Railroading .. page 2 of 3
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. The parrot also has organs and blood and feet or claws to stand up and wings to fly , and it fancies other parrots. Once the word ‘evolved’ seeps into our thinking , we loose sight. The parrot, whatever it is , would more likely be using the universally availability of beaks and organs to be. The parrot surely doesn’t mess about waiting for the best beak to eat using evolution. The construct of their beak or a brain surely just exists.
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.
Again though , when we say that an animal like the parrot has evolved, we sort of don’t remind ourselves in our thoughts, that evolution theory doesn’t have anything to do with the actual physicalities of the parts or the patterns on the fur and feathers of the parrot. Evolution theory would say only that parrots with best parts and patterns go on to have more babies . That’s all. That’s all that natural selection could do. Natural selection could only act on the parrot that already exists. The physical parrot doesn’t exist because of evolution.
Problem is , the word evolved , does carry in our thoughts the idea that evolution does have something to do with the parrots actual existence and it’s physicalities and fur patterns. Could be just me of course, but I don’t think so.
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. The human gums have teeth that include incisors that chew food and canines that tear apart food and those big molars at the back of the mouth that crush the food. Quite how we think that evolution has anything to do with that , can only be that someone has told us that teeth and there arrangements evolved. You’d think that evolution would be testing different teeth setups all the time. But teeth in all humans are just about similar in numbers , and are stuck in gums in mouths with the ability to get that food food nicely chewed up to go wherever it goes in the body.
The problem though is with thinking. Teeth surely don’t rely on random mutations or natural selection to exist. So the idea that they evolved is a very misleading idea. That misleading idea of evolution , like in the case of teeth, must also be applied to any one chemical or fluid in a body like blood. Almost at once we know that blood did not evolve.
Just on teeth for the moment though. 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 would have to have naturally selected gums to hold them in place. That solidity would surely not rely on naturally selection How did they get such strength and fit in the curvature of a mouth. No idea.
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. We couldn’t do that. 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 Darwin 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 Darwin was also loving sorting and organising those different finch birds with different beak shapes to prove evolution. But you only have to have a look at the birds in any garden to see different bird beaks on any different bird. Of course though those finch beaks were/are different in shape to munch different foods, but there is no evidence that they were naturally selected. The shapes and structure of those beaks remains in realms unfathomable to us. You’d have to think that the beaks started of as bit of a beak but then rely on a try this or that shape to adapt to the environment. 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.
Our thinking can only deal with thinking about physical possibilities of change and conjecturing about them and we feel comfortable with being able to do that. But when we try to conjecture about how yesterday is now gone or how tomorrow will likely happen we are unable to conjecture anything about it at all.
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.
evolution rethink 