There is also a theory out that, as an embryo develops, its many appearances at different times reflect its `evolution`. This applies to all embryos, whether it be a bird, as turtle, or a human. I was taught this theory in college. Do you know when this theory was proven wrong? Back in the 1920`s. As someone once said, `There is nothing more fun than to watch an intelligent man expound on a stupid idea`. So what can you say? The above theory was called the `Biogenetic Law`, and it has been proven wrong or proven totally implausible so many times that it is ridiculous to even consider it.
“This theory is now completely discredited by most embryologists.”
– Dr. Jeffrey Bryne
Over fifty years ago, Dr. Waldo Shumway [sp] of the University of Illinois said:
“Experimental embryology demands that this hypothesis be abandoned.”
If that’s the case, why is this `law` still being taught? The answer is that people are preaching the theory of evolution with religious fervor, and they have to have something to teach. The theory of evolution, being shaky at best, requires periodic `props` to at least provide temporary stability. In a pinch, the evolutionist can always dream up a new theory to bolster his cause.
Evolutionists have to rely on three things to make evolution `work`. These are natural selection, huge periods of time, and mutations. The theory of evolution is thus standing on three broken legs. None of the three are viable models for producing life as we know it. These theories were worthless thirty years ago, and they are just as worthless today. The advancements of science, rather than proving the theory of evolution right, is doing the opposite. The theory of evolution has become the de facto religion of the humanist society of today. The truth of mutations is that no one has ever produced a species change through mutations, whether through micromutations or through macromutations, even in a laboratory, even after thousands of mutations. The appearance of a species can be changed through mutations; through species interbreeding, you can come with a poodle or a dachshund. But guess what? Both are still dogs.
There is the story of a missionary who proposed several possible explanations of the origin of a tribe of natives. The natives of New Guinea, after hearing the theory of evolution, openly laughed at the idea. Why aren`t we laughing at it? It has been proven wrong countless times. The reason that we aren’t laughing is that the evolutionist is a member of a religion, with the theory of evolution as his god. He is a devout person, and openly laughs at the idea of creationism. That is called voluntary blindness.
Chicken Embryo – Day 12
In respect to the issue of genetics, if the theory of evolution is correct, there is the issue of homologous structures. If you studied the genetic structure of organisms, you would expect to find a chromosome with a gene located on it in a place in a chicken that causes the bird’s wing to appear during its development, and you would expect to go into animals that `evolved` from these `lower forms` of life and find a similar gene relative to a homologous structure. In other words, the forearm of an animal should be similar to the wing of a bird. That is not the case. Instead, the genes of all these life forms are distinct, each with their own individual characteristics. There is an obvious contradiction of the genetic data, and the concept of the inherited homologous structures is false.
Sir Gavin de Beer [sp], a devout evolutionist, says:
“The attempt to find homologous genes except in closely related species is HOPELESS. Organs such as the eye preserve their similarity in structure, but the genes responsible for the organ must have become altered during the evolutionary process.”
Have you ever heard a more stupid statement? He is saying that over the eons, as the eyes have `evolved` from one creature to the next, the eyes have remained the same, but the genetic information producing the eyes have changed. He is saying that mutations produced the same results, but with different combinations of genes. That`s utterly ridiculous, but it is typical of the desperate measures taken by the evolutionist to be able to hold on to his god, the theory of evolution.
From the field of anatomy, we should see certain indications in the anatomical structures of life forms. If the theory of evolution is true, we should see organs in the human body (for instance) that were useful to the human during his `evolution`, but that since have become useless. When I was a in college, there were about 180 organs in the human body listed by evolutionists as being in this category. They included things such as the appendix, the thymus gland, and the big toe. Over the years, we have learned that these supposedly `obsolete` organs do indeed have a use.
The thymus gland is a gland that surrounds an infant`s heart at childbirth. As the child ages, that gland quickly shrinks so much that it is difficult to find any indication of it in an adult. The evolutionists have therefore proclaimed this as proof of the theory of evolution, since it `has no use`. Medical science has since discovered that the thymus gland is an integral part of the mechanism that `starts up` the immune system of a child at birth. Would any of you like to do without your auto-immune system? How long would you live without it? Ask an AIDS patient, if you don’t know the answer to those questions.
Guess what else is part of the auto-immune system? The humble appendix, believe it or not. It is responsible for the `T-Cell` formation which is part of the immune system. The truth is, there are NO organs that do not have a purpose. If evolution really happened, we should see them. We should also see organs being born; that is, organs that seeing strange organs developing in our bodies, organs that have no use at the present, but that will have a use sometime in the future. But we do not, because there are none. This is still another instance of the proclamation of assumed processes, processes that have no proof of ever having happened.
From Tyrannosaurus to Tyrannus, an ever-marching parade of change: Tyrannosaurus rex, Deinonychus, Archaeopteryx, Anhinga anhinga, and Tyrannus tyrannus (Eastern Kingbird) – Katherine A. Smith
Imagine the first amphibian, as he started to `evolve` a wing. At first it would be just a stub, having `evolved` from a useful forearm. In the midst of its evolution, it would become a useless stub, being halfway between a forearm and a wing. It would have no function while `evolving`. Thus it places a severe handicap on the creature. Obviously natural selection would not allow such a thing to take place. Genetics certainly disallows it. So there is no way, with reasonable thought, that it could have happened. The jawbones of reptiles had three bones in them. Evolutionists say, by `evolution`, these bones `migrated` into the three bones inside the human ear. The evolutionist says that since humans have only one jawbone, these bones `must have` produced our earbones. Isn’t that impressive? Wow. You know, from a distance, that could possibly be conceivable. However, if you understand the genetics that would have to be involved with such a migration, it becomes untenable. It becomes ridiculous.
small man in the distance by MrLomo
It seems obvious that the evolutionist looks at `facts` from a great distance away. If you see a human from a distance of one mile, you might think it is someone you know. As you approach this hypothetical person, the differences become obvious; you realize that the distance made your vision poor. That`s how the theory of evolution operates. At a distance, it can sometimes be appetizing; up close, it is frequently laughable. There is not a single scientific discipline available that will prove the theory of evolution `true`. On the contrary, the opposite is true. When studied, the theory of evolution crumbles as the laws of our world come into play.
Source
The Theory of Evolution: This lecture composed by Dr. L., D.D.S (Freeware)
Reading Sources: First moon walk disproved evolutionary theory | Where’s the proof for evolution? | Darwin himself said there was no proof! | Can Evolution Produce an Eye? | There are NO Fossils to Show Even One Animal Turning into Another! | Is Evolution a Theory, Fact or Law? Or None of the Above? | There’s a Law Against Evolution–It’s Called the Second Law of Thermodynamics! | Evolutionists Say Mutations are Good–are They? | What About the Human “Tail�
