If anyone thinks that I need to go to any websites to explain the absurdaties of evolution, you would be wrong. I received this information from visions which I experienced. Would trying to explain all the oddities of nature convince you of anything. Adaptation is a wonderful thing. That is what Darwin discovered. Complete functional animals adapting and changing to suit a new environment. He could not explain the beginning of life. You all have to guess at that, and make a religion all of your own to support it.
Lets get a little logic going to see why all of this creation by evolution stuff can go nowhere. Let's start with the amoeba, a simple single cell organism that still exists in its original form since it was disccovered. In order for the upward mobilization of a creature to occur, this creature would have had to develope a fully fuctional second set of reproductive systems(all at once) in order to begin a process which it doesn't really need in the first place. In this system there has to be a fully developed set of DNA sequences with which to copy this new experimental part. So for a type of creature to evolve into something new, it has to reproduce something in it's entirety in order to propogate its new parts. Those supporting structures that I mentioned earlier have to be in place to provide the needed services that that new reproductive system needs in order to function. There will need to be a new circulatory and nerve system etc. You are trying to suppose that billions of cells that will be required to make this new device to work are all in harmony to make something that up to this point have had no useful purpose at all. I can carry the stupidity of that as far as you like. And this would not be an exceptional starting point for animals, it would have to be the standard for every living creature that exists.
In grammar school I saw diagrams of fish walking out of the sea with the new legs that just appeared. I thought that it would have been funny to see that walking fish head over to some dirt, plant itself, and adapt into a tree. What a stretch of the imagination that would take to swallow.
As far as answering the question about the need for nipples on a man, I would venture a guess that it is probably economy of design. It's much easier to make a generic template of an animal without sexual parts and then later in it's growth in the womb to designate its sex. We see plenty of examples in nature where animals can have the potential for both sexes within it. Males become females if there is no opposite sex around to propogate the species. Whether or not that men have nipples does not in any way diminish the monumental odds against accidental organization.
Observing the natural selection of animals does not affect the ideas that I am proposing at all. I think that it is a very clever way to distribute animals into a new environment and give them the ability to adjust to their new surroundings. Just don't assume that since animals get MODIFIED body parts to suit their environment in any way suggests that untested experimental parts occured this way.
Lets get a little logic going to see why all of this creation by evolution stuff can go nowhere. Let's start with the amoeba, a simple single cell organism that still exists in its original form since it was disccovered. In order for the upward mobilization of a creature to occur, this creature would have had to develope a fully fuctional second set of reproductive systems(all at once) in order to begin a process which it doesn't really need in the first place. In this system there has to be a fully developed set of DNA sequences with which to copy this new experimental part. So for a type of creature to evolve into something new, it has to reproduce something in it's entirety in order to propogate its new parts. Those supporting structures that I mentioned earlier have to be in place to provide the needed services that that new reproductive system needs in order to function. There will need to be a new circulatory and nerve system etc. You are trying to suppose that billions of cells that will be required to make this new device to work are all in harmony to make something that up to this point have had no useful purpose at all. I can carry the stupidity of that as far as you like. And this would not be an exceptional starting point for animals, it would have to be the standard for every living creature that exists.
In grammar school I saw diagrams of fish walking out of the sea with the new legs that just appeared. I thought that it would have been funny to see that walking fish head over to some dirt, plant itself, and adapt into a tree. What a stretch of the imagination that would take to swallow.
As far as answering the question about the need for nipples on a man, I would venture a guess that it is probably economy of design. It's much easier to make a generic template of an animal without sexual parts and then later in it's growth in the womb to designate its sex. We see plenty of examples in nature where animals can have the potential for both sexes within it. Males become females if there is no opposite sex around to propogate the species. Whether or not that men have nipples does not in any way diminish the monumental odds against accidental organization.
Observing the natural selection of animals does not affect the ideas that I am proposing at all. I think that it is a very clever way to distribute animals into a new environment and give them the ability to adjust to their new surroundings. Just don't assume that since animals get MODIFIED body parts to suit their environment in any way suggests that untested experimental parts occured this way.
