dunsapy

I know what evolution says. In the statements I made there were no errors. They were very general, but covered the idea completely. Where did you think I was in error? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I have read a lot on evolution, but it really is a flawed idea. Actually from the evidence found it really is an impossible idea.

This is the fallacy of our age.

I hope you don't mind me answering your post ( it was not directed at me). DNA tries to keep the life that it is ( say a human) in the center. What I mean by that, it tries to give a human all the parts and traits that humans have. There is great variety in humans tall to short, dark skin light skin etc. Mutations are usually considered bad. Like having 2 heads or four arms, or growths that are not supposed to be there. The point is that though, DNA allows for variety, but it keeps you a human. You do not become something else. There is no chimp to human, jump. That is what we see today, and why should today, be any different from earlier times? The fossil record supports this and so does DNA.

The fossil record shows complete animals that can survive. The question is how did they get to be complete? Where are the transitional animals? ( please don't say everything is transitional ) The transitional ones are the ones that have partial bones, bit of teeth etc., all this kind of transition that evolution says should be there. None of this is found in the fossil record. As for DNA this is also against the idea of evolution, because this is where the information comes from to make all of these parts? How did this instruction get in the DNA in the first place? It is not just mixing chemicals. Because there is are no instructions in the DNA from just mixing chemicals. Here is a little illustration, with four tubes of paint you can paint all the pictures in the world, but the tubes of paint don't mean anything until intelligence does the painting. DNA are those four tubes of paint.

Actually evolution at least the way science is telling us, is also a fallacy. You have to assume , that one animal became, over time another. But really there is no proof of that. Because animals are similar in looks or some of their parts are similar, does not automatically mean they came from this one or that. Evolution is based on an idea that we do not see now, or has been seen in the past. Science should not be based on assumptions. As for transitional animals they are not found. What we see today are completed animals. There is a great variety in say humans or dogs etc., but we do not see dogs becoming cats.