Can proponents of evolution-theory explain many forthcoming questions scientifically?
In biological mutations how did some species evolve with inter-dependency and some with in-dependency concerning nourishment of their offspring post-natal period?
How did their instincts even align to observe the change of offspring needing nourishment? In other words how capable are random genetic mutations aided by natural selection to induce responsibilities to wean & care toward offspring?
Given the benefit of mutations occurring over a millennia and the tinkering effect of natural selection towards development of organs for nourishment- How did the species nourish their offspring during the course of the millennia? If until then such offspring weren’t required to be nourished in the conventional way then “they are better fit to survive by their ability on the premises of natural selection of the fitter”– than the offspring dependant on parental nourishment who would then naturally get deselected to survive due to vulnerability.
Symbiosis as a trait can explain species interfacing with each other; but dedication and sacrifice to wean a next generation is evidence of a benevolent God more than that of natural selection toward kindness.
However, evidential existence of parental dependant species is non-conforming to the premise of survival of the fitter with the understanding of the theory of natural selection.
Jerry A. Coyne helps soar doubts on weather evolutionary biologists are sincere enough?
Coyne J.A is a professor in the department of Ecology and Evolution in the university of Chicago. In his 2009 release Why Evolution is True? he has knavishly hid mouse genome’s similarity with human genome. Although, he has managed to lay stupendous emphasis on chimps genome’s proximity to ours for the purposes of implying a pathway toward evolutionary outcome of the Human genome: from our supposed common ancestor from where the chimps branched out. But, he has conveniently ignored to mention even more closely trailing mice genome’s similarity to ours. The research conducted at Celera Genomics in Rockville, Maryland, published in 2002, well ahead of time misses a mention in Coyne’s more recent work in 2009. For research read here and here, suggests that mice’s working genome apparently trails 97.5% similar to human genome.
From an extensive research on chimps genome read here; conducted at the university of California, San Diego, La Jolla published in 2005. It is found that the mice genome is found to trail closer to human genome than chimp’s. As the saying goes mice makes a good model bio-medically than do primates thrusting research in that direction for testing human viability of medicine. Which is suggestive of human-chimp incompatibility at its best. Like usual, battling the insistent lies propagated by the evolutionary biologists this precious research isn’t making into populist works such as Coyne J.A’s. Why? must Coyne J.A in his work published in 2009 mislead us by insisting on the difference between chimps and us as merely as 1.2% whereas it is actually found to be demonstrated as high as 4% in 2005.
On geographical barriers
Can it be explained clear enough that geographical barriers are really possible? and is not a Science fiction! In case of two closely related species of fruit flies found worldwide: Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans, in explaining speciation can you clarify that geographic barrier was a reality between these 2 until their genomes became mutually-exclusive?
Given that LM3 specimens of Aboriginals in Australia are found over this geographical barrier timing their descendants today over a separation of (agreed upon) 40,000 years (dating techniques are bloody so inconsistent, LM3 is dated from anywhere between 20,000 up to 60,000 years by various techniques-highly controversial). Aboriginals thus, have successfully produced breading individuals with late comers to Australian lands suggesting the time of separation wasn’t good enough to become re-productively isolated.
Can one demonstrate Drosophila families realised at least 40,000 years of separation to go mutually-exclusive?
In why Evolution is true? Jerry A. Coyne. On pg.175 paragraph starting- Suppose, for example, that an ancestral species of flowering plant …
In his effort to explain, becoming re-productively isolated species, the author has stumbled upon a very nonsensical case. It was fairer on his part to admit that ancestral species of flowering plants instead of splitting into two portions would rather die and disappear from the region where only hummingbirds were habituated before any credibility to metamorphoses. And to populate in absence of the viable ways to pollination.
The most reasonable conclusion one could derive in a state of unbiased scientific senses is that “the flowering species would gradually become extinct instead of evolving to attract hummingbirds. Because, the flocks of hummingbirds do necessarily move out of the region to look out for flowers of their type and need not stick to the valley where those flowers are non-existent”. And vice-versa holds good for bees searching for their type of flowers. Under no circumstance will the hummingbird or the bee population survive in the valley anticipating flowering evolution!
Either of the agents would die due to others not aligning in symbiosis- Faster than they could keep the birds hungry in the same valley while they transformed gradually via other scanty means of pollination.
This is what I call the ignorance and prejudice of the evolutionists just like it is with many religious folks who do not verify their beliefs toward monotheism. The fashioner God, who necessitates variations among species and produces several species from humble beginnings out of water and earth as Quran time and again clarifies.
Of-course, over time and never instantaneously as it is alleged on to the creationists by the pseudo-science-r’s!
Which research is true?
In an article published on Dec 2015 read here– “A gene for new species is discovered”. The paragraph as follows: The resulting offspring included 300,000 hybrid females – which were sterile but alive – and only 32 living male hybrids, also sterile. Only six of the live male hybrids were alive due to a mutation that disabled the yet-unidentified hybrid inviability gene, so the other 26 weren’t analysed.
Per the above research and reporting only 32 living males were realised. But, according to a 2009 published work by Jerry A. Coyne, he has realised and researched hybrid “sterile” male flies- though, without any induced mutation of the parents.
Then, must I think he faulted in his work “Why evolution is true” and thus has mislead communities by bearing the prestigious doctoral credentials in the department of evolutionary biology?
In case if Jerry A. Coyne’s reporting is true then this research here is misleading and conclusions drawn in favour of the mutating gene thus are baseless.
Can evolution induce Cognitive-dissonance?
The over powering force within neurons to go submissively to God if countered with abject dissolution of it or with dislike towards God’s existence is solely responsible for cognitive dissonance concerning this situation.
Cognitive dissonance of this type can be resolved by:
- Renewing thoughts concerning God’s existence a fresh with sincerity and humility or
- By meeting certainty via death (before His Angels).
Otherwise, there is no other induced belief that is worthy of dismissing the consonant of belief in God. Not even evolution for 2 primary reasons:
- Even if evolution is true. It can be explained as God’s own ways of bringing about creation. In other words all scientific endeavours to explain phenomenon surrounding us can be and are mostly considered as valid within the religion of God as commissioned by Him.
- Many criticisms at it are apparently going unaddressed by its (evolutionist) claimers. As much as many discredited information being propagated favouring evolution. It is like the scandal of Piltdown man being repeated again.
Thus, the inference of its being potent to cause cognitive dissonance is unworthy a claim. How can part perceptions of the phenomenon concerning creation and false claims which can be dismissed straightaway by posing right questions can even come closer to triggering cognitive dissonance? Surely not in the minds of knowledgeable men who are clearly after scientific enquiry.
Evolutionary theory unfortunately has been wrongfully supported all this while by biased biologists with its many unknowns, far away from the inference to dismiss the Unseen God. If the so called volumes of proofs did truly convince its adherents then it must necessarily empower them to enumerate its validity by superior presentation of it- quelling any objections levelled at it in a scientific manner.
So, what ensues is- please try to answer my objections or consider cognitive dissonance.