Conflating Life Cycles With Evolutionary Possibilities

There are two main reasons why many evolutionary claims are readily accepted as fact without sufficient supporting evidence. The first is that people are inculcated to believe what they are told by authority/media figures without question; without any critical thought–lest you be accused of being a “conspiracy theorist,” an “idiot,” a “rabble rouser,” “trouble maker, “denialist,” or “troll.” Yes those dreaded, scathing, oft-repeated labels that are used to induce conformity and discourage independent thought. The second reason is that, to the subconscious mind, claims that organisms evolved from unicellular to multicellular organisms and from sea dwelling animals to land dwelling animals are not only possible–they have been observed.

This is where the life cycles of sexually-reproducing multicellular eukaryotic organisms come into play–the best example being the life cycle of amphibians. In frogs, single reproductive cells (gametes) fuse together, develop into multicellular organisms (tadpoles) that can only survive in water, and finally become fully-formed frogs that are able to survive on land. This is an observable and undeniable fact. Using the sexual reproduction template, however, to claim that some prokaryotic (single-celled) organisms went through a sudden change from asexual reproduction to combining with each other to eventually become multicellular eukaryotic, sexually-reproducing organisms takes a huge leap of faith because it has never been observed. And there are no transitional fossils nor are there present observations of prokaryotes fusing with other prokaryotes to produce eukaryotes. And using the life cycle of amphibians (that are still heavily dependent upon a water source for skin respiration) as a template to claim that today’s terrestrial mammals all evolved from aquatic lifeforms¬† also requires a leap of faith that begs for evidence that is not there.

Unfortunately, these facts this matters little to evolutionists whose theoretical foundations are based on wild conjecture and subliminal associations; not on scientific reality.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s