The man who believed we were mutant monkeys because some birds had different sized beaks has been PROVEN wrong in his original observations.
Darwin observed 13 kinds of finches and thought they must have all evolved from earlier birds into different species. He extrapolated from that that they had evolved from other creatures into birds. They are still classified today as different species in order to pretend that macro-evolution (speciation) occurred. But it has been proven that the finches are NOT different species, by definition of the word.
This information is present in Jonathan Weiner’s “Beak of the Finch” and “Ecology and Evolution of Darwin’s Finches” by Peter and Rosemary Grant.
Weiner’s book, p. 134, states that the Grants have chosen to study the six species that comprise the ground finches (fortis, scandens, fuliginosa, magnirosris, conirostris, and difficilis). ALL six of the species studied by the Grants were seen to be able to successfully interbreed and to produce fertile offspring.
That means not only are they still birds, and still finches, they are not even different species at all!
Variation within a kind happens, controlled by the genetics. Birds can have different beaks, be different colors, and have different features, but they are still birds and still finches, not turtles or chipmunks.
To leap from that to say variation can occur and change one kind to another is akin to saying that a newborn who grows five feet its first twenty years will be over ten feet tall by the time he’s forty.
Few people realize the racist undertones of Darwinism. The earliest, and therefore least evolved, humans, supposedly appeared in Africa and then the middle east. Europe and the “new world” would represent the most evolved humans. That explains why people such as Hitler and Marx were avid evolutionists.
This is further evidenced by the full title of Darwin’s book which is “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.
Darwin himself expressed concerns about his theory in his book. He said, “To suppose the eye with all its inimitable contrivances … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” He also admitted, “Geology assuredly does not reveal (intermediate links), and this perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
Charles Darwin had an incredible impact on the world. But what good is it doing him now? Currently his lifeless, decaying body lies in the ground under this cold, hard slab of stone. His soul however, is burning in unquenchable flames in hell. The grave awaits every one of us.
