Replies

balrog66 and shubi

I will use just one example of a symbiotic relationship and there are thousands of these in nature, sometimes involving 3 species. Now a basic understanding of a symbiotic relationship between species is in order.

We are not talking about complimentary life, but about two species that are so interdependent that one dies without the other. Here is the example:

Yucca Moth and the Yucca Plant.

The moth is the only insect that has the body shape that can access the Yucca flower, and thus pollinate this plant. The moth can only feed on the nectar of this plant. It deposits its eggs on the plant and its larvae can only eat the flesh of the Yucca plant. Now the shape of the Yucca flower is such that only the specific shape of the Yucca moth enables it to access that flower. Much like a key and lock system.

The problem is that this is not a single species, but two, and they are not even in the same kingdom. I have never heard an explanation about how such a relationship can arise in nature without the concept of teleology.

What could possibly be the mechanism whereby the plant and moth colluded together over time to anticipate the eventual complete interdependence? What drove the design? And it IS a designed system. The odds of such a thing arising by chance must be greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe! And this repeated thousands of times in nature.

And this is just one objection to TOE. Evolutionists want to focus on singular processes, on this chemical reaction, or this process (like alleles). The history of this theory is exactly this fad driven focus on the latest and greatest scientific discovery of some physical, or biological process.

They have a viewpoint about life and nature like worms. The only see what is immediately before them. Yet they ought to have an eagle's viewpoint. The first and great scientists like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton (Who are the founders of modern science) were men of great vision, they contemplated great themes and gazed into the heavens. They were not afraid of God or thoughts of God. They did not hamstring their intellect, like evolutionists, who seem to have a germ-washing fetish to even express the idea of the Divine.

Even if they solve all the physical riddles of life (fat chance!). They must then move on to explain all the interlocking systems in nature. The preprogrammed complex behaviors of most species. How do you explain hive behavior? How do you explain the instinct of spiders? The engineering knowledge built into those tiny brains to construct webs? The Angler fish in Mangrove swamps which can shoot a stream of water from under the water and knock an insect off a branch so they can feed.

If instinct is preprogrammed behavior far beyond the capability of these tiny brains? Who was the programmer? Why is He not mentioned? How did the Angler fish figure out the air/water interface and the bending of light so that the insect does not appear under water in its actual location? These problems multiply over and over again. Evolutionists simply ignore all these other aspects while they pretend to know how species came about through physical processes, and they focus ONLY on these physical processes.

Like reading one page of a book in the middle of the book, then proclaiming to all, they know what the book is about. Very arrogant IMO. They remind me of the scientific viewpoint just before Einstein and Max Planck...where scientist's, unaware of quantum mechanics and the subatomic world were convinced science had it just about figured. At that time the man in charge of the U.S. Patent office quit, saying, "Everything worthwhile, all the great inventions have already been invented."