Evolution

Did Dinosaurs Evolve into Birds – No



Tweet
Dr Fred Mokaba's image for:
"Did Dinosaurs Evolve into Birds - No"
Caption: 
Location: 
Image by: 
©  

As long as a man is still in the mode of ignorance ,he will never ever see things as

exactly they are, it is obvious that we are all alive and also had that live was created by

some cosmic intelligence, but still those in the mode of ignorance deny creation and

belief in evolution of some species. According to the bible in the book genesis chapter

one verse starting from one says, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,

the world was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of deep and the

spirit of God was moving over the face of the water and God said," let there be light" and

there was light, and God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from

darkness, God called it day and the darkness he called night .in verse number 26, he said

let us make man in our image, after our likeness, like let them have dominion over the

fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the earth, and

over all creeping thing that creeps upon earth. So God blessed them, and God said to

them, be fruitful and fill the earth and subdue it. According to the bible and some other

religious books, is it said to understand that life are made or creates by a source's of

cosmic intelligence. Despite from all this holy and sacred doctrine narrating about the

origin of life, there still doubt about the origin of life.

TALE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION.

A subject most often brought up by the advocates of the theory of evolution is the

subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that the modern men of today

evolved from some kind of ape-like creatures , during this alleged evolutionary process

which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed

some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors, According to this

completely imaginary scenario, four basic categories are listed (1) Australopithecus (2)

Homo habllis , (3) Homo erectus (4) Homo Sapiens evolutionists call the so called first

ape-like ancestors of men "Australopithecus" which means South African Ape These

animals being one in fate nothing but an old ape species that has become quenched.

Comprehensive research made on various Australopithecus Specimens by two world

famous anatomists from England and the USA, by names, Lord Solly Zuckerman and

Professor Charles Oxnard has show that these belonged to an ordinary ape species that

became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans. Evolution classify the next stage of

human evolution as "homo" that is "man" according to the evolutionist claim, the living

beings in the homo series are more developed than australopithecus. Evolutionist devise

fanciful evolution scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in a particular

order. This Scheme is imaginary because it has never been prove that there is an

evolutionary relation between these different classes.

Ernst Mayr, one of the most important proponents of the theory of evolution in the

twentieth century, content in his book one long argument that particularly historical

puzzles such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens are extremely difficult and may

even resist a final satisfying explanation. By outlining the link chain as Australopithecus-

>Homo Habilis-> Homo Erectus-> Homo Sapiens, evolutionist imply that each of these

species is one another ancestors. However, recent finding of paleontologists have

revealed that Australopithecus, Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus lived at different parts

of the world at the same time.

Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo Erectus have lived up

until very modern times, Homo Sapiens Neadarthalensis and Homo Sapiens (modern

man) co-existed in the same region.

This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are

ancestor of one another, a paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay could,

explain this deadlock of the theory of evolution although he is an evolutionist himself.

What has become of our ladder if here are three consisting lineages of hominids (A

Africanus, the robust Australopithecines and H. Habilis) none clearly derived from

another moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary friends diving their tenure

on earth put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, whom is sought to be upheld with

the help of various drawings of some half ape, half human creatures appearing in the

media and cause books, that is Frankly, by means of propaganda, is nothing but a tale

with no scientific ground.

Lord Solly Zuckerman one of the most famous and respect scientists in the United

Kingdom, who carried out research on this subject for years, and particularly studied

Australopithecus Fossils for 15 years finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist

himself, that there is in fact, no such family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to

man.

Zuckerman also make an interesting "Spectrum of science". He formed a

spectrum of science ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered

unscientific, according to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most scientific, that is depending on

concrete data field of science, chemistry and physics, after them come the biological

science and then the social science. At the far and of the spectrum, which is the part

considered most unscientific, are "extra-sensory perception"- concepts such as telepathy

and sixth sense and finally "human evolution Zuckerman explain his reasoning. We then

move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological

science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossils history, where

to the faithful (evolution) anything is possible- and where the ardent believe (in

evolution) is sometimes after to believe several contradictory things at the same time.

Their primary reason why the theory of evolution ended up in such a big impasse about

the origin of life is that even the living organisms deemed the sampled have incredibly

complex structures. The cell of a living being is more complex than all of the

technological products produced by Man today, even in the most developed laboratories

in the world, a living cell cannot be produce by bringing organic chemicals together. The

conditions required for the formation of a cell are too area in quantity to be explained

away by coincidence. The probability of protein, the building blocks of cell, being

synthesized coincidentally, is 1 in 10/950 for an average protein made up of 500 amino

acids, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 10/50 is practically considered to

be impossible. The DNA molecule, which is located in the nucleus of the cell and which

store genetic information, is an incredible databank, it is calculated that if the information

coded in DNA were written down, this would make a grant library consisting of 900

volumes of encyclopedia s of 500 page each. A very interesting dilemma emerges at this

point, the DNA can only replicate with the help of some specialized protein (enzymes)

however the synthesis of these enzymes can only be realized by the information coded in

DNA. As they both depend on each other. They have to exist at the same time for

replication these brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Professor

Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San Diego, California,

confesses these fast in the September 1994 issue of the scientific America magazines. It

is extremely improbable that protein and nucleus acids, both of which are structurally

complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time, yet it also seems

impossible to have one without the other, and so at first glance ,one might have to

conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means, no doubt, if it

is impossible for life to have originated from natural causes, then it has to be accepted

that life was created by a cosmic intelligence. Furthermore a famous scientist in the area

of biology, in concordance with this essay, which bears, in part upon cellular activity, by

name Dr. Charles W. Littlefield (1859-1945). As a result of this excessive belief in the

efficiency of protoplasm to account for the phenomena of life, the presence of the nucleus

in the cell was locket upon as a matter of no importance. This was the attitude of the

science of biology towards protoplasm and the nucleus of the cells, when professor

Huxley wrote his once famous essay on "man' place in nature", and the physical basis of

life, since that time the method of studying cell has been improved and microscopes have

found nuclei in cell in which they had not hitherto been seen until the conclusion has

finally been reached that "no cell is alive with all a nucleus" and we may add, that even

protoplasm is not alive without one or more, indeed, no kind of matter can be said to be

alive without this remarkable body, old cells which have lost their activity, are now

known to have also lost their nuclei and as far as we know, all active cell possess this

body and no cell can carry on its activities without it. Experiments have been made of

depriving cell of their nuclei, when they are found to immediately lose their activity,

others have been cut in piece, when it is seen that the pieces containing the nucleus, or

even a part of it, carrying of life's activities, while the piece of the cell which contains

none of the nucleus, speedily dies, facts like these demonstrate conclusively that the seat

of life is in the nucleus of the cell and the that this is the centre of cell-life, further, they

show us that the power of the cell for continued activity and reproduction, lies in the

nuclei of the cell and not in the protoplasm . Therefore, the statement so extravagantly

indulged in by older biologist, that protoplasm is the base of life, is not true.

THE FOSSIL RECORD:

The Clearest evidence, that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did

not take place is the fossil record. According to the theory of evolution, every living

species has spring from a predecessor, a previously existing species tuned into something

else in time and all species have come into being in this way according to the theory this

transformation proceeds gradually over millions of year, had this been the case, the

numerous intermediary species should have excited and lived within this long

transformation period. For instance, some half- fish half reptiles should have lived in the

past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they had or

they should have existed reptile-birds, which acquired some birds traits in addition to the

reptilian traits they already had, since these would be in a transitional phase, they should

be disabled defective, crippled living beings, evolution refer to those imaginary creatures,

which they belief to have lived in the past as "transitional forms".

If such animals had really existed, they should be millions and even billion of

them in number and variety, move importantly, the remains of those strange creatures

should be present in the fossil record in the origin of species, Darwin explained. If my

theory be true , numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species

of the some group together must assuredly have exited, consequently, evidence on their

former existence could be found only among fossil remains.

DARWIN'S HOPE FELL

However, although evolutionists have been making strenuous efforts to find

fossils since the middle of the 19th century all over the world, no transitional form have

yet been uncovered. The entire fossil unearthed in excavation showed that, contrary to

the expectations of evolutionist life appears on earth all of a sudden and fully formed. A

famous British paleontologist, Devek V Ager, admits this fact, even though he is an

evolutionist. The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in details whether at

the level of order or of species, we find repeatedly not gradual evolution, but the sudden

explosion of the group at the expense of other. A mean that in the fossil record all living

species suddenly emerge as fully formed without any intermediate form in between. This

is just the opposite of Darwin's assumptions; also, it is very strong evidence that living

beings are created. The only explanation of a living species emerging suddenly and

complete in every detail without any evolutionary ancestor can be that this species was

created. This fact was admits also by the widely know evolutionist biologist, Douglas

Futujma:

Creation and evolution, between them exhaust the possible explanations for the

origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they

did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some

process of modification. If they did appeared in a fully developed state, they must

indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence. Fossils show that living

animate appeared fully evolve and in an absolute state on the earth that signify that the

origin of life is contrary to Darwin supposition, not evolution but created by some cosmic

intelligence.



Tweet
More about this author: Dr Fred Mokaba

From Around the Web




ARTICLE SOURCES AND CITATIONS