Can Someone Answer My Questions?
Sometimes when I am camped out on a trail the thought arises about the Darwinian prime mover they say creates new species – Natural Selection.
It came to mind for example, when I was feeding scraps of my lunch to Gray Jays at a rest stop on a trail in California’s Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park.
It was clear that the toughest birds got the crusts and the timid the leavings.
I tried to toss crusts to timid birds well away from the bold ones, but they immediately lost out to the fittest of the flock.
Obviously the fittest are going to survive when food supplies are limited and the timid will die off over time, leaving a braver, tougher species. Same with other environmental changes, the most fit are the survivors.
What I don’t understand is why this should surprise anyone, and become a big deal with evolutionary biologists.
After all it is a no-brainer. The survivors are, by definition, the fittest. It’s not new knowledge. Not even to the ancients.
It just seems strange that so much emphasis is put on something that hasn’t added anything new to what was such common knowledge for centuries long before Darwin.
I mean, when Einstein put forth his Relativity Theory, for example, it was shocking and different.
It needed a really bold experiment to prove its scientific worth.
Most new theories I learned about in my elementary college science courses seemed far more challenging ideas. And they needed to be proved.
It is so obvious that species do manage to winnow out the weaker ones over the years.
But, I haven’t been able to see how this creates anything like new species.
I don’t know that biologists know this as well as farmers and ranchers who live with animals their lifetime careers.
It’s Not In the Textbooks
But then, after telling us the obvious about the strong being survivors within their species, the Darwinians jump to conclusions that these survivors create new species.
An example they give is a reptile survivor grows flabby flaps under its arms and uses them to learn to fly and becomes a bird.
That has always seemed a stretch to me.
What I’ve never been able to figure out, by deciphering the academic language in my science textbooks, is what evidence they have to jump to such a conclusion.
I mean how do they prove it?
I was taught in my most elementary science courses that scientists have the responsibility to prove their theories.
And it is not the other way around. No one has to prove the theory wrong.
A theory is only true if it can be proven true.
I can easily see how evolution of a stronger species occurs.
Recently they grafted two different varieties of tobacco plants together to produce a new variety of tobacco plant. The graft didn’t create a trumpet vine.
Just by giving the new tobacco hybrid a new name doesn’t create a new species. Even if it’s DNA is different it’s still tobacco.
Same with grapes. A new graft of two different strains of grapes created a hybrid grape that can reproduce its kind. But it is still a grape. Not a banana.
And then, it seems something of a stretch for a strong natural selected fish to gain new lungs that can breath air instead of water and produce a land reptile or even an amphibian.
The Eyes Have It
Then there are such things as eyes being created that are fully able to see.
I’ve wondered since my college days just how an eye can be created out of non-seeing flesh.
But I thought I’d be considered dumb if I asked.
There wasn’t anything in my textbooks that told why biologists made this leap from un-seeing little critters to those who can see.
Now I am so old it doesn’t matter what they think about me. So I’m asking.
What Created Consciousness?
Then there’s the really big one, of how consciousness came into being in the evolutionary chain.
Where did that come into the mix? And how did it get there?
Simple questions. They ought not to be difficult for a scientist to answer.
And even if you accept the miraculous “accidental mutations” that might have created new species, it defies scientific thinking that “accidents” of nature defy the “laws” of nature.
I’m posting this in hopes there is someone who might read this and let me know, in as plain English as I am trying to use, what evidence evolution biologists have for jumping to such conclusions.
I’ve not been able to find answers.
I have only read in my textbooks “maybe” and “possibly” and “it could be” type sentences to answer these questions .
There are no declarative sentences like those that Einstein used in launching his Relativity Theory. Anon hard proofs.
I’m serious. I’d like to hear straight answers to my questions and not obfuscating academic jargon.
I’m a bright fellow. For fifteen years I taught classes to PhDs. I can understand their academic language.
But I prefer straight talk. And I can’t bother trying to decipher Latinate language.
It is a canon of non-fiction writing, that if it something is true it can be stated simply. So, I’d like answers in everyday language.
If Einstein Can Do It, then So Should Darwinians
Einstein explained Relativity Theory in simple language, using analogies of trains moving beside other trains at different speeds and going in different directions.
If he could do it, I expect biologists to answer my questions just as clearly.
Sometimes it seems that it requires more “miracles” to believe evolutionary theory than it does to accept Genesis.
Not that Genesis is scientific. It was written many thousands of years before the words “science” and “history” came into being.
But, Genesis is great poetry. It contains poetic truths, which are difficult to deny.
Today’s scientists agree with the sequential order of creation that is in those first seven days of Genesis.
First there was light, then seas, land, plants, then creepy crawlies and birds, followed by animals, then Homo Sapiens.
How Long is a Day in Biblical Time?
Then, in other parts of the Bible it says that for God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day.
So, if read more as a great story, there is some rich wisdom in Genesis.
I’m pushing the envelope here. And it doesn’t bother if I get one of those answers that I see most often, the ad hominem, attacking the questioner.
People don’t seem to dare even think of anything different from what Evolutionists’ say in their lock-step, doctrinaire opinions.
That’s a pity. It’s so unscientific.
It is difficult to suggest anything to those who believe they have more “fact” than “theory.”
Even my physicist friends wouldn’t worry so much about which of such words applied to their flimsy results of the two-slit quantum physics’ experiment.
Please, if you have answers I’d love to hear from you.