Thoughts on Evolution

Evolution does seem to make a lot of sense. For instance, if say a hundred blond haired blue-eyed people from Sweden were shipped off to the deserts of Africa, we could imagine that the very lightest skinned of these being more prone to skin cancer would die off at a higher rate than the rest and therefore less of their genes would be passed onto the next generation.

We can imagine that say, over thousands of years the slightly darker skinned population would have much more success in passing on their DNA to their children and increase in number whilst the lighter would decrease. Even the lighter skinned who did have children would do so more and more with partners who had the protective DNA, therefore accelerating the gene pool with this advantage.

Following this example it is quite reasonable that in time, if we should visit them we would find a people with the protection and advantage of very dark skin. To bolster such a theory there is the fact that until recently lighter skinned people were generally located in cooler climates whilst darker in hotter.

You may find it surprising that creationists really have no problem with such an argument. God in His wisdom designed His creations to be able to adapt within set boundaries, to various changes in their local environment, changes in food and water supply and so on, if this were not the case I should imagine that life itself would be too fragile to cope with even the slightest changes to the environment

Where creationists differ is in the fact that God's Word tells us that God made everything ‘in its kind” and it is impossible for one species to evolve into another. A human will always be a human, a horse a horse and a dog a dog. Although we see dogs and horses in many shapes and sizes they still remain dogs and horses. Although in times of plenty they may have been able to develop to much greater sizes and in times of famine and scarcity the smaller may have had the advantage, still the species can change only within set boundaries. The theory of evolution also requires millions of years to have had past for life to evolve into what we see today, this creationists would dispute as it conflicts with the Word of God.

As I have already mentioned on the ‘Quotes Page’ and it is even mentioned by Darwin himself - that the required “Transitional or Intermediate Forms” needed to support the theory of evolution just do not exists. However there is still the argument of “Punctuated Equilibrium”, the theory that evolution proceeds in ‘jumps’. For scientists to have had to come up with such a theory is really an admittance that the popular theory of evolution is seriously flawed, so why is it not admitted publicly? This “Punctuated Equilibrium” theory is just as troubled as the first; basically it's supposed strength is that it bypasses the need for any transitional or intermediate fossils to be found. However, how a fish can suddenly become a land mammal in one jump defies belief and if it were somehow to accomplished it in multiple ‘jumps’ we would then of course call these, the longed searched for ‘Transitional’ Forms.

If however, by chance a freak gene or a deformity took place and a fish was suddenly able to survive and live on the land, it would require a partner that had managed to accomplish the same feat at the very same time, this so that their offspring, having the same advantages as both their parents, could manage to live and survive in this new environment, this would have to of had been a regular event and not an isolated one, to support the theory with all the different species we have today.
If this freak gene only occurred in one specimen it would only be able to breed with one of it’s normal relatives and the watered down result would be a too small of a ‘jump’ for the offspring to have all the necessary attributes to survive on land or the result could be another unfound, but long searched for ‘transitional form’ leading to land mammals. I could continue, however there has been no evidence ever discovered in the fossil records to substantiate such a theory and it is indeed just conjecture.

The fact is, that the rejection of the theory of evolution leaves the evolutionist the possibility of having to face the fact that there maybe a creator. This is such an affront to their way of thinking that they would rather believe anything rather than creationism.

The desire to prove evolution has brought forth many a fraudulent claim, one being the connecting of the jawbone of an ape to the skull of a human and presenting it as a missing link. Others have, with such a total belief in this theory, mistakenly presented extinct species as missing links. And we must remember evolution is just that, a theory, one that Darwin himself had doubts about.