The theory of evolution by natural selection is based on the idea that over time superficial reproductive changes (mutations) in an organism, coupled with the competition for survival would eventually develop new functional machinery, systems, organs, skeletons, limbs and even give rise to awareness.
The belief is that given enough time, random minor genetic mutations would eventually build up to form new functional elements, as they are continually refined through the most effective organism perpetuating its genes the most.
For example, you might have 100 primordial eel type fish in a gene pool. Through an utterly random mutation one develops a protruding bump at its side, enabling it to have slightly superior balance and stability than the rest of its competitors who did not mutate this. Due to its slight advantage this mutant eel type fish then is more effective in getting food and mating, thus perpetuating its genes. So its offspring with the beneficial mutation are now more efficient in reproducing, and in time this more effective mutant eel would dominate the gene pool, leading to an evolutionary development.
However, there is no observable or repeatable evidence to suggest that random minor superficial mutations in an organism can even begin to create or develop a new biological element, system or mechanism.
The oft cited evidence of evolution in bacteria do not show the ability of mutation and natural selection to begin to add any new biological element or system, such as a new beneficial physical structure, limb, organ, system.
The best example of evolution naturalists have are bacteria being able to change their diet, and digest things it is thought they previously couldn’t. But this is not an example of the development of any new structure, mechanism, which is what naturalists have to believe evolution is capable of doing. The digestive system has always been there.
As a naturalist you have to believe that all of the biological systems and machinery, organs, limbs, skeleton, developed by darwin’s theory of accumulated minor mutation, coupled with the refinement of natural selection.
Mutation is simply a superficial and very small alteration to the offspring of an organism, and natural selection is only a sieve through which any group of organism could be refined and weeded.
So natural selection itself is not a creative process at all. it is a weeding process from whatever is available in the gene pool / (group of organism).
Thus all creativity and development hinges upon utterly blind random minor genetic mutations if you are a naturalist. And yet mutations capable of accruing to develop or create ANYTHING biological have simply not been observed.
So why is this theory being taught in science and presented in natural history programmes as a fact?
Text books may prefix evolution from cell to man with terms such as “theory” or “scientific consensus”, but in order for children to learn and academics to be taken seriously, they all have to accept this unsubstantiated and unproven theory.
No only is evolution from cell to man by mutation and natural selection brainwashed into society in school and university, it is also promoted through TV, movies, books, games. The effect this has is to normalise the theory and make people accept it as truth, even though in the cold light of day there is no real evidence the theory is capable of doing what it is said to have done.
The question is, is darwin’s theory of minor mutations, coupled with natural selection CAPABLE of creating functional, ordered, systems, mechanisms, structures, limbs, organs, which we see today in nature, from a basic primordial living cell.
That is the question. It is the question that is overlooked by academia and the education system, and has simply been accepted and promoted as truth.
If we want to leave the theory of creation out of the science class, based on it not being replicable or provable, then if we want to be fair, honest, rational and just, we should also leave darwin’s theory out of the classroom, because IT’S capacity and ability to create is simply not proven or replicable.
If the scientific community seeks truth, and wants to be objective and self critical, why is darwin’s theory being promoted and taught as truth, when the evidence of it being capable of doing what it claims is missing?
The truth is because the post enlightened secular education system is not actually self critical on this issue, or objective and impartial.
Darwins theory has been accept by naturalists as the alternative to a supernatural creation which was deemed too implausible by a group of naturalists, and Darwin’s theory is the only naturalist idea option to replace it with.
In truth the ability of mutation and natural selection to eventually create organs, systems, skeletons, awareness from a basic primordial cell can never be replicated or proven, as it would take millions of years to occur according to the theory. So what we are left with is speculation and belief it could have occurred by darwin’s theory, but no actual evidence or proof it is possible.
If the scientific community was impartial, objective and seeking truth it would have left the question of origins open, and not attempted to impose an unproven and unprovable naturalist theory on top of it, and condition the culture that it was fact through the education system and media.
The teaching of evolution, by the process of mutation and natural selection should not be taught in schools or in the media as fact, as the ability of this theory to create animals from a basic primordial cell, simply has not been proven and there is no evidence to suggest it is possible.
It is more rational to conclude that the development of functional biological interdependent mechanisms and structures are actually evidence of a much higher intelligence than humanity.