What we see is an overlap in the variability of genetic expression in a created biological matrix. It is a fallacy to assume that things with hair simply share common ancestry, even if they have similar genetic coding for hair. No, this is not the same as testing for heredity, because that is testing a species against itself. Cross-checking DNA sequences for human to chimpanzee similarity, for example, must make an assumption about the mechanisms in biology that WE DO NOT OBSERVE. This is all confirmed by the fact that there is absolutely no case in the natural world that can be pointed to that shows the type of changes to get hair in the first place, or an arm or an eye. Mutations are a problem for evolutionary thinking, not a solution. If you are convinced that is the answer, you should look into mutational load per generation for any species. There isn't enough time for any theoretical evolution before everything would start dying off from bad mutations, because bad mutations outnumber the "good" by orders of magnitude (like a million, so good luck with that "riddle"). This is a sin cursed world, and frankly, that's what we observe.
Comments (11)
sorted by:
No, I'm sorry but you're way off here. All creatures have insurmountable mutational loads for evolution to happen, regardless of the amount of time you allow. For evolution, it's a paradox, but you haven't heard about it from the media you and I hate. For some reason, on this point, people want to believe the media isn't misrepresenting reality as usual. Mutations mostly harm organisms and there are far more bad mutations to "good." Humans, as a species, in fact, are thought to have about three centuries before the mutational load will begin posing a major threat to our existence. Additionally, it's interesting how people tend to think of evolution, as if it is always in terms of bacterial growth and you can just do it by the numbers. My meaning here is about the amount of offspring a thing produces. As creatures become more and more complex, some barely noticeable "good" mutation is increasingly less likely to even get passed on. Consider the difference in bacterial turnover and humans. Humans produce barely any offspring, require socializing, and good health and clean environments to reproduce a measly couple of pups. A human could be born with x-ray vision, but it wouldn't matter if they never married and had kids. Maybe they had a big nose and were cross-eyed. Maybe they were aborted. But somehow it's acceptable to believe minute changes have aggregated randomly over only a couple of hundred thousands years to produce a super-computer of a brain that runs on carbohydrates. And that's scientific, because science science science. Science, science science science. Science! .
Evolution does not happen. It is a delusion that is a parcel of the End Times. It absolutely drives the NWO. It's the foundation to all this lunacy.