• 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)
    9 answers · 3 hours ago
  • Why is the theory of evolution so full of circular reasoning - "convergent evolution" for e.g.?

    Let's look at these statements from Wikipedia: "Convergent evolution is the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function but were not present in the last common ancestor of those... show more
    Let's look at these statements from Wikipedia: "Convergent evolution is the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function but were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups." To show the absurdity of these statements, consider the following example. Suppose someone says that a human can jump over the East River in New York City and that the effect of such a jump is called - "super jump". But, if this person continues by saying that "super jump" is one type of human jumping, that would obviously be false because no instance of knowledge gained through observation and experimentation shows that a human can perform the "super jump". The same is true in the evolution theory: the evolutionists are saying that "convergent evolution" is one type of evolution, but no instance of knowledge gained through observation and experimentation shows that evolution can produce "similar features in species of different lineages". But, by juxtaposing "convergent" and "evolution" evolutionists created the illusion that convergent evolution is a nice evolutionary creative mechanism, while in reality this is just one of many evolutionary assertions, completely unsupported by science - the same as assertion of "super jump". The theory of evolution is full of such circular and unscientific assertions. Why?
    10 answers · 22 hours 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 · 3 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.
    16 answers · 4 days ago
  • Which group produces pollen?

    A. ferns B. flowering plants C. mosses D. fungi
    A. ferns B. flowering plants C. mosses D. fungi
    5 answers · 9 hours 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...
    7 answers · 2 days 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 · 5 days ago
  • If I never wear a coat will I adapt to the cold and start the next human Evolution ?

    If I never wear a coat will I adapt to the cold and start the next human evolution
    If I never wear a coat will I adapt to the cold and start the next human evolution
    13 answers · 5 days ago
  • Why are individual species so few, and homogenous? Why no purple foxes?

    Foxes for example... This doesnt make any sense to me there are red foxes everywhere in the world.... Inbreeding causes diversity interbreeding promotes homogeny dont tell me red foxes in florida mate with foxes in canada? It doesnt make any sense there should be more diversity among groups.... I dont know what im... show more
    Foxes for example... This doesnt make any sense to me there are red foxes everywhere in the world.... Inbreeding causes diversity interbreeding promotes homogeny dont tell me red foxes in florida mate with foxes in canada? It doesnt make any sense there should be more diversity among groups.... I dont know what im trying to say but there are x number of foxes in the world and only a handful of types of foxes when there should be hundreds of different types right? I understand bad mutations cause extinctions and theres only so much space but youre telling me that mutations dont create separate groups of different looking foxes.... Maybe im not factoring for time or something but something is definintely strange about the animal kingdom. X fox is more likely to breed with an X fox than an X(mutated) fox but if x(m) breeds at alll then its offspring enter the populatiins gene pool at some point a mutant fox would produce a dominant gene ? Groups would diversify dijdjdjjsjsjjffjdjddkdk so confusing djdsjssjdjd
    5 answers · 2 days ago
  • How is a GMO made exactly?

    6 answers · 3 days ago
  • Do you think the world's first head transplant will be a success?

    In the news there talking about a surgeon who will perform the first head transplant in China this year, do you think it will work?
    In the news there talking about a surgeon who will perform the first head transplant in China this year, do you think it will work?
    4 answers · 23 hours ago
  • Does building muscle depend on blood type?

    Best answer: Absolutely nothing depends on blood type other than transfusion reactions, and very rare cases of fetal disease.

    Building muscle has nothing to do with blood type.
    Best answer: Absolutely nothing depends on blood type other than transfusion reactions, and very rare cases of fetal disease.

    Building muscle has nothing to do with blood type.
    10 answers · 5 days ago
  • I want to genetically engineer my nose shape so that my children will not have it?

    I heard India plans to genetically engineer its people to become smarted and taller. And I know they have discovered the 5 genes that determine the shape of your nose. I was wondering where in India or who can I contact? Roughly how much would it cost? How would it be done? Will changing my own genes change the... show more
    I heard India plans to genetically engineer its people to become smarted and taller. And I know they have discovered the 5 genes that determine the shape of your nose. I was wondering where in India or who can I contact? Roughly how much would it cost? How would it be done? Will changing my own genes change the genes of the eggs in my womb as well?
    5 answers · 2 days ago
  • What part of the immortal jelly fish's DNA could be inserted into human DNA?

    THIS QUESTION IS NOT TO BE ANSWERED BY THE PERSON WHO'S POSTING THE "THREE BIG EARTHQUAKES" RANT!
    THIS QUESTION IS NOT TO BE ANSWERED BY THE PERSON WHO'S POSTING THE "THREE BIG EARTHQUAKES" RANT!
    6 answers · 3 days ago
  • Why is there such a big difference in bra sizes in 12 year old girls?

    Best answer: Hormones stimulate the development of the mammary glands. It has been known that in some countries, hormones used in raising chickens have resulted in the early development of breasts in some children. That is one factor. Another factor is that people from different parts of the world may have delayed puberty,... show more
    Best answer: Hormones stimulate the development of the mammary glands. It has been known that in some countries, hormones used in raising chickens have resulted in the early development of breasts in some children. That is one factor. Another factor is that people from different parts of the world may have delayed puberty, meaning that they begin maturing later. That means their mammary glands may develop at an older age. Such delay is called neoteny, which is scientific term for retaining juvenile traits in the adult. Humans relied on neoteny to achieve a larger brain size than apes, since young apes have larger brain to body weight ratios than adult apes. Therefore people who have a delayed onset of puberty can actually grow a larger brain.

    A third factor is obesity. Women who are fatter will have larger cup sizes. For example, Russian and Scandinavian women average a D cup because they live in cold climates and they have evolved more subcutaneous fat to stay warm. Women from the tropics cannot afford to have too much subcutaneous fat because they will then be more susceptible to heat stroke. Women from African countries and Asian countries have an average cup size of B. Lastly, some teenage girls are actually getting implants. That is a disturbing trend.
    6 answers · 3 days ago
  • How can abiogenesis be falsified?

    If abiogenesis is real science then how may it be falsified in principle? It seems that scientists could look for plausible paths for abiogenesis from now until forever, come up empty handed, and continue to claim that any question of its legitimacy is nothing but an argument from incredulity. How convenient.... show more
    If abiogenesis is real science then how may it be falsified in principle? It seems that scientists could look for plausible paths for abiogenesis from now until forever, come up empty handed, and continue to claim that any question of its legitimacy is nothing but an argument from incredulity. How convenient. Abiogenesis 'research' has everything to win and nothing to lose. So how can abiogenesis be falsified? What prevents it from being a hypothesis that cannot die and with its immortality its eternal eligibility for research grants?
    6 answers · 4 days ago