menu

The Unsubstantiated Hypothesis of Evolution

People should not use the term 'the theory of evolution' because the word 'theory' gives credence to the concept of evolution. Evolution is a hypothesis and is not substantiated in any way.

Natural selection is incapable of producing a life form to a higher order. It may seem logical that small changes over millions of years could produce, say, man and ape from an earlier relative. But the details required for this to occur make it inconceivable that this could actually happen.

We are not talking about changes within a species. There are wide varieties of an animal within its species. That is clear for all to see. Just look at the variety of dogs that have a single dog as their common ancestor. Some of these dogs have been deliberately bred (designed?) by people for specific purposes.
But all that has happened is that certain genetic features have been emphasised and others have been lost.
No new genetic material has been created, but some has been lost!
No new species have been created. The fact that these dogs will produce offspring with these same characteristics as the parents is not evolution as defined by Darwin. They are still dogs!

Can a mutation create a new species?

The answer is 'no' because a mutation normally only loses genetic material. A mutation could not result in a different species. In fact it is more likely to cause an animal (or human) to be damaged or to be sick. We have many different kinds of genetic conditions within the human population. They all result in damaged children. The lives of these children are frequently seriously impacted. Without care from other people these children would, in many cases, not survive.
There are many differences which make up our physical characteristics and mental capacities. These are mainly the result of the way that the male and female genes merge at conception, and these differences are perfectly normal.
However damaged genes can produce consequences. The design parameters are faulty and the human child is formed in a way that was not intended, and the result is a damaged human being not a new improved creature.

If you haven't yet looked at the makeup of a cell (including the DNA) then you would be amazed at the complexity of workings of the cell. People can make up ideas as to how animal species evolve into different species, but they tend to be at a very superficial level. The complex mechanisms within the cells would also have to evolve, and this really is a stumbling block to the simplistic idea that one animal can give birth to what is a different species!

Where are the intermediate stages?

If evolution's claims that small changes over millions of years would produce a new species from an existing species then we would be able to see some intermediatory forms in the fossil record. Don't let people say that the fossil record is 'incomplete'. What they really mean is that they are going to pretend that these stages are present but they simply haven't found them. This is not a scientific approach.
There are two reasons why the fossil record is incomplete:
1. No one has yet found any intermediary stages.
2. There are no intermediary stages to be found.

Neither reason allows anyone to use intermediate stages to support their theories. So the evolutionist now suggests that the changes occurred in small, isolated populations so that it would be highly unlikely that the intermediatary forms would be found! This is simply a red herring! An attempt to suggest something that could never be proven one way or the other.
However, I would not expect small, isolated poulations of animals to survive over thousands of years until evolution decides that enough change has taken place for that animal to now stop changing and to spread around the globe.

The huge variety of life on the Earth would suggest that there would have to be many hundreds of thousands of small, isolated populations of creatures, all undergoing change during the same period of time. The idea is that the changes are the result of climate and environmental pressure over time. But evolution is supposed to occur over very long time spans. The environment of the Earth would have to change very gradually over these long timespans for the evolutionary process to complete. Darwins finches with the beaks that can break hard shells do not have an advantage if the climate changes and droughts do not occur for many years!

Another difficulty for the evolutionist is that mankind is finding more and more creatures, insects and plants that are unchanged from the fossil records of million of years ago!
Why would evolutionary forces be working on some creatures and not on others?
Surely all creatures would be changing to better and improved forms in order to survive?

Yes, some creatures have died out. Scientists talk about ice ages, volcanos, earthquakes etc. (So the Earth was clearly not very stable over this period!)
But if the claims for millions of years of evolution to have taken place for the modern day man, animals, plants, etc to be as they are, then it must be impossible for any creatures not to have changed!

If scientists dropped the idea of millions of years then they would have to give up the concept of evolution. But they would be able to explain the current global situation with very few issues; but they would have to accept the concept of some sort of designer!