(NOTE: When I say evolution, I mean in regards to it being our origins which I don't believe. I believe in evolution as in "change" of species. There is a difference!)
Evolution Of The Leg
Once upon a time in a far away time there lived a water dwelling creature. He had no form of fin or leg but was similar to the liking of an eel. Then one day as the population lived and died, a mutation happened that formed a "blip" in the side of this creature...yes a "blip". This gene that was formed slowly got diluted amongst the population as he reproduced.
Many, Many years passed and the blip grew bigger as a mutation amongst the population.
Eventually they started to find it useful so it became what is known to be a fin.
Then one period of time the creatures had another weird group of mutations heading in the right direction of usefulness that enabled them to leave the water and breath air.
Well they didn't find fins useful on land so over the years the population had many more weird mutations and blips on the end of the fins which later became toes... The fins stiffened and became legs.
And so we have it...the evolution of the leg.
And it lived happily ever-after,
Personally I think the idea of evolution is not probable, if it is, it is a fluke. Firstly it is said that the fittest survive. In order for something to be fitter than the others (like developing a fin) it would be a long time before the "helpful" fin even became useful, so the ones with the blip would die off first would they not?
Animals leaving the water to breathe air? What did they do, jump up out of the water flapping away heaving and gasping with their gills and then fall back into the water, each generation each having its turn to do this until they developed lungs?
Why would fish leave the water when water is what they were designed for and found useful? Even if random mutations enabled them to develop lungs why would they use them when they didn't need them? All slight mutations in that direction would be a hindrance for a long time rather than an asset. Any fish that tried his new mutation (before it was developed to be useful) outside of water would die wouldn't he/she?
There is another thought, how did the sexes come about and why change from single sex into two? That would mean the new mutation is less fit for survival than the other wouldn't it?
Would it be reasonable to think that one day we as humans may evolve an extra arm which would be more useful? If so how would that happen? Why don't we have weird mutations hanging off of our bodies?
So goes my philosophical approach to evolution.
As the picture shows, a mutation towards something helpful or even helpful at all is rare... a fluke. Neutral ones are most common and bad ones are less common.
"However, random changes in information do not create new meaningful 'paragraphs', or 'chapters', of information. They only corrupt it. Mutations destroy; they do not create...Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not due to an increase in meaningful information due to mutations. In all mutations studied, there has been a loss of function causing the resistance."1.
Molecular biologist Dr. Ian Macreadie states "All you see in the lab is either gene duplication, reshuffling of existing genes or defective genes (with loss of information) that might help a bug survive-e.g., by not binding to an antibiotic as effectively. But you never see any new information arising within a cell. Evolution would argue for things improving, whereas I see everything falling to pieces."
If evolution were true then where are all the in-between fossils? That is not too much to ask for is it since it is such a wide scaled happening?
There are hundreds of types of creatures in the fossil record like snails and jellyfish which are alive today. The creatures today are very much like the ones in rocks that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. 1.
Interestingly there are approximately 10,000 practising scientists in America alone who do not accept the evolutionary picture. 1.
The Bible does not rule out evolution wholly but at this stage I cannot accept it as truth about our origins.
I have to be honest, there are too many questions for me to believe this. It takes more faith to believe that everything designed itself than for me to believe that God created us. If everything designed itself then God may have guided it. Who knows? We weren't there. But we are here now, so we must use our reasoning to decipher truth its all we got.
Anthony Flew the famous atheist of atheists who is now deist believes in evolution but now claims because of scientific discoveries that there must be a God who started it all. He wrote the book "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind". Though I have not read the book...sounds interesting.
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
Whether God created using evolution or not, I understand that He created, Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."
1. Answers to the 4 BIG questions by Don Batten, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland