Excitement is running through the evolutionary scientist community. A fossilised set of remains of a '110 million year old duck' has been discovered. (Daily Mail - 17/6/06) Miraculously, this had 'webbed feet' which is extremely significant, apparently. Guess what. It looks just like the ducks we have today AND, remarkably, it spent most of its time on water. Like, wow!
Well, if it walks like a modern duck, swims like a modern duck and probably quacked like a modern duck - what conclusions do we reach?
Firstly, if ducks have not evolved in a 110 million years, is it because they simply lack ambition?
Secondly, if they have been static for 110 million years, how much time do evolutionists really require? Remember, even very minor change require aeons of time and the numbers of changes from one creature into another are not measured in thousands but probably hundreds of thousands or more.
Thirdly, let us not forget that these changes allegedly arrive via beneficial mutations. Problem. Virtually all mutations are negative - and just about all claims for positive mutations - of which there are but few - are challenged.
Fourthly, if there are so many mutations taking place - and even evolutionists admit that the vast majority are damaging - and if a creature has to undergo perhaps millions of mutations, the majority of which do harm to it, what bits of this totally wrecked varmint will there be left for the occasional beneficial mutation to be able to work positively on?
Fifthly, does the maths make sense here? Let us assume (generously) that one mutation per million is beneficial. Multiply the time taken by the numbers of changes required to turn a passing reptile into a bird - or duck - multiplied by all the creatures across all the species which would have had to have evolved - each with many thousands of changes. Well. Does it make sense or are the numbers here absurd beyond astronomical?
Finally. Consider how many changes do YOU think it might take for a single celled organism to evolve into a duck. You could not possibly conclude that is mere thousands - be honest!
* When you have no unopposed transitional forms; when any of our modern creatures is found fossilised the differences are less than those between a poodle and a labrador; and when dating methods are totally and utterly unreliable, this is all just one more piece of unscientific rubbish thrust in people's faces as 'proof' of evolution!
Links:
1) http://www.creationresearch.org/
2) http://www.answersingenesis.org/
***** Recommended. Links:-
1) Atomic dating article.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/decay_rate.asp
2) Article by Dr Jonathan Sarfati on the myth of 'beneficial mutations'.
