My Newswithviews Column, May 5 (‘The Evolutionary Fallacy’)

EarthSky | Ancient 4-limbed fish reveals origin of human hand

This is the one that evolved into Walt Disney.

(Look at that: zero comments, zero likes. Was it something I said?)

Everything is just naturally evolving toward perfection, and powerful governments and Really Smart People can hurry it along.

That’s leftism in a nutshell. An evolutionary fallacy: “new” is always better.

The Evolutionary Fallacy

In my lifetime, the things that have gotten noticeably better are dentistry and chess notation. A lot of other things have gotten hideously worse. You should see what they’ve done to my home town. And look what they’re doing to our country.

We just don’t look before we leap anymore, do we?

7 comments on “My Newswithviews Column, May 5 (‘The Evolutionary Fallacy’)

  1. Well, odds are that when we were younger, none of us who talk to each other here would have had a chance to meet. Other than that, I’ve just spent 3 or 4 minutes trying to come up with something else, and the one thing that immediately occurred to me is in the process of devolving again, to wit: many specialty and imported foods that I could get only from specialty stores by mail order — or not at all — are now available in neighborhood supermarkets. Unfortunately, the ever-emptying shelves these days bid fair to wipe out that improvement.

    Oooh oooh, I just thought of another one! Self-defrosting refrigerators! Oh, how I used to hate defrosting the refrigerator! 🙂

  2. Devolution is the truth. Man started out super intelligent and in a perfect environment, but then he listened to the Leftist, I mean, the devil’s lies and has been in the toilet ever since. But there is a solution to this dilemma, God sent His only begotten Son into this fallen world to redeem His elect back to God.

  3. Entropy effects everything except people and animals, apparently. They are the only things that supposedly get better with time (according to evolutionists).

  4. Love that picture and caption.

    Here is a bit from another book manuscript I am working on dealing with four doctrines, including evolution:

    “…Professor of Pediatrics, Steven Potter… wrote an article titled Dogs Prove Evolution,3 in which he asks the questions, “… where did dogs come from? How did the wolf get transformed into a woof?” He shares the Evolutionary consensus; DNA evidence shows that all dogs, with their diversity, are derived from a single source, the wolf. I and science are in agreement with this evidence, which simply relays how microevolution functions…Natural selection, kin to artificial selection, has produced about 450 recognized dog breeds, making it the most variable mammal on Earth. Although his article is titled Dogs Prove Evolution, in it, he never touched upon, nor discussed any evidence which would show macroevolution is true. How so?

    He starts with the repository (the wolf), which already had an enormous, bulging inventory, a reservoir of genetic information, from which all varieties and breeds of dogs have descended. He states:

    It is remarkable to consider that the wolf had enough genetic diversity in its DNA to give rise to all of the dog breeds we see today.

    How peculiar, his whole book explores, studies, and mulls over artificial and natural selection, but never considers the origin of the dense amount of genetic information residing within the forefather of all dogs, the wolf. The processes discussed provide answers; as to where the hundreds of breeds came from, but science delivers no answers to the question, how did the enormous inventory of DNA potential and genetic diversity arise within the first wolf? The processes discussed cannot build nor create genetic information, but only, as the term natural selection affirms, it’s a selection process, selecting from genes and other information that already exists, which processes discussed did not, nor can create. His discussion only focused on the loss of genetic information, not an increase.”

    1. There exists large variations within dogs, but at the end of the day, a canine is still a canine. They didn’t transform into something else, which is what Darwinian evolution is about. That is, the changing of one kind into another kind. That is something that remains a theory because it can’t be duplicated using the scientific method. Of course, that doesn’t stop people from accepting it as truth, which takes a leap of faith, ironically enough.

      The thing about dog breeds is somewhat true for humans too. We are all descended from a common ancestor, yet have different ethnicities. Even science will admit to a myocardial Eve, although they stop short of acknowledging the Biblical Adam & Eve.

      It is supposed that Adam possessed the genes for all the ethnicities that exist today, they just weren’t all expressed at the same time. Some have speculated that Adam had a triple helix DNA, which would have allowed him to contain more genetic data. In any case, his genes would have been more pure in that he didn’t have any genic mutations that have accumulated in human genes over the millennias. Something called genetic entropy.

      As an aside, that’s probably why it wasn’t taboo for siblings to marry and reproduce as would have to happen if there were only two people to start with. Their offspring wouldn’t have suffered the ill effects of such a union because their genes were more pure.

Leave a Reply