Zre Posted:

{troll mode off}

Evolution is proved by expirements, for example consider how Shaposhnikov expirimented with aphids, or how Miller and Urey got organic components from non-organic(it’s not really evolution – it’s ‘base’ of evolution ).

Evolution is not belief. It is the fact. Fact, that has actual evidences.

Most obvious demonstration of evolution are children:

For example, child appearance is similar to appearnce of his/her parents (and grand parents and grand grand parents etc). Most obvious similiraty between child and parents is colour of skin. Less obvious: form of face, color of hair etc.

Also consider “feral children”(children, raised by animals). Unsurpirsingly,

they act like animals, and not like human. This really does demonstrate that human IS actually animal. And not super-being-created-by-god-separetengly-from-animals.

{troll mode on}

But some selfish religious fabulous persons can not accept the truth. Woe!

There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don’t evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don’t have the genes to do it.

To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be mbumive genetic information gains.

But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these are not found in the ancestral species?

The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.

But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.

Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.