|
|
|
Current Topics: Natural Selection What Happened to the Dinosaurs? Note: if you're using a pocket PC, switch to "column mode" for best viewing.
|
"Natural Selection" -Quality Control-What is the "intelligent creative force" behind evolution's creative skills? We are told time and time again that "natural selection" can be used to explain how every living thing came to be. NS seems to have unparalleled skill as a designer and engineer according to the great "scientific establishment". We often hear wonderful stories of how "nature favored" this sort of creature over others. When it comes to creative writing, there is no limit to ones imaginative power for the "evolutionary scientist". You can read all sorts of amazing fables about how "nature" even gave mankind this power to invent. Supposedly "nature" expanded the mental skills of apes in one of "evolution's" favorite yarns. Seriously, what is "natural selection"? Is it the "creator" of all living things as we are repeatedly told and as our children are "forced by law" to believe in the modern "science" classroom? Natural selection is actually something else completely. As we shall see, NS is another way of saying "quality control". Evolution is one of the most convoluted ideas in modern science. It has to be! In order to endow it with unparalleled creative skills requires a great deal of imagination and faith in its abilities. Most of this brainpower is attributed to "natural selection". That is, "survival, competition and reproduction". Those creatures that do well in these 3 areas will succeed in passing on their particular genetic traits. These are the brains that "decide" IF RANDOM "mutant engineering" tweaks in the creature's genetic makeup is preserved for future generations or not. Keep in mind, these "tweaks" occur in individuals. It may be a male, or a female but never both. Also, the genetic code is designed with a certain level of fault tolerance. "Mutations" or genetic replication errors are notoriously problematic and they always occur within just a single cell in the particular individual. If THIS cell HAPPENS to be a reproductive cell, it just may perhaps be passed on to another generation IF the offspring INDIVIDUAL manages to DEVELOP completely and survives birth. As we can see, it's an uphill battle to engineer living things using this process. Evolutionist need to "OG" their way thru all the contrary obstacles of logic and common sense to make their "natural selection" brainchild seem up to the task. OGging or "origins guessing" is the main occupation of the "evolution scientist". His job is to quell all the doubts posed by the public, creationists, and ID proponents and try to build some sort of "scientific sounding" case for his faith. They spend endless hours dreaming up colorful creation stories of how nature beat all the odds and mutant creatures could be chosen in continuous brilliantly orchestrated successions that became the great diversity of life we see today. So, it looks like the real genius behind darwinism is a strong tradition of OGging that began with Mr. Darwin himself and continues today with a religious fervor. But, time moves on and as the data pours in, so do the problems that face these dreamers and the challenge to overcome them requires lots of training for today's evolutionist to maintain credibility. Darwinists know they must start their training young and get their stories embedded in children's minds and hearts before their reasoning skills can detect their folly. This is clearly evidenced by the obsession with "cleansing" every "science" classroom in the world of all and any detractors. Especially in grade schools, public and private. It's even gone to the point of calling on religious leaders to make public endorsement of evolution as the way we came to be. Evolutionists rely on their imaginations to propose "scientific" guesses about what nature can do with mutant creatures. But, most of us know that "the wild" is not a welcome place for deformed, strange, or just plain different looking animals. Many odd looking varieties of fruit flies have been bred in labs to study genetics. There are some with wrinkled up tiny useless wings, others with red or pink colored eyes, and various other deformities. It something happened to cause these mutant flies to be released all at once back into the open outdoors, which types would you expect to thrive and produce offspring? Those that are the most like their wild cousins? Nature is not friendly to odd creatures. Living things are finely tuned for meeting the demands of their environment and choosing and being chosen by a mate. They have to eat, sleep, reproduce faster than they fall prey to others, etc. Otherwise they cease to exist and the mutations they would pass along die with them. There is a strong standard of quality control in nature. Mutants just don't make the cut, if you will. The very thing that evolutionists rely on as a source of change in living things and enable land mammals to gradually transform into whales over thousands of generations, or dinosaurs to change into birds, to give a couple of examples, is the thing that produces the opposite in reality. Creatures with the least amount of variation from their parents are favored. The rule of thumb being, "don't mess with mother nature". So, Why then is "natural selection" so central to darwinism and "evolution"? It seems to function more as a catch-all for everything in nature that we normally attribute to decision-making requiring conventional "intelligence". "Natural selection" can on the one hand give great speed to a cheetah while slowing down the sloth and in each case increase their "success" and "competitiveness" in the wild. "Natural Selection" is an excuse for bad science. A way darwinists can smooth over all the problems facing their theory. A plastic expression that plugs in all the holes of a wildly bodacious idea. A way of making glorified "spontaneous generation" palatable to themselves and the masses.
The simple reality is, nature is very intolerant of change. Darwin took a special case of geological isolation in which the rules of survival were much different from the mainland. The Galapagos was intolerant of the typical varieties of finches living on the mainland. Only ones with more robust beaks could manage eating the harder seeds of the islands. But, once these finches were established, they would be more or less locked into that variety or else. Once again it's the status quo that rules in nature. "Natural selection" is mindless and therefore useless as a means of creating living things of any sort. Wayne Hollyoak
|
|
Keeping Science in Perspective |
