Environmental Adaptability doesn't prove Evolution
Sept 17, 2019 9:57:42 GMT -5
Post by Radrook Admin on Sept 17, 2019 9:57:42 GMT -5
Environmental Adaptability doesn't prove Evolution
Environmental adaptability is not equal to the concept of evolution. Adaptability means that the animal will produce certain offspring more suited to an environmental change than others. The more suited or who have advantageous traits with survive more frequently and eventually predominate. That ability was provided for all living things by the feature who foresaw that Earth;'s environment would pose challenges due to geologic and climate changes such as an ice age or geographic isolation due to inundations or seismological events.
However, these adaptations were not to result in one animal turning into a completely different one such as a fish turning eventually into a reptile and eventually into a a dog, cow, horse, bird, or a human. Such a drastic and complete metamorphoses would require much more than simple adaptations. It would require the precise coordination of many organs in such a way that ALL are changing simultaneously as they compliment one another.
If indeed they appeared without the support of the rest of the organs, then they would be useless. For example, the appearance of eye muscles with no eye to move. Or the emergence of a brain's light-sensitive occipital lobe without and light signals to reach it via an optic nerve. Or the appearance of a flagellum without any complementary structures to rotate it would all be useless additions as would be the parts appearing to move something when there was nothing to move.
Unfortunately, that is the arbitrary manner in which evolution is described as occurring. No careful planning guided by perception of need is claimed. Nothing but a coordination arising out of sheer necessity. Things repairing themselves without knowing that they need repair. Molecular machines assembling themselves without really knowing why they are assembling themselves. Remember, to know is to think and to thing requires a mind and there is no mind involved here.
In short, it is to be taken on faith because if it isn't, then the alternative explanation of design arises and that explanation must be avoided at all cost. Unfortunately the cost here is to ignore compelling evidence and the obvious, as well as to proclaim yourself unable to think whenever inability to think becomes convenient.