Unknown-2Unknown-1I’m trying to slug my way through Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’, a book frequently quoted by people, most of whom probably never read it.

Origin of Species is an excruciatingly tedious read, and Darwin’s theories are definitely not the careful, stringent sort of ‘science’ that puts planes into the air or provides anything concrete or valuable for our lives.  Read the book and highlight all the insubstantial descriptives that fill Darwin’s books, as well as everything ever written, before or after him that attempt to describe life as a miraculous transformation from non-life. But everything all around us, shouts the existence of a divine creator God.

Profoundly complex, amazing and wonderfully unique life forms point to a majestic, all-powerful Creator, who stands beyond and above his creation.

Here’s Mr. Darwin on the SIMPLE eye.  (The bold and highlights are mine)…………”

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens-shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.

He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination;  [Darwin says our reason ought to conquer our imaginations??  I suggest the opposite is true.  He throughout his life pushed for imagination to overcome observable, repeatable, testable, verifiable, falsifiable hard data.] though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.  [And more of the same,…..IF THIS is given,……then that is possible.]

It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; [BUT] and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?   [And more of the same below goes on and on, as in the rest of his work….’IF THIS is given,……then that is possible.  Evolution is based on faith, on wishful thinking, on imagination.  Evolution is now a hard-core religion.]

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.

We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.

DR. JERRY COYNE  follows happily in Darwin’s footsteps,..”Bats evolved from small four-legged mammals, probably resembling shrews……..Selection simply retooled the forelegs into wings, along with modifying the animal’s weight, shape, musculature, nervous system and bones for flying (no feathers needed.  One of the great joys of being a biologist is learning about the many species in nature whose evolution would appear, a priori, impossible.  [Coyne thinks changing shrews to bats is nothing more than that little critter retooling itself.   Impossible!….Thats the only intelligent word Coyne writes here.  Claiming to be wise he becomes a fool as he strives to draw humanity away from God.

Simply attach the word ‘simple’ to your musings,….. then simple folk will buy into your nonsensical account of their evolutionary ascent.   By the way, bats are found embedded in fossil rock.  They are fully-formed and complete.  Despite the attributed long-ages imposed on those dateless rocks, these silent fossil bats tell us that evolution does not change one kind of animal into another kind of animal.  There is no anatomical change from the silent fossils to the living marvels that zoom through our night skies.  And there are NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS in the rocks, nor in our skies.