[Previous entry: "Responding to a Letter From an Atheist"] [Next entry: "Do Iraqis Hate Democracy?"]

05/26/2004: "The Awful Truth is Opening Minds"

Though I've read "The Awful Truth" at least twice before, upon
reading it for a third time (this time with the actual book and not
Internet printed pages) I have found myself asking questions about
Darwin's theory of evolution.

I've decided to question things as I read them, instead of trying to
ingest the entire book and then going back and asking questions
I remember having. So if I'm just not reading far enough ahead to
answer my own questions, forgive me.

First question is; Darwin talked of progressive fossils, that being;
creatures who evolve and leave traces of their previous existence,
before being revealed by fossils of their predecessors.

If ape evolved into man, why is it that apes are still around? Why would
some evolve into men and leave other apes as they were, before
evolving? Secondly; I would think (as a novice) that if a creature
were to evolve (by definition: To develop over successive
generations by evolution; to develop gradually) how is it that (in
the case of apes) a creature would develop into a lesser creature?
And by lesser, I mean to shed fur and hide that protected them from
the elements, and to lose physical strength. There is doubtfully any
man who could match physical strength with an ape, so that having
been said, why would a creature evolve into a weaker being? Why
would a gorilla evolve into a weaker, more vulnerable creature? I
would think evolving would mean to improve an organism, not degrade
it. Granted, mentally, man is (in many ways) superior, but when it
comes to physiques, man is by far and away a lesser creature than an
ape, with no protection from the elements.

Those are the questions I have to ask in regard to evolution. Anyone
care to comment?

Please Click on the link "Comment" below to read my answers.



Please visit: www.realists.org

Replies: 1 Comment

on Wednesday, May 26th, Patrick J. Conway said

The answer to your first question about fossil traces: There are no fossils that show transition from one species to a more advanced creature. There a few specimens that science puts up as possibilities, but they are not clear examples. There are over 40 million fossils in the Smithsonian Institute, none show transition.

If as, science claims, evolution has been going on for billions of years; we should be drowning in transitional fossils, and some current species should be in a visible state of transition. No such species exists on the planet today.

You make an excellent point about humans being weaker than apes. It must also be noted that the basic concept of evolution is that species evolve to better suit their environment. Would a primate, which lives in total harmony with its environment, shed its natural fur and evolve to a human that lives in opposition to the environment.

The basic concept of evolution is inherently flawed.

Note: The few transitional fossils that science claim as evidence for evolution are tucked away in some laboratory and brought out for viewing on rare occasions. This is not unlike the Shroud of Turin that the Catholic Church uses as evidence for the existence of Jesus. Is that all they have?