Darwinists Flighty about Insect Wings

Stevia Dolce, the new baker at the Darwin Ranch, seemed angry with me after our discussion on trilobites. Surprise! She stopped by my spread with a blueberry pie. It was early, so I put on coffee and scrambled us some hen fruit for breakfast. Then we had a nice discussion.

Never judge intelligence by occupation, as Stevia the baker is a smart cookie. She was amazed at the irrational arguments that Joe Nexnelsrent used about DNA, and went on to tell me that he discussed an article on the evolution of insect wings. She said it was...truly bizarre. But very interesting.

Dragonfly, Pixabay / Roy Buri

Evolutionists have an a priori assumption that everything evolved, beginning with the Big Bang. Notice they do not question if something evolved in the first place, but only how it evolved. It must have, since things only appear designed. Because atheistic naturalism. As we have seen numerous times, their reasoning skills are often horribly lacking. The idea of neo-Darwinism requires numerous beneficial mutations, the false god of Natural Selection making choices (those that take it beyond a metaphor), a heap of time, and luck. None of that is really scientific at all. 

People skilled with a bit of science and critical thinking know that beneficial mutations are rare ("beneficial" is subjective), and there are no halfway changes. Organisms are irreducibly complex: Everything has to be in place at the same time or nothing works. The Master Engineer's work is constantly seen, but denied by these tinhorns.

Did insect wings evolve, or were they created? In today’s example of Darwinian futility, we shall see two groups of evolutionists getting nowhere in their attempt to find how insect wings emerged.

To understand the vanity of their exercise, grant for the sake of argument that insect wings did not evolve; they were designed for flight from the beginning. Call that Case #1. If that is true, any scientists trying to find how they evolved are guaranteed to get a wrong answer, no matter how detailed their efforts. More likely they will waver endlessly between opposing hypotheses, like teams on a snipe hunt arguing over strategies for finding the elusive birds. Continuing this thought experiment, it becomes clear that the teams will also be asking the wrong questions. They will be obsessed with where the snipe is, not whether it even exists in the woods behind the house where the tricksters are inside, laughing and enjoying hot cocoa beside the fireplace.

Note that while the snipe birds are real, the snipe hunt is a joke or fool's errand using a mythical creature of the same name. Anyway, you can read the rest of the article at "Insect Wings: How Darwinists Fly Off Course."