Scientists say there
are 15 million insect species, 2 million marine species, more millions of bird and animal species.
Yet, only one- humans - developed language. If evolution is true - that
species evolve continually higher and better - why haven't other species developed language?
If evolution - and its survival of the fittest is true
- why didn't the faastest runner, highest flyer, fastest fish, or the specie that produces the most offspring, or the
specie that is the largest and strongest, evolve to dominate and wipe out their competitors?
Please ponder those questions a minute.
Comments on question 2.
The fact the fastest, the biggest, the most prolific, etc. don't dominate is actually
a strong argument for an intelligent designer. Isn't what we see operating all around us a surprisingly efficient
system of checks and balances?
Millions of competing species living
together without a few becoming dominant, isn't that a marvel of itself? It cannot be by accident. Isn't that outcome
the exact opposite of evolution dogma?
The article about
"ants" details the enormous advantages ants had over other species, yet in 10 million years (according to
evolution) they failed to 1) dominate, and 2) evolve any higher or better than when they began.
Even harder to explain, ants did have the advantage of language-type communications. The problem is ant language
failed to evolve any further. See the article for full details of how evolution is proven wrong by the lowly