| David Jay Jordan's Part 2 Evolution is a 'BIG LIE' THESE FACTS EVEN DISTURBED DARWIN, who questioned, "Why, if species have descended from the other species by fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" The answer to Charles' question is simple! All he had to do was read Genesis Chapter One and he could have known that species have not descended from other species, but were created by God in orderly, set "kinds"--and that's why all nature is not in confusion! HYBRIDS BUT HAVEN'T THE SCIENTISTS WORKING WITH GENETICS PRODUCED NEW SPECIES OF HYBRID PLANTS AND ANIMALS? Doesn't this prove that entirely new species could have evolved from the interbreeding of different parent species? NO! The accepted definition among the scientific community of a species is, "A group of organisms that freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring." And the rare hybrids that can be produced by crossing two species are not "fertile offspring," but are sterile! As The Collegiate Encyclopedia acknowledges, "The infertility of species hybrids is one mechanism by which species can remain distinct." In other words, GOD HIMSELF HAS PLACED THE BARRIER OF STERILITY AGAINST THE MIXING UP OF HIS ORIGINAL APPOINTED "KINDS." An example of this is the mule, which is a species hybrid between a male, ass and a female horse. Although outwardly appearing to be a new species or "kind", it is impossible for a male and female mule to reproduce mule offspring!--They cannot bypass the unmovable boundary of sterility! The only way to produce more mules is to continually cross a male ass with a female horse. This God ordained biological principle was verified by the famous evolutionary professor of zoology, Richard B. Goldschmidt, who wrote, "No where have the limits of the species been transgressed, and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unbridged gap, sterility." MUTATIONS WHAT ABOUT THE EXTENSIVE RADIATION EXPERIMENTS THAT HAVE PRODUCED ACTUAL MUTATIONS AND CHANGES in creatures such as the fruit fly? Isn't this ample evidence to prove that similar mutations could be the "chief building blocks of evolutionary change," as Sir Julian Huxley has called them, and as most scientists and educators today claim them to be? . NO! NONE OF THE MANY THOU SANDS OF SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS WITH MUTATIONS HAVE EVER PRODUCED A NEW "KIND" OR SPECIE OF ANIMAL OR PLANT--NEVER! All of the geneticists and evolutionists, with all of their knowledge and intellect, under "perfect" laboratory conditions, and using their modern radiation techniques that speed up the occurrence of mutations a million-fold--they have utterly failed to change or mutate one "kind" into another! Yet these same evolutionists somehow expect us to believe that blind, unguided chance has produced the millions of beautiful, varying and complex forms of life on the earth today! And as far as mutational changes being the "chief building blocks" of evolution, Hermann J. Muller, who won the 1946 Nobel prize for his contributions to the science of genetics, said, "IN MORE THAN 99 PERCENT OF CASES THE MUTATION OF A GENE PRODUCES SOME KIND OF HARMFUL EFFECT, SOME DISTURBANCE OF FUNCTION. ... Most mutations are bad; in fact, good ones are so rare that we may consider them ALL as BAD." To illustrate the effect of gene mutations on an organism, H. Kalmus stated in his book, Genetics, "A popular comparison would be with a watch; if a part of the mechanism is altered by some change, it is very unlikely that the watch will be improved by the accident." A CLEAR-CUT EXAMPLE OF THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF GENE MUTATIONS OCCURRED IN HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI, JAPAN, AT THE END OF WORLD WAR II. The members of the populace that escaped immediate death from the hellish atomic bombs used against these cities were subjected to varying degrees of atomic radiation--resulting in thousands of mutations. None of these mutations produced any new, superior, advanced forms of human beings, as evolution might lead us to expect. Instead, the pitiful victims of these gene mutations suffered deformities, damage and death! DRUGS AND CHEMICALS CAN ALSO CAUSE MUTATIONS, as countless victims today can sadly testify. One of the most widely known instances of this in recent years was the tranquilizer THALIDOMIDE. Again, none of these chemically-induced mutations were beneficial to the "human species," but rather resulted in cruelly deformed babies, many without arms or legs! These tragic examples certainly affirm the assertion of Dr. W.E. Lammerts, former director of research for Germains Seed Company, that "biologically, ALL mutations are defective!" They are by no means the purely theoretical "building blocks of evolution" that some liars claim them to be. THE FOSSIL RECORD IF THIS BIG, RIDICULOUS, IDIOTIC LIE, THIS COMPLICATED, FABRICATED FRAMEWORK OF FICTION CALLED EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, THEN THERE SHOULD BE MORE MISSING LINKS DUG UP THAN ANYTHING ELSE! If there were billions of years of evolution, we'd be up to our ears in missing links! Even Darwin realised this, and so said, "As by this theory innumerable transitional forms ("links") must have existed, WHY DO WE NOT FIND THEM EMBEDDED IN COUNTLESS NUMBERS IN THE CRUST OF THE EARTH? ... The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great. He then answered his own question about these missing links by declaring: "I believe the answer lies in the (geological) record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed." . BUT NOW, 120 YEARS LATER, DARWIN'S EXCUSE IS TOTALLY RIDICULOUS! Literally hundreds of millions of fossils have been extracted from all fossil-bearing rock strata and none of them are "transitional forms" or missing links--they all obviously belong to a definite species! In fact, it is estimated that over 100,000 different, distinct species of fossils have been found! Yes, no "links" A.S. Romer, professor of zoology at Harvard University, recently summed up the present situation when he said: "'LINKS' ARE MISSING JUST WHERE WE MOST FERVENTLY DESIRE THEM, AND IT IS ALL TOO PROBABLE THAT MANY 'LINKS' WILL CONTINUE TO BE MISSING." Continue Part 3 Evolution is a Big Lie |
 |
| . |