Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity

Evolution theory FAILS at explaining diversity. For one such example, refer to the failed prediction of what "Pakicetus" should have looked like in totality given only a skull in 1983. The evolutionary model predicted it should look inbetween a land dwelling animal and an aquatic animal: WRONG!!

"Science" may have learned something, but have all "scientists"? Prior to 1938, coelacanth fossils were misinterpreted as walking fish using the evolution model. The continuance of this mistake is evidenced in the pakicetus interpretation. In both cases, the interpretation was falsified by the evidence, thus weakening the model overall. When the same mistake is repeated, this is indicative that something more fundamental is flawed. Evolutionists were misled by their model to interpret coelacanth fossils as evidence for a missing link that possessed appendages used for walking. The idea that animals were created fully-developed seems attractive when considering the non-viability of animals caught in a state of transition when macro-evolving. Just look at poor old pakicetus in the illustration. His truncated forelimbs serve neither for swimming or walking. Creation theory allows for "genetic variation" within the kinds to allow adaptation. But the variation is limited as evidenced in dog breeding.Clarification of terms and a priori beliefs: Charles Darwin to George Darwin in 1873 letter: Evolutionists frequently proclaim that Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with how life began. From Darwin’s own words, we see how his world-view followed a continuum:1) God is undesired or doesn’t exist
2) warm little pond
3) spontaneous generation of first cell
4) duplication mechanisms invented by mutations & nat. sel.Had Darwin known the complexity of a living cell, he would have stopped at #3 (see letter to Joseph Hooker). #4 is just as bad or worse since copying would not be like duplicating a file on a hard drive but like duplicating the whole computer and the companies that make the parts for the computer! The production facilities must reside in the organism. Pictured below is Intel’s production facility in Costa Rica that makes ONE PART for a computer. Get the picture? What Wikipedia fails to mention:
The word "micro-evolution" is often used interchangeably with "genetic variation". Evolutionists try to sell "macro-evolution" to undiscerning consumers as being the same as "micro-evolution" which is "genetic variation". The technique is not unlike audio amplifier manufacturers that underhandedly overrate an amplifier's power output as 400W. In actuality the power rating is "instantaneous peak music power on one channel" and not the more revealing and conservative 20W RMS/channel, both channels driven simultaneously, from 20-20,000 Hz, with less than 0.5% distortion. By changing words, evolutionists effectively advertise their "20 watt" theory as being "400 watts".

Don't you have any government-supported universities? If not then you can purchase it here.

Coyote wrote: For me, the rejection of macro-evolution has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with science. First of all, the majority of macro-evolution proponents also believe life formed spontaneously in a primordial soup. Some try to dress it up and say on a crystalline substrate. This belief provides insight into the failed foundational mindset which extends beyond the origins of life and into the origins of species. There is a continuum in the philosophy which stretches in all directions to include star and planet formation. (i.e. hydrogen gas evolves into heavier elements which evolve into stars and planets) All of the mechanisms of evolution, whether they are chemical, biological, or cosmological, have the same foundation:time + chance = increase in orderBut science tells us just the opposite:time + chance = decrease in orderThe DNA inside of a cell is information. Such an occurrence begs the question, What is the source of this information? Energy from the Sun is not information nor is gravity. The Earth is virtually a closed system, so what do you attribute to the source for this highly complex information? Natural selection reduces information. Every time something is picked, that selection process narrows the field of variability. Another way of looking at it is like a quality-control worker on an assembly-line who inspects transistor radios. If a radio has a resistor that deviates too much from a particular value, the radio will not play and be rejected. By some chance, an out-of-tolerance resistor may cause the radio to play louder or quieter than normal, but this attribute is not an increase in information, but a difference in magnitude. If the worker retains such a unit, the variability increases in the radio population, but the complexity is not changed. For macro-evolution to work, the radio must gain a new feature that is useful to the consumer like a headphone jack or a digital tuner instead of a manual dial. I contend that without a deliberate, focused, and inventive engineering department, these features will never be realized by the quality-control worker. If you think they can, then perhaps your idea may find usefulness in the real world where corporations can increase their competiveness by eliminating their engineering departments.As you can see, I’ve not resorted to religion in articulating my response. Why should I? Your idea is destined to fail because it violates what we see in the natural world. How about the mechanism in a cell that corrects copy errors? This will resist your mechanism. But what’s worse, you have a more fundamental problem: studies on human mtDNA and mutation rates indicate that the first man lived about 6000 years ago. You simply don’t have enough time for your mechanism to perform its magic. Living organisms DO react in many ways as manufactured items. Living cells react adversely to too much heat just as does a spring which looses its temper to too much heat. Light can burn the phosphorous on a CRT screen just like it can destroy a retina. Water can reverse the compaction of beach sand just like it can reverse the formation of proteins. Gravity can wear out the shock absorbers and rubber tires on a car just as it does the knee joints and skin on the feet. Those who have studied physical chemistry know that there is an inextricable link between living organisms and physical components such as atoms, molecules, compounds, and manufactured items. Your living organism will have to overcome the ill effects of entropy just as will your automobile if you want to continue driving it. You’ll have to take your automobile to a knowledgeable repairman unless of course some genius designed it to repair itself.