It has become apparent to me a sneaky way to cite evolution in order to make it sound more likely. I've encountered this a few times and wanted to write a thread about it, this also leads on from another thread.
Its a bit hard for me to explain sorry
Firstly the evolutionist must deny one of the basic tenets, that being that Eukaryotes "evolved" from Prokaryotes... (They claim that the mitochndria used to be a separate cell in its own right and were swallowed up). Instead there are claims of an ancestor of these.... despite the fact we have no evidence of such.
Now the evolutionist can claim that every organism is a step up from the last... And that they cannot transcend what they are meant to be
Eukaryote > Chordate > etc
I have heard the claim that a bird will always be a bird and can never be anything other than a bird, it can however progress to other forms of bird.
Now this may seem logical but it isn't since it doesn't classify the earlier organisms definitively which allows imagination to fill in the gaps. If we define each of these ancestor organisms within their species classification then this idea falls on its face because according to these people, you cannot have a rat becoming a horse. You can however have an undefined Eukaryote "evolve" into a rat and then have it "evolve" into a horse.
Hence in real world terms I guess the evolutionist believes that all throughout time there must have been a spongy mass of flesh that churned out the new organisms since if things cannot "evolve" beyond their "type" then there would never be any new types.... only change within the same thing.
I guess the really ironic thing is that this version of evolution fits the Noah's Ark story, since it accounts for the original types of organisms and via this process of change we get new species within those types... (Yet never becoming anything other than what their type dictates).
1 reply to this topic
Posted 18 May 2012 - 08:27 PM
- Story telling, since there is no direct evidence for such claims of ancestor mitochondria and chloroplasts existing as a separate organism and then being swallowed up, resulting in a single organism (eukaryote). There is DNA which is assumed to be evidence for such a theory but does not prove that it can or did happen, or that the organism was not divinely created as a eukaryote. (Jumping to conclusions & presupposing that they are correct)
- Equivocation, since they are being intentionally vague to soften the blow against their evolutionary claims and in order to accommodate the evidence of species stasis over time.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users