|
Nice Kitty
Industry Role:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The good old USA!!!
Posts: 21,053
|
The Bat And The Mole
We would cite in this connection the instructive case of the bat, quoting from Prof. Th. Graebner: "The bat," says he, "is another highly specialized animal.
"In many respects it resembles the mole; but its hands are enormously expanded, and the exceedingly long fingers are connected by a soft membrane, making a most serviceable wing. Is it not extremely likely, assuming the development theory to be true, that the mole and the bat sprang from a common ancestor? And was not that ancestor probably a wingless mammal? How then came the bat to acquire his wings? Did he attempt to spring into the air to seize a passing insect, reaching out his fore-paws to catch it? And did those paws gradually become enlarged until, after some generations, they became real wings? If so, what happened in the meantime to those connecting links whose wings were but partly developed? A bat with wings only half grown would be a helpless creature, and would surely perish. There is no middle ground. If the ancestor of the bat was a terrestrial creature, with limbs fitted for walking, then it must have given birth to a full-fledged bat, fitted for flying. There could have been no middle stage; for such a creature would have been helpless and must have perished.
"All this applies with equal force to the diversified and often highly complex structure of plants. As the organs of the various plants are now constituted they serve most admirably their respective purposes. Given a slight change, an undevelopment, and the individual would perish. But such undeveloped stages must necessarily have occurred in the history of every life-form on earth, if a change through slow adaptations is to be accepted as an hypothesis to account for their present form. To our mind this matter of rudimentary structures presents an insuperable obstacle to acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis, even on scientific grounds."
We have thus far considered only the subject of wings, seeking to imagine how those wonderful organs, so vital to their possessors, could have been evolved. But manifestly whatever organ or member, external or internal, of whatever creature we might select, it would be equally impossible to trace any line of development for it, whether by Natural Selection or any other method of Evolution that has been proposed. It is obvious that humps, excrescences and other abnormalities, are blemishes; and the more they might be developed, short of acquiring a new function (as sight, hearing, flying) they would be a great disadvantage to their possessors. Such abnormalities, moreover, do not tend to reappear in offspring. On the contrary they tend to disappear. A whole race of men have practiced the rite of circumcision for nearly four thousand years, and at the same time have refrained from outside marriages; yet never was a child born already circumcised.
If, however, the perpetuation of such abnormalities were indeed the law of nature, then there would be no recognizable species.
All individuals would be undergoing changes, both internal and external. In such case we should see humps, protuberances and the like, on various parts of different creatures, in various stages of progress towards whatever chance, or "resident forces," might ultimately determine?legs, arms, wings, horns, tails, trunks, tusks, or some other and novel sort of organs or members, of the nature whereof we could form no idea in advance of their complete development. That is what we would see if Evolution were true. If then we see nothing of the sort, it is because Evolution is a delusion:
It is appropriate also to ask, when, under the supposed process of Evolution, would a developing organ or member reach completion? How would the "resident forces" know when to stop its progress? Could it ever be said, in any case, that an organ was finished? Would not progressive changes be always taking place in every part of every organism? Certainly, if the world of living creatures were indeed left to the blind control of unintelligent "resident forces," it would be a world of more vagaries, monstrosities and abnormalities, than was ever pictured by a delirious brain, or by the disordered imagination of an opium eater.
The Water Spider
Let us now consider the case of the water spider, and ask ourselves if there be any conceivable way in which its peculiar organs, instincts, and manner of life, could have been derived, by Evolution, from others of the spider family.
Like other spiders the water spider is an air-breathing animal, yet, unlike other spiders, it fives under water. How did it evolve the extraordinary changes in its organism, and in its habits of life, whereby it acquired first, its set purpose to live under water; and second, its special organs and instincts whereby it is enabled to give effect to that strange purpose, and to live, thrive, and rear its young in such an unnatural environment?
Of course, if the water spider was always a water spider, and was, by its Creator, endowed with just the organs and instincts that are suited to the manner of life appointed to it, the matter is very simple and intelligible. But we are inquiring how the water spider and its ways could have come about through Evolution. Surely those who press that theory upon their fellow-mortals, and who ask them to cast aside the belief in Creation and the Creator?with all that that involves? should at least be required to tell us how Evolution worked, or could have worked in such a case. Was ever such a thing heard of, as that we should be asked to believe, on the ground of "reason" and "Science," in a thing so preposterously unreasonable that the imagination can conceive of no possible way in which it could be accomplished?
Upon examining the water spider, and acquainting ourselves with its ways, we find that its body is covered with hairs in such a way that it does not become wet when in contact with water. In order to live under water, and rear its young there, it must construct a water-proof cell, capable of containing enough air for breathing purposes; it must have means for renewing the supply of air from time to time; and it must have the instincts to guide it in the performance of these necessary operations. And we may confidently add that the very first water spider must have been fully equipped for the purposes indicated. It spins under the water an egg-shaped envelope, open underneath for entrance and egress. This envelope, which is water-proof, is securely attached to some object so that it will remain submerged. Having constructed its house, the little creature next proceeds to fill it with air. For this necessary operation its hind legs are covered with hair and are so constructed that they can take hold of a large bubble of air, and carry it down into the water, and to the opening of its house.
There the air is released, and it rises to the top of the envelope, expelling the corresponding quantity of water. This operation is repeated until the cell is sufficiently filled with air. The eggs are then laid in the upper part of this house and are surrounded by a cocoon.
It is manifest that this extraordinary manner of life, and the highly specialized organs, which are vital to it, could not possibly be the outcome of a long and slow process of development. Before the life of a water spider could even begin, it must be equipped with, first, the means for secreting a water-proof material; second, means for spinning that material into a water-tight cell; third, protective hairs to keep it from becoming wet; fourth, the peculiar apparatus for filling its house with air; fifth, the several instincts which prompt the doing of these remarkable things.
That there is no trace of the evolution of the water spider (or of any other creature) is reason enough why the theory should be rejected. But we confidently submit that the facts briefly set forth above, and the conclusions which necessarily follow from them, constitute proof positive that Evolution is not only an impossibility, but an absurdity.
|