The Last Word On Nothing

17 thoughts on “Happy Valentine’s Day, Charles Darwin. There Is No Proof for Your Heresy.”

1. “I’ve heard many explanations, but I’ve never quite understood why people get so emotionally involved in this one scientific issue—while the vast majority of science goes falling on like so many trees in an unobserved forest.”

   Evolutionary biology, more than any other branch of science, threatens every Christian belief, including Jeebus, heaven, and god itself. Christians could grow up but they would rather throw out biology to defend their death cult.

   darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

2. @Human Ape, And yet, really, it doesn’t–at least not for very many of the most common flavors of Christian belief, including Catholicism. At the end of the day, biological evolution is a physical phenomenon, and evolutionary theory has everything to say about biology and nothing to say about god/s or heaven. Just as religion has nothing more than metaphorical to say about the origins of biological diversity and complexity. I know, I know–some disagree on the metaphor thing, and others want to extrapolate from biological evolution to the non-existence of god. For the record, I think that Genesis is about something a whole lot more powerful than where the plants and animals came from, and that if more people understood evolutionary theory *and* theology more fully, there would be a lot less name calling on both sides.

3. Huzzah (to T. Hayden’s reasoning in his reply).

4. Pingback: Abstruse Goose: Mmmm, Evolution : The Last Word On Nothing

5. Genesis 2:21-22, “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. “

6. Hi Nathan, and thanks for reading. I’m curious to know why you chose that particular bible verse to post? The story of Adam and Eve is an interesting one, but it doesn’t seem to have much to say about evolution one way or other–sex and sexual dimorphism help push evolution, but certainly aren’t required for it. Anyway, one usually sees Genesis 2:21-22 raised in discussions of gender relations, not of biological evolution. Whatever one thinks of the former situation, I’m afraid it doesn’t work very well as biology. All human embryos start out with female characteristics, after all, and only those of us with the small, fragmented Y chromosome eventually develop into males. Developmentally speaking, the rib was Eve’s, and we men are the derivative sex. Still, that doesn’t have to keep us from being an [good] help meet to woman, does it?

7. Refer to website address http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q02 pertaining to question 2 (Isn’t evolution just a theory that remains unproven?) that was raised.

   It is mentioned in the 3rd line of the paragraph that a science theory stands until proven wrong – It is never proven correct. This statement is a bit ridiculous in the sense that a theory might come from someone’s imagination through logical link among all the facts and yet nothing could disapprove this theory and it could be established to be part of the science.

   Charles Darwin mentioned that human beings would have evolved from apes. Some might say that human beings could be originated from bears or polar bears since these animals also have almost the same physical bodies as human beings. Both bears as well as polar bears could hold things with their hands. Some might well argue that their physical bodies changed to adapt to their physical bodies to the ultimate form of human beings. Why was it that Charles Darwin needed to suggest that human beings would have evolved from apes when bears and polar bears could be used to be another source to support his theory? All these queries prove that his theory was simply from his own imagination

   As Charles Darwin mentioned that human beings would have evolved from apes to accept his so-called, evolution theory, which was the ancestors of the apes? Which was the predecessor of apes? Or in other words, there would be a time when plants would evolve to animals through the process of evolution? Could we find evolution theory be a little ridiculous in which plants could develop to the extreme to animals?

   Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm pertaining to the evolution theory.

   The following is the extract under the sub-title of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – The Premise:

   “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers — all related…”

   Great to know that birds and the bananas have the common ancestor. Many queries have to be raised pertaining to their common ancestor: Which was the predecessor of birds and bananas? Which animal was the best to be the predecessor of birds in order to be evolved to the ultimate birds? Which animal that had the beak and feathers as the same as birds to be placed as the predecessor of birds? If you would mention that there were either Pteranodon or Pterodactyl or Petinosaurus or Quetzalcoatlus or Rhamporphydon or Archaeopteryx or Avisaurus or Piksi or Confiucionornis or Haopterus or Microraptor or Rahonavis or The Pterosaur or Rhamphorhynchus, then a question will be raised that who was the predecessor of any one of these dinosaurs? Why was it so? How was it happened?

   Birds and bananas are two different sources and yet Charles Darwin’s theory supports that they have the common ancestor. Further questions have to be raised: What made the common ancestor to stream out into two entire different groups and that is one could not be stationed at a place (such as, plants) and another is movable (such as, birds that could fly around). To allow common ancestor to evolve into plants and to station at one area would simply restrict its movement. Don’t you find it as poor redevelopment as going backward instead of evolving or advancing.

   As Charles Darwin’s theory supports that birds and bananas have their common ancestor, what would be the proof that they have the same ancestor despite all their features and functions are different?

8. The following are the extracts from the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution pertaining to the introduction of evolution.

   The biodiversity of life evolves by means of mutations, genetic drift and natural selection. The process of natural selection is based on three conditions. First, all individuals are supplied with hereditary material in the form of genes that are received from their parents, then passed on to their offspring. Second, organisms tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support. Third, there are variations among offspring as a consequence of either the introduction of new genes via random changes called mutations or reshuffling of existing genes during sexual reproduction.[1][2][3]

   From the above extracts, it is clear that biodiversity occurs as a result of the interaction of all the elements, such as, mutations, genetic drift and natural selection. In order for the process of natural selection to occur so as to achieve diversification through evolution, three conditions have to be fulfilled and these include inheriting genes from one generation to another; the multiplication of offspring; and the introduction of new genes via random changes or reshuffling of existing genes.

   There are a number of queries have to be raised below pertaining to the phrase, all individuals… hereditary material in the form of genes that are…from their parents then passed on to their offspring, that is extracted above, plays a part for the contribution to the ultimate evolution:

   a) If all individual hereditary materials in the form of genes from their parents have to be passed on to their offspring, all their offspring should have some hereditary material in the form of genes that are identical to their common ancestor. Let’s assume that banana and bird have the same ancestor. As hereditary material in the form of genes would pass on from their ancestor to the ultimate evolution to banana and bird, there should have certain hereditary material in the form of genes that could be found common among banana and bird. As banana and bird are two different natures without any common genes among them, how could there be common ancestor for both banana and bird? The same is for any kind of plants and animals. As there is no common gene among plants and animals and not even animals, such as, between crocodiles and apes, how could there be any common ancestor among them?

   b) If human beings were evolved from apes, which animal would be the one that caused apes to be evolved initially that had the identical genes that would have passed down to them? As none of the animals have the same genes as apes, how could apes be formed through evolution? As apes could not be formed through evolution, how could there be common ancestor between banana and apes as there is no trace between apes and other animals?

   The following are the extracts from the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics under the sub-title of ‘Origin of Apes’:

   Biologists classify humans, along with only a few other species, as great apes (species in the family Hominidae). The Hominidae include two distinct species of chimpanzee (the bonobo, Pan paniscus, and the common chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes), two species of gorilla (the western gorilla, Gorilla gorilla, and the eastern gorilla, Gorilla graueri), and two species of orangutan (the Bornean orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus, and the Sumatran orangutan, Pongo abelii)…

   As mentioned in the extract above that biologists have found two distinct species of chimpanzee; the common chimpanzee; two species of gorilla; and two species of orangutan to have the same gene as human beings. However, there are a few queries that have to be raised pertaining to the reliability of these sources that have been gathered for the support of evolution:

   a) As there are only a few apes have been found to have the same gene as human beings instead of all, would there be such a co-incidence in which only these few apes are so distinctive from other apes at the time of their creation to have the same gene as human beings? Or in other words, it would be that these few apes might have already been created initially to have the same gene as human beings co-incidentally and this was not the result of evolution that would have presumed by Charles Darwin. If these apes would have been created co-incidentally to have the same gene as human beings, it would be irrational to use these apes to prove that human beings would have been evolved from apes? Let’s give you an example for illustration. When you examine a stranger that declares to be your missing brother and find out that he has the same blood group of ‘0’ as you, would you simply conclude that this stranger must be your brother. Certainly you could not! This is due to that stranger might not be your brother. The reason that that stranger has the same blood group as you might be simply out of co-incidence. Thus, it might be a co-incidence to have these apes to be created initially to have the same gene as human beings. If it could be a co-incidence, it is irrational to use the reason that these apes that have the same gene as human beings to conclude that human beings were evolved from apes.

   b) There would be a possibility that these few apes and human beings could be created distinctively from each other and there should not be any relationship among these few apes and human beings at the time of creation.

   c) Charles Darwin might support that human beings were evolved from apes. However, his theory could not have full supported since one might argue why he should insist to choose apes instead of from other animals for evolution. Unless there has been an experiment that has done successfully that could convert the apes as listed above to human beings in the past, it is then rational to support that there is a proven science that human beings could be evolved from apes. To insist that human beings were evolved from apes and yet did not have eye-witness through experiment that human beings could be evolved from apes, the theory is somewhat not tested and simply out of his imagination.

   As there could be many alternative reasons that could not come to the conclusion that human beings were evolved from apes and yet Charles Darwin was not the one that was born at the time of the birth of first human beings, to jump into the conclusion that human beings were evolved from apes without any eye-witness of the evolution but simply through comparing gene is a bit speculative.

   If these selected few species of apes were evolved from the few chosen apes as mentioned above, i.e. two distinct species of chimpanzee and etc., a few queries have to be raised pertaining to other apes:

   a)Why has it been that the rest of the apes could not have the capability in evolving to other human race except the limited groups of apes that have discovered by biologists that have the same gene as human beings?

   b)What made the limited apes that have the same gene as human beings to be so distinctive that only these groups of apes could be evolved to human beings? Would there be any eye-witness or experiment to prove that these limited apes that have the same gene as human beings were those that could evolve to human beings? Was there somebody in the past had tested these limited apes that they could be evolved to human beings? If there were no experiment to be done to have the eye-witness that these apes could be evolved to human beings, the theory itself is rather speculative and not tested. Unless someone did test the evolution theory by changing the environment to could suit the apes in evolution and yet they had been successfully performed the test that these apes could transform into human beings, it is then rational to support Charles Darwin’s theory and mentions that they are really tested.

9. Hi Jason,

   Thanks for reading, and writing. The hypothetical situation you pose is an interesting one. You’re really asking how we can be sure that humans and the other great apes are more closely related to each other than humans are to bears. The answer has nothing to do with some guess or hunch someone dreamed up–that’s just not what the word “theory” means in science. It has instead to do with thousands and thousands of individual bits of data–observations made in the real world, testable and repeatable by anyone who takes the time to look. Things like the shapes of bones and how they fit together, genetic sequences, behaviors, developmental sequences, shared features with fossil forms and so on. Bears and humans are quite a bit alike, and also had a common ancestor, but much further back than the common ancestor that we share with the other great apes. We know that not because Charles Darwin thought it was true, but because he spent, and many, many thousands of others have spent their lives probing, testing and refining our understanding of biology, and its most central, best-established fact: that species change over time.

   It’s not quite right to think of plants evolving into animals though. Those two main types of multicellular life each evolved from single celled organisms. That was a particularly marvelous time in the history of life on earth, and involved all sorts of fascinating natural experiments as different simple forms of life came together to form things altogether more complex. The two lines–plants and animals, have been evolving away ever since, each new generation a new round of experimentation. Bananas and birds represent two way points on that long, unending road of life, and they certainly are different from one another in many ways. But they also share much more than a casual look would suggest, including the genetic code that makes all this change and experimentation possible in the first place–and that’s how we know they share a common ancestor. But it didn’t look like either–it almost certainly looked like a quite normal single celled organism of the sort you might find today if you looked at pond water under a microscope. Why did that one common ancestor give rise to so much diversity when so many others haven’t (yet)? Luck, pure and simple. (And no, I don’t find that being stuck in one place is a disadvantage–unless you’re a banana! It would be lousy for a bird though, and were it to happen, natural selection would very quickly bring that experiment to an end. The banana experiment is happily chugging along though, restricted movement and all.)

10. According to the Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, all living things, whether they are plants, animals and etc., have a common ancestor. There are a few queries to be raised regarding the so-called, common ancestor:

    a) As we know all living things, whether they are plants or animals or etc., need to have a couple, i.e. male and female, in order to produce the next living things. A single ancestor, such as either a male ancestor or female, would not have reproduction. How could there be only a single common ancestor in the beginning since it would have needed male ancestor as well as female of similar types in order to have reproduction? It is irrational to assume that different kinds of ancestors could perform reproduction. It is the same as a cow could not find a life-partner to mix with a rooster to perform reproduction. Certainly! If there would be common ancestor for evolution, there must be male and female ancestors with the same kind in order to achieve reproduction. To mention that all living things would have a common ancestor, is rather illogical. This is due to there must be male and female ancestors and they must be of the same kind to interact for reproduction. Not only that, they have to meet with each other instead of one was in one part of the earth and another was in another. Thus, the concept to have one common ancestor for reproduction does not seem correctly and this proves that evolution’s theory might not be true in reality.

    b) If all living things in this world have a common ancestor, it gives the implication that all plants and animals could be considered as the brothers and sisters. As plants, chicken, cows, human beings and etc. could have the common ancestor, the conclusion would turn up to be weird that we always consume our plants, chicken and beef even though they are part of our brothers and sisters. Thus, evolution’s theory would seem to be weird if all living things would have a common ancestor.

11. Hi Nathan, thanks for writing–I’m glad you’re reading LWON, and interested in learning more about evolution.

    I’m afraid you’re not quite right when you say that all living things need male and female forms to produce the next generation. In fact, the great majority of microorganisms–bacteria, archaea, many fungi and algae–either have no sexual reproduction, or use sex as only one of two or more reproductive strategies. In fact, reproducing sexually is quite a recent innovation in evolutionary history, and most organisms, by total number and by shear mass, still to this day reproduce mostly asexually. That is to say, you don’t need a couple, you just need one. This isn’t speculation–it’s one of the first things you notice when you sit down to learn about biology, or to take a rational look at the world around you.

    On your second point, well yes, all those species you mention are related–as all life on earth is related, in just the same way that members of a family are related. But “brother and sister” is *way* too close on the family tree of life to describe the relationships between the different animal species you mention, to say nothing of animals and plants. Not even “cousins” does the trick–we’re not 2nd or 3rd or 5,000th cousins of cows for example. Given that humans and cows last common ancestor was around some 98 million years ago (do you own LCA calculations at http://www.timetree.org/index.php — it’s fun!) and assuming a too-generous 15-year generation throughout both the bovine and hominid lines, that would make us about 650,000th cousins. Given that you can marry a first cousin in 25 states, eating a 650,000th cousin doesn’t really seem so bad, does it?

12. Refer to the website address http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ pertaining to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. It has been mentioned under the sub-title of ‘Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – Slowly But Surely…’ that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. As Charles Darwin supported that human beings were evolved from apes and that evolution is a slow gradual process, it implies that there would be a certain animals that would have the same gene as apes and that cause a certain group of apes to be able to evolve to human beings. However, there seems to be a missing link before the apes since which animals would be the appropriate predecessor right before the transformation to apes. As evolution is a slowly gradual process, certainly there should be the predecessor that could evolve into apes that could in turn evolve into human beings in the latter stage of evolution. As there is a missing link that which animals could be the predecessor just right before the apes, how Charles Darwin could link up every animal up to the common ancestor in which it could give rise to both bird and bananas?

    Besides, the predecessor, that should be right before the selected apes that have the same gene as human beings, should have all types of genes that other apes have. This is due to this predecessor has to be the common predecessor of all the apes. Yet in reality, there is no animal in this universe that has all the genes of all the apes and these include the genes that could be similar to human beings. As there is no animal in this universe that has all the genes and these include the gene that is similar to human beings and the genes that are from other apes, there is a shortfall in Darwin’s theory of evolution since his theory could not be proven in the sense that how he could link up all animals and apes as well as human beings to have the common ancestor.

    Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm pertaining to the theory of evolution. It is mentioned in fourth paragraph that all living things have the same common ancestor under Macro Evolution. As mentioned early, there is a missing link for the predecessor right before apes. How could Charles Darwin establish the link between apes to human beings; and from apes to their predecessor right before apes; and even trace it back to the common ancestor? As there is a missing link among animals to link up every animal, such as, bird, man and etc., how could Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution be sounded then?

    Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm under the sub-title of ‘Evidence of Evolution – Homology. It is mentioned that many animals, that have similar bone structures, could provide the evidence of evolution. As bone structures of animals have been used for the evidence of evolution, it gives the implication that all animals with bone structures should be covered under the activation of the same gene and those that do not have bone structures should be treated as another. The common ancestor that could produce both sets of living things, such as, a group with bone structure and another without, should be one that would have bone structure. Or in other words, the common ancestor should be the one with bone structure so that he could produce living things with bone structure. Using similar bone structure as a guideline to determine the process of evolution would seem a little weird in the sense that this common ancestor could produce living things without bone structure despite this common ancestor were with bone structure. As using many animals that have similar bone structures so as to provide of evolution, would turn up to be unsounded in theory due to the common ancestor could produce living things with and without bone structure despite the common ancestor was itself with bone structure. Thus, it is not the good source for the proof of evolution through animals with bone structure since it would turn up that the common ancestor would seem odd that could produce living things without bone structure despite it was with bone structure.

    Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm pertaining to Evidence for Evolution – Embryology. It is mentioned that (ex) Embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages, giving the superficial appearance of relationship. (crit) Embryos of different vertebrates DO NOT look alike in their early stages.

    The discovery of similarity of embryos could also be located in the website address as follows:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215112815.htm

    There are a few reasons that different species in the same class of living things, such as, mammals, with similar embryos could not provide the proof of evolution:

    a)There could be a possibility that all the living things, that we have currently, have been created with embryos with their own groups initially instead of by means of evolution or creationary evolution. If that could be so, the different species in the same class of living things with similar embryos should not be formed as the proof of evolution.

    b)Despite the embryos could be identical among similar class of animals, the adults of the animals differ from one to another. As the end-result of the development of embryos from different animals differs from one to another, it does not provide the proof that all animals would be evolved from common ancestor. The same as all metals, such as, copper, zinc, iron and etc. Could we conclude that all metals have common substance that causes them to exist just because all are metals? By using the similarity of embryos to conclude that all animals would have the common ancestor, is simply the same as a person would comment that you are my close brother since you have hands and legs the same as me. It would be rather ridiculous for a person to speak to a fly that they are closely related since their embryos are alike and that they would have the same ancestor.

    c)Let’s assume the existence of evolution and that embryos could be used to establish the process of evolution. As embryos have to be used for the grouping of evolution, it is rational to group all the plants embryos to be in the same group of evolution and all the animal embryos to be another. Thus, the common ancestor of both of these plant embryos and animals should be one that could produce both plant embryos as well as animal. As it would seem to be impossible to have such a common ancestor to reproduce living things with plant embryos and at the same time to have animal as well, it would turn up that using embryos as a guide to determine the existence of evolution would not be feasible. Thus, it is irrational to use the existence of embryos to determine the existence of evolution or else it would turn up that the common ancestor would turn up to be odd in which one could not locate to have such a strange creature in the past to have such a capability to produce animal embryos as well as plant simultaneously.

    Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm under the sub-title of ‘Evidence of Evolution – Observed Natural Selection. It is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph under this sub-title that only the fittest survive. However, it has been shown from time to time that this logic does not sound truthfully in the sense that many animals, especially dinosaurs, have turned up to be extinct despite they were once the fittest in the past as compared to the tiny insects. The same as happened to Barbary lion (Refer to the website addresshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Lion) which has turned up to be extinct despite it looked tough as compared to some other lions that have existed nowadays. The same are for the fake of Atlas bear and Barbary leopard too. From the above examples it could come to the conclusion that the principality, that the fittest would survive, might not be true in reality. Some might well strongly support that human beings were evolved from apes and yet apes would still survive. Thus, the natural selection would not be the best source of the evidence of evolution due to some cases might not seem to work naturally.

13. Jason, you’re funny–what I really like about your comments is that the more words you use, the less sense you make! But I’m disappointed that you don’t seem to be willing to have a conversation … I’m trying to answer your questions and ask some of my own, but you’re just pasting in “critiques” that are based on really basic misunderstandings of biology or the English language. (“Fittest” doesn’t mean the organism that wins some objective contest of toughness, for example–it simply means the variety of organism that is best able to survive and reproduce under the conditions it finds itself living under. And your metal things? That’s just silly.)

    Anyway, your information is wrong, your arguments are goofy, and your grasp on reality appears to be tenuous. But the reason I’m done with you is that you apparently aren’t willing to have a conversation…you seem to just want to regurgitate misunderstandings and silliness. It’s a shame, really–you’re looking at some of the most interesting information humans have ever worked out, and instead of trying to understand and appreciate the material and its deep implications, you’re playing tired little sophistic games, and doing so poorly at that. I sure wish you had something more important to spend your time on, but even if that doesn’t come to pass, I do. And I’m going to go do it now.

14. Currently I try to list out all the reasons why the evidence of evolution could not be reliable. In time to come, I would tackle your question one by one.

    Thanks!

15. Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm under the sub-title of ‘Evidence for Evolution – The Fossil Record’ in which fossils have been used for the support of evolution. The following are the comments that fossils might not be a reliable source to support evolution:

    a) Animals could have been created initially to be that some might have the combination of features for a few groups of animals instead of these should be the result of evolution. If that could be so, there should not be any reason for one to use an animal’s fossil that contains the features of a few groups of animals to conclude that the animal in the fossil could be the common ancestor for these few groups of animals.

    b) Nobody in this world did have eye-witness that the animals in the fossils would be the one that would evolve to the creature that biologists suspect to evolve to. To jump into the conclusion that the fossil should be the ancestor of a certain group of animals is rather speculative.

    Let’s elaborate further for the example as indicated in the website address as above. No doubts Archeopteryx’s teeth and its claws on its wings might cause biologists to feel that it could be the common ancestor of both reptile and bird. However, there could be a possibility that Archeopteryx might not be the common ancestor of reptile and bird due to these three animals might have been created initially to have these appearances instead of these were the result of evolution. As we were not born at the time of the creation of reptile and bird and did not observe how reptile and bird were formed, there could be a possibility that reptile and bird were formed not as a result of evolution from Archeopteryx. It could be the co-incidence that Archeopteryx was created initially which teeth and claws on its wings seem to look alike as reptile and bird respectively instead of there were the result of evolution.

    c) Let’s assume that evolution could be established. Animal fossils might not be able to serve as evidence due to the lack of evidence where it would come from or where it would go to. The placing of the animal fossil among animals so as to determine the process of evolution is rather a little speculation.

    Let’s use Archeopteryx to be the elaboration. There are many different arrangements could be suggested in placing the Archeopteryx among the animals to determine which animal could be the ancestor. Let’s suggest the number of possibilities in placing Archeopteryx between bird and reptile:

    1) There could be a possibility to place Archeopteryx in the middle of reptile and bird for the proof that reptile would evolve to Acheopteryx and latter to bird.

    2) There could be a possibility to place Archeopteryx to be after bird and before reptile just to show that bird could evolve to Acheopteryx and latter to the complete piece of reptile.

    3) One might assume Acheopteryx to be the ancestor for bird and reptile so as to place Acheopteryx right before bird and reptile.

    d) There could be a possibility that these three animals are not related since their features have existed ever since the creation instead of through evolution.

    From the above example, it is obvious that the discovery of fossil does not provide a clear hint about the process of evolution.

    Let’s assume that Acheopteryx should be the ancestor of both bird and reptile. There are a few query has to be raised why Acheopteryx should be placed to be the ancestor of both bird and reptile:

    a) It is irrational to use the teeth of Acheopteryx to comment that it must be the predecessor right before reptile just because both animals have identical shape of teeth. This is due to there would be a possibility that Acheopteryx and reptile would have been created initially with the same outlook of teeth shape instead of it was due to the result of evolution. As there could be a possibility of the initial formation of the existence of teeth for both animals instead of evolution, it is irrational to use Acheopteryx to be the proof that it could be the predecessor right before reptile. The same concept could be applied between Acheopteryx and bird.

    b) There are animals, such as, bats, sharks and etc., that could have the same teeth of Acheopteryx as well as wings. To mention that Acheopteryx could be the ancestor of bird and reptile instead of others is a bit speculation.

    c)How could Acheopteryx be treated as the ancestor of reptiles despite its body did not look bulky and with four legs as reptiles have? Other than the teeth of Acheopteryx, there is no similarity between this animal and reptiles whether in terms of bodies shape or etc., to jump into the conclusion that Acheopteryx would be the ancestor of reptile is a bit speculation. There has been no eye-witness in the past or any experiment that would have performed to prove that Acheopteryx could evolve to reptile or vice versa. To jump into the conclusion that Acheopteryx would evolve to reptiles is rather subjective or even through wild imagination. This conclusion has been arrived without any eye-witness that Acheopteryx did evolve to reptile. Or in other words, evolution is a bit guessing game to link up various animals through fossil. The same that could a person comment that you must be his son if both of you are so odd that have six fingers per hand? Certainly not! The same has to be applied to Acheopteryx that we could not confirm that it should be the ancestor of reptiles by simply observing its teeth despite its body shape and legs differ from reptile.

    From the above analyses, it seems to be that placing an animal’s fossil could be some kind of speculation so as to determine what role, i.e. whether it was an ancestor of an animal or not.

    Some biologists might argue that the word, fittest, in biology does not imply that organism that wins some objective contest of toughness, but it simply means that it is best able to survive and reproduce under the conditions it finds itself living under. However, they fail to understand that sometimes there are external factors that are beyond the control of nature in which animals could be facing extinct despite the surrounding environment might be suitable for them to survive and reproduce. The factors that could seriously affect or destroy animals’ lives and to cause natural selection not to be seemed be at work in nature are:

    a)The sudden occurrence of natural disasters, such as, famine, Tsunami, Twister, earthquake, forests caught in fire due to extremely hot weather and etc., that could cause animals to be extinct despite animals might well be able to adapt to their surroundings for survivals.

    b)Despite animals might have the capability to survive in their surrounding environment, they might be turned up to be extinct due to many hunters might kill them for the sake to use the part of their bodies, such as, skin, for trade or any other purpose.

    Refer to the website address http://www.animalsgoingextinct.blogspot.com/ and you would discover many animals are going to be extinct due to natural disasters and some through the fault of human beings.

    From the above explanations, it is clear that sometimes it is beyond the control of nature that animals might not be able to survive as a result of natural disasters and the fault of human beings despite they might well fit to survive in their surrounding environments.

16. Let’s assume that evolution could be true. As all animals and plants could be traced back to a common ancestor, the common ancestor must be one that has to be capable in asexual reproduction. The only living things that could be found to be asexual reproduction are archaea, bacteria, protists, algae and fungi. As all these living things are either micro-organisms or the selected plants instead of any other living things, it implies the common ancestor could be either micro-organism or the selected plants. There are a few queries have to be raised pertaining to the reliability of the source that has been used to support the evolution:

    a)Biologists did successfully clone animals in the past and even to use the gene to improve the animals. However, what they clone, it just improves the living thing instead of modifying it into different kind of animals. If they would clone any animals, such as cow, they still produce cow at the end of the experiment without causing it to stream out into different kind of animal, such as giraffe or etc. Has there any experiment been performed in the past that could develop into a more complexity of animals, such as, from micro-organism to worm or fly or etc.? If none of the scientists have done the experiment successfully in converting micro-organism into a worm or fly or etc., other than merely a micro-organism, the evolutionary theory is simply a concept without being tested.

    b)As the common ancestor could be micro-organism or a selected plant, it is simply without bone structure or could be one that could have either plant embryo or animal. As this common ancestor could be an algae or fungi or archaea or protists or etc., how could it be able to be developed into both plants and animals with complexity of bone structure? Did biologists perform the experiment successfully to convert any of these living things into a more complexity of animal, such as, worm or fly or etc.? Or else, the evolution theory is just a concept without being tested.

    c)As this common ancestor could be either plant embryo or animal, how could it be able to stream out into plants as well as animals? Or in other words, how could this common ancestor be able to produce plant embryo as well as animal despite it was simply either micro-organism or plant? Did the biologists perform the experiment in the past successfully to cause micro-organism to be able to convert into both plants as well as animals with complexity of nature?

    Refer to the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant under the sub-title of ‘Evolution’. A proposed phylogenetic tree of Plantae has been drawn. There are a few queries pertaining to the reliability of the evolution tree:

    There is a great work done in joining plants from one to another to determine the process of evolution. However, a query has to be raised whether the tree of evolution has been drawn through fixing the plants that ought to be there due to by comparing of feature of plants instead of through testing and observing the nature that these could occur. Let’s give you an illustration: From the chart, it could come to the conclusion that Chlorophyta was the predecessor right before the plants, i.e.Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese and Trebouxiophyoese. Did any biologists see or did perform experiment that Ulvophyoese could transform into Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese as well as Trebouxiophyoese in the past? If they did not do the experiment and just fixed them into the evolution tree due to the feature and/or the nature of these plants, it implies that there was no eye-witness or experiment did in the past to prove that Ulvophyoese could be able to evolve to Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese and Trebouxiophyoese.

    Some biologists might comment that evolution tree might be done through thousands and thousands of individual bits of data–observations made in the real world, testable and repeatable by anyone who takes the time to look. Things like the shapes of bones and how they fit together, genetic sequences, behaviors, developmental sequences, shared features with fossil forms and so on. As they did not perform the test whether the plants or animals could be transformed in accordance to the evolution tree that has been drawn, there could be a possibility that the evolution could not be workable as what has been laid out in the evolution tree. Besides, the plants could have been created in the beginning with identical features and they were not the result of evolution.

17. There are quite a number of sophisticated animals in this world could be able to perform asexual reproduction. Could there be any possibility that a common ancestor could be an animal instead of micro-organism or plant?

    Let’s assume that this common ancestor could be a sophisticated animal since many of these animals in this world could perform asexual reproduction and these include bees, ants, wasps, scorpions, hammerhead, sharks and the Komodo Dragon. Despite these animals could perform asexual reproduction, it is irrational to assume that the common ancestor of all living things could be an animal for the following reasons:

    i)It is irrational to assume that the common ancestor could start up with an animal. This is due to the so-called, animal (common ancestor), has to develop backward into micro-organism instead of evolving into a more complexity of living thing. As all living things have been assumed by evolutionists to have a common ancestor, this so-called, animal (common ancestor), would evolve into micro-organism, this certainly contradicts the teaching of evolution theory since this animal (common ancestor) has to be grown backward instead of evolving.

    ii)If the common ancestor could be an animal, how could this animal be able to turn up to have its offspring to have plant embryo, animal as well as micro-organism? As it is irrational to have such a common ancestor as animal to reproduce offspring to have plant embryo as well as micro-organism, how could the common ancestor be a sophisticated animal?

    iii)If the common ancestor could be a vertebrate animal, how could this animal be able to turn up to have its offspring to develop into invertebrate offspring and vice versa?

    iv)According to the evolution’s theory, living things should have been evolved from time to time. It is rational to assume that living things should be started up with micro-organism instead of from the complexity of animal. This is due to it would have started to evolve from the initial living thing to the ultimate complexity of creature.

Comments are closed.