THE FOSSILS provide tangible evidence of the various forms of life that existed long before the arrival of man. But evolutionists have not provided the expected confirmation of their ideas on the origin of life or how they came into existence new forms of life. About the absence of transitional fossils of organisms that can bridge the gaps biological, Francis Hitching notes: "The curious thing is that the fossil gaps follow a consistent pattern: the fossils are missing in all the important points" .1
2 The important points to which it relates Hitching the gaps between the major divisions of animal life. One example is the alleged development of fish from invertebrates, creatures having no spine. "In the fossil record," he says, "the fish jump out seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, fully formed" .2 zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his spiegazione evoluzionistica della comparsa dei pesci dicendo: “In un certo senso questo è un racconto di fantascienza”.3
3 Secondo la teoria dell’evoluzione, certi pesci sarebbero divenuti anfibi, certi anfibi si sarebbero trasformati in rettili, dai rettili si sarebbero evoluti mammiferi e uccelli e, infine, alcuni mammiferi sarebbero divenuti uomini. Nel capitolo precedente si è visto che queste asserzioni non hanno il sostegno della documentazione fossile. Questo capitolo si concentrerà sulla vastità dei cambiamenti che avrebbero dovuto contrassegnare i presunti stadi di transizione. Mentre andate avanti, chiedetevi quante probabilità ci sono che questi cambiamenti si verificassero spontaneamente sotto la spinta of blind chance.
The gap between fish and amphibians
4 What distinguished from invertebrates to fish was the spine. Why become an amphibious fish - a creature that can live both in water and on land - the spine should undergo significant changes. It was necessary to add a pelvis, but not known fish fossils that show how it developed, the pelvis of amphibians. In some amphibians, like frogs and toads, the entire spine should have been transformed beyond recognition. Even the bones of the skull are different. In addition, the formation of amphibians on the theory of evolution, the fins of fish should have become legs with joints and fingers, accompanied by significant changes in the muscles and nerves. The gills should have been turned into the lungs. In fish, in addition, blood is pumped by a heart with two cavities, while amphibians have a heart with three cavities.
5 To bridge the gap between fish and amphibians would also require a considerable change in the auditory system. Normally the fish perceive sound through the body, while the majority of toads and frogs has eardrums. The language would need to change: no fish has an extensible language, but this in amphibians such as frogs. Amphibians' eyes have more in the eyelids, which can move the eyeball to keep it clean. 6
have made enormous efforts in trying to connect with some fish to amphibians which would result, but without success. Among the favorites were the candidates dipnoi since, in addition to the gills, are able to breathe through the swim bladder, a system that takes when you are temporarily out of the water. The Fishes The book says: "It is tempting to believe that they can have a direct link with the amphibians that gave rise to vertebrates living on land. Not so, they are a completely separate group "4 David Attenborough rejects both dipnoi celacantidi that because" the bones of their skulls are in fact so different from those of the early fossil amphibians as to exclude a derivation ".5
The gap between amphibians and reptiles
7 Trying to bridge the gap between amphibians and reptiles has other serious problems. One of the most complex is in explaining the origin of the egg with the shell. Creatures previous reptiles laid their eggs soft and gelatinous in water, where the eggs were fertilized externally. Reptiles live on land and lay their eggs there, but within these embryos still needs an aqueous medium. The egg with the shell was the solution, but would require a major change in the fertilization process: it was necessary that fertilization would take place within, before the egg was surrounded by a shell. To do so would serve new sexual organs, new systems and new mating instincts: in short, an enormous gap between amphibians and reptiles.
8 Enclose the egg in a shell would have required more exciting changes that will first develop and then escape from the shell of the reptile. For example, within the shell membranes and various bags are needed, such as the amnion. This keeps the liquid in which the embryo develops. In the book The Reptiles, Archie Carr describes another membrane called the allantois, "The allantois receives and accumulates waste of the embryo, acting as a kind of bladder. It is also equipped with blood vessels that pick up oxygen that penetrates through the shell and bring it to the embryo ".6
9 Evolution does not explain other important differences still. The embryos contained in the eggs of fish and amphibians release their waste into the surrounding water soluble form of urea. But inside the reptile eggs, supplies of shell, urea kill the embryo. So here we see that the egg shell with a major chemical transformation: the waste in the form of insoluble uric acid are deposited in the allantoic membrane. Consider this: the egg yolk serves as nourishment for the embryo of a reptile, allowing them to grow and reach full development before it exits the shell: this unlike amphibians, which do not come from the egg stage as individuals adult. And to be able to leave the shell of the embryo has a characteristic "egg tooth" with which he breaks the shell that imprisons him.
10 To bridge the gap between reptiles, amphibians would take a lot more, but these examples are enough to indicate that blind chance could not have given all the many and complex changes which are necessary to bridge a chasm so vast. Not surprisingly, the evolutionist Archie Carr complains, saying that "one of the most disappointing in the history of the fossils is that it tells us very little about the evolution of reptiles during the period when they were developing this ability to lay eggs in their shells" .7
L 'gap between reptiles and birds
11 Reptiles are cold-blooded animals, which means that their temperature increases or decreases the variation of the external one. The birds, however, are warm-blooded animals. Their body maintains a relatively constant internal temperature regardless of the outside. To solve the puzzle of how birds, warm-blooded, have been able to evolve from reptiles, in cold blood, some evolutionists now claim that some dinosaurs (which were reptiles) were warm-blooded animals. But the general opinion is still the one expressed by Robert Jastrow: "The dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded" .8
Lecomte du Noüy 12, a French evolutionist, said that the assumption that the birds (warm-blooded) Derived from the reptiles (cold blooded) "is presented to us today as one of the biggest mysteries of evolution." He also admitted that the birds have "all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation" .9 unsatisfactory, of course, for the theory of evolution. While
13 essendo vero che sia i rettili che gli uccelli depongono uova, solo gli uccelli devono covarle. Per questo sono dotati di particolari caratteristiche. Molti uccelli hanno sul petto un’apposita zona sprovvista di penne e opportunamente vascolarizzata per trasmettere il calore alle uova. Alcuni uccelli, sprovvisti di una zona corporea adatta, si strappano le penne dal petto. Inoltre, perché gli uccelli covassero le uova, l’evoluzione avrebbe dovuto far nascere in loro nuovi istinti in rapporto alla costruzione del nido, al dischiudersi delle uova e all’alimentazione dei piccoli, tutti comportamenti altruistici e premurosi che richiedono abilità, fatica e una volontaria esposizione al pericolo. Tutto ciò costituisce un ampio divario fra rettili and birds. But there is still other.
14 pens are a unique feature of birds. We would argue that the scales of reptiles have been accidentally transformed into these extraordinary formations. From the spine, the central axis of the pen, branching files beards. Every beard has many barbules, and each has hundreds of barbicels barbules and hooks. Microscopic examination, a pen of pigeons have turned hundreds of thousands and millions of barbules and barbicels uncinetti.10 These hooks hold together all parts of the pen to form flat or curved. Nothing exceeds the feathers to aerodynamics, and the few substances equals come isolante termico. Un uccello delle dimensioni di un cigno ha circa 25.000 penne.
15 Se le barbe di queste penne si divaricano, vengono pettinate col becco. Il becco esercita pressione sulle barbe che vi passano in mezzo, e gli uncini situati sulle barbule si riagganciano come i denti di una chiusura lampo. La maggior parte degli uccelli possiede alla base della coda una ghiandola che secerne un liquido oleoso, col quale lubrificano le singole penne. Certi uccelli, sprovvisti di questa ghiandola, hanno particolari penne che, logorandosi in punta, producono una polvere finissima simile al talco la quale utilizzano per la cura delle penne. E di solito le penne si rinnovano per muda, una volta l’anno.
16 Alla luce di tutte queste informazioni on bird feathers, notice that you try to give surprising explanation about their development: "What was the evolution of this beautiful structure? You do not need a great effort of imagination to see the pen as a modified scale that is substantially similar to that of reptiles, shell of an oblong shape, not firmly attached, whose edges are frayed and extended to take up the remarkably complex structure they present ".11 This explanation seems rather scientific or science fiction?
17 Consider also the way in which the birds are designed for flight. The bones of birds are thin and hollow, while those dei rettili sono piene. Tuttavia per il volo sono necessarie ossa robuste, per cui all’interno quelle degli uccelli sono rinforzate, come le ali degli aeroplani. Questa particolare struttura delle ossa serve anche a un altro scopo, che evidenzia un’altra straordinaria caratteristica degli uccelli, cioè il loro apparato respiratorio.
18 Il continuo lavoro muscolare necessario per battere le ali per ore o anche giorni di volo genera notevole calore. Gli uccelli, sprovvisti di ghiandole sudoripare che provvedano al raffreddamento, risolvono il problema raffreddando il “motore” ad aria. Un sistema di sacchi aerei permette all’aria di raggiungere quasi tutte le parti importanti del corpo, penetrando addirittura nelle cavità bone, so that the body is cooled by this air circulating inside. Thanks to these air sacs, birds take in oxygen from the air much more efficiently than any other vertebrate. In what way?
19 In reptiles and mammals the lungs suck and expel air as bellows which inflate and deflate alternately. But in birds there is a constant flow of fresh air that passes through the lungs during both the inspiration and in that of exhalation. In simple terms, the system works like this: during inspiration, air enters in some air sacs that act as bellows to send it to the lungs. Air passes from the lungs to other bags then expel the air. This means that the lungs are constantly crossed by a stream of fresh air in a single direction, like a stream of water flowing through a sponge. The blood in the capillaries of the lungs instead of flowing in the opposite direction. It is this flow of blood and air in opposite directions, making it exceptionally respiratory system of birds. Thanks to it, the birds are able to breathe the rarefied air of high altitudes, flying for days to more than 6,000 meters above sea level as they migrate thousands of miles away.
20 There are other features that are widening the gap between reptiles and birds. One is the view. From eagles to small songbirds such as Dendroica, birds have eyes that work like telescopes and eyes that work like magnifying glasses. There are more sensory cells in their eyes than it has any other living creature. Even the legs of birds are special. When they alight on a branch, the tendons are automatically so that the fingers Serrin around the branch. And, while reptiles have five fingers, the birds have only four. In addition, birds do not have vocal cords, but a syringe which shone like the melodious songs of the nightingale and the mime multilingual. The heart of reptiles, then, has three cavities, while the bird has four. All types of beaks distinguish birds from reptiles: beaks that work like Nutcracker beaks to filter food from the water muddy, that nose, hammering, drilling holes in trees, beaks, like that of crossbills, pine cones that open. A seemingly endless variety. Yet it would support the bill, a sign of a project so specialized, evolved by chance from the face of a reptilian! Sounds like a plausible explanation?
21 A time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, which means "ancient wing" or "old bird", was a link between reptiles and birds. But today many are not convinced. Its fossil remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on the wings with aerodynamic profile capable of flying. The bones of the wings and lower limbs were thin and hollow. Its supposed reptilian features are found in some birds still exist. It did not precede the birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks from the same period as those in which Archaeopteryx was found .12
The gap between reptiles and mammals
22 Significant differences clearly separate reptiles and mammals. The name itself, "mammals," said suffered a big difference: the existence of mammary glands that secrete milk for the children who are born alive. Theodosius Dobzhansky formed the hypothesis that these mammary glands were "sweat glands undergone change" .13 But reptiles do not even have sweat glands. Moreover, the sweat glands do not produce a food substance, but eliminate waste products. And unlike the newborn reptiles, small mammals have both the instinct that the muscles needed to suck the milk.
23 mammals have other characteristics that reptiles do not possess. In mammals, the placenta of pregnant females have a very complex organ necessary for the nourishment and development of the unborn. Reptiles do not have it. Are also devoid of the diaphragm, while in mammals a diaphragm separates the chest from the abdomen. The organ of Corti, this ear of mammals, what is lacking in dei rettili. Questo minuscolo ma complesso organo è dotato di 20.000 cellule acustiche e 30.000 terminazioni nervose. I mammiferi hanno una temperatura corporea costante, i rettili no.
24 Inoltre, i mammiferi hanno nell’orecchio tre ossicini, mentre i rettili ne hanno uno solo. Da dove sono venuti i due ossicini in più? La teoria dell’evoluzione tenta questa spiegazione: I rettili hanno almeno quattro ossa nella mandibola, mentre i mammiferi ne hanno uno solo; quando i rettili si trasformarono in mammiferi, vi sarebbe stato un rimescolamento delle ossa: alcune sarebbero passate dalla mandibola del rettile all’orecchio medio del mammifero a formarvi i tre ossicini, cosa che lasciò un osso per la mandibola dei mammiferi. But the problem in this reasoning is that there is the least fossil evidence that confirms its existence. It's just a guess based on the desire that things went well.
25 Another issue still concerns the bones: In reptiles, legs branch off laterally from the body, so that the belly is in contact or near the ground, while in mammals the legs are located under the body and keep it off the ground . About this diversity, Dobzhansky remarked, "This change, as it may seem small, it has required significant modifications of the skeleton and muscles." He admitted then that there was another big difference between reptiles and mammals: "The teeth mammals are remarkably elaborate. Instead of simple wedge-shaped teeth of reptiles, in mammals there is a wide variety of suitable teeth to clench, grab, punch, cut, crush or grind the food ".14
26 A final point: When the amphibians evolved into reptiles , the waste would be eliminated, as has been said, but no longer as urea as uric acid. But where, as we are told, reptiles evolved into mammals, the situation changed again. The mammals returned to the system of amphibians, eliminating waste in the form of urea. The development would then go back, which theoretically should not happen. The abyss
more
27 From physical point of view, the man falls within the general definition of a mammal. But an evolutionist said: "It is not likely to commit errors is tragic that the man considered 'just a pet'. Man is unique, different from all other animals in several ways: language, tradition, culture and an enormously long period of development and parental care ".15 28
What clearly distinguishes man from all other earthly creatures is his brain. The information contained in the approximately 100 billion neurons in the human brain would fill some twenty million volumes! The powers of abstraction and language clearly separate the man from any animal, and the ability to accumulate knowledge and remember it is one of the most extraordinary human qualities. The use of this knowledge has enabled him to overcome all the other living species on earth, to the point of going to the moon and back. As one scientist, the human brain really is different and infinitely more complex than any other object in the known universe ".16
29 Another feature that makes the abyss between man and animals the greatest of all are his moral and spiritual qualities such as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is what relates the story of Genesis when it says that man is made 'in the image and likeness of God'. And the deepest abyss is what separates man from animals. - Genesis 1:26.
Among the 30 major divisions of living things, then there are significant differences. Many different anatomical structures, instincts programmed and quality separate them from each other. It is reasonable to think that they are the product of purely random events? As we have seen, this view is not supported by the fossil record. Fossils are not found to bridge the above gaps. In the words of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, "in the literature [fossil] missing intermediates. Now we see why, that is basically because there were no intermediate forms ".17 For those whose ears are willing to hear the testimony of the fossil is" special creation ".
0 comments:
Post a Comment