Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanfeust
Well, it takes thousands of years to evolve in the meaning that it takes thousands of generations with variations of time to have evolution.
Also, the problem with oil is that no animal can survive this toxic waist, and you need surviving individuals to transmit it's 'properties' it's immunity to oil. Oil waists on shores is like no more than 50 years old, and no animals can survive it, so no evolution because no animals carries an immunity because oil is too toxic to oil till there are animals than can survive this and give it's genes to future generations.
|
This is one example of "fuzzy logic" that evolutionists use. Now, I understand how you people claim your theory works. I understand that a mutated otter would have to survive the oil spill, and he would therefore pass on his genes to other otters, creating an oilproof otter. It's what Darwinists call Natural Selection.
Now, like you said, no individual animals can survive that so no evolution can happen. Yet, the evolutionists ignore this altogether, for example, when trying to explain how fish became land-breathing animals. How could a fish survive being on land to pass on its genes? Even if you took a million, even a billion fish, then put them on land, not a single one would be able to survive that. How then, could fish ever evolve into land-breathing animals?
So, when it comes to filling in the gaps in the evolutionary theory, Darwinists will ignore this and claim that fish evolved lungs, but when there is evidence in front of them (oil slicks and otters), they clam up and say that no animal can survive it.
So, which is it?