Evolution is a silly concept. 1. Evolution invalidates thought itself. If life is ultimately the result of random processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughts--including what you are think now--would, in the final analysis, be a consequence of a long series of accidents. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance, or natural, processes. By destroying the validity of ideas, evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution. We have all heard it said that humans use only a small fraction of their mental abilities. If this is true how could such unused abilities have evolved? Certainly not by natural selection, since those capabilities are not used. 2. Life was never simple. Many bacteria, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and some Streptococci, propel themselves with a type of miniature motor. Speeds of up to 15 body-lengths per second are achieved. These extremely efficient, reliable motors rotate up to 100,000 revolutions per minute. Each shaft rotates a bundle of whip like flagella that act as a propeller. The motors, having rotors and starters, are similar in many aspects to electrical motors. The electrical charges come from a flow of protons. Several million dollars per year are being spent primarily in Japan, trying to lean how these motors work. Since bacteria can stop, start, and change directions and speeds, they probably have sophisticated sensors, switches and control mechanisms. All of this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit in the cross-sectional area of an average human hair. Evolutionary theory teaches bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolve, and therefore, they are simple. While bacteria are small, they are not simple. 3. Sexual Reproduction If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, and absolutely unbelievable series of chain events must have occurred at each sate. (a) The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have COMPLETELY and INDEPENDENTLY evolved at each stage at about the SAM TIME AND PLACE. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct. (b) The physical, chemical and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible. © The millions of complex products of the male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) mush have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical, and electrical compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system. (d) The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision--processes that scientist can only describe in a general sense. (f) This remarkable string of accidents must have been spread throughout millions of species. 4. Conflicting Dates? Petrified trees in the petrified forest of Arizona contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are supposedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require) supposedly evolved 140 million years later. Evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale. 5. Am I complete? Or do I have a long way to go? All species appear completely developed, not partially developed. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, Etc.), or any of thousands of other vial organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing. 6. Got Change? Of course you do. We have witnessed change since the beginning of recorded time. This attributed to natural selection. But natural selection produces far different results than Evolution. Let me explain. There are two types of Evolution. MACROEVOLUTION and MICROEVOLUTION. Macroevolution is where naturally occurring beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of the one form of life had a different and improved set of vial organs. Microevolution only involves minor chemical alterations or changes in size, shape, or color. Microevolution can be described as a horizontal change where as macroevolution (if it were ever observed) would involve an "upward" and beneficial change in complexity.Example Dog Versatility By progressively breeding for certain traits, dogs can be different and distinctive. It’s a common example of microevolution--differences in size, shape, color, and chemistry. It is not macroevolution--the upward progression in complexity from bacteria to man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment. So there you have the fact that species change to their environment and that humans change over the centuries is absolutely not proof of or a component of Evolution. The facts that were taller do not show us to be anymore complex or sophisticated than Neanderthal man. [/end post]