Simple Evolution Flaws.
Why we need to make elaborate remarks concerning the validity of the Evolution Theory is beyond me, searching for the most important issues such as DNA strands or Transition line authenticity, when all we have to consider is the simplest reasons for denying it.
EVOLUTION. Basically means to transform from one life form,' into another which is better suited (fitter) to adapt to its environment, by gradual adaptation.
To some, evolution represents the greatest hoax of our time, with its claim that from non-living matter arose all life on earth, including that which is supposed to be the ultimate life-form; man.
Evolutionists, however, vigorously maintain the truth of that belief claiming that there is solid evidence to support their reasoning.
Today, in our classrooms, the teaching of evolution over creation is becoming ever popular; it seems that they have no need for a God.
To increase the popularity of evolution even further, the subject is indoctrinated by our universities, providing a new and younger influx of believers who will teach,' and it commands wide coverage by the TV and Media.
But is it a hoax?
Is it simply the concoction of intelligent minds to promote their own academic advancement or personal glory, not actually through their own findings, but more so through their reasoning in not to believe in a God?
Or do they really hold the answer?
Lets see!
Evolution maintains the story that billions of years ago no life existed on this planet, until one day when inadvertently several gases and acids mixed together to form the first micro-organism; the first living organism.
However, the Law of Biogenesis states that all life must originate from a preceding life form, or that life does not arise from non-living matter, or in other words, there is no foundation for their spontaneous generation hypothesis.
To claim that it did is a complete contradiction of science; but it is entirely overlooked in favour of evolution.
A common reason used to encounter the evolution claim is; that a higher life form cannot arise from a lesser life form.
The evolutionary reply; but anything that exists on earth originated from a seed or egg, which is a lower life form.
On the surface that answer may satisfy some or confuse others, the problem with that answer is that the egg or the seed already carried the DNA strand which would determine the existence that would be given life. It was not a lesser life, but it was the same life.
But we are only shown that which promotes evolution.
Similarly, their conclusion that all life on earth originated from the same source, a single-celled organism, could also be brought into disrepute. From this single-celled organism (which still exists today in its original form) all manner of life, whether plant or animal arose.
Evolution then steps in with its so called evidence for the adaptation or transition of one form into a better form. This evidence can be very convincing when you pick up a book of evolutionary transition species.
But when you actually investigate those species there will be more non-similarities than similarities.
Suggested evolutionary transition line of humans.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens
Following information available on Wilkipedia.
Sahelanthropus MAY represent a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.
It continues; that the original placement of this species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor would complicate the picture of human phylogeny. If it is a direct human ancestor, then its facial features bring the status of Australopithecus into doubt.
Ardipithecus is considered to early hominin genus (subfamily Homininae). This genus shares several traits with the African great ape genera (genus Pan
and genus Gorilla), and is considered by some to be on the chimpanzee rather than human branch.
Australopithecus anamensis.
A. anamensis shares many traits SIMILAR to Australopithecus afarensis and MAY as well be its direct predecessor.
Australopithecus afarensis.
There is considerable debate regarding the locomotion behaviour of this species. Some believe it was almost exclusively bipedal, while others believe that the creatures were partly arboreal. The anatomy of the limbs favours the latter interpretation; the curvature of the finger and toe bones are closer to those of modern-day apes.
Kenyanthropus platyops.
These finds may not even represent a valid taxon, because the specimen is so distorted by matrix-filled cracks that meaningful morphologic characteristics are next to impossible to assess with confidence.
Australopithecus africanus.
Considered to show similar traits as a bipedal hominid, but with arms slightly larger than the legs (a physical trait of chimpanzees). Despite its slightly more human-like cranial features, other more primitive features including ape-like curved fingers for tree climbing are also present.
Do I need to continue?
You see what I mean about transition lines and what we are led to believe about them by evolutionists.
Pictures of ape-to-human are extremely subjective and based on the evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. The series of models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man is also a misconception. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes.
A little story.
In 1845, "Dr." Albert Koch heard stories of giant bones in Alabama, and went down to cobble together a full skeleton. He eventually created a huge 114 foot skeleton of a "sea serpent", which he displayed in New York City, and later Europe. It was eventually shown to come from 5 different individuals, some of which were not Basilosaurus. (Dorudon was a genus of ancient cetacean that co existed with Basilosaurus 41 to 33 million years ago, in the Eocene).
But evolutionists will maintain their stance and claim; that to say there are no transitional fossils is simply false, and there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Here they will draw attention to examples such as the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.
Trust me, the transition line from reptiles to mammals or land animals to whales are just as inconsistent as the transition line of man which I have included in this essay.
There is no guaranteed proof for the evolution of life on earth, although several of their identification models may be acknowledged, such as insect pests becoming immune to insecticides, etc. But in the case of becoming immune from pesticide could merely be an adaptation to its environment by the organism, sponsored by its DNA/RNA code strand; the intelligence factor which exists to allow the creature to survive.
For anyone to claim that there is no intelligence associated to the creation' of life, I would have to ask them, to explain the intelligence that exists within the creation itself.
Because it is obvious, that the complexity of any living systems could never really evolve by chance, or that a system that is so irreducibly complex with precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system, could never randomly or spontaneously arise.
If any life contains an intelligent component, such as DNA, then that intelligence must have been there from the outset to allow the creature to survive.
Only an intelligent design would incorporate an intelligent composition in a living organism, and it could only have been put there by something with intelligence.
So the simplest way is the best way, because in this way everyone understands; yet the ardent evolutionist will say: then if God created prove that he did!
We only have to look at the intelligent conclusion of life to understand the intelligence which undoubtedly created it.