Evolution is Unsound

To your arguments in round 2. Regarding the mousetrap that didn't catch on. You say the mousetrap has been shown to be false as proving irreducibly complexity. My sources say, "Do the McDonald mousetraps look persuasive to some people? Certainly one reason is the way they are drawn. Drawings of four of the five traps are dominated by the image of the large rectangular platform and prominent spring in the center. That makes them all look pretty much the same. The staples are barely visible and the various metal bars protruding here and there seem like insignificant details. In fact, they are critical. Another reason is that the scenario starts with the completed mousetrap. Any question about the placement of the parts, their size, stiffness, and so on doesn't easily arise because the parts were already placed where they needed to be for the ultimate goal in the original drawing (that is, the fifth mousetrap here, which is the first drawing in McDonalds series) and their properties could be inferred from the fact we started with a working trap. http://www.trueorigin.org... http://www.lehigh.edu... So basically you can not go from a simple spring to a many piece mousetrap. The diagrams are false because they didn't show the staples very well which are crucial to disproving evolution. Cilia, and flagellum http://www.arn.org... as the site shows a complex system that if one part is removed the cilia doesn't work. You claim that it must have evolved by natural selection. the theory that claims only the most fit survive to pass on genes. However that would require a high population. Because if we go back back back to a time where Darwin claims there was a common ancestor, living in a warm little pond. First of all how did it get there? Second how did it evolve reproducing structures to pass on offspring? Animals don't need to have reproducing structures in order to survive so why did they evolve them? Thirdly if there was only one common ancestor or even one hundred how is natural selection to work? All of them would die because they are all unfit. Why did evolution create boy and girl animals? Anyways I know you cant answer so I'll stop with the questions. The eye. "In order for evolution to be proven, there must be a pattern in how the eye in simple animals like fish developed into the eye of more complex creatures like mammals. However no trends appear when one studies eye shape, eyelids, pupils, the lens, or even rod and cone cells. For example, evolutionists consider the shark to be the primitive ancestors of bony fish. Yet a study of the pupils in sharks" eyes show that they have the ability to contract their pupils to protect their eyes when bright light is encountered. But bony fish, which are considered more advanced in the evolutionary line, do not have contracting pupils. Their pupil sizes are fixed Both sharks and bony fish live in the same environment, so why is it that bony fish do not have the more advanced contracting pupils that their "ancestors" the sharks have? And how is that bony fish were stuck with fixed pupils when their "descendants" the amphibians and land vertebrates managed to end up with contracting pupils? And why is there a variation in the types of pupils within the same families of animals? There are lizards and snakes with vertical pupils and lizards and snakes with round pupils. Chameleons have eyes that rotate in any direction independently of each other with circular pupils while vertical pupils are in the eyes of crocodile. And if macroevolution claims that animals develop specific body parts like pupils to survive in specific environments, why is there so much diversity in the types of pupils within the same environment? Shouldn"t there be fewer types if useless traits are supposed to be lost during the macroevolutionary process? In fact, the diversity shows that Darwinists" idea of natural selection isn"t valid since the pupils these animals have aren"t necessary for their survival."https://sunandshield.wordpress.com... The fact you didn't go on to much about the bombardier beetle is no surprise to me. Mostly because scientists are stumped on how such a creature evolved. "QUESTIONS/PROBLEMS about the evolution of the defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle According to evolutionary "thinking/doctrine", the defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle has been evolved through small steps - adding one feature at a time Furthermore, the new feature(s) provide the beetle an added ADVANTAGE for SURVIVAL !!! Step 1: beetle learned to produce Hydrogen PeroxideQuestion: what's would the beetle use Hydrogen Peroxide for ???? Bleech its wings ???? Net result: Zilt... Beetle is no more "better off" Step 2: beetle learned to produce Hydroquinone Problem: if Hydroquinone gets in contact with Hydrogen Peroxide, we have dead beetles everywhere - suicidal beetles... Solution: beetle stored chemicals separately. Net result: Still zilt... Beetle is no more "better off" Step 3: beetle learned to produce inhibitor for Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide Observation: there is NO NEED to inhibit these chemicals if they are stored seperately.... (and if they are not, we will have dead beetles everywhere)... Dilemma: How did the inhibitor evolve ??? if Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide were stored separately, there was absolutely NO NEED to "evolve" the inhibitor if Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide were stored together, they would react immediately and it's TOO LATE to "evolve" the inhibitor (because the beetle is dead) To proceed further, we must make an illogical assumption that somehow random processes of nature is smart enough (gosh, what am I saying.... INTELLEGENT RANDOM PROCESSES....) "has the foresight" to evolve BOTH Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide AND the inhibitor This will enable the beetle to store BOTH Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide in one chamber. Net result: Zilt... Oh MAN.... the stupid Beetle is STILL no more "better off" !!! The chemicals can be stored together, but they DO NOT react.... The beetle is not a single step further... Step 4: beetle learned to produce Peroxidase Peroxidase will convert Peroxide to Oxigen with will react with Hydroquinone Net result: SUICIDAL beetles !!!... because the resulting chemical will poison the beetle.... Suppose - just suppose - some beetle survive the poisoning.... Step 5: beetle learned to produce Catalase Net result: EXPLODING beetles !!!..... because the oxygen and hydroquinone will react SO FAST that the beetle's abdomen explodes.... Why ???? - Because there is NO DELIVERY SYSTEM !!! Ah yes. the beetle still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes and a precision communications and timing network (nervous system) to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the explosion. So, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to pieces until finally they mastered their new found powers." http://www.ichthus.info... The site explains the problems with evolution. The giraffe,http://defendingcontending.com... "The giraffe"s heart generates enormous pressure in order to pump blood all the way up its long neck to its brain. If it did not have its complex blood pressure regulating system, when a giraffe bent over, it would suffer serious brain damage. If it managed to bend over without dying, it wouldn"t be able raise its head again. Its brain would suffer from a sudden lack of oxygen, and it would pass out. Here"s a four minute video with more info on that: Furthermore, after a century of intense fossil exploration, no intermediate forms are on display in any museum in the world. The billions of giraffazelles have kept their remains well hidden. There is no intermediate form linking the giraffe to any other creature." Blood clotting you say evolved step by step. Quite impossible is what I have been trying to say. An animal that is missing even one of the sixteen steps to a functional clot will not survive. If it does not survive it cannot contribute its genes to the gene pool to be selected from, no matter how much they are needed. http://www.doesgodexist.org... Next we go on to your arguments. 1. speciation is macro evolution. I disagree that either of these happened. 2. Macro evolution has been documented and observed in the apple maggot fly and the three spine stickleback. I had some help on this question from Jerry947. . Speciation "is the creation of new species by genetic modifications of previously existing species, so the resulting organisms can no longer successfully mate and produce fertile offspring" (Moulton). A species must meet this criteria in order to say that speciation has occured.. Although the benthic and limnetic forms in the wild are reproductively isolated, the fish can still mate with each other. therefore they do not meet the criteria. As for the speciation in the maggot fly, I think it is best to quote something from the source you gave. It states that "three recent articles by Feder and collaborators show that the history of these host races is more complicated than was previously realized." In other words, the situation is complicated and as of right now, nothing has been proven as s a fact. Evolutionists automatically assume their assumptions are correct, but there are other explanations." 3. Human chromosome 2 is two ape chromosones. A recent evaluation is on the site following http://creation.com... basically tells us that data is wrong. Saying, "The putative fusion site is "highly degenerate" and a vague shadow of what should be present given the model proposed." I have stated throughout the lack of fossil evidence there is and the sites that say so. In conclusion. My name is Brian N. Johnson and I have stated why evolution is unsound. Look for me ion more evolution debates sure to come. That"s all for now!