Tuesday, May 5, 2009

My thoughts on evolution 2

Due to increased discussion on my first post on the topic of evolution it has been requested of me to produce some actual evidence against evolution.
I am no scientist but I happened upon a site with the following content found at: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm.
I am not sure of the author of the site but it is a good summary of some ideas I have come across over the years. The author gives the reference for his/her information below each point.

I agree with some of the authors thoughts especially regarding his/her "
Irreducible Complexity" ideas.

Here is something for you guys to chew on... :) More food for thought.



1. Information

The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life’s DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information (the story). Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story. Key references: Genetic Entropy (Sanford), In the Beginning was Information (Gitt).

2. Formation of Life

Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere. Key reference: Why Abiogenesis is Impossible, Jerry Bergman, CRS Quarterly, Volume 36, March 2000

3. Design of Living Things

Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn’t work perfectly, “boom” – no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism. Key reference: The three-part video series Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution describes many more examples like that of the Bombardier Beetle

4. Irreducible Complexity

The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit. Key reference: Darwin’s Black Box (Behe)

5. Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the “heat death” of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote. Key reference: The Second Law of Thermodynamics (answersingenesis.org)

6. Existence of the Universe

By definition, something must be eternal (as we have “something” today and something cannot come from “nothing”, so there was never a time when there was “nothing”). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and must have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question “who created God” is therefore an improper/invalid question, as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.

7. Fine-tuning of Earth for Life

Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean’s water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth’s circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples.

The presence of large amounts of water, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal “solvent” known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water.
Key reference: The Privileged Planet (Gonzalez/Richards)

8. Fine-tuning of Physics

The fine-tuning of the physical constants that control the physics of the universe - the settings of the basic forces (strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, gravitational force constant, and electromagnetic force constant) are on a knife’s edge. A minor change in these or any of dozens of other universal parameters would make life impossible.

The “multiverse” idea that there may be many universes and ours “just happened” to have these proper values is outside of science and could never be proven. Even then we would have to ask “what was the cause of all these universes?”

Key reference: Hugh Ross lists about 100 parameters on the Reasons To Believe web site. See also Design and the Anthropic Principle

9. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record

The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don’t change much over time (“stasis”). The “Cambrian Explosion” in the “primordial strata” documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation “according to its kind”, and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the “geologic column” and giving the appearance of a “Cambrian Explosion”. Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from “simpler” forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression. Key reference: Fossils Q&A (answersingenesis.org)

10. Human Consciousness

A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events. Key reference: The Origin of the Brain and Mind, Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, CRS Quarterly, Volume 41, June 2004

11. Human Language

Language separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. However, the Bible does. It says that the first man, Adam, was created able to speak. The Bible also explains why we have different human languages, as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted. This was only a "surface" confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood. Key reference: The Mystery of Human Language (Morris, icr.org)

12. Sexual Reproduction

Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.


  1. Thanks Dan,

    This is what I was getting at with regard to providing evidence! It is yet to be seen if this evidence is compelling or not; down the rabbit-hole we go!

    1. Information - ok
    2. Formation of Life - not evolution (abiogenesis)
    3. Design of Living Things - ok
    4. Irreducible Complexity - ok
    5. Second Law of Thermodynamics - ok
    6. Existence of the Universe - not evolution (cosmology)
    7. Fine-tuning of Earth for Life - not evolution (cosmology)
    8. Fine-tuning of Physics - not evolution (er, physics!)
    9. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record - ok
    10. Human Consciousness - ok
    11. Human Language - ok
    12. Sexual Reproduction - ok

    I think you'll agree that numbers 2, 6, 7 & 8 are not evidence against evolution, but against other aspects of scientific understanding.

    So, I'll start going through your evidences one by one and we'll see where we get to, ok?



  2. Here we go!

    1. Information

    This is kind of interesting, in fact 'Information Theory' is a new and exciting branch of genetics that is revealing some incredible things about life.

    "Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution,"For starters, DNA modification has been shown to produce new genetic information (I think I've mentioned nylonase before) and secondly, there is no 'upward drive' to evolution; there is only adaptation and survival.

    Organisms re-use and re-shuffle protein groups during reproduction and the recombined DNA contains errors, mutations that can have negative, neutral or beneficial outcomes in the organism as it develops. The point is, to achieve 'new information' you only have to copy and shuffle existing DNA and voila!

    Still, this is an ongoing field of study and who knows what may come of it.

    3. Design of Living Things

    "The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn’t work perfectly, “boom” – no more beetle!"I find it ironic that the author uses this beetle as his example immediately after referencing Dawkins. One of Prof. Dawkins' first TV appearances was to debunk the myth that the Bombardier Beetle should explode because of the volatile chemicals found within it.

    Natural Selection works on the basis that those most fit to survive, survive. It follows that those that are left are best suited for their environment. Figuring out how they came to be this way is what evolutionary biologists study. You really should read The Blind Watchmaker, it's a fantastic explanation of this very issue.

    4. Irreducible Complexity

    There is not one single organism that has been found to be irreducibly complex.

    “nothing works until everything works.”

    The problem with this is that it assumes that only the finished product matters. Things can have other functions before they're used in the way we understand them. Things can also lose 'scaffolding' once they are 'complete'.

    Think of a bridge over a river, there's no way you can possibly build it using only the material found in the final bridge. However, the bridge (with scaffolding) can be used as a rudimentary coffer dam during construction as well, so it has a function before it's a finished bridge.

    Afterwards you remove the scaffolding because it is no longer serving a function. Many geneticists are currently working on understanding this 'scaffolding' and the role it plays in the evolution of novel traits.

    5. Second Law of Thermodynamics

    The second law applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system, ergo the second law does not apply. This has been covered a thousand times over.

    9. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record

    "Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from “simpler” forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression."If you can't read that and see how wrong it is, then there's no hope for you.

    "Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”."Nobody thinks birds evolved from reptiles. They evolved from a branch of avian dinosaurs. We have a number of Archeopteryx fossils and many similar species that exhibit dinosaur and bird traits. What even is a 'half scale/half wing'?

    These people have no idea what they're talking about.

    10. Human Consciousness

    This is a bald assertion that human consciousness is some sort of magical entity that is separate from the mind - how come brain damage can lead to altered personalities then?

    How come we know which neurons determine anger, lust, happiness, even religious fervor? The mind is the function of the brain, that is what it does.

    All of the traits referenced in that section are found in other animals too.

    11. Human Language

    "Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language."No, but anthropologists do. Speech is a product of our evolved brain and there are very good survival benefits for those who can best articulate their thoughts and ideas.

    Many other animals have advanced forms of communication that we cannot even begin to understand; does that make them special? I think so.

    12. Sexual Reproduction

    This comment shows a very poor understanding of how sexual reproduction emerged and what benefits it offers.

    The fact that he thinks animals 'abandoned' asexual reproduction, or that the transition was made after 'animals' were in existence speaks volumes.

    Ok, that was a quick pass through as I tried to keep it brief. Perhaps you could pick out a couple of points that you'd like to talk more about and we can go from there?



  3. Hey Matt,

    Wow you seem to know a lot for not being a scientist...are you just parroting people like Richard Dawkins (like me :)) or have you done the research against all these arguments?

    You have to admit although you have answers such as "There is not one single organism that has been found to be irreducibly complex." does not deny the difficulty of evolution getting around those barriors...

    Here is a quote from you on another thread.

    "Ears are the way they are because that is the most effective way for them to be. Questions like this highlight a severe lack of understanding of how evolution works."

    This is my point, if evolution is NOT guided or pre thought out...then why do we have so many useful and well designed objects in and around our body that are not survival issues. Why would evolution edit out the backward ears etc if its not harmful.
    Our ears are around the right way...Our ears have channels to catch the sound... our nose is the right way up (logicaly...designed).

    "I think you'll agree that numbers 2, 6, 7 & 8 are not evidence against evolution, but against other aspects of scientific understanding."

    If someone wants to tell me that evolution guided itself and that God had no part to play in it then those other aspects is what evolution is gounded on eg fine tuning of the earth...amazing, well designed to support life.
    However you are right they do not specificly relate to evolution of the type we are talking about.



  4. I looked up the link:

    "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution"

    The guy is a Dr. and used to be an evolutionist but then studied animals more and realised that evolution was not probable.
    Click on the reference link No.3

    Oh, you said earlier that the anti-evolutionists were religious (intending to be evidence that they are biased...I think that was your motive). I thought about it more...if you don't believe in evolution then Intelligent design is the only alternative... God. That is why anti-evolutionists are all religious. If you deny evolution you admit there is a God?


  5. Dan,

    A couple of things...

    I've spent a long time reading and researching creation and evolution. I've watched many of the lectures given by the prominent Creationists as well as reading a number of books by Behe et. al. I've also read a lot of scientific journals and know many people in the sciences who are able to talk me through some of the more difficult subjects and point me in the direction of further reading.

    You response to my comment about Irreducible Complexity (IC) doesn't make any sense. Creationists claim that IC disproves evolution, but there are no IC organisms; so it's a pointless assertion.

    "Why would evolution edit out the backward ears etc if its not harmful."Dan, you don't think that a backwards ear would be harmful to an organism? It is very much a survival issue - especially back in the early days of our evolution. If you can't hear danger coming then you don't survive.

    The very point about Natural Selection is that it selects for the most fit mutations. The least fit are weeded out so you will always be left with an organism that is well-adapted to its environment.

    "The guy is a Dr. and used to be an evolutionist"He was a dentist who went to Theology school.

    His whole argument is based upon ignorance. He can't understand how animals could end up the way they are - therefore God must have done it. This is the very opposite of science. If you don't know how something works; find out! 'God' is a lazy answer.

    You last comment is kind of confusing.

    It is my belief that the majority of evolution-deniers are religiously motivated to deny evolution.

    I do not believe that they 'looked at the evidence', found it wanting and then determined that God must have been responsible (or ID, if you wish).

    You only have to look at the 'Wedge Document' that was leaked from the Discovery Institute to see their agenda. It basically says that they'll try and crowbar Creationism into schools under the guise of Intelligent Design.

    At the Dover Trial, Michael Behe (the leading proponent of Intelligent Design) admitted that Intelligent Design was as scientific as alchemy, astrology, tarot cards and flat-earth theory. I.e not very scientific at all!

    Dan, let me spell out what I think.

    There are Christians who believe that the entirety of the Bible has to be true, otherwise none of it is true. Starting from that premise, anything that contradicts their interpretation of scripture must be wrong by definition.

    They don't care that there is no good science to back up their position. They don't care that they have to lie and distort and misrepresent to try and tear down evolution. As far as they are concerned, they are fighting the good fight and any means are acceptable.

    I'm sorry Dan, but when it comes down to evolution vs. Creation; you're on the side with the liars and the cheats and the charlatans.


    I have to stress this because I don't want you to get the wrong idea. There are literally thousands of working scientists who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior and still acknowledge that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. They are professionals and, as Kenneth Miller (Biologist & Christian) put it, 'evolution is a beautiful thing; I'm proud to worship the God who is responsible for it.'

    That's my 2 cents, anyway.


  6. Hey Matt,
    Thank you for your comment!

    "you're on the side with the liars and the cheats and the charlatans."

    1stly please do not call them all liars, keep it respectable. I can understand their possible misunderstandings.

    You are way out of my league in evolutionary/scientific knowledge. I have not read those books that you have read.
    If you are right I may look into what some old earth christians actually think about evolution. I know David Pawson accepts the possibility and he sat under top evolutionist teachers in his day although they stressed it was a theory.

    However I CAN NOT ACCEPT EVOLUTION as being an accident. My intellect cannot see it happening un-guided. A backwards ear, like other things, is not a survival characteristic.

    Dude, why are you here talking with me for the past month when it is obvious I am not a knowledgeable evo/science guru? There are no people to impress with your evolutionary arguments...go to Ray's site for that.
    I am not telling you to buzz off. I have enjoyed our conversations



  7. Dan,

    I call it how I see it.

    At the Dover Trial, the Intelligent Design (ID) guys kept on saying how ID was science and not Creationism.

    One of the pieces of evidence against them was a textbook called 'Of Pandas and People' which was the leading ID textbook that they wanted taught in schools.

    The claim by the evolutionists was that this was a creationist book 'dressed up' to look like science. The ID guys denied it. However, upon inspection of an early draft of the book they found this;

    "cdesign proponentists"

    They had gone through the book and replaced 'creationist' with 'design proponents', only they didn't do it right in this case and you can plainly see the 'transitional form' of the creationist book turning into an ID book - these were the only words that were changed.

    They had lied under oath that this book wasn't creationism disguised as science and they were caught.

    I don't know what else you call that. Where I'm from, it's called lying.

    I would suggest 'Reasons to Believe' it's a ministry based around the idea that God guided the universe with the specific goal of mankind arising which, if you think about it, is even more impressive than the young earth idea. It means that God set things in motion nearly 14 billion years ago with such precision that everything panned out exactly as He intended - I find that to be quite astonishing.

    Dan, I don't know who told you that evolution is an 'accident'. There's no evidence to suggest that it is (or isn't), God could very well be guiding the whole process, but it definitely happened.
    And I don't know why you're obsessed with backward ears either, it seams a bit random.

    I enjoy our conversations Dan, simple as that.



  8. Hey Matt,

    Thanks for the recommendation of "Reasons to believe".
    Someone suggested that to me the other day :)


    I skim read this and I found it rather interesting. Quite plausible.

    I mean by "accident" as in: If evolution happended (without God) it was not pre-planned or guided to happen. I cannot accept that view as valid. It doesn't make sense... My previous posts explore that.

    However I am more and more interested in the old-earth creationists. They sound interesting and is the only way I could understand evolution...that God guided/caused it.

    I am hoping to get a cool testimony from a guy about God working in his life amazingly...he's really busy but he said he will write it with his own hand. I want it not to be 10th hand evidence of miracles...you know what I mean. He is a sound man (not crazy).
    I'm not sure when I can get it on here though.

    I'm obsessed with backward ears (although your right it may be random LOL) because it is a valid musing as to God's creative genious.

    God Bless...I mean it...I am praying for you Matt!


  9. I may put a post soon on the views of old-earth creationists...hmmmm.

  10. So, you don't mind the whole 'Old Earth / species evolving into other species' thing, as long as God is involved?

    Fair enough. Nobody is saying that God isn't involved. There are many working biologists who believe that He is. It doesn't change the fact that the world is very old and evolution happens.

    Keep us posted on your old-earth investigations.

    Here's a thought; if our ears were on 'backwards' - how would you know? If everyone's ears pointed backwards, that would be normal. 'Backwards' would be the way they are now and that would seem odd.

    Just because things are a certain way, doesn't mean that that is the best or only way they could have been.


  11. Hey ya Matt!

    Yeah I am struggling for time at the moment to do indepth research but I will get around to it sometime...stay tuned :)

    "Just because things are a certain way, doesn't mean that that is the best or only way they could have been."

    True. I agree with you on many points in regard to that. But we have to admit that we do look well designed and well placed.
    Surely you can understand why most of the world believe in God or some god, there is good reason.



  12. "But we have to admit that we do look well designed"Do we?

    Wisdom teeth?
    Our windpipe and gullet wrapping around each other making it a choking hazard every time we eat/drink?
    Eyes that inevitably need glasses?

    And what is our designed purpose? At the minute, our species just seems to be messing up the planet.

    Now you could point to the 'Fall' for all this, of course, but then which is it 'well-designed' or 'fallen creation'?

    How could you objectively tell the difference?
    How do you define 'design'?

    So many questions, so little time!


  13. What do you think of Ray's latest post?:

    "The missing link finally found

    Creationists who say that there is no proof of Darwinian evolution have been called liars for years:

    "Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false . . . but the fossil record — which is far from complete — is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (Columbia University Press, 2007)."

    So the claim that there are no species-to-species transition forms in the fossil record "is false." Instead evolutionists say that fossil record "is full of them." But look at this May 20th 2009 report about how they had finally found the missing link:

    "Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution: Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution. This 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' is described as the 'eighth wonder of the world.' The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years -- but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York. The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' -- dubbed Ida -- is described by experts as the 'eighth wonder of the world.' They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be 'somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth.' Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle. Sir David Attenborough said Darwin 'would have been thrilled' to have seen the fossil -- and says it tells us who we are and where we came from. 'This is the one that connects us directly with them' . . . Now people can say 'okay we are primates, show us the link . . . The link they would have said up to now is missing -- well it's no longer missing'."

    For years we have been told by believers that the theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact. But this article correctly says that prior to this discovery they had no proof. With this discovery they now believe that "the link they would have said up to now is missing -- well it's no longer missing." All this proves is that some scientists are willing to lie to prove their pet theories.

    Is this the missing link? Is Ida proof of Darwinism? Not according to CBS news. They said, "So while we don’t know exactly what Ida means to human origins, she’s proof we are endlessly fascinated by where we came from." According to The wall Street Journal, "The discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn't been found."

    The missing link is still missing. So much for the "eighth wonder of the world" and the "asteroid falling down on the world." Believers in the theory of evolution still have to keep blindly believing without proof. Maybe one day...

    May 19th, 2009

  14. Hey there,

    "And what is our designed purpose? At the minute, our species just seems to be messing up the planet."

    I agree, we should do something about it!

    If you go down your road of thinking too far you will end up with...
    Fire burns our fingers!?! How badly designed we are! We should be able to withstand fire? God made a mistake.

    It's funny this, I say we are designed...you and others pick holes, You say evolution is everything's origins...I and others pick holes.

    NE way thanks for your comment. :)