freepik.com. There is no evidence of random mutations or natural selection in this parrot that explains the density or shape of the beak or the patterns on its face etc. it also has organs and blood and feet or claws to stand up and wings to fly. Once the word ‘evolved’ seeps into our thinking , we loose sight. This parrots past could be that it’s relations were always parrots. Nothing wrong if they weren’t , but there is absolutely no evidence that they were some other animal before being a parrot.
The director of London Natural History Museum says they have 80 million ‘specimens’ showing animals existed in past proving evolution etc. No showing at all any how those 80 million specimens show any evolution between them. None at all. Absolutely no evidence at all. An astonishing lack of evidence.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/03/darwin-theory-evolution-schools-earth
Before this idea of evolution using natural selection it would have been just straight forward common sense thinking. It would simply be that the finches had different beaks to break up and eat those different types of nuts and seeds. And their beaks are that way to eat the different types of seeds and nuts.
Nothing on Google seems to have any conviction at all to prove that this idea of natural selection exists. Feeling pretty sure that my set of teeth that chew the food i eat weren’t naturally selected from non teeth. They exist as teeth and weren’t once not teeth. And yes of course they once did not exist at all but then they did.
Have a press on them from on the top of the lower ones and underneath of the upper ones and they are solid. Quite remarkable. They seem to me to be configured to fit in my mouth to chew certain foods and therefore weren’t selected from any other configuration or chosen from any other materials. Have a go. ( Don’t mean to sound patronising.. just having a think myself and don’t know anything) Press on the teeth and feel the solidity. Never mind the teeth themselves. The teeth have to be held in gums to hold them in place. Now you have to have naturally selected gums to hold them in. That solidity was not naturally selected. How did they get such strength and fit in the curvature of a mouth. No idea.
There is the absurdity of one professor in an online lecture showing a fossil showing through some special microscope that a single fossil from millions of years ago proves the evolution of teeth. The animal simply had teeth. Having teeth is not simple of course. But saying that teeth came about from something more simple like a few cells that turned into flesh eating teeth using accidental random mutations and natural selection is again absurd
And teeth are covered with the protection of enamel. Just the strength in them being stuck in the gums and the coating of enamel tells us that the idea of natural selection is a bit silly because since they can be stuck so solid in a gum , the teeth themselves would use whatever makes them stick solid in the gum.. So you have more than this idea of natural selection going on. Take then other animals teeth. A beavers teeth has iron in their enamel that gives them the strength to gnaw through wood. Surely no selecting at all went on for beavers teeth to contain iron. Firstly it would have to be explained how any sort of teeth existed and then to go on from there to having iron in the enamel of a beavers teeth to be able to chew through the branch or bark of a tree. The iron in the beavers teeth can’t have been naturally selected and so from there it would be that the whole beaver can’t be either.
Modern evolution theory says discovery of genes/dna have some sort of random mutations and that they make mistakes of some sort and by chance come up with new species , and that Charles Darwin did not know about genes and DNA etc. All very bonkers. It would mean that all Charles had to go on in his time was conjecture and that he had hardly any evidence at all to talk about animals evolving using natural selection and was just hoping that fossils would be found to show animals evolving into other species to prove what he was thinking.
We are all sometimes obsessed with collecting , sorting and organising and managing something.. For example, give toddler children a few mixed up green and red balls and ask them put the green balls in one box and the red balls in another box. They love it . Charles was also loving sorting and organising those different finch birds with different beak shapes. But you only have to have a look at the birds in any garden to see different bird beaks on any different bird. You might then have a feel the shape of your own nose or teeth to know that like all the different bird beaks in the world they were not brought about using natural selection.
Similar to wondering how an animal moves. You wouldn’t conjecture how it moves. Like say asking how does a hedgehog move then coil up to stop another animal harming it and it happens to have a spikey body. No natural selection or random mutations are going on with that. Especially how it moves.
Back though on just thinking about a beavers teeth. Even first thoughts would still be how would natural selection be involved with putting iron in the enamel of a beavers teeth. Nothing explains it. Genes and dna might help explain why there are similar parts or structures or chemicals in animals but the link to say it shows evolution between species is very weak. It could simply be that toe or finger nails or hooves on feet are made using that type of gene or dna. It wouldn’t mean that an animal with similar dna to another animal evolved from one or the other. It would just mean they have the same type of dna that makes say the chemicals found in finger nails.
Just our thinking about how we might be thinking about this while reading words would make one wonder how we are thinking about it. What is that thinking thing that doesn’t seem to be physical like a whole animal or just those teeth. If we can think about it then why accept this thing called natural selection when the ability to think about it exists. Why wouldn’t it/whatever use the ability of being able to think to choose/make enamel to coat the teeth.
Like the ability to think or ponder about these things and to conjecture about things , we could invent the idea that since we have a consciousness or mind thing then there could be a superduper consciousness in us or any other animal or plant body that is doing the working out of choosing and making that enamel. After all , we can’t sit back and think that in all the universe our consciousness thinking thing is the cleverest.
Same with the easiness to conjecture about say animal flight. Why not conjecture that birds did not evolve in the way that evolution theory says it did by some animal at first climbing a tree and then gliding to the floor using aerodynamics and then evolving feathered wings. We could conjecture that they evolved from some light animal like a butterfly or insect that realized that the wind moved them in the air and then a flap of their wings moved them this way or that. Then over time they turn into a bird.
Or conjecture that inside of us is some sort of invisible spring like in a watch that gives us the life span we have. Easy and endless to do , like explaining away that life is wholly about DNA and genes and random mutations and natural selection.
Probably the greatest use of thought is the question of how would a whole body like a chicken or egg suddenly appear without evolving. Like all of us I’m at a loss on that one. But it’s worth a thought that any baby starts at a microscopic level. Since it can do that there would be no need for random mutations to make that happen. A snail start’s at the microscopic size then goes on to develop and look for another snail. Since the snail can do that it would mean that it wouldn’t rely on random mutations etc. A slug also doesn’t rely on anything apart from being a slug and looks for another slug once borne. And millions of other animals start in the same way. A foetus is microscopic and turns into a whole animal that fancies it’s own species. How. No idea. But since it does that , life would use whatever it uses to do that to come about in the first place, rather than rely on our invention ideas of natural selection and random mutation.
Why take this this natural selection idea to heart when any idea is easy to come up with. Maybe frustration in not knowing what anything is about. More later. I don’t mean that that idea was invented for a wrong reason. It was just Charles and a couple of others having a think about how these birds had different beaks. And now it’s stuck in science almost as fact.
Any Google read on what natural selection is , brings up gobbledegook. Try the London Natural History Museum explanation of it or any respected university or newspapers grasp of it. They have no idea about what they are talking about and have no evidence and so they give the reader a link to those that supposedly do. Try reading this link that on that page that sends the reader to understand that ‘new species can evolve within a lifetime’. Skim it first or you might get a headache like I did. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224
Totally not understandable to my reading abilities and wanting to know about natural selection. Then try to find any evidence on a following page from the museum that starts with a couple of one liners about DNA to explain ‘convergent evolution’. If anyone didn’t read the start twice the rest might just sink in as fact. For example it says that ‘Many creatures developed the ability to move through the air’ and that ‘they may have evolved this trait to better evade predators, possibly first hopping, jumping and gliding, then developing flight from there’. That is conjecture.
Then follows , crabs , dolphins , hedgehogs , bats, snakes using mutations , beneficial traits and ‘natural selection at work.’ And that eyes work like a camera. No evidence at all. uhttps://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/convergent-evolution.html . That’s why i say later that it is not fair on the scientists or teachers to have that on their shoulders to have to tell it to others. In fact though its a good one page article. Just the first picture comparing a bats wing to a birds wing is standout. The article points out that animals and plants that have similar features like wings are not as closely related to each other as we might assume. They have evolved or adapted these similar features on different continents using DNA mutations.
To me , if the animals with wings are not closely related by DNA then flying animals occur to fly. And birds beaks crack seeds. And males and females exist. And because it happens between continents then all of those above including penguins and camels might possibly pop up on other planets too. Since animals exist with the features and senses that we know about without links to each other then they pop up. No evolution. The senses of seeing and hearing and feeling occur. No amount of naturally selecting brings about the senses so no amount of selection brings about a whole animal or a tree.
All the other google websites are spectacularly less than convincing about evolution. No evidence. Nothing. No evidence at all. Just conjectures. No explanation of how natural selection chose enamel to coat teeth or toe nails to protect toes or eye lashes to stop dust and water getting into eyes. Nothing.
The only way to use the idea of natural selection would be to say that animals with the best teeth enamel and best toe nails and the best eye lashes were more likely to survive and have more babies. But since an animal or plant exists in the first place , however they came to be , they wouldn’t need to rely on something like the imaginary natural selection and random mutations.
Bird beak shapes do not exist because a whole host of shapes and sizes and compositions made of whatever atoms and molecules were tried out along the way to crack seeds and nuts and chew up a whole mouse or eat a worm. We would firstly have to explain how the atoms were assembled to form any one of the beaks.
Bird beak shapes do not exist because a whole host of shapes and sizes and compositions made of whatever atoms and molecules were tried out along the way to crack seeds and nuts and chew up a whole mouse or eat a worm. We would firstly have to explain how the atoms were assembled to form any one of the beaks.
Same again with hands. Never mind the assembly of the fingers on a hand with nails connected to an arm, and then a brain , you’d firstly have to explain how the atoms and molecules form the physicalness of them. After that it would surely be that the fingers on our hands are not configured using trial and error. Thumbs and the little fingers were not naturally selected. They both work together along with the middle fingers and the other fingers on the other hand. No millions of years comes up with that. So two hands with thumbs and fingers don’t exist because of random mutations even if they were once on a monkey or apes hand. They would use what the atoms and molecules and electrons use to get them to there present day state.
The word evolution suggests that a progression has occurred towards getting the whole hand with its fingers together into it’s today present form. It would also have to involve the brain or mind thing that would say have to wiggle the newley shaped fingers , and send blood and nerves to it.
Tracing the path backwards with fossils and DNA and continental drift is our attempt to prove evolution. But looking ahead , no amount of holding a pencil or typing on a computer or playing the piano is going to change the configuration of our hands. It could be that hands and wings and teeth and whole animals like a dinosaur and trees are an all or nothing thing. That is , there is no in between. To say we are out of our depth to understanding any of these things is very much an understatement. We should be very wary of conjecturing simply to give us ease and then tell others that this or that has brought about life.
If we carry on and think of any other body part or organ like the nose , then the nose is there doing what it does. The article on convergent evolution would mean that noses and particularly the ability to sense smell would mean that the possibility of noses existed before the physical noses and noses came about. That is that noses and the sense of smell on different animals are features that exist on animals in all countries in animals that are not related by dna.Therefore noses would not have to evolve. The possibility of smelling exists then noses occur. The sense of smelling requires a nose.
Then there are male and female parts and organs that work together to make a baby. Two distinctive body plans that would have to have evolved at the same time as each other. That seems like an impossibility. Each would have to know how the other was evolving , so if it is that millions of species evolve male and female body plans then for the time being is would go into the realm of planning or knowing or magic..
It is more than just difficult to explain those phenomena using natural selection and random mutations. Those noses and toe nails and fingers on two hands , and male and female organs and body parts and sensing could not rely on any of the conjectures that we have come up with. There is absolutely no evidence at all that those body parts or whole animals evolved or at least evolved using our conjectures.
A humming bird has a long beak to get to the nectar deep inside a flower. A pelicans beak whips out a fish in the sea like a cradle then digests it in its body. How. No idea. But something called natural selection doesn’t aid or in anyway bring about those beaks or the enamel that covers teeth or the toe nails or the eye lashes or the millions of other body parts and chemicals. And here are just a few body parts in just humans that work automatically while we are awake or are asleep. And they all work together.
evolution rethink 