I’ve been taught darwinian evolution since i was 9yo (maybe younger) by a religious Catholic school (Xavier Grade school) in Phillipines and i never really cared to question it, after all, the priests told us not to take the bible literally. So i flipped through pages of our science book with images of dinosaurs supposedly going extinct 65 million years ago after being struck by a large comet. Then go to church after or before. I was a kid then and didnt question anything i was taught, but now that im a grown man, i have my own opinions.
Darwinian evolution= Our way of trying to understand the world around us. The method we use with evolution is the same method we use to understand everything, from crime scene to electronics. We begin by simplifying the complex first because we cant absorb so many information at once, therefore you take a step back and disassemble (the complex electronics for instance) the simpler parts and obseve it, then re-assemble them back to complexity to understand why and how that works. Without simplicity to complexity, there is no darwinian evolution.
After so much study regarding this topic, I still think evolution is possible, but I just don’t believe it anymore and I’ll explain why below.
So now they believe humans and monkeys are related, they both have a common ancestor... Then the monkey like humans came from a bear-like human(?), then that bear like human came from a bear, then the bear came from a dog, then the dog came from a fish, then the fish came from a reptile, then the reptile came from an insect, then the insect came from bacteria, then the bacteria came from amoeba, then the amoeba came from a plant, then the plant came from a mineral (may not be in order, you may believe the bacteria came later than amoeba or plant or switch them around, whoever you think is more ‘simple’).
This line of thinking was very effective in the 1800’s to early 1900’s before the invention of electron microscope... After all, if it looks small, then its simple. Small= simple. Big= complex. But Darwinian evolution should have died the moment we discovered electron microscope and saw the complexity of DNA. The ‘simplest’ life form they thought were ‘simple’ (such as bacteria or amoeba) are not simple.
DNA is so complex there’s literally miles of information that cannot be explained to occur naturally. Darwinian evolution “should have” died upon the discovery of DNA’s complexity because if there's no simplicity to complexity, there is no Darwinian evolution.The whole point of saying our ancestor was a caveman is to prove simplicity became complex...
But there’s no such thing as simple life (simple ‘DNA’).Protein, DNA/RNA, have to exist all at once. One can't survive without the other. So it all begins with complexity. Nothing starts with simplicity... Now the discovery of DNA’s complexity doesn't mean we didn't evolve from the apelike common ancestor, that's still possible, just not necessary...
And there’s a reason why Darwinian evolution continue to thrive, and I believe I know why... Because the mind is the creator of great imagination, and many of that imagination has come to life, so there’s always that hope. The mind will always function this way.This is the reason why legends continue, religion thrives, the movie x-men and Batman make profits, ‘Bigfoot’ is fascinating, the loch ness monster attract tourists. And apelike to man belief continues...
The discovery of complex DNA should have been enough to look elsewhere for an explanation instead of ‘simple to complex’ (this can continue in sci-fi movies along with x-men)there's no ‘missing link’ from minerals to DNA/RNA/Protein. Even if you believe RNA existed first (which is delusional), there’s still no missing link between minerals to any of the 3 complex matters that have to exist all at once.
Now we have 2 choices... Either one is ‘scientifically’ possible...1.) Believe all animal DNA species are created just the way they are without one becoming another.2.) Believe all animals transitioned into different species in millions of years repeatedly.If you believe in
#1, that the complexity of DNA was created the same way since day 1, your no less ‘scientific’ than if you believe in
#2 that DNA transitioned repeatedly...
Both can’t explain the origins of DNA.
If you believe in #2, then ask yourself where is the missing link to the first life? You have no answer. You're as willfully ignorant as the believer of #1 above.
Again, darwinian evolution is still possible, but I just don’t believe it anymore. And you know what else i think is possible besides darwinian evolution? Eternal life, Time travel, superhero like Batman and wolverine. Angels and demons.. etc. because the mind is our Creator.
If you ask what I currently believe, it’s in the middle between #1 & #2 above. Few thousand years ago DNA was made (word) then life evolved to where we are today but not enough time to turn into a reptile (again it’s still possible with enough time, but I recently discovered there’s more evidence Earth is young.. And that’s another topic on its own.)
the end.