A loyal reader wrote in on an article I wrote called:
Darwin Did Not Believe Evolution
First he quotes me from my article saying;
“He[Darwin] knew that the fossils did not contain the transitional forms his theory anticipated. This was also in his book. He expressed hope that SOMEDAY the fossils would reveal some transitional forms, but he admitted that, as of his lifetime, they had not.
150 years later, they still have not.”
And then he replied by saying;
Those transitional fossils have now been found. Birds, wales and horses all have obvious roots, interim forms and their ancestors are documented in fossils. The other point about primitive eyes have also been well documented in living as well as the fossil record.
Sorry Loyal Reader, but it’s simply not true.
Many transitional fossils have been PROPOSED, but most of them have also been refuted, and many times by the people who proposed them in the first place. The celebrated Ida who graced the cover of GOOGLE and had her own Tv show/Book called “THE LINK” was dismissed as NOT a human ancestor (Not the LINK) in the year that followed by the SAME PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE BOOK AND MADE THE SHOW. It was a lie they used to make money selling the fossil. Check it out (Starting about 14 min it) https://youtu.be/zbWDER83NwE
The proposed fossil ancestor of the whale was dismissed by the guy who proposed it in the first place. He admits that the key parts of the reconstruction were SPECULATION. See this one- about five min in: https://youtu.be/Zio1ttlDjlM
And a fossil showing supposed lizard to bird evolution, featured on the cover of National Geographic, was debunked as a fraud by the lab National G hired to examine it. National G then published the cover story declaring it to be REAL transitional bird lizard, and then some time later offered a tiny retraction in the back of a different edition. See that here starting around 19 min in : https://youtu.be/zdPpmCuwjEw
On and on it goes.
But you will never find the debunking of the transitions on TV or evolutionary minded web sites. That’s not news to those sources because it doesn’t tell the story they want to tell. But its always out there. Even with all of their assumptions, the history of the fossil record has given Evolution NOTHING. But you have to look behind the media hype to see the real story for most of them, and a lot of web pages don’t do that.
And with all due respect, think about this. You say: “The other point about primitive eyes have also been well documented in living as well as the fossil record.”
[Author’s Note: Here he is referring to my quoting Darwin from Origin of Species where Chuck D says, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest sense (1859, p. 170, emp. added).” And like a typical knee-jerk evolutionist defending his religion, he calls on the fossil record to debunk me… or I guess I should say to CONTRADICT me since he doesn’t actually make a case for his point, but rather simply asserts it. Thus my following retort.]
What FOSSILS have eyes? Are you really going to claim that FOSSIL EYES exist and that they somehow prove evolution? I think you know better.
And as Michael Behe points out in Darwin’s Black Box, the complexity of the light sensitive cells and all of the chemical and mechanical components is SO GREAT that the cartoon which you choose to use to describe how eyes may have evolved does not matter. Eyes do nothing to help evolution, even if you choose to accept the unprovable just-so-stories proposed by people like Nye and Dawkins. Eyes prove a brilliant designer, and even Darwin knew that. At some level, anyway. I suggest you check out Behe’s book and hear it from someone smarter than me.
Thanks for reading, and remember- #JesusLovesYou
When the development of the eye, or similar structures, is considered, are the parallel (coincidental) developments in the brain necessary for accommodating and processing/interpreting the former, without which they’d be useless, ever considered? Not to mention the interconnections.
You, Michael, have hit the nail on the head! Right? Even if you can cartoon up the self-creation of the hardware, the SOFTWARE is an even BIGGER problem! I’ve never heard this discussed except to sweep it under the faith rug of “It must have evolved…” Evolution of the gaps is a very common think among people looking at these questions.
Reblogged this on a simple man of God and commented:
It comes down the fossil evidence …