- Special Sections
- Public Notices
Something to think about
Food for thought: We can afford to send three council members to Japan, but can’t fix the city pool? I have a problem with that.
Case not proven
Evolution is widely accepted and almost universally taught as science, but it is not.
It is true a certain butterfly or bird or other organism that wanders into a new environment will undergo gradual changes, and then we (homo sapiens) give it a new species name.
Evolution means gradual change and in different environments gradual changes do occur, but they are only minor and do not result in a brand-new type of organism.
More than 70 years of research with the fruit fly shows that mutations result in disease and death or minor changes. There is no major change that could result in a very different organism.
It is nonsense to extrapolate backward and think that surely men and apes must have a common ancestor and birds and dinosaurs also, and everything else, because there is plenty of time for major changes, surely our hopes of “survival of the fittest” mechanism would result in a new species. Expecting a cosmic ray which disrupts the delicate fabric of DNA would produce improvement is similar to expecting throwing a brick through your TV will result in improved performance.
In the Precambrian explosion of species found in certain rock strata, there are several complex new organisms with absolutely no precursors that show a progression of change up to the final organism. How could this not happen if evolution were in operation?
We could today experiment in real time with many tens of thousands of generations of organisms such as yeast, bacteria, viruses or other species and induce many different types of mutation-causing changes through radiation or chemicals and expect a brand-new species emerging — but that has never happened.
Most of the times when the concept of evolution is expressed when showing nature programs, it is simply the fantasy of the writer and no scientific proof is presented. The atheist/agnostic person must have his religion of evolution to “explain” the complexity of his godless world.
William D. Caso