Questions For Which Evolutionists Have No Answers

Richard Goldschmidt was one of the scientists who publically renounced Darwinism as a consequence of the failure of the experiments involving fruit flies. Fruit flies breed new generations every few days so that running such experiments for decades involved more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling man on this planet. They subjected the flies to heat, cold, shock, blast, light, darkness, chemicals, and everything in the world known to cause mutations and then recombined the mutants every way possible, and all they ever got was sterile freaks and fruit flies. No mosquitos, no dragonflies, no hornets, wasps, ladybirds, mantises, gnats, or anything else at all, just fruitflies. This may have been the most major test which the idea of macroevolution has ever been put to and the theory totally failed the test, the results were decisive and unambiguous.

Goldschmidt went on to write a book, "The Material Basis of Evolution" (1940), with a challenge to the modern synthesis:



Goldschmidt was subjected to endless villification, but nobody has ever answered his challenge.

Consider the case of whales, and the questions of whalebone and sonar.

Evolutionists claim that some animal sort of like a bear or an oversized dog just started swimming around until his feet turned into flippers, and then just swam out into the deep water of the ocean and became whales.

We have mammals today which live in rivers, including hippos, and they do pretty well for themselves. But you don't see hippos out in deep water because they know perfectly well what would happen to them in deep water, and about how long it would take to happen. They do not have the propulsion system, the navigation capabilities, or anything else to live in deep water. In real life, you don't go off into deep water and hope that Chuck Darwin and his ideological doctrine will provide you with the wherewithal to live there; you'll last a few hours if you're lucky. In real life, God or somebody with bio-engineering capabilities has to provide you with the wherewithal to live in deep water, and only then do you go there to live.

In fact apparently it's only the one kind of crocodile with gills which lives in deep water if you want to call reefs deep water.

How does a creatures which uses carnivore teeth to kill and eat large animals survive the thousand generation process it would take to turn those teeth into baleen for straining plankton? The short answer: he wouldn't. In fact, suppose Steve Gould or God or somebody were to simply turn some killer whale's teeth into baleen; the creature would still die within a day or two. He wouldn't have any instinct for using baleen and his mouth would not be large enough to strain enough plankton to live on.

How does a creature which depends on vision for navigation survive the thousand generations it would take him to develop usable sonar for navigation such as whales have? The short answer: he wouldn't. The cycles of whales' lives require they navigate over immense distances, both in deep and in shallow water.


Rick Lanier notes:



How did snakes evolve? Being a snake is actually a sort of a complex deal. You need a very long and narrow body, hearts, lungs and all that sort of stuff have to be differently shaped and packed differently than you find in normal animals, you need to know how to slither, which is a fairly complex skill... Attaining all of that would take many generations.

Consider however that the very first step along such a path (at least according to the theory of evolution) would have to be being born as a quadraplegic (without any arms or legs, due to mutation).

In the real world, there is nothing more pitiful than a creature with no arms and legs. Humans in such condition are generally kept alive by charity; animals in such a state last an hour or two before being eaten by predators. How then did the snake survive the the many generations it would take to evolve the complex features he requires after being mutated into a quadraplegic sitting duck target and effortlessly free meal for every predator on Earth?


Insect evolution: Insects are presumed to have evolved from (segmented) worms. Nonetheless there is no evidence of this having actually happened and the simplest insects are vastly more complex than the most complex worm. The pictures we see of the worm to insect transition show vast gains in complexity at every step with no explainations as to what caused that complexity. How and why did insects arise from worms?


Lungs. In theory, lungfish are supposed to have given rise to amphibians and amphibians to our modern land animals. Nonetheless, lungfish don't get around all that well on dry land. They use their capabilities to move from one stream to another or to bury themselves in mud and hang on until the rains come. Consider that the transition from lungfish to amphibian is supposed to have occurred during an age of insects with two-foot wingspans and consider what a swarm of such insects would do to a lungfish which was trying to actually spend enough time out on dry land to become a functional land animal... When you look at it that way, the idea of lungs evolving from the lungfish seems pretty silly, and the evo-losers do not really have any other ideas on the subject.

For that matter, if fins could turn into legs and feet, we should see it happening from time to time in the world's waters. It isn't like humans don't haul in millions of fish every year and look at them. Where are the fish with feet?

Metamorphoses. Metamorphoses does not exist amongst fish and yet amphibians display it. Where does metamorphoses come from and how did it "evolve"? Wouldn't a lungfish trying to evolve into a frog have enough problems without worrying about metamorphoses?

Insect metamorphoses. Evolutionists claim that we all start from a single cell and evolve through various forms prior to being born; that butterflies and other such insects merely spend a certain amount of time living out in the world in one of the feotal states or some such. Nonetheless butterflies and moths use cocoons and it's very hard to imagine how the caterpillar would survive his changeover without the cocoon to protect him. That says that the first such creature which ever started using such a system had exactly one generation to figure out the whole thing with cocoons or it wouldn't have made it. How did that the first butterfly get the cocoon thing right in one generation?

Paranormal capabilities. Evolutionists generally pooh-pooh this kind of evidence and attempt to discredit the people involved with such studies, since they instinctively dislike the idea of having to deal with anything like that within an evolutinoary context.

Nonetheless, there are other people and groups of people who do not have the luxury of trying to ignore things which do not fit within their ideological paradigms. The king of France in the 1400's, for instance, did
not have such a luxury. The Catholic church, apparently making up in thoroughness for anything they might lack in celibacy, took several hundred years to analyze the case of Joan of Arc, and ultimately determined that at
least some of her activities required information that she had no way of having other than for paranormal means; they cannonized Joan in the 20'th century.

Likewise the US military does not have the luxury of ignoring such things.

You can check out:

http://www.remoteviewinghistory.com/remote-viewing-research-lecture.html

or do your own google search on 'Stubblebine' and 'remote viewing' at your leisure. Books have been published on soviet activities in this area and I presume American general officers are not paid to investigate pseudoscience.

Rupert Sheldrake's www site is http://www.sheldrake.org

Sheldrake is a former director of studies in cellular biology at Cambridge University who has made a second career of using statistical methodology and intelligent experiment design to investigate things normally termed "paranormal". This naturally puts him near the top of the public enemies list for the CSICOP crowd, Skeptic Magazine, and other such "science vigilantes"; nonetheless his methods are unassailable, his credentials are significantly better than theirs are, and he's financially independant so that they have zero leverage over him, i.e. being his own boss, he is not likely to fire himself at their insistance.

Sheldrake has pretty demonstrated to a statistical certainty that several kinds of things which are usually termed paranormal, are real.

And so, the question for evolutionists: How do paranormal capabilities evolve?

For instance the little dog who knows precisely when his owner first starts to come home (the featurette you sometimes see on German cable channels); how did the little dog evolve that capability? Sheldrake's blind test for that one is about as unanswerable as it gets.

Then again, there's always the problem(s) involved in flying birds...

Assume you start off with a creature with hair or scales, and ala Darwin, something mutates the hair or scales into feathers: How do you end up with two totally different KINDS of feathers (down feathers for insulation and flight feathers with their rigid structure for holding air and flying), and how do the flight feathers end up only on the wings where they are needed? Why don't the flight feathers end up on the creatures *** or his **** instead, or all over his whole body??

Or, assume some velociraptor or coelurosaur gets his scales or hair all mutated into down feathers and then 50,000 years later, some of the down feathers mutate a second time into flight feathers. Same question, what causes the mutation only on the wings where the flight feathers are needed instead of somewhere else on his body or all over??

Why has no flightless bird ever again regained the ability to fly? Or could it be that the ability to fly was DESIGNED, and that once you lose even the tiniest bit of some complex capability, it's gone forever?