Homology might sound convincing when animals are assumed to be closely related, but what about similar features in animals not considered closely related? Both octopi and humans have similar eyes yet are very far removed according to the evolutionists’ nested hierarchy. So why do they have similar eyes? In that case, evolutionists evoke the term, convergent evolution.
According to Wikipedia, "convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related,... independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches." Oh that’s right – octopi and humans live in virtually the same environments!
Darwin recognized that the eye was immensly complex. He even made this quote in his book, On the Origin of Species:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.Of course, Darwin still believed the eye evolved and went on to explain how he thought it could have happened via gradual steps. Richard Dawkins later said, "the time needed for the evolution of the eye... turned out to be too short for geologists to measure! It's is a geological blink." And, "it is no wonder the eye has evolved at least forty times independently around the animal kingdom" (River Out of Eden).
Therefore, all these different eyes we see in nature supposedly came about via convergent evolution. So, we go from “the eye is so complex it’s hard to imagine how it evolved” to “it’s so easy it happens all the time.”
Wings are another example of this. When we think of flying, birds immediately come to mind. However, wings also are found among insects, reptiles (pterosaurs), and mammals (bats). There are also examples of “flying fish” which use their pectoral fins to “fly” long distances out of the water. Even among plants there are examples of wings such as seen in maple seeds. Evolutionists still haven’t nailed down exactly how the incredible feat of flying evolved in birds. Yet as difficult as it is to explain in birds, they still insist it happened again and again and again in other animal kingdoms as well.
And then there is abiogenesis. The odds of random chemicals coming together to create life are astonishingly small. However, evolutionists argue that in such a large universe even something very improbable will eventually happen. Later, Carl Sagan said, “... the time available for the origin of life seems to have been short, a few hundred million years at the most. Since life originated on the earth, we have additional evidence that the origin of life has a high probability.” Convinced that there is a high probability of the origin of life, then it's no great leap to imagine that other life began in space as well. His faith in extra-terrestrial life inspired groups like SETI to search for signs of life beyond our planet. Today, with NASA’s interest in exploring Mars, people speculate that life could have evolved on Mars as well. Imagine two people, living next door to each other, winning separate power-ball lotteries and you can see how ridiculous that sounds; only the odds of abiogenesis happening among next door neighbors are billions of times more unlikely. So even though we’ve NEVER observed abiogenesis, evolutionists suffer under the delusion it happens everywhere.
Evolutionists are somewhat cavalier about what is credible. They waive their theory around like it’s a magic wand and suddenly the impossible becomes commonplace. There’s an old saying that lightning never strikes twice in the same place. That's actually not true; it's an expression meaning that if you ever witness something improbable, it's unlikely you'll see it happen again. Evolutionists, on the other hand, would have us believe that lightning strikes in the area of the improbable like a timpani.
No comments:
Post a Comment