arguably the top would be better so it should not be left undeveloped amphibians.

Section 14 What is the fruit does not change the factory?

Why Bananas are there and otherfruits? What good does it change the factory? In fact the production of fruits is a major drain on top of production seeds. Of course, some fruits are taken by animals and thus spread the seeds. But is it reasonable to believe that the plants are smart enough to know what will happen? Again, not a design evolution.

Article 15 Why is everything about the disease, death and decay?

The teeth and damage to fruit to name but two.

I saw a TV show that was part and accessory containing a museum where they photographed the decline of reptiles, etc. died for lack of time. It was fascinating. Illness, death and decomposition are still with us. Evolution does not explain these. The Bible does.

Section 16

Evolution does not explain instinct?

Instinct may be learned by young people. I know of no evidence it is evolving, genetically transmitted, or "race consciousness" some. Instincts However, if an animal is the result of a wise Creator support, then it would be given for survival, etc.

Why have we not genetically pass on the experience, knowledge and wisdom of our descendants? Obviously, we did not because the story repeats itself, even when it was written! This means that if we do not pass on information that we know is important, the pillar of the theory developments and their explanation of instinct failed.

Article 17

T Evolution explain "only Safes?

Two eyes, ears, nostrils, lungs and kidneys. We can breathe through the mouth and nose. We ourselves do not know Most of the time need to fail-safes. How could it get programmed? Why not see creatures with one eye, an ear, one lung, one nostril etc.? Again we see the evolution of design, no.

I

FOR THE RECORD! Issues in the case

Article 18

What really caused the fossil record?

Evolution tells us that the fossil record was naturally expected since millions of years earlier and that species evolved are in the lower layers. It has been found at a river delta that the same strata were formed over 50 years. The rock in which we see is a sedimentary rock fossils. These rocks may have been trained over millions of years. They could also have been formed by a river or the sea or even a flood. A flood is much more rapid likely since there are whole animals, as were removed and buried quickly.

There is also a case, I am told that the conventional fossil does not happen much, but the layers are not always in the order suggested in some parts of the world.

What is missing links of evolution? Where are they? Darwin was concerned by this, but he believed that when the fossil record has also been explored these missing links would be found. Well, we have thoroughly explored the fossil record and the missing links have not been found. It is a blow to evolution because the evidence necessary because it is completely absent.

Article 19

Why Is Coal the South Pole?

Coal at the South Pole could be due to a change of plate tectonics. If so, there would need was a much milder climate near the South Pole to a point in the past. Mammoths at one time lived at the North Pole. Why did mammoths Woolly was found frozen with food still in their mouth as if eating? This implies nearly instantaneous freezing.

What are the probable causes of the production of coal? We're talking about large amounts of dead trees and the lack of horizontal air. A scenario is possible that, as in the flood of Genesis. The whole subject of fossil fuels: gas, oil, coal, etc. is fraught with difficulties of how they were produced by slow natural processes. There are large quantities of natural gas and oil. Just look at fuel consumption. Thousands of barrels of oil are recovered from the depths of the earth every day. These are not replaced by natural processes. All these things need rapid burial of the open air under pressure to form.

EVOLUTION OF MAN?

Article 20

Could a single cell into a human being?

The idea is that something as complex chemical, etc. as body wise a human being can develop by accident on the chemicals in a single cell is absurd, even taking into account periods of time very broad. Why only human beings face to face love? This is indicative of the development of a relationship. What communication and the five senses? For example, body language, communication, verbal and nonverbal.

Human beings are really "evolved"? If yes, why do we need clothes? Why do we need to cook our food? Why are we vulnerable, defenseless babies?

Article 21

Why did we evolve feelings?

Why do we evolve feelings? Pain, pleasure, happiness, etc. do are not useful in an empirical sense for an organization, reproduction and survival. To survive, it would be logical to have little or no emotions so that we can reproduce prolifically. As we have emotions and we have a conscience. It is not necessary to the development or because of these.  

Section 22 Why are we here?

The anthropic principle says that because the situation is just that we're here. It to say that we would not be here if it was not fair. This leads it could have happened by chance. True. The whole universe must be due to chance or by design of a higher power as God. If the chance is not very scientific, although it obviously appeals to those who do not want to believe in God. It is not scientific, mainly because our expanding universe is controlled and there such as gas clouds more systems of stars more orderly. According to the physical disorder (entropy) increases with time. Therefore, the disorder produced by a big bang would have caused the disorder and subject to the laws of physics should never have produced star systems ordered without intelligent intervention. Have you ever seen the results an explosion? Terribly messy! Of course, as the Big Bang theory there are other factors such as large masses and gravity effects, etc. But it's still a bit confusing. The only thing that holds the chaos is an intelligent intervention.

Article 23

Why Different ethnic groups have the same blood type?

It is unlikely if they evolved separately or independently. They can also intersect.

This infers a common origin and ancestry.

Maybe God at Babel confused the races and the language or diversity established within genes. Mitochondrial DNA suggests that all human beings have the same ancestor feminine.

Article 24

Why religion?

Why religion? Some evolutionists believe that this happens because it has good social benefits and relieve stress. How can a person knows all this and their DNA to program this in? Could it be that we are designed for worship?

Article 25

Why morality?

Why, if the target species and organisms is to spread their genes as widely as possible is it clearly wrong to do to humans? To make changes to the nominal value would condone adultery and perhaps even rape.

People like Hitler and Japanese during the Second World War have practiced their own version of natural selection. Indeed, because the Japanese had less facial hair they thought they were more advanced than the West and treat them as subhuman. Evolution fuels racism and prejudice.

Section 26

Why do we age

If evolution really happens, would it lead to the advantage of living longer and longer to be able to store up to several amendments, pass and pass their genes more. We do not see that. As it is, organizations do not improve with time, they all age and die.

Aging seems pre-programmed into the DNA of all organisms.

We are told that "Nature has programmed into our instinct for survival with the highest priority and instinct reproduction second. So why "Nature" we do not evolve we would not age? Maybe we do not have more populate the planet. The problem is that we have now reached the point that this "nature" is smarter and realize that man. We must either believe what happened or Nature has it influenced etc. If we are honest, it takes much more faith than belief in God.

But why people still believe in evolution and nature? As the initial rebellion told in Genesis, man wants to be his own god and wants to claim that God does not exist or use all its means to rationalize God out of the picture.

CONCLUSIONS

To believe evolution is to have a similar faith to believe in God, except to believe in a theory. The theories are not done because they can not be proven. They are good, provided they explain the facts and until a better theory is long.

As I hope you have seen, evolution is a belief system, not a science, it is really an authentic religion. That's where it fails to be science, because the answers are already believed and observations are colored by this and slipped into the mold in an attempt to justify pre-conceived beliefs.

It bothers me that this theory is widely taught as fact, without a shred of factual evidence. Instead, there are many questions that deserve an answer.

I hope these issues and arguments have given you to think seriously about the claims of evolution. People are reluctant to change, but I hope you will think about these things with an open mind.

Evolution is a flight of fantasy, self-delusion of those who will not honestly face it, those who for reasons of belief and philosophy does not believe in God.

To believe in God, they realize, is accountable. They think that by pretending that they can avoid it. We are all accountable to God and will face his trial. God however, be a redemptive, loving and merciful and just, has revealed Himself in many ways and ultimately in his Son, Jesus. Like Evolution It can not be proved empirically. However, God can be known through faith in Jesus. Millions of people around the world today reflect this relationship. So who is deluded? The Christians of the evolutionists? I'll let you choose.

About the Author

I am interested in science and also Christianity. I like science fiction and fantasy novels. Reading is one of my favourite hobbies.

 

Grand Concert Select Evolution Clarinet Reeds 2.5 $20.49 Grand Concert Select Evolution Clarinet Reeds 2.5

Evolution $7.99 It’s the job of a science fiction writer to visualize extrapolations of the future. But there are those who go far beyond, venturing into realms of breathtaking science. That kind of cutting edge talent is as rare as a supernova—and, in its own way, just as powerful. Arthur C. Clarke had it. So did William Gibson. Now, with Evolution , Stephen Baxter delivers what is sure to be one of the most talked-about books of the year—and shows once again why he belongs among the select company of science fiction writers who matter. Stretching from the distant past into the remote future, from primordial Earth to the stars, Evolution is a soaring symphony of struggle, extinction, and survival, a dazzling epic that combines a dozen scientific disciplines and a cast of unforgettable characters to convey the grand drama of evolution in all its awesome majesty and rigorous beauty. Sixty-five million years ago, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, lived a small mammal, a proto-primate of the species Purgatorius . From this humble beginning, Baxter traces the human lineage forward through time. The adventure that unfolds is a gripping odyssey governed by chance and competition, a perilous journey to an uncertain destination along a route beset by sudden and catastrophic upheavals. It is a route that ends, for most species, in stagnation or extinction. Why should humanity escape this fate? A generation from today, a group of concerned scientists—distant descendants of that primitive Purgatorius —gathers on a remote island to discuss this very question. The ceaseless expansion of human civilization has triggered an urgent environmental crisis that must be solved now if the Earth is to survive as a place hospitable to human life. But just when a peaceful solution seems within reach, two acts of shocking violence set in motion a cataclysmic chain of events that will expose the limitations of human intellect and adaptability in the face of the blind and implacable processes of Darwin’s dangerous idea. From the Hardcover edition.

Grand Concert Select Evolution Clarinet Reeds Strength 4 $20.49 Grand Concert Select Evolution Clarinet Reeds Strength 4

Grand Concert Select Evolution Clarinet Reeds Strength 4.5 $20.49 Grand Concert Select Evolution Clarinet Reeds Strength 4.5

Grand Concert Select Evolution Clarinet Reeds Strength 3 $20.49 Grand Concert Select Evolution Clarinet Reeds Strength 3

Grand Concert Select Evolution Clarinet Reeds Strength 5 $20.49 Grand Concert Select Evolution Clarinet Reeds Strength 5

The Evolution $6.49 The Evolution

Select $8.99 Select

Evolution Programmer by Edge $399.99 Edge Evolution ProgrammerNumber of Power Level Settings: 4;Select Power Level On The Fly: No;Top Speed Adjustment: Yes;Speedometer Correction: Yes;Rev Limiter Adjustment: Yes;Internet Updatable: Yes;Reads Trouble Codes: Yes;Monitor: Included;Automatic Tra

Grand Concert Select Evolution Clarinet Reeds Strength 2.5 $20.49 The Grand Concert Select family of reeds features more material in the heart for an exquisitely pure, warm and transparent tone quality, stable and consistent from pianissimo to fortissimo, in all registers. The revolutionary cut provides unrivaled flexibility for precise articulation and interval changes. Grand Concert Select offers unparalleled reed-to-reed consistency with unprecedented longevity. These reeds assist in projection at all dynamic levels and play well right from the box. Box of 10.