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

    Current theory of evolution, which is fundamentally a historical narrative that attempts to reconstruct unseen past events, is full of narratives that ascribe foresight to evolution. For example. Given the observation that many species have eyes and that there is a real selective advantage to sight(being able to... show more
    Current theory of evolution, which is fundamentally a historical narrative that attempts to reconstruct unseen past events, is full of narratives that ascribe foresight to evolution. For example. Given the observation that many species have eyes and that there is a real selective advantage to sight(being able to see both predators and prey), an average evolutionist would simply conclude - "Thus, many species developed eyes through evolution". But obviously, eyes are beneficial only when they exist and thus, they cannot be the reason to develop eyes. We as humans are able to develop for e.g. firearms, because we know in advance that firearms are beneficial to us in dangerous situations and environments. But nobody in their right mind would claim that because firearms are beneficial, particles will rearrange themselves to form firearms and then, we will just select them. Well, this is exactly what evolutionists presuppose in their explanations - "eyes are beneficial, therefore DNA particles will rearrange themselves to code for eyes". And according to evolution theory, this has happened 100 times independently in evolutionary history. (Wiki: "Complex, image-forming eyes have evolved independently some 50 to 100 times".) So now, the mutations are not random and evolution is not blind, but mutations are specific and evolution has foresight by ordering the mutations for the future benefit. The reality is of course that...(continued)
    14 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 · 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 · 16 hours ago
  • Do jellyfish eat meat?

    7 answers · 12 hours 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 · 1 day ago
  • Do you own a microscope?

    5 answers · 3 hours ago
  • Which group produces pollen?

    Best answer: B
    Best answer: B
    7 answers · 2 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 · 4 days ago
  • Why do people say women create life when it's the men who have "seed" and children come from their father's seed?

    Women are just gestation vesseles.
    Women are just gestation vesseles.
    19 answers · 5 days ago
  • How could evolution produce new structures if all the evolutionary variations in life's history might be insufficient to leave...?

    ...the structural landscape of the existing ones? Evolution theory is based on the fundamental premise that genes which code for new structures that provide new biological functions, arise through duplication and modification of pre-existing genes. But, given the high level of mutational neutrality, where a... show more
    ...the structural landscape of the existing ones? Evolution theory is based on the fundamental premise that genes which code for new structures that provide new biological functions, arise through duplication and modification of pre-existing genes. But, given the high level of mutational neutrality, where a mutation changes the nucleotide sequences of a gene without altering the structure it codes for, even if all the mutations in the history of life(10^43) are spent this might be insufficient to alter the underlying structure which provides some biological function. For example, lets look at this paper: Functional Proteins from a random sequence library(1), which comes up with an estimate of 10^91 different structures having ATP binding function. Such an enormous structural landscape clearly shows that even with all evolutionary mutations spent, the evolutionary process is stuck and it cannot proceed towards new structures, let alone specific or adaptive structures which are beneficial in the environment where the population currently exists. If we add to that a mutation rate of about 10^-8 mutations/bp/generation, where a 100,000 mutations must be spent just to produce one mutation in a specific 1000 bp DNA region(where some new gene 'evolves'), one obvious question emerges: how could evolution produce new structures like organs and organ systems? (1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication...
    8 answers · 3 days ago
  • In general, which carbohydrate is the best for the human body ?

    1. Rice 2. Bread 3. Noodle 4. Potato 5. Others
    1. Rice 2. Bread 3. Noodle 4. Potato 5. Others
    4 answers · 16 hours ago
  • Can Homosexuality Be Common?

    Best answer: The genetic implications of homosexuality are not well understood by the scientific community; however, just as any other trait may be hereditary, e.g., hair color, athleticism, intelligence, etc., it may be possible for homosexuality to be hereditary to a degree. Fun fact, 10% of all sheep are homosexual or... show more
    Best answer: The genetic implications of homosexuality are not well understood by the scientific community; however, just as any other trait may be hereditary, e.g., hair color, athleticism, intelligence, etc., it may be possible for homosexuality to be hereditary to a degree. Fun fact, 10% of all sheep are homosexual or bisexual; but again, we don't know where it stems from.
    15 answers · 6 days ago
  • Is their a specific gene combination in female humans....?

    Best answer: of course. Everyone has tens of thousands of genes though. Some influence boobsize, some influence bodywidth, most do other things
    Best answer: of course. Everyone has tens of thousands of genes though. Some influence boobsize, some influence bodywidth, most do other things
    4 answers · 23 hours ago
  • Can blue eyes skip two generations (POINTS)?

    1. This occurred in my family, so I am trying to better understand it / how since I have only ever heard of it skipping one generation. 2. Skipped two generations on one side of family (from great grandparent) and Skipped one generation on the other side (from grandparent). Info / explanation please.... show more
    1. This occurred in my family, so I am trying to better understand it / how since I have only ever heard of it skipping one generation. 2. Skipped two generations on one side of family (from great grandparent) and Skipped one generation on the other side (from grandparent). Info / explanation please. Thank you. POINTS for BEST ANSWER!
    4 answers · 1 day ago
  • How likely was it for me to have blue eyes?

    All great grandparents = brown eyes, except great grandfather on dad's side. All grandparents = brown eyes, except grandfather on mom's side. My Parents = Both brown-eyed Me = Blue Eyes I want to know the PERCENTAGE. Thank you!
    All great grandparents = brown eyes, except great grandfather on dad's side. All grandparents = brown eyes, except grandfather on mom's side. My Parents = Both brown-eyed Me = Blue Eyes I want to know the PERCENTAGE. Thank you!
    4 answers · 1 day ago