Anyways, theyve never found a creature to form something that has not already been coded on its DNA. Nothing has sprouted wings, legs, or anything else if it wasnt already information contained on the DNA. Why would we make the assumption that this wouldve happened if its never been observed and the fossil record does not prove it?
People like to use the example of the eyeless fish in caves and the wingless beetles Darwin had observed while writing Origin of the Species. Please take note that no new structures were formed. Only a loss of information here. People also like to conclude with Darwin's finches that he was famous for, that this was Evolution. Not at all. Just survival of the fittest at its best through genetic variation. These finches didnt gain any information on their genes that they hadnt previously had, but just varried in beak size, and then the unfavorable beak type was soon lost after the different beak became more favorable to the environment.
The Cambrian Explosion was still an explosion of life. Evolution should not have taken place that fast. When the flood waters settled, these microscopic algaes and such found in the PreCambiran layer were just the things to settle first. Doesnt contradict Genesis whatsoever, its still in favor of a Great Flood.
They actually found a well preserved Crustacean fossil from the early Cambrian, which is a huge setback on Evolution.
Now the hunt for life in the PreCambrian begins to explain that.
Please explain to me HOW the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics arent relevant to Evolution. Becaues its not a closed system? Even so, the only energy put into this "unclosed system" is sun in the form of UV Rays and meteorites that have never been found to carry the essential materials needed for producing life. And even if a meteorite did carry the materials needed, they would still have to arrange in the sequences needed for DNA, which has never been found to happen.
Dont shoot yourself in the head.
