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, a man from an amoeba. But the details required for this to happen make it inconceivable that this could happen.
We are not talking about changes within a species.
There are wide varieties of an animal within it's 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.
If you haven't yet looked at the makeup of a cell (including the DNA) then you will find
it really interesting seeing the latest scientific discoveries about what it contains.
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.
We should be able to see them all around us now!
Don't let people use the excuse that the fossil record is 'incomplete'. What they really mean is that it doesn't support their belief system.
There are two reasons why the fossil record would be incomplete from the perspective of an evolutionist:
1. No one has yet found any intermediary stages
2. There are no intermediary stages to be found
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 justify themselves with something that could never
be proven one way or the other.
However, I would not expect small, isolated poulations of animals to survive over
millions of years until evolution decides that enough change has taken place for that animal
to now 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 Earth would have to be very stable with no extreme weather conditions, earthquakes, floods etc for many millions of years in order for all of the creatures that we see now to have evolved.
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 natural selection be working on some creatures and not on others?
The so-called 'original' form does not seem to be any worse than today's version!
Yes, some creatures have died out. Scientists talk about ice ages, volcanos, earthquakes etc.
(So the Earth was 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 at all!
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; and they would have to accept the concept of a designer!