Nothing about macro-evolution makes sense, except in a specious way. E.G., if you can find specimen which can show a lineage among big apes on all fours to humans, humans must have “evolved” from these other creatures. Right? WRONG!
Common sense tells us that the early birds would have encountered insurmountable problems before it developed wings, or the ability to build nests. And spiders would have had to coax their prey like a Democrat to get it close enough for blood sucking, if it couldn’t yet spin a web. Yeah, it’s silly. Bob
Evolution states that not only were there eggs long before the chicken but that the first chicken egg was laid by something other than a chicken.
The theory sounds so right and so sublime and explains everything about the origin of species but as far as empirical data is concerned,it is but another faith in “the best theory so far” that presumes objectivity and thus academic dominance through relying on the straw grasping “scientific consensus” rather than science itself--the same kind of "consensus" that reaffirmed the authenticity of Piltdown Man for several decades. (funny but the biological components of Piltdown Man,though fake,would be the logical results of the strict interpretation of natural selection--man being man because he has the brain and not having the brain because he is man). I think,as long as genetic research in support of Darwin is inhibited by the inviolable commandments of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics--DNA components being so small and thus subject to the random laws of sub-atomic physics--ID will always have a place until rationally displaced and replaced by concrete facts without Leftist secular politically motivated hatred of all things metaphysical and thus not under THEIR totalitarian control.