If Evolution Were True

Evolution in Action

Interbreeding part of evolution?
Interbreeding part of evolution?
Evolutionary change can happen practically overnight.
Evolutionary change can happen practically overnight.
What man used to look like.
What man used to look like.
Is this a transistion from fish to man or man to fish?
Is this a transistion from fish to man or man to fish?

Science Seeks Answers

Science is about seeking answers to our questions. One of the most basic questions we ask begins with the words "How did this happen?" Well, in the study of biological macro-evolution, we have been given many answers to many questions, starting with Charles Darwin himself down to the present day luminaries such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould.

Many times we get the same answers from academia and the scientific "community". When they cannot arrive at an answer, the safe answer is "We don't know for sure, but this IS how it happened." I believe this is called a cop-out. That's why I don't like to ask "How did this happen" without some additional qualification.

You see, asking questions presents a challenge to science and I fear either science is afraid or unwilling to offer an answer or just too plain lazy to look into the subject. Well, I have a challenge which had been dismissed by many of my college professors, probably because they don't really care or they're worried about getting home before traffic builds up on the Dan Ryan Expressway.

My question isn't about how did something happen, but rather how didn't it happen. And rather than bringing up the Intelligent Design vs Evolution debate, I will focus on the status quo that assumes evolution happened and it happened the way they think it happened. And so, here are my questions:

  1. IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, then not all the intermediates (missing links) would be extinct. Let's ignore that we cannot find any intermediate fossils or traces. Assuming they did exist, they can't all can be extinct. We should find creatures with features and DNA that belong to different yet combined animal phylum. We should find a transitional breed between skunk and rabbit or platypus and otter living today. Then again, some transitional creatures must go extinct as they could not survive. (But if they could not survive how do we get their transitioned offspring which does?) Where are the living transitional species? And what is beyond the mammal world? Too many questions, not enough scientific thought about it- those dang lazy scientists!
  2. IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, it must have happened fast and it should occur today. Look at the development of the fetus how fast he or she develops, or the metamorphosis of the butterfly. That's pretty fast compared to the gradual change of species over millions of years. I'm not talking about the fantasy of punctuated equilibrium. I do understand that if scientists and archaeologists and anthropologists and geologists decided that evolution happened fast, then the whole theory of millions of years would be thrown out and that is taboo.
  3. IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, again, it should occur today and should not have stopped. What could cause it to stop? When did it stop? Things grow. Things adapt and change within the species. We should see it (macro-evolution) happening now. We should be able to observe chickens developing to fly so they don't end up at KFC. We should see fish developing little hands so they can take the hooks out of their mouths when they get caught by a fisherman. We should see deer developing some sort of intelligence that overrides their staring into the headlights. And to observe it means we should be able see it happen anywhere in the world.
  4. IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, where's the second wave? The first wave apparently happened giving us fish, amphibians. reptiles, birds, mammals, and man. Each emerged after the other, supposedly. Why isn't there a second wave - does evolution only have one starting point? Can't it randomly start another chain, let's say, 500 hundred years ago? Another primeval creature should have arisen and dinosaurs again should be walking the earth. Earth is the only world which has the conditions for life emergence, we should see another stream or wave of it happening all over again. We should see different fish, and then fish walking out of the water onto land. Then reptiles growing bigger and bigger. We should see primates developing into humanoids, similar to us, living in caves. Where's the second wave?
  5. IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, then where are the intelligent animals? I'm not talking about smart parrots or chimps. I'm talking about the next level - a pachyderm man, an ostrich man, or even a batman (not Adam West.) I'm referring to intelligence at our level. A race of animals that develop culture. Man did it in a few million years. Come on, the reptiles have been here longer and none of them can develop into a society? No iguanas building houses and driving cars. Possibly, the movie Planet of the Apes, was a dream? Apes have been around just as long as us - their branch of the evolutionary tree offered just as much opportunity as it did for humans. We won't discriminate against knuckle-walkers - we're a tolerant society. So why haven't they evolved beyond their stinking level? They're just a bunch of losers. (Sorry for the humor, I do not mean to offend any ape lovers.)
  6. IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, then why worry about endangered species? It's survival of the fittest in this jungle we call Earth, and if they can't cut it, they can get out. Seriously, endangered species is just part of the process. Whether a species goes extinct because of a global flood, or asteroid catastrophe or at the hands of man, it's simply a part of nature and we should not interfere. Take the dodo bird, for example. He is gone, but so what? Nature has compensated for his loss. Whatever place he had in the food chain has been filled. On the other hand, if evolution were true, endangered species are replaced with new species - something will emerge. Maybe one day, again, we will see something like the dodo bird as long as evolution does its job.
  7. IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, then the opposite must be true. Evolution, as many believe, is the development and change upwards. Change is from simpler to more complex. Supposedly change is from good to better. Evolutionary believers state that more and more information is gathered to aid in the change. (Where doesthis extra info comes from, I do not know.) So, the opposite, de-evolution, must also be true. We should see loss of information. We should see frogs de-evolving into fishlike creatures. We should see whales losing their lungs and (hopefully) growing back gills. If evolution had a starting point, shouldn't de-evolution have one too? Then again, they both couldn't start at the same time, could they? They sort of just cancel each other out. If we've reached the epitome of evolution, then we should fear de-evolution is just around the corner.
  8. IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, we should see "cross" evolution. This is my term for major transistional creatures, such as half snake and half vegetable or a tree with blood flowing in it. We should see an amoeba with eyes (or even one). We should see an insect with fish scales or a dandelion that walks. I'd like to see the punctuated equilibrium of the plant kingdom, you know, you plant a corn kernel and a tomato plant grows instead.
  9. IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, then there should be species and races of mutants. Scientists have been saying that mutation is evolution in action. When a two-headed calf is born, I'm looking for a two-headed bull so we can breed two-headed cattle. Then when a rancher tells the bank he needs a loan based on his livestock of 100 head of cattle, he's getting a bargain (his 50 cows each have 2 heads!) Sorry for the humor, this is how I evolved. Really, if you interbred mutants, you should have a race of mutants.
  10. IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, there should be more than two sexes. We have asexual worms and we have duo-sexual animals (male and female). But why have 2 sexes. Why didn't a third sex arise? It's funny that both sexes for every species emerged concurrrently, but did any species have only one sex emerge and no one to mate with? I was also thinking about homosexuality. I'm only asking questions and this is in my mind: if homosexuality is normal and has been happening since the beginning of time, shouldn't there be an organ adaptation of the homosexual mammal to produce off-spring? If homosexuality is part of the Grand Evolutionary Plan set by nature, then bodies of such should be complimentary to each other so they may properly mate. Don't be offended, my question isn't so much about homosexuality but rather evolution.
  11. IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, then most creatures should have regenerative powers. There's a lizard that grows back a severed tail. Our bones grow back together and our flesh heals after having been cut. Then shouldn't we grow back a new eyeball if the original is removed? If life has been here for millions of years and developed so many wonderful things, the why can't we grow back a severed pinky? Even if it took ten years to grow, it would be worth it. Regeneration is actually the most logical process that evolution can give us yet it is rare and far between.
  12. IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, we should not hear scientists and teachers saying "we don't how it happened, but we know that it did." How can you know it did if it hasn't been observed?

Well, I hope you enjoyed my questions (and moments of humor) and I also hope I got you thinking. I have lots of questions, but I fear no one has the qualifications to answer them truthfully. And again, my questions are based on the assumption IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE.

Test your Whale Knowledge

© 2011 Rob Lattin

More by this Author


Comments 20 comments

Rob Lattin profile image

Rob Lattin 2 years ago from Born in Chicago, now I'm in Mostly Michigan Author

Thanks ockiec! You put things in a way to further help clarify my point. After studying evolution and believing in it for many years I came to the conclusion that it is impossible. Biology, sedminetology, genetics, logic and many fields of discipline have disproved evolution and many scientists are realizing that. Thank you for your keen observation and realization about this topic.


ockiec profile image

ockiec 2 years ago

I loved reading this hub!!!

I was doing some reading and it hit me: If evolution were true, it would still be happening... We would be seeing live transitional species in their various stages all over the place...

To all of the evolutionists who have commented on here... I put it to you that there is not one single scrap of evidence to support the theory of evolution. I repeat: NOT ONE SINGLE SCRAP.

tonymac04 said:"Rob - evolution is true, let's get that out of the way first."

We call that intellectual bullying. Just because you say it is true doesn't make it so. I can stand on my roof and shout "I m a tomato!" at the top of my lungs, but when I get down I will still be a human being...

Evolutionists postulate the theory of evolution, so they have to prove it. The most basic tenet of the theory is how did dead chemicals form the first living cell? Irreducible complexity... If you heap a bunch of bricks and some mortar on top of each-other you will definitely not get a cathedral by waiting seventeen thousand gazillion years...

There has to be creative input. Creative input necessitates design. Design necessitates the creation of information. Information can not create itself. This is a well known fact...

So, evolutionists first have to prove that information created itself, and then they can start to try to prove the rest of their theory...

Evolutionists mislead everyone by using scientific and unscientific terms interchangeably, preying on people's innocence in order to club them to death with: "Evolution is a proven fact..." and "mainstream science accepts evolution to be true..." when this is exceptionally far from the truth...

None of the premises of evolution have been scientifically proven... And don't come to me with common consensus and all of that bs... Give a bunch of idiots lab coats, and teach them a few fancy words and what do you get? Still a bunch of idiots??? No! you get a bunch of evolutionists...

Every system of beliefs starts with a set of assumptions. So does the religion of evolution. It assumes that there is no God. The rest is simply interpretation of data. Evolutionists interpret data from the standpoint of: "There is no God", while creationists interpret the data from the standpoint of Biblical history...

Please do not confuse the issue. The data is not the issue, the interpretation is. And I am sorry to say that all evolutionists, even Theistic evolutionists are stupid...


Rob Lattin profile image

Rob Lattin 3 years ago from Born in Chicago, now I'm in Mostly Michigan Author

How do we know all this? What proof positive is there? Just because some things may appear similar doesn't make it so. You could even argue that a floating log in the swamp eventually became an alligator. I would say bears and apes have more in common than humans and apes. Maybe bears and apes split off somewhere. And before fish "developed gills" they had no need of oxygen in the sea? How did they survive?. Biology has proven time and again that evolution is impossible. Just try explaining how evolution understands chemistry - how did mammals develop hydrochloric acid in the stomach by chance? by burning out their insides until it figured out to line the stomach wall with mucous? Life is more complex than evolution pretends it to be and mere chance/adaptation cannot explain it.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 3 years ago from The English Midlands

Oh dear. Oh dear!

It isn't funny; it's clear.

We didn't develop from monkeys; we developed from an extinct kind of ape.

Chimpanzees also evolved from the same ape.

But monkeys, chimps, humans and other 'relatives' all had the same ancestor, at some stage, a long, long time ago.

And we know that there have, indeed, been various other 'humans' ~ eg Homo erectus ~ and there has been plenty of time for them to die out.

They, in turn, evolved from earlier ape-like creatures ~ "monkey-men", if you like.

And think about this:

Dogs evolved from wolves and there are still wolves.


Rob Lattin profile image

Rob Lattin 3 years ago from Born in Chicago, now I'm in Mostly Michigan Author

You are right Diane. There would be intermediate monkeymen. If the intermediates all died out then we wouldn't be here because they all died out. Common sense illudes the evolutionist and they rely on wishful thinking.


dianetrotter profile image

dianetrotter 4 years ago from Fontana

Funnneee Rob! I love it. I have a hub or two on evolution too. If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys. One would think that there would be various stages of monkey/man and a higher evolution of man.


gillsyno1 4 years ago

Well put together article and leaves no room for evolution to be true Ive looked at all the facts against it myself numerous times and every time it just gets more ridiculous that people believe it if only they really thought about it logically and not with a mindset against our creator God.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi Rob.

I am wondering what sort of proof you are looking for, because there is plenty of evidence. I am a historian, not a scientist, but I have read books on the subject, and watched documentaries, and it all seems fairly obviously true to me.

I wrote a hub about what I believed and why ~ maybe that contains some of the evidence that you seek. It's called 'Evolution and Creationism - My Take On Them and How I Arrived Here'. Have you looked at it? ~ If not, have a read and let me know what you think. It's long, but I wanted to try to clarify things and answer the questions that keep being thrown at me. :)


Rob Lattin profile image

Rob Lattin 5 years ago from Born in Chicago, now I'm in Mostly Michigan Author

Hi Trish. I wish there was a list I can look at that describes where this alleged evidence of macro-evolution is. I believed in evolution for over 35 years and was shocked to discover that there is nothing that proves it. Satan is off my subject and maybe someone can write a hub on his existence or not. I really appreciate you reading my hubs.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi :)

It's interesting, is it not, that I find it wilfully ignorant to dismiss evolution, which has so much evidence in its favour.

It is also interesting that someone who declares evolution to be unproven will speak of Satan as if he were real.


Rob Lattin profile image

Rob Lattin 5 years ago from Born in Chicago, now I'm in Mostly Michigan Author

Thanks James! I just can't understand why people believe in something that has no proof, has been proven to the contrary, is illogical, impossible and completely absurd. This conjures up the term I heard recently: willfully ignorant.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 5 years ago from Chicago

Thank you for this fantastic article! As anyone with eyes can see from your articulations, evolution is not true. Evolution is an idea spawned by Satan and believed by people who do not know God. :D


Rob Lattin profile image

Rob Lattin 5 years ago from Born in Chicago, now I'm in Mostly Michigan Author

Thanks highvoltagewriter. Glad you understand what I was trying to convey. The more I think about macro-evolution from a logical position, the more convinced I am that it is most defintely impossible.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA.

Great hub very funny and thought provoking and it is great to find another writer who does not buy into the "pure" or "unassisted" evolution with a bit of wit! I will link it up with my own evolution hubs!


Learn Things Web profile image

Learn Things Web 5 years ago from California

Rob,

Evolution doesn't cause drastic change. It causes minor changes over a long period of time. It only seems drastic when you compare what something looks like now versus what it looked like 5 million years ago.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Actually there are plenty of 'intermediate species'.

I have wtitten about these findings, and others, in my recent 'evolution' hubs.


Rob Lattin profile image

Rob Lattin 5 years ago from Born in Chicago, now I'm in Mostly Michigan Author

Thanks Trish for reading. My point in all of this is evolution. which is some unguided force which randomlny causes drastic change, however minute, would have caused some of the events I listed. As Hawking and other evolutionists claimed back in 1982 at a Chicago symposium, there are no intermediate species and so they proposed 'puntuated eliquilibrium' which is just as plausible as believing in leprechauns. The fact remains: no intermediate species, no mechanism, no observable data = no proof of macroevolution.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hello :)

Whales evolved from seas creatures to land creatures and back to sea creatures. Is this the 'de-evolution' that you are seeking?

Why should there be 'half snake and half vegetable' type creatures? There is no 'should' about evolution ~ it is as it is, and, presumably, there isn't anywhere on Earth that a 'half snake / half vegetable' would fit.

As for mutants, if the mutation is beneficial, then it lasts ~ so creature you see around you will be 'mutants' ~ eg pandas. They have a mutant 'thumb'. Anything that was incapable of living, though, would die. It's that simple.

Science is about learning. Do you think that every scientist should have every answer to every question? If that happened, then learning would come to an end. Of course scientists do not know everything. That isn't a 'cop out', that's common sense.

Evolution did happen. We may not have all of the answers about it yet, and some things may seenm unlikely, but that does not make them untrue.


Rob Lattin profile image

Rob Lattin 5 years ago from Born in Chicago, now I'm in Mostly Michigan Author

Thanks Tony for your opinion. Unfortunately I am serious and being humorous at the same time. This is a conflict I deal with all the time. Anyway, I do ask that if evolution were true, how do you explain human intelligence? Is it just a reaction of chemicals in our brains that concoct abstract ideas? Too many questions, not enough time.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa

Rob - evolution is true, let's get that out of the way first. I'm a little confused about this Hub - are you serious are are you having some fun? I'm going to make the assumption that you are serious and deal with some of your questions.

1. The "missing links" or "transitionals" as you call them. They are extinct precisely because they were "tranitional" - they evolved into a species better suited to the environment in which they lived. There is no reason at all why there should not be, among the creatures living today, some that are "transitional". But they will only be transitional in terms of new circumstances so we won't be able to recognise them as such today. But there is no reason why there should be a "transitional" between a skunk and a rabbit - they are in different lines of evolution.

2. Evolution happens very very slowly and yes it is still going on today - there is no reason why evolution should stop. It is a continuous process still happening.

3. Same answer as No. 2 above. As a matter of fact evolution has been observed today especially in the microbes. But that you can find for yourself on the internet. It is documented.

4. How do you know that "Earth is the only world which has the conditions for life emergence"? The universe is so vast we have no clue about the possibilities of life elsewhere. Not sure what you mean by the "second wave" of evolution? Why would evolution "start again"?

OK that's enough for now, I think!

Love and peace

Tony

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working