RoseAnn Salanitri, writes,
As a Creationist I tend to watch and read more secular material than most might expect.
Hmm… congratulations, Creationists usually don’t read things written by people who disagree with them. Maybe I spoke too soon, most creationists just repeat verbatim what came out of Kent Hovind’s mouth, before you know, he went to jail. But back to what you were saying,
There is a good reason for this. Usually the secular material provides me with the best arguments against Evolution imaginable - and on many occasions, the material provides me with a good laugh as well. While watching a few minutes of the History Channel’s program entitled The Big History of Everything, a few interesting questions shot through my mind along with a few chuckles.
However, I have a feeling that we’re about to be laughing at you pretty soon, RoseAnn Salanitri, when you try to refute this pro science show.
Now we’re going to skip much of what she wrote, to get to the main point of her commentary. She dismisses the idea that fishes could have evolved into amphibians and than Reptiles by basically arguing that things like eggs couldn’t have been designed by the animals themselves.
Perhaps the most silly and insulting explanation offered is that these creatures “figured out” how to produce eggs. Really? So the program would have you believe that these creatures that were significantly lower than us on the Evolutionist’s evolutionary chain were able to figure out how to change their entire reproductive system and how to produce eggs, as well as how to develop lungs. Do you know of any of us more highly evolved humans that have figured out how we can biologically produce an egg? Perhaps someone should educate these educators on how complex an egg really is.
I may not have seen this History Channel program, but animals don’t figure out how to change any aspect of their bodies. Eggs evolved through a gradual process where each generation of animals produced a slightly better version that did a better job of protecting their offspring. It was done through genetic mutation and natural selection. It wasn’t a conscious choice by any of the animals as to how to build their eggs, and they weren’t redesign with each generation. Notice how the word “Invented” is in quotes in this paper on egg evolution. Unless the History Channel’s “Big History of Everything” got evolution seriously wrong, it wasn’t actually saying what you think it was saying.
But more importantly, I would like to ask: if these primitive life forms could figure out how to lay eggs, why can’t Eskimos figure out how to grow fur?
One, that’s not how evolution works. Two, Eskimos and all other human beings have the ability to make clothing, so they can live in freezing conditions and not freeze to death without fur. Three, if some Eskimo in the ancient past somehow, actually did figure out a way that he/she could grow fur on his/her body and they showed the other Eskimos, don’t you think they’d be a little terrified to see fur sprout on him/her?
After all, the theory of Evolution would have us believe that phyla evolve through mutation in order to adapt to their changing environment. They use the argument of survival of the fittest to support their argument. Although the fittest do survive in challenging environments, there isn’t any data to support that these “fittest” evolve into a new kind of phyla.
Yes, because people who live in cold climates don’t resemble Chewbacca with white fur? Also there you go with that nebulous creationist concept of “Kinds” again. Also like I said earlier, mutation and natural selection doesn’t imply that animals can choose to change their body plans. Animals can’t choose to change form. No scientist since Lamarck has argued for anything even remotely resembling that, and even he didn’t exactly argue for that precisely.
Maybe “Conservative News and Views” should change its name to “Scientifically Illiterate Wingnut News and Views”