The Myth That Speciation Is Evolution

By: Josh Greenberger | Posted: 14th June 2009

You often hear evolutionists point to speciation as evidence of evolution. This couldn't be farther from the truth. A process that transforms one species into another in an orderly fashion, regardless of whether it happens "overnight" or over a long period of time, is not an evolutionary process -- nothing evolves! This is a transformation. A metamorphosis that produces no chaos, or the same "chaos" every time, as a byproduct, is the result of design or planning.

The ONLY way speciation can be considered evolution is if it produces a myriad of randomly disfigured, dysfunctional organisms for every functional one. There have been no such findings in the lab or in the field. The vast majority of life forms in the fossil record seem to have emerged well-designed and functional in their first appearance. This is not evolution, although evolutionist like to call it that.

It's asinine enough to believe that a long series of trial and errors can eventually, accidentally evolve a new life form, but to be faced with concrete evidence that no trial and error even occurred and still believe life somehow developed without a plan or design guiding it, is moronic and delusional.

Furthermore, there is no evidence in the fossil record of any species even transforming into another one. The sudden appearance of various life forms shows not even a transformation process. That's not to say this can't happen, there's just no evidence of it in the field.

What evolutionists have done is taken the occasional aberration of nature, like "TikTaalik" and "Ida," and concocted convoluted explanations of how they must have come from one species and evolved into another, because the fossil has some bone structures similar to both.

You don't need bones and fossils for this. So many life forms have eyes, ears, noses and a host of other similar organs; do these even more striking similarities prove all these life forms evolved from one ancestor? Similarities can just as well make an argument for Creation: species have similarities because they were created by the same God.

Well, God, evolutionists point out, is not science. Let me see if I understand this. To say that God created life is not science because you can't prove God's existence. But to say that life created and developed by itself, which is also unprovable, that is science. Just taking God out of the picture makes it science?

Evolutionists make the mistake of thinking that because analyzing biological systems today is a science, any unproven concoction of how it all came about is also science. Evolution falls in the same category of "theories" as "the earth is flat."

Evolution forums are probably the best evidence of how bereft evolution is of any true science. Log on to some forums and you'll find that evolutionists' response to any opposition to their "religion" is usually countered with the most vile, hostile and belligerent language. Most don't even bother to discuss science. Interestingly, those that point out the shortcomings of evolution talk about science in far greater numbers than evolutionists. And there's a reason for this: evolutionists just don't have the science to support their views, while disproofs are in abundance.

Evolution today is no longer a science issue. The theory has been disproven so often from so many different angles it's become like hitting a dead horse. Evolution is basically a struggle between those who need it in their lives and those who don't. Dispelling the godless religion of evolution boils down to spreading the message that "the horse is dead."

This article is free for republishing
Printed From:

Back to the original article

Tags: concrete evidence, explanations, trial and error, metamorphosis, organs, noses, byproduct, aberration, first appearance, orderly fashion, ancestor, organisms, fossils