The Atheists’ Faith, Part 3 (of 4)

Post 20 - Evolutionary Tree

In my prior post, I explained the unlikeliness (impossibility?) of simple, organic atoms randomly combining to get living DNA, and then the even more unlikelier leap to single-cell organisms. This week, the cells have to become lots of things.

Assuming that our young Earth is filled with all different types of self-reproducing cells, and that somehow they’ve managed to even figure out that the #multicellularlife is the better way to go, there is still the issue of mass Evolution into diverse species.

Charles Darwin is probably the most misquoted person on the planet. He never claimed that species turn into other species. He claimed that species adapt to their surroundings, and become specialized, or more specific to their environment. Pelicans develop beaks that are good for catching fish, they don’t turn into people and learn how to build fishing rods. And he wrote these theories 200 years ago, where the best glimpse of a “cell” he could get was from a light microscope, the technology of which hadn’t been improved upon since 200 years before that.

Oh, and he believed in a Creator, and some intelligent being guiding the evolution of species.

Assuming that the primordial oceans (where, allegedly all life started) were brimming with diverse life, take a look at all the diverse species that are on land and in the air.

For all of these species on land and air to have come out of the water, one of two things must have happened: 1.) all land-species came out of a single water-to-land evolving species, or 2.) the water-to-land transformation was widespread across many species.

With the most popular estimates claiming that there are currently 6.5 million species on land (including birds), imagine the evolutionary bottleneck that would have had to have happened if they all came through one evolutionary point of entry. When you consider how long it likely took the oceans to bring forth one species that could venture onto land, it seems absurd to think that the whole process would have had time to restart completely with that one species and then go on to reproduce so much land-life diversity.

Here’s another puzzler: if life began in the oceans as scientists claim, one would think there would be greater diversity in the ocean than on land, right?  After all, more time to evolve means more evolution. And yet the study above says there are only 2.2 million species in the water, vs. 6.5 on land.

Genesis 1:11 says that life began on the dry land, first with vegetation, on the third day. It wasn’t until Day 5 that “the water teem[ed] with living creatures, and [the birds flew] above the earth across the vault of the sky.” (Verse 20). Huh.

The other option (that multiple animals evolved to the point where they could walk from the water to the land) seems more plausible. After all, that would give more starting points for the land and sky life-diversity that we see today. But then, where are all the transition fossils? Where are all the fossils of animals that could do well in water and on land? We see tons and tons of water-dwelling fossils, and tons and tons of land-dwelling fossils (and yes, a bunch of amphibians), but no transitional fossils. Or if someone wanted to claim that amphibians are the transition species, where are the fish-amphibian transitional species, or amphibian-reptile or reptile-mammal transitional species?

So far, we’ve found evidence of ONE fish that had fins that might have been able to support its weight. In fact, scientists get excited when they find anything that seems remotely like a “missing link”, and for good reason: they’re not around. The fossil record which so many scientists claim supports their theories is strangely devoid of the key lynchpins to their arguments.

Maybe those transition-animals were just too nimble to be caught fossilized. But then, the people who died in the Pompeii eruption might take issue with that notion. They were the pinnacle of then-modern intelligence, and they, too, were “fossilized.”


Next week: what it takes to make a human and the conclusion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s