Why wouldn't natural selection support the theory of macroevolution?
|
|
At first glance the two seem to go hand in hand. Mutations occur and the strong survive.
First Question- Do mutations in a species usually produce desirable results?
Mutations consistently produce negative and undesirable characteristics. For instance, even such a thing as greater height, which seems to be a beneficial mutation, will often be a cause for a decreased natural advantage when one realizes that greater height is more strenuous on the heart and therefore results in early death and less chance for passed genetics. Typically even an apparently good mutation is in most cases a negative for the specimen. A mutation that gives a positive appearance is unhealthy if the rest of the body does not mutate along with it. A good thing mutated in abundance becomes a negative detractor to the specimen. In other words the apparent good in a mutation may not always outweigh the bad when examined closely. You may apply this thought process to any mutation. If you think clearly and hard enough you will realize this. A great number of mutations produce outright negative results that lead directly to short, uncomfortable, or inhibited lives. In most cases the mutated specimen is weaker than that already established and it is the one "naturally selected" to die.
Second Question- Is it reasonable that the nervous, circulatory, respiratory, digestive, muscular, and skeletal systems evolved through natural selection?
In dealing with evolution I have come up with a policy- start with the basics. If you can explain the origins of certain characteristics reasonably well, the theory of connection between simple and complex by slowly evolving mutations makes relatively good sense. But who cares if you can prove that weak specimens die out over time if you can't explain how they got there in the first place! Let's start with the basics then. These six systems are the central, vital components of our bodies. You take one out and we collapse. Let say someone mutated perfectly formed wings on their back to fly (Or you may imagine one of the x-men mutations for example as well). As ridiculous as this may sound, evolutionists have to accept this as possible, for how did reptiles learn to fly? The most common argument I have heard in favor of evolution is concerning the Archaeopteryx- an ancient bird thought to be the predecessor of modern birds- but it has been conclusively proven that the Archaeopteryx was in fact just as well suited for flying as modern birds (just as complex) and therefore cannot be used as any sort of link to modern birds in evolution. Also usually mentioned is Pro-Avis - a bird that was dreamed up by evolutionist scientists, but as of yet there is no physical evidence for it. Back to our winged buddy, let's call him Bob. So Bob has perfectly formed feathered wings on his back. If the bones in these wings are not perfectly interlocking and compatible with the wings, these wings are a liability and according to Natural Selection, Bob would die out as a weaker specimen. If the wings are not connected perfectly to the nervous system so they can be controlled, they are a liability. If the wings are not perfectly connected in with Bob's muscular system, he cannot move them and they are a liability. If the wings are not perfectly connected in with the circulatory system, the muscles in the wings would shrivel and die- the wings would be a liability. If all of these systems are perfectly formed -poof- you get real evolution. But- wait a tick - Bob's got to have a partner (Bobette) otherwise his amazing genes will die out until the next Bob mutates. What if Bob isn't attractive even with his wings to females and he cannot pass his genes on? Back to the mutating board, right? But of course the evolutionist would have to argue this is possible- not only possible, but likely. The situation is compounded even more if you consider the situation in which Bob develops partial wings. In all cases but perfectly formed randomly mutated wings, the specimen unlucky enough to grow them is at an extreme liability. If his wings are too small or imperfectly formed they do not offer any advantage to him, and in fact become a liability and will likely result in an early death for him or result in social exclusion- and with it a lack of a mate.
Let's see how a primitive life form might evolve into an ape. Simultaneous mutation of perfectly formed arms and legs, skin and bones, brain and brawn is required. Their evolution cannot be explained through natural selection. Let's go back to he basics. An animal that mutates a perfectly formed stomach has to have intestines, etc... as well for it to have mutated a digestive system that will help it digest and therefore survive. I just don't get it- someone please explain to me- what good is a carelessly mutated part of a system without the others? What good is a brain without fully developed sense of sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing senses, or a fully developed system of nerves to communicate with? None. I don't understand why anyone could believe that these six senses developed spontaneously in any mutation as required for the mutation to be of use. I don't understand how these six senses could be carefully studied and then regarded as a result of natural selection or pure chance. If you still think evolution is plausible without a guiding force behind it, email me the reason. If you believe that God and evolution go hand and hand, please see the section on my truth page <God and Evolution?>.
|
|
Let's jump back billions years, when the first cell supposedly randomly came into existence. It had to have the primal characteristics of all these systems- it had to digest a source of food into energy, it had to have facilities to enable it to use this energy, it had to have some intelligence and the senses required to find food and avoid bad stuff- it had to have the ability to move to accomplish the previously mentioned actions, it not only had to have a primitive intelligence but means communication to it's other parts to use this information, and it had to have some protection against it's exterior (it had to have some sort of skin). This is a terrible run on, but it's deadly to the thought that there is no "intelligent design" behind life. The probability behind this happening is not one in a hundred billion- there is no chance. The top scientists in the world can't come close to creating (from scratch, DNA and all) a living cell even one as simple as the first cell supposedly was. If the most intelligent of scientists cannot come up with a feasible explanation and repeat it, what intelligence is there in believing that a mindless, unintelligent, lifeless force is behind life itself?
Let's jump ahead a billion or so years. By now our little cell
(Billy) has grown to thrive and survive and thousands of duplicates exist (that assumes there were enough resources to support thousands of Billys). So now a bully, who is bigger than Billy mutates, survives and wipes all of them out. Oops! The bully then dies because he depended on the Billys for food. Back to square one. Not only are darwinists responsible for explaining the scientific feasibility of advancing individual organisms in evolution, but of the global ecology as well. If in fact darwinism was true, the history of evolution would be incredibly delicate, as new species thrive and prey upon others- the balance must be kept or both prey and predator collapse along with all progress of life.
Third Question- Can natural selection account for all "selections" of the characteristics seen in life today?
What natural advantage does taste have, that virtually all specimens without it were selected out? Taste can detect poison, sure, but how would a specimen detect it? If it were a familiar taste, the animal would be dead already. In fact, what selective advantage does taste and taste alone posses? It had to have randomly mutated early on. Natural Selection could not play a part in developing taste- God had to. This may be applied to other areas as well. Sure, hair is nice to have, but it is not a life and death issue. The same is true with fingernails, toenails, eyelashes, eyebrows, and more. These make life more comfortable, but do not affect our survival to the point where it is a life or death issue in which natural selection would play a part.
|
|