Talked to a guy in the train today who roundly slammed all kinds of “conspiracy theories” from Flat Earth over Hollow Earth to Creationism etc. Claimed that creationists don’t understand what Darwin wrote. Well Darwin’s books are online, I skimmed them for the juicy bits (he had some pointed opinions about the Irish), and got the gist of his writing.
Well so I pointed out to the guy that Darwin spoke only about Selection, and had obviously no idea about mutations as he didn’t even ever know about genes. And selection does happen, we see that every time a species goes extinct, that’s evidence right there, and cannot be doubted.
Just look at the tattooed, pierced, pink-haired SJW’s. They go extinct because they live in homosexual relations; they select themselves out of the gene pool. Unviable mutants. No doubt about that, not the slightest.
But, I asked my conversation partner, can you name me but one positive mutation, a lifeform that develops a new subsystem. Sure, he said, and he brought an example I hadn’t yet heard of.
A locust that lost its wings, enabling it to… well, not fly.
Imagine my disappointment at the realization that I found yet another evolutionist who proposes the LOSS of an ability as a positive mutation. Or, information loss as a positive.
Well. We SHOULD see ongoing development of NEW subsystems ALL THE TIME – given the millions of species and trillions of specimen around us. Evolution should now work faster than ever as there are more lifeforms than ever.
Yet a fanatic evolutionist can not name ONE observed example? Imagine how the MSM would scream the discovery of the first positive mutation observed in our lifetime from the rooftops. And all that they have is the LOSS of an ability.
In this case, absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence by the sheer improbability of absence of positive mutations in the face of trillions of trials a day.
The multitude of different lifeforms around today can EASILY be explained by selective DEVOLUTION instead; where each species is the result of a combination of genetic losses: Subtractive speciation instead of additive speciation.
And as long as no positive mutations get reported, I hold the loss of features to be the only driving force of further sub-speciation. Wake me up when a positive mutation is found. By that I mean a species that has a new, previously absent subsystem. Like that X-Men guy who shoots Lasers out of his eyes. Or a human with wings. The X-Men had one of those too.