• Did you know that according to the current theory, evolution has foresight?

    Best answer: Your Q was moved out of Religion & Spirituality by some unknown person, to this Biology category, so the claim here by one person that we have "another covert creationist in our midst" is unwarranted. My answer is to show the way old evolutionary theories have developed, so that you might better... show more
    Best answer: Your Q was moved out of Religion & Spirituality by some unknown person, to this Biology category, so the claim here by one person that we have "another covert creationist in our midst" is unwarranted. My answer is to show the way old evolutionary theories have developed, so that you might better understand such concepts as "foresight" when applied to ideas about DNA coding itself for improvements.

    After Charles Darwin's second book on evolution (1871), much thought was applied to his theory, that nature itself determined the development and progress of all living things. This implied that any man-centred or God-centred view of the world was mere wishful thinking. For example, Charles Kingsley described the impact of Darwin's theory like this:
    "Men find that now they have got rid of an interfering God - a master-magician as I call it - they have to choose between the absolute empire of accident, and a living, immanent, ever-working God." In the 19th century, the whole fabric of Christianity was called into question, with science, philosophy and history used in an attempt to show that the Christian faith no longer had a leg to stand on. However, the Scottish Free-Church man, Henry Drummond, pointed out a problem with the idea of the survival of the fittest. Even in the animal world, he said, survival is not simply a matter of stealth and strength. Care and compassion pay an important part. So Darwin's theory has been modified because of that truth.

    That's by way of a general introduction. Now, what is a scientific definition of Darwinism? I take the following from 'Life' book - Nature Library - Evolution. The full title of Darwin's first book states his own definition; "On The Origin Of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." His second book was, "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex". Darwin believed that "A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase." And also that a creature's desirability as a mate played an important part in promoting desirable, or beneficial traits. Darwin accepted an accurate and convenient term proposed by Herbert Spencer; "survival of the fittest". He had shown that all life is one, because all life has arisen from one unremembered beginning.

    But Darwin did not know about DNA and the role of genes, so evolutionary theory today has... evolved accordingly! "In 1856 Austrian monk Gregor Johann Mendel launched the first of a series of experiments that were to demonstrate that inheritance, like evolution, is not a chaos or chance, or miracle, but a matter of law. Darwin never heard of Mendel's work, and the monk's reports lay ignored by the scientific world for decades." Others contributed to the development of evolutionary theory. Hugo de Vries (d. 1935) developed the first mutation theory through extensive studies of the evening primrose. He thought he had formed new species through mutations. (He had actually identified segregated characters, not mutations but his work provided a platform on which to build.) De Vries discovered the import of Mendel's work and, in a paper read before the German Botanical Society in 1900, he gave Mendel full credit for one of the most momentous discoveries in scientific history.

    Now, I relate all of that to show why Darwinian evolution is not the same as evolutionary theory today. A lot that Darwin proposed is now known to be wrong, and later discoveries have caused evolutionary theory to develop, so most writings on the subject deal with the up-to-date understanding, though tribute is always paid to Darwin's original proposals

    DNA is now understood to be part of a massively complex chemical interaction within cells that requires information to be de-coded by brainless cells, in order for them to replicate successfully. The question is where do we apply the word 'foresight'? To brainless cells, or to the creator of DNA? That is the question! Try asking again, once more in the R&S section, and if you get such questions removed, email me so that I might (hopefully) assist your enquiry.
    14 answers · 3 days ago
  • Why so many people fail to understand that biology has absolutely nothing to do with evolution?

    Biology is the natural science that builds and organizes knowledge gained through observation and experimentation about life and living organisms, including their physical and chemical structure, function and development. Evolution on the other hand is the belief of naturalistic philosophy according to which new... show more
    Biology is the natural science that builds and organizes knowledge gained through observation and experimentation about life and living organisms, including their physical and chemical structure, function and development. Evolution on the other hand is the belief of naturalistic philosophy according to which new functional genes for structures and processes of living organisms can result from errors during DNA replication that are then selected in a specific environment. All the knowledge in biology gained through observation and experimentation completely refutes this belief. For example, according to the most generous interpretations of the fossil record, the longest possible time frame for the theorized evolution of a land dwelling animal into a whale is 9 million years. Now just imagine how many new genes is needed in order to transform a four legged terrestrial mammal the size of a wolf or sheep,into a fully aquatic mammal like a whale. The scale of these adaptations would have to be massive: a remodel of the skull and muscles to move the nostrils to the top of the head, the conversion of front legs into flippers, a reconstruction of the skeleton including a ball joint that allow the tail to move up and down, reorganization of kidney tissues to accommodate the intake of salt water, lungs dramatically enlarged and renovated to withstand the intense pressure of deep dives, the inclusion of a blubber layer for insulation in cold water, reproductive...(continued)
    10 answers · 1 day ago
  • What are the odds of life emerging by random chance?

    Can it be quantified mathematically?
    Can it be quantified mathematically?
    9 answers · 1 day ago
  • Why is the theory of evolution so full of circular reasoning - "convergent evolution" for e.g.?

    Best answer: The real problem with explanations given by evolutionists to account for why some species have one feature while a similar one does not, is that none of their reasons can be proven to be either true or false. In scientific terms, this is the issue of 'falsification'. Evolutionists would have us believe... show more
    Best answer: The real problem with explanations given by evolutionists to account for why some species have one feature while a similar one does not, is that none of their reasons can be proven to be either true or false. In scientific terms, this is the issue of 'falsification'.

    Evolutionists would have us believe that some creatures had eyes but due to being prone to infection, the eye was covered by an overgrowth of skin that prevented such infection, decreased mortality and so imparted a selective advantage. One experiment took blind fish from two different locations, interbred them, and some of the fry possessed partial sight. The explanation was given that the two blind fish populations had lost their sight by different genetic mutations and that in some offspring genetic losses in one population were compensated by genes persisting in the other (and vice versa).

    That is the Darwinian explanation. But there’s something fishy about it because such explanations can account for opposite effects with equal facility, maintaining that the same selective pressure (a dark cave, or infections) causes sight to be lost in one species but enhanced in another (as it is with a four-eyed fish with a system of mirrors to protect itself from being eaten in the dark depths of the sea – the brownsnout spookfish.)

    Really, is there ANY feature of ANY creature that could not be explained by one evolutionary scenario or another? Claims are made that elephants developed elongated trunks to reach food that would otherwise be inaccessible. But so does the long neck of the giraffe. Why don’t giraffes have trunks instead of long necks? The problem is that evolution can always contrive an explanation to such questions and therefore can never be falsified. Yet the capacity for falsification is essential for any truly scientific theory. But Darwinism dictates that evolution is the only way that any living organism can acquire any characteristic! Well, note what this Biologist said about that:

    “Our theory of evolution has become... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science’ but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it [i.e. falsify it]. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.”

    The reasoning in evolutionary thinking is circular, insofar as it is not open to 'falsification'. For as long as any evolutionary idea cannot be proven to be wrong, or replicated in a couple of scientific experiments and thus evidence given that it is right, evolutionists will angrily denounce you and all other critics as ignoramuses. Let them.
    11 answers · 4 days ago
  • Why when someone shows evidence to support the claim that evolution can't produce something, evolutionists respond by saying...?

    ...that evolution is a fact? Whenever I present an argument that evolution cannot produce sexual reproduction or RNA splicing process, people who believe in evolution would often respond in the following way: "evolution is a fact - therefore you are wrong". But obviously, with my argument i didn't... show more
    ...that evolution is a fact? Whenever I present an argument that evolution cannot produce sexual reproduction or RNA splicing process, people who believe in evolution would often respond in the following way: "evolution is a fact - therefore you are wrong". But obviously, with my argument i didn't deny the existence of evolution. Evolution is indeed a fact. Mutations happen, selection and drift happen and thus evolution is inevitable. But from the premise that evolution is a fact, it does not follow that evolution can produce everything what we observe in biology. Likewise, it is a fact that humans can jump, but from that it does not follow that they can jump from Earth to the moon.
    9 answers · 2 days ago
  • Does evolution suggest that humans evolved from a rock & cows were once bananas?

    Best answer: In a very broad sense of speaking - yes.

    If you classify Carbonaceous Chondrites as "rock" and early algae as "bananas".

    http://gph.is/19Wo8pO
    Best answer: In a very broad sense of speaking - yes.

    If you classify Carbonaceous Chondrites as "rock" and early algae as "bananas".

    http://gph.is/19Wo8pO
    10 answers · 3 days ago
  • Why do people deny obvious proofs against evolution, like those of the unevolvability of RNA splicing process?

    RNA splicing process is the ability of the eukaryotic cell to recognize, capture, cut, rearrange, join and release specific parts of the premRNA molecule. If we assume an incomplete state of this process sometime in the evolutionary past, for example, the existence of subprocesses with the ability to recognize... show more
    RNA splicing process is the ability of the eukaryotic cell to recognize, capture, cut, rearrange, join and release specific parts of the premRNA molecule. If we assume an incomplete state of this process sometime in the evolutionary past, for example, the existence of subprocesses with the ability to recognize intron-exon boundaries and cut the introns out, this partial splicing function won't cause premRNA to magically transform itself into a mature mRNA. In this state, the protein-coding capacity of genes is destroyed, genes cannot be passed on to succeeding generations and we have evolutionary 'dead-end'. Hence, it is physically impossible to increases the complexity of the process by adding the components one step at a time and the only solution is random emergence of this 200 component process, which is mathematically impossible. People who believe in evolution would completely deny such simple logical and scientific proof against it, and simply invoke some imaginary special forces by which this complex biological proces "appeared," "emerged," or "burst onto the scene".
    7 answers · 2 days ago
  • Do jellyfish eat meat?

    8 answers · 2 days ago
  • If blood was a different color, like green or purple, would it still be scary?

    Best answer: There is nothing scary about red coloration. The number one selling lipstick color is red. We humans think that a woman wearing a red dress makes her more attractive. Our lips, nipples and pubic areas have more red pigment (phaeomelanin) and they are pinkish red because red color is attractive to the opposite sex.... show more
    Best answer: There is nothing scary about red coloration. The number one selling lipstick color is red. We humans think that a woman wearing a red dress makes her more attractive. Our lips, nipples and pubic areas have more red pigment (phaeomelanin) and they are pinkish red because red color is attractive to the opposite sex. If we are scared by red, we would not kiss someone on the lip. If we are scared by red, we would be petrified if someone blushes and his/her face turns red. We would be scared by red cheeks. People who claim that red color is scary don't know what they are talking about. They have no data to support the nonsensical claim that red is scary. They think that just because humans notice red color more readily than any other colors, we are scared by it.
    7 answers · 2 days ago
  • Do you own a microscope?

    6 answers · 2 days ago
  • On what rational basis can someone believe in abiogenesis?

    Let's think about this: you have to build a robot. Robot requirements: - The robot supposed to be totally stand-alone - it has to make its OWN ENERGY ( e.g. by food metabolism ) - it has to MOVE on its own - it has to solve more or less complicated tasks and GET ADVANCED IN TIME by solving more difficult... show more
    Let's think about this: you have to build a robot. Robot requirements: - The robot supposed to be totally stand-alone - it has to make its OWN ENERGY ( e.g. by food metabolism ) - it has to MOVE on its own - it has to solve more or less complicated tasks and GET ADVANCED IN TIME by solving more difficult tasks - it has TO COMMUNICATE with other robots, - it has to REPLICATE itself How the best engineers in the World would do that? Todays engineers take the following approach: they use metal parts, stepper motors, cables, printed circuits, CPUs, cameras, batteries (which need to be recharged), operating software is needed (which needs to be coded by very smart IT guys) etc. All these parts is very sophisticated technology developed by very very intelligent people, they don't appear randomly. And still, their metal robots are far far away from even the simplest (bio robots). And their metal robots CAN'T REPLICATE itself. Not to mention, the engineers are 'intelligent entities'. So now I should believe, that to create all this, a long time ago molecules got together spontaneously in the ocean next to hot vents? or on a surface of some mineral? How can a rational person believe something like that? 
    8 answers · 3 days ago
  • Which group produces pollen?

    Best answer: B
    Best answer: B
    7 answers · 4 days ago
  • Why so many people fail to understand that naturalism is not science?

    Naturalism is the belief that every phenomena that exists in nature is the product of natural processes. Science on the other hand is the knowledge about these phenomena and processes gained through observation and experimentation. The beauty of science is that we can test whether naturalism is a valid belief.... show more
    Naturalism is the belief that every phenomena that exists in nature is the product of natural processes. Science on the other hand is the knowledge about these phenomena and processes gained through observation and experimentation. The beauty of science is that we can test whether naturalism is a valid belief. The first instance of testing is biology, where we compare scientific knowledge about the phenomena called living organisms with the naturalistic belief that they originated from the original very simple life form through the natural processes of mutations, selection and genetic drift. Scientific knowledge contradicts this naturalistic belief since selection and drift are merely mechanisms for increasing or decreasing the frequency of preexisting genes in the gene pools of the populations and as such they are unable to explain the origin of these genes. Natural process of mutations is also unable to explain the origin of genes since the total numbers of mutations in the history of life - 10^43 is 767 orders of magnitude insufficient to explore the sequence space of only one average eukaryotic gene (10^810). IOW, due to the enormous lack of mutational resources it is impossible for adaptive/functional/selectable gens to enter the gene pool of a population. The second instance of testing is physics and chemistry where we compare scientific knowledge about the behavior of natural processes with the naturalistic belief that these processes ... (continued)
    6 answers · 6 days ago
  • Why test for dna?

    4 answers · 1 day ago