EVOLUTION - PART 7

                                              EVOLUTION 

        PART 7

  (Copied from Mark        Cahill's Book
    A heartbeat away.)


The other claim of macroevolution is that one species gradually changes overtime to form another species.

To prove macroevolution, scientists line up various creatures, point to similarities and tell us that they're obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor. I'm sure you've seen  these charts in school textbooks showing a progression   from fish to reptiles to mammals. 

But let's say I lined up cars of various styles from a certain manufacturer according to their size, from sub-compact to luxury car and pointed out their similarities, would you believe that they obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor - or would you just use your common sense and simply think they had a common maker?

At best, the fossils used to create these charts demonstrate microevolution, such as the variety within horses, but is there any proof of one species changing to another? No such fossils exist.

Charles Darwin, who championed the theory of evolution, in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the struggle for life, acknowledged this lack of transitional forms as one of his theory's fatal flaws.

He stated: "As by this theory,  innumerable transformed forms  must have existed, why do we  not find them embedded in the  crust of the earth? Why is all nature not in confusion instead
of being as we see them, well-defined species?  Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required by the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it. The explanation lies however, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record."

Darwin knew exactly what was required  to prove his theory true, and he was honest enough to say so. He also recognized that there were numerous valid objections against the theory, one of which was the lack of transitional forms. There should be millions upon millions of intermediate stages if evolution were true.

What does that tell us?  That there is something very wrong with his theory. The fossil record should show gradual transition from lesser forms to the more complex forms for this theory to be true. Take a look at what the experts say.......


next post  10th June