I HAVE A
SILLY  
QUESTION

CONCERNING
EVOLUTION . . .

. . . IF A BIRD EVOLVED FROM A REPTILE BECAUSE IT COULD SURVIVE
    BETTER THAN A REPTILE, THEN WHY ARE REPTILES STILL AROUND?

Actually, this question is not as silly as it sounds when one considers how Darwinian
evolution is supposed to work.   So let's examine it in greater detail, beginning with a little
bit of background information.

   When questioning how the animal kingdom arrived at such a large variety of species,
there are two possible answers: 1) The large variety we see appeared all at once, or 2) It
slowly grew as one species evolved into another.   For a long time, the first possibility was,
half-reluctantly, accepted since science couldn't offer a reasonable explanation as to how
evolution could take place.   That is, until Charles Darwin came along.   He suggested that
natural selection was the driving force that made evolution possible.

Here is what he proposed:

   Let's say reptiles are going about their business of surviving.   They have to eat to survive
and that means tracking down insects.   Now, suppose that, due to a change in the environ-
ment, crawling insects become scarce and flying ones become the norm.   The reptiles would
have a tougher time getting a meal since they can't fly.   But suppose one reptile happens to
be born with a genetic abnormality that gives it the ability to jump higher.

   That reptile would have a better chance of catching insects than his non-jumping friends.
Therefore, he's more likely to live longer, reproduce, and thus pass his genetic advantage
over to his descendants.   Pretty soon his kind dominates the population since the non-
jumping reptiles can't compete and eventually drop off the scene.   (In essence, nature has
selected that jumping reptile as being more fit to survive and that's how we get the terms:
natural selection and survival of the fittest.)

   Now, let's further suppose that one day, one of those "jumping descendants" happens to
produce another genetic advantage that builds upon the first one and enables the reptile
to stay up longer when it jumps.   Thus, this new reptile survives even better, reproduces, and
passes that advantage on to its descendants.   Once again, its kind goes on to dominate the
population until a further genetic advantage (one that builds upon the first two) shows up.

Supposedly, this process of natural selection, propagating these genetic advantages as they
come along, goes on and on, from generation to generation, until the reptile has evolved
the ability to actually fly after the insects.   And therefore in the end,

what started out as a reptile, has become a bird!

Sounds a little farfetched?   In a book entitled: Biology of Animals by Hickman, Roberts, and
Hickman, Page 77 reiterates, in general terms, what you have just read [emphasis is mine]:

"Out of the struggle for existence there results the survival of the fittest.   Under natural
selection, individuals bearing favorable variations survive and have a chance to breed
and transmit their characteristics to their offspring.   The less fit DIE WITHOUT
REPRODUCING.   Natural selection is simply the differential survival or reproduction
of favored variants.   The process continues with succeeding generations so that organisms
gradually become better adapted to their environment.   Should the environment change,
there must also be a change in those characters which have survival value, or THE
SPECIES IS ELIMINATED.   REPRODUCTION is what really
counts in natural selection . . . According to Darwin, when different parts of an
animal or plant population are confronted with slightly different environments,
each diverges from the other.   In time they differ enough from each other to form
SEPARATE SPECIES."

Now, having learned how evolution works and how it results in a reptile turning into a bird,
let's go back to our original question:

If a bird evolved from a reptile because it could survive better than
a reptile, then why are reptiles still around?

   The textbook we quoted from states that "The less fit DIE WITHOUT REPRODUCING" so a
reptile, being less fit than the bird, should have died off and therefore, quote: "THE SPECIES
[reptile] IS ELIMINATED."
  Yet the reptile survives to this day.   In fact, in many places birds
and reptiles co-exist together!   Furthermore, what happened to all those transitional species
in between?

   For example, paleontologists claim to have a fossil of one such transitional.   It's called
Archaoteryx, and it's supposed to be half reptilian-dinosaur and half bird.   Why don't we find
it running/flying around today?   Is it because Archaoteryx could not survive since it wasn't a
full bird?   Then why did the reptile survive when it wasn't a full bird either?

   This mysterious scenario seems to be a common occurrence in the evolutionary process.
Many times species A "evolves" into transitional species B while on the way to becoming
separate species C.   Yet, B which is better fit to survive than A, dies off while A still survives!
But if A could have survived all along, what was A's incentive in evolving toward species C in
the first place?

In fact, isn't the concurrent existence of any ancestral form
with its evolved form a contradiction of survival of the fittest?

   As we examine the biological world, we find many more scenarios that go contrary to what
Darwinian evolution predicts should have taken place.

For example:

Why should any organism evolve to the point where it needs two sexual partners in
order to reproduce?   Wouldn't the required interaction of two individual organisms decrease
the chance of survival?   For example, what if one of the genders were to die off first?

And speaking of reproduction, why do animals reproduce in the first place when it
results in more animals competing for survival?   Wouldn't survival of the fittest tend to
result in totally selfish animals?   Yet, there are various examples of animals willing to die
for their young.

Supposedly, animal behavior evolved because natural selection isolates and passes on
any superior behavioral techniques stumbled upon by an animal?   Yet, according to the
textbook's quote, "REPRODUCTION is what really counts in natural selection," and learned
behavior is not genetically reproducible.

How does survival of the fittest result in the peacock evolving beautiful feathers to
attract a mate, when the same feathers make him a bigger target for his predators to see?

How can environmental stress be dynamic enough to result in the large animal diversity
we find around us and yet, at the same time, be static and fixed enough to patiently allow
one species to gradually change into another?

We've just scratched the surface, the list goes on and on.   However there is one answer
that ties up all these questions very nicely and it doesn't come from evolutionary science.
Instead:

It comes from the Bible . . .

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters
brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind:
and God saw that it was good."
  Gen. 1:21

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and
creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.   And God made the
beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that
creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
  Gen. 1:24-25

You see, the Bible teaches that all species were created at the same time and each one
reproduces only AFTER THEIR KIND.   One doesn't evolve into another.   Doesn't this simple
explanation coincide better with what we find around us?

Unlike evolution, the Bible's explanation
does not contradict real life!

IF you were to die today, are you 100% SURE
you would go to Heaven?
  The Bible says
YOU CAN BE SURE (1 John 5:13).

BUT FIRST, you must realize that what keeps
you from going to Heaven are your sins, because:
"...your iniquities [sins] have separated
between you and your God,"
Isa. 59:2.
In fact, in God's eyes YOU ARE A SINNER: "For
all have sinned, and come short
of the glory of God;"
Rom. 3:23.
And Jesus, referring to sinners, said that He:
"shall send forth his angels, and they shall
gather out of his kingdom all things that offend,
and them which do iniquity
[sinners];
And shall cast them into
a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing
and gnashing of teeth."
  Mat. 13:41-42

SECONDLY, you must realize that there is
NOTHING you can do to save yourself and earn
Heaven: "For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the
gift of God: Not of works, lest any man
should boast."
  Eph. 2:8-9   Baptism, good deeds,
church membership, self-righteousness are all
examples of good works that cannot save you,
because: "Not by works of
righteousness
which we have done, but
according to his mercy he
[Christ] saved
us
,"
Titus 3:5.

THE ONLY WAY you can get saved
is through Jesus Christ.   He said: "I am the
way
, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh
unto the Father, but by me."

(John 14:6)   THAT'S WHY: "...while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us."

(Rom. 5:8-9)   THEREFORE: You must REPENT
(change your mind); admit that you are a Hell
deserving sinner and can't save yourself.   And
call upon Christ, and Him alone, to save you.
"if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus
[REPENT], and shalt believe in thine
heart
[TRUST] that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
  Rom. 10:9

SEND THE LIGHT
P.O. Box 815
Fargo, ND 58107

[Christian Helps Ministry (USA)] [Christian Home Bible Course]