Evolution for Dummies

Amp330

Atheism is a faith based religion.  One of the tenets of this religion is abiogenesis, life beginning on it’s own.  Another is evolution.  It is difficult to get atheists to talk about abiogenesis, because of the inescapable requirement of faith it brings.  Atheists will argue for evolution, but their material is very limited.  If you discuss evolution with one atheist, you’ve discussed it with all of them.  They use the same talking points, link the same web sites, and all seem oblivious to advances in science which have debunked many of their beliefs.  They always cite archaeopteryx (a bird) and tiktaalik (a fish) as transitional fossils, yet both have been debunked due to the lack of evidence connecting them with any other species before or after them.  We have a few fossil specimens of each and no observable signs of evolutionary change in either.  It’s funny to point out that the coelacanth is a similar fish to the tiktaalik and was thought to have been extinct for 66 million years, until they were found happily swimming around off the coast of South Africa. Unchanged, not evolved, but alive.  They go great with lemon and butter!

Note that I use the term species loosely.  There are so many definitions of the word.  Scientists have never agreed on what actually constitutes a species.  The term is man made.  A more accurate term is kind.  It’s Biblical, so atheists hate it and always ask what “kind” means as if asking that is some sort of insult, since scientists didn’t invent the term.  When they ask what “kind” means, I just link them the same web page they always link me when telling me what a species is.  They never actually read anything they link to you.  Often atheists will give me this link, spew obscenities at me and tell me that it is the definition of species and that kinds don’t exist.  I tell them to read their own link:

New World Encyclopedia: Species are the basic taxonomic units of biological classification. This grouping of organisms of “like kind” into discrete and stable units has been traced at least from the time of Plato and Aristotle.

Back to the claim that tiktaalik is a transitional fossil, the strongest evidence supporting this is a drawing where five fish are lined up with tiktaalik in the middle, to show an apparent evolutionary change.  Once that drawing is corrected to show the scale of the actual fossils, the illusion of evolutionary relationship vanishes.  I have corrected the drawing here.
Tiktaalik Blog
Without fail, atheists claim that bacteria evolve a resistance to antibiotics or that the flu virus is an example of evolution. After all, we have to change the vaccine each year to combat a new flu strain.  In the mind of an atheist, we get a vaccine and produce antibodies, then the flu virus gets hit with the antibodies and a few of them suddenly realize that danger is present, so they undergo a mutation that makes them resistant to the antibodies.  This is considered evidence of micro evolution.  Using supposition disguised as logic, they assume that over time, many micro evolutionary changes add up, so that eventually it is possible to go from the first multi-cellular life form, algae, to a human being.

There is just one problem with this logic.  Once a flu virus is attacked by an antibody that can kill it, it’s too late to mutate a resistance to it.  The fact of the matter is, the resistance is already there in some of the virus.  Using a flu virus as an example, its DNA is extraordinarily complex and allows a countless variety of resistances. The resistances are present at random throughout the entire collective of the virus.  If every flu virus were identical, then it would be simple to kill off every single one and make it extinct.  The beautiful and complex programming of the DNA allows variation within the kind, so that not every one is susceptible to the same dangers.  Almost anything can be thrown at the virus, but some will survive to carry on.

The survivors with the highest resistance to a particular antibody will inevitably procreate more, so the next generation will consist of a majority which carry the same resistance that saved the virus from extinction.  They all still carry the same previous genetic possibilities within their DNA programming. Previous traits that were wiped out will slowly return as those DNA sequences come back up again randomly when the virus multiplies.  DNA is coded in a quaternary programming language that is far more complex than the binary programming that computers use today.  The number of variations that are possible for certain traits within a life form is staggering.  

It is not evolution for certain preexisting possible traits to present themselves.  It is not evolution for a trait to be more successful if something is selectively targeting other traits and removing them from the gene pool.  Atheists confuse natural selection with evolution.  In nature, if a species of moth varies in color from black to white and a predator can more easily pick out black moths on white tree trunks, then the white moths will inevitably be more successful breeders.  It is not evolution for white moths to survive an attack on black moths.  The white moths were always there and just carry on.  The attack on the black moths may change the ratio of color traits in the moth community, but this is due to the removal of DNA information that is encoded for black, not due to a mutation in the DNA to make moths lighter.  No mutation happens. No evolution happens.  Black moths just get targeted and white moths get to live another day.  Grey moths sleep with one eye open.

It is always possible for the more successful traits to become the targets of calamity and for detrimental traits to become beneficial.  This is the purpose of having variation within the kind.  This was witnessed in the study of peppered moths in industrial England.  When industrial soot covered trees making them blacker, the white moths became the easier targets and the black moths were suddenly the more successful of the bunch.  There were always varying shades of white and black peppered moths.  There still are.  No evolutionary genetic change has ever been recorded in these moths.  Different conditions that make it hard on one trait make it easier on another trait, so that the entire species carries on, always remaining exactly the same species.  No evolution from one species to another has ever been observed, so assuming it happens is a faith based assumption. Here is an easy way to tell the difference between selection and evolution.

Amp318

Evidence for evolution is always presented in drawings, so I’ll break out the crayons and do the same.  Atheists understand drawings.  I don’t claim my drawings to be evidence though, like they do.  This is merely a representation of my view.  No evidence disputes my view.  No evidence can be put forth that allows evolution to be observed.  We know that it is impossible to select what isn’t there, so this will be made so easy to understand that it will infuriate atheists.  I invite their comments.

Let’s demonstrate how bacteria survive as a species when confronted with antibiotics.  Atheists claim that the bacteria evolve a resistance and become stronger and stronger.  It’s understandable for people who were indoctrinated at taxpayer expense to believe the fairy tale they were taught.  It would just be nice if they developed skepticism and a desire to see actual evidence.  This demonstration using sheep (ovis aries) will explain what really happens.

Fighting the Ovisariescoccus Bacteria:

Ovisariescocci in their natural environment.
Sheep1
Scientists develop an antibiotic that kills ovisariescoccus.
SimonBarSinister
Many of the ovisariescoccus are killed, but others have a preexisting resistance to the antibiotic with varied effectiveness.
Sheep2
Remaining ovisariescocci breed, passing on their strongest traits more often than others.  The ratio of varied traits is now different.
Sheep3
Scientists call this new ratio of traits among preexisting ovisariescocci a strain.  Nothing has evolved.  They create a new antibiotic that is more effective against this strain.
SIMON BARSINISTER RAYGUN
Once again, an antibiotic takes its toll on the ovisariescocci, but some are more resistant than others to this different attack.
Sheep4
If targeted, selection for killing stops, the entire community eventually goes back to normal, as it thrives in its natural environment.
Sheep1
What never happens after an antibiotic hits the ovisariescoccus community:
Sheep5
New traits do not evolve.  Preexisting traits do better or worse depending on the conditions they face.  When conditions change which bring hardship to a flourishing trait, another trait could find the condition beneficial and thrive.  The species carries on.

AMP

If you enjoyed this blog post, please share on Facebook, Twitter or one of the other choices below!  Thank you!

Advertisements

41 comments

  1. The degree to which we are compelled to have this debate is measurable by the distance we have strayed from the original intent of the Founders of this country. “Whether a man believes in many gods or no God neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket”. – Thomas Jefferson. Except, it does now. It does because freedom has been abandoned. Like-minded individuals can no longer freely associate without external influences being applied by people who demand societal sameness throughout our entire country. We’ve allowed our schools to be taken away from parents and handed over to whoever holds the reins of power in Washington. In this country, it was never intended that there be “reins of power”. That’s something that has been imposed on US by the social traditionalists who came here after the Patriots and Pioneers did the heavy lifting. They didn’t believe in freedom and they swerved us into the Europeasant ditch in which we are now spinning our wheels. The rights bestowed on US by our Creator are in force whether we believe in that Creator or not and the only ones who would dispute that are those who would find ways to infringe on those rights.

    Like

  2. It is also possible to evaluate the plausibility of evolution, especially of humans, by observing humans in their current state. Humans possess an incalculable ability to process information. Consider an Ultra High Definition TV with 8,294,400 pixels and more than a billion possible colors. Now consider that UHDTV allows for 120 frames per second. That means that the human brain will process 995,328,000 pieces of information in ONE SECOND! If a movie is 2 and one half hours long, that’s 8,957,952,000,000 pieces of information, that is, almost 9 trillion pieces of information, over the full length of a movie. But, there is also audio information accompanying the video of a movie. I’m not going to do the calculations for HD sound. Add to that the sensation of sitting on the couch, clutching a pillow, holding a can of beer, eating nachos, and you can see that in a common human activity, the brain processes trillions of pieces of information. Expand these calculations over the course of a day and the number of pieces of information itself approaches the limit of human comprehension. However, the human brain doesn’t have limitless processing power. In the brain there are about 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses. But if you travel to San Francisco, then Italy, then Chichen Itza, you will instantly recognize the buildings in all of their various forms, the different kinds of trees you will recognizes as trees, flowers, rocks, ad infinitum. You can quickly see that there is an incongruence between the physical structure of the brain and the vast amount of information processed by the brain. There is another aspect of information we can consider, Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. Without getting too technical, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems state that you cannot have a set of information where each piece of information is defined by all the other pieces of information. The definitions of at least some of the pieces of information must exist outside of the set. The question is, does the physical structure of the human brain allow for all the processing that must take place to comprehend all of the information taken in over the course of even a single day, not to mention over the span of a lifetime. By the sheer numbers, the answer is no. Some meaning, some definition from outside of the brain must be introduced into the brain’s existing definitions in order to be able to make sense of all the information consumed. Broaden this idea to the system of evolution. Evolution is presumably a closed system, that is, it is limited by the environment of the earth over the eons needed for evolution to take place. The system of evolution cannot have been self-consistent, as the human brain is not self-consistent. Regardless of what mechanism one attempts to devise to explain the origin and development of “species,” this mechanism cannot exist without a super-system, i.e. super-natural, Creator. One last twist, is there enough information in the universe to define the universe? Cheers.

    Like

  3. Typical responses from the Darwinistas. Not only do they fail to understand their own belief system and the constantly changing “science” that it relies on, but they prefer to ridicule the author. Then they prove what God says about them in Psalm 14:1 and Romans 1:18-23.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I stopped counting the factual fallacies in the first paragraph. This entire article is a steaming pile of dinosaur shit, full of wrong assumptions, presuppositional strawmen, and outright lies.

      You should put this on FoxNews…if THEY’D even tolerate it.

      You don’t deserve, nor would you comprehend, a refutation.

      Like

      • Yet you can’t name one. It’s easy to say the whole thing makes you steaming mad, but pointing out even a single thing you can factually debunk is too daunting. It’s ok. We expected nothing substantive from you. Keep banging the sippy cup when your beliefs are confirmed to be nothing but mere beliefs.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Interesting juxtaposition of natural selection and evolution. However, taking everything you have stated regarding evolution as fact and it takes “faith” to believe in evolution, so be it. It still makes more sense than some dude coming back to life after three days and being the “son” of another (same) dude who created not only life on Earth, but the entire universe. In other words, you may convince me the science behind evolution is faulty, or even nonexistent, but you have no evidence for God.

    Like

    • According to mathematicians who have run the odds, it doesn’t make more sense. It just feels like it makes more sense to you and it’s what you’re used to hearing. The odds of life starting on its own are so infinitesimally small they are considered utterly impossible.

      Like

      • I remember reading that an individual calculated the odds for spontaneous life developing on earth.
        He came up with one two the two hundred and fiftieth power.
        Thats 1 followed by 250 zeros with commas in the appropriate places.
        Pretty much ain’t gonna happen.

        Like

  5. “We must assume”, “the assumption is”, ” the consensus is”, every time I read an article about evolution these words are every where.
    Zero proof, lots of assuming.

    Like

    • LOL! Thanks! Everyone always tells me that in order to reach liberal minds (which atheists predominantly have) you need to use pictures, so I figured it was time to give it a shot!

      Like

  6. I just checked the link you mention, and it’s quite the most ridiculous thing I have read in years. You post bears no resemblance to anything in real life.
    As for hard evidence- did you expect me to teach you evolution?
    The key factor in all of this is evidence. Evolutionary theories are the inevitable result of overwhelming evidence. Faith has no part in it.

    Like

  7. Many Christians agree with evolution. Evolution is not an act of faith, it’s about hard evidence, it’s testable and ongoing.
    Atheism is a lack of belief in an ideology. It cannot, in any way be a faith or a religion. It’s a lack of faith.

    Like

    • Yes, because many Christians have no choice but to soak it up in public schools. There is no hard evidence, which is why you only said the words “hard evidence” and provided no hard evidence. You should also read my other article, which is linked in the first sentence of this one.

      Like

        • You mean the creator of heaven and earth, the alpha and omega didn’t know? LOL HE KNEW ITS YOU WHO IS UNDER STRON DELUSION

          Like

          • Evidence you mean like the sun, moon, stars, the atmosphere, trees, life, and every thing that you see in nature. Evidence. Everything created has a creator.
            Let me type it real slow so you get it. Every creation has a creator including the heavens and the earth.

            Liked by 1 person

          • You want me to debate God instead I declare Him. If you want to check His ID card you ask Him to show it to you.

            He is God and you’re not. Do you really think He cares if you believe in HIM or not?

            I am not going to persuade you it isn’t my job. The Holy Spirit draws all men not me

            The tomb is empty he was seen on earth walking around for 40 days and had over 500 eye witnesses see Him asend into heaven. Take it or leave it.

            But to put it plainly evolution is bull droppings speculation mixed in with some bones.

            Go be your own God and in the end see how that works out for you.

            Goodbye I am done here

            Like

          • Jesus said do not cast your perils before swine. Don’t gove that which is Holy unto dogs.

            I told you the truth after that it’s up to you. I am free of it.

            Like

          • This isn’t Bible school. You can read about the Bible in the Bible. If a Creator created the entire universe, you don’t think that perhaps He might know what goes on in it?

            Like

          • And if no creator made the whole universe, then no.
            However, it is possible to generate artificial worlds using rules and algorithms and NOT know it’s comprehensive contents.
            You can’t claim to know either way without evidence.

            Like

          • No I didn’t. A question can contain no claim. I also said if. I asked you a hypothetical. I guess we can conclude that neither science nor grammar are your strong points. You must be good at something. Maybe sports trivia or hopscotch?

            Like

  8. Where is your facts coming from ? You never cite your sourse. R we to blind agree or believe a writer w/no sourse. Your like Hillary flat out unbelievable.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s