Evolution, as we all know, is a conspiracy theory created by the Marxist Darwin gang. But few people know how to fight it other than asking questions such as:
How did life come from non-life?
Perhaps the better question is, how did nature evolve only a single, simple, insect to have a system we would call gears? Why don't primates? Why don't humans? Aren't we the "most evolved"?
Of course not. We were fearfully and wonderfully made by the God of the universe. And God seems to enjoy leaving Easter eggs in the fabric of reality.
Not only do we have geared insects, we have Trump-hair moths and octopi, blue lobsters, and bacteria that can break down plastic, even though they were not designed to.
Everything has a purpose. Perhaps this is further proof that we are here, not to engage in dubious conversation, but to wake up the sleeping masses from their dreams and awaken them to a brighter future.
As the writer of Ecclesiastes said, for everything there is a purpose, a time appointed under heaven. Isn't that coming into harmony with things today? Everything is falling into place for a wild Awakening!
I dont believe in evolution. I want you to make better arguments.
Good, me either!
Well feel free to reply to what I said, you didn't really counter any of it.
You need to study evolution more, and not argue against the strawman non-evolutionists have set up.
Complexity is not a counterargument to evolution.
Go look up intermediary fossils on your own. It doesn't matter what you or I think they are, what matters is that you understand the theory you are arguing against.
It doesn't need to be an advantage, it just needs to be a non-fatal mutation.
I already have, thanks.
Of course it does. Thinking otherwise would just be an appeal to authority.
Yes, I agree!
The theory of evolution is what I stated in my first comment. Beneficial genetic mutations over time. Survival of the fittest. A "non-fatal mutation" is a disadvantage. An inefficiency bodily process, a waste of calories that sort of thing. The original entity without the mutation would be at an advantage because it didnt waste energy.
It doesn't matter what you've already done, you need to do more because you dont understand.
'Survival of the fittest' is an inaccurate simplification of evolution. "Extinction of the weakest" would be more correct. You don't fail to pass your gene's along because you're not the best, you only fail if youre the worst and die before reproduction.
If only the strongest survived there would be no room for evolution and adaptation, and all genetics among a species would be homogenous. This is not the case.
You're setting a strawman and arguing against it, not against evolution as it is taught by evolutionists.