The Theory of Evolution

A person is not just made up of a bundle of amino acids. We have an individual personality and consciousness which is sustained through 'billions of cells' all with differing variations of control systems which function together to sustain life. These cells then form something called a tissue. This tissue then forms an organ. This organ then forms something called an organ system. This organ system then makes up our human body.

Amino acids are just the building blocks of this intricate system of life. It is quite absurd to assume that these components on their own can completely evolve into a fully functioning human being without all the other necessary counterparts.

This notion would be similar to one discarding the remote to the television and asserting it’s only necessary to use the batteries to control the television because the remote will later evolve from the batteries.

We may have given all of the basic cells which make up the human body a certain (nonsensical) label but every cell is unique in that it has differing and specific functions in order to sustain life.

The first so called 'amino acid' was discovered in a vegetable-- asparagus. So then according to abiogenesis there is no point in procreation. If I want a baby all I have to do is buy some asparagus and it will later evolve into a human being.

There is quite a bit more involved in the making of a human being than what you might think-- they are equivocating sexual reproduction to equivocal generation-- which is considered asexual reproduction (mitosis) and thus does not result in the formation of sex cells (meiosis).

These four steps must occur in sexual reproduction (meiosis): (1) pairing of homologous chromosomes, (2) extensive recombination between homologs; (3) suppression of sister chromatid separation in the first meiotic division; and (4) avoiding chromosome replication during the second meiotic division.

These steps are necessary in meiosis but are not present in mitosis. The entire sequence is required for reliable production of a set of haploid chromosomes or a gamete (sperm or egg). Therefore reproduction resulting from mitosis simply could not have resulted in that of meiosis.

In other words, the parent is biologically necessary in creating the child. The fetus could NOT survive without the molecular biological processes within the mother which sustain the life within the child.

I think maybe iv fertilisation has confused people. We can take a woman’s egg (from the woman) and a man’s sperm (from the man) to then elicit the fertilization process which results in a zygote. BUT we must then insert the zygote into the woman’s uterus or the fetus cannot thrive.

A man's sperm and a woman's egg combine to create a fetus. And both are required. So, then, where did the first man and woman that created the first fetus come from?

Meiosis is required to form the sex cells necessary for the fertilization process which results in the zygote which then must be placed into the woman’s uterus so that the molecular biological processes within can allow the zygote to then develop into an embryo which will later develop into a fetus (there are many stages that must be completed 'within the fully developed living woman' before the infant can fully develop).

It is important to note that the infant was once a zygote

and the zygote could only develop as a result of the fertilization process between the egg and sperm

AND

the egg and sperm must first result from meiosis which occurs inside the "reproductive organs" of the male and female.

How, then, can this process result from a unicellular organism only capable of reproducing through mitosis when the organism lacks both reproductive organs and the aptitude for sexual reproduction?

Scientists claim that unicellular organisms can undergo a type of sexual reproduction or conjugation. However, they are only exchanging genetic material. They are 'obviously' not undergoing the same type of sexual reproduction we undergo because they lack the organs necessary to do so seeing as they are unicellular organisms.

As I mentioned previously…  the labels in science are nonsensical. According to science, plants undergo sexual reproduction... they have sperm... they go through meiosis and mitosis… but of course plants and animals do not undergo the exact same processes. We do not see plants courting each other and engaging in sexual intercourse..

They have made inappropriate analogies resulting in a lot of misinformed people.

Scientists have taken some similarities between certain molecular processes in plants, animals, and mammals and made them synonymous by name. When they’re clearly not. Not only because of variations in the processes but also because of species differentiation. Something evolutionists seem to forget for some reason.

Fish produce more fish… monkeys produce monkeys...

Species produce their own species thus the reason we do not see plants producing fish and monkeys having human babies.

It may be possible for offspring to develop outside the mother with certain animals but it is not possible with humans… and if we are or were all one in the same at one time then why are their so many vital differences within the functionality of varying species?

Evolutionists believe that we all evolved from unicellular organisms... or that prokaryotic cells gave rise to eukaryotic cells… but that doesn’t make any sense. First because there are vital differences in the cells. Eukaryotes have a nucleus (control center) which houses chromosomal DNA that contains the instructions for all the organisms biological activity. Prokaryotes lack this entity and the DNA within the cell is circular.

In addition, the entire concept is impossible because some of the first single celled organisms were bacteria and bacterial cells are considered pathogens. And pathogens are destructive to the cells that compose the human body therefore eukaryotic cells could not have evolved from prokaryotic cells because they are antagonistic. The cells that make up the immune system in the human body attack and destroy prokaryotic bacterial cells.

Also bacterial cellular entities lack a physical shell (an organ system) and humans don’t.

Scientists can be so simple minded... its like their just thinking 'well these entities appear to be somewhat similar on a cellular level but the one we labeled prokaryotic appears to have pre existed the other so then... well... uh... they must have evolved cause we don’t know how the hell else they could have got here..'

Are you making the connection?

Bacterial cells (pathogens/disease) lack a physical shell.. and they pre existed humans.

Demonic spirits lack a physical shell.. and they pre existed humans.

Plant and animal cells are both classified as eukaryotic...but there are a few major differences between these cells as well. Plant cells have a cell wall. Animal cells do not. The cell wall functions in maintaining the physical makeup of the plant. Plants have green stalks that ascend upward toward the sun... they also sometimes have multi colored petals (unlike humans) that are determined through genetic coding resulting in a phenotype derived from the “flower” that produced the other ''flower" because species inherit phenotypical traits from the genes of the parent-- which is of the same species.

Interbreeding between two similar species has been known to occur on very rare occasions (and not naturally) however the species must be (very) similar and this does not occur, for example, with warm blooded and cold blooded species.

Evolution doesn't disprove God. In any event, the theory of evolution is utterly false and implausible for more than one logical reason the most obvious that species are not currently evolving into other species but rather they are reproducing their 'own' species.

And, most importantly, the theory of evolution does not account for the creation of life..  just how it (supposedly) evolved.

Evolution does occur in a minutus form in that species naturally adapt to their environment but Darwin’s theory of evolution is just an absurd inflated version of such. They took the truth and blew it way out of proportion.

Darwin’s theory consists of:

Adaptation- Over the course of time traits of species are modified in ways that permit them to succeed in their environment.

This is true.

Speciation- Over the course of time, the number of species multiplies; that is, a single species can give rise to two or more descendant species. Darwin maintained that all species are related; that any two species on earth today have shared a common ancestor at some point in their history.

This is false.

Because it has not been witnessed or proven.

 http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-hopes-you-dont-know-chemistry-problem-co/

https://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence.