Why evolutionists insist that evolution is an established fact heat of the sun?!
Believes
today nearly 85% of Europeans and 65% of Americans theory of evolution, while
denying some scholars and clerics validity of this theory Boattabaraha put
theory contrary to the story of creation in religious books, and this is what
sparked controversy violent about the Origin of Species to the world of English
Charles Darwin in 1859 ,
and arrived theoretical dispute over to the judiciary in 1925, and since then
the conflict continues between supporters and opponents of the theory of
evolution.
"Evolution as established fact that the heat of the sun is an established fact," this is confirmed by English Professor Richard Dawkins, a scientist prominent supporter of the development at the age of seventy years.
And can certainly scientific proof testing and direct observation that the sun generates heat, but you can use the test of scientific and direct observation of proof that evolution and constant reality there is no room to doubt it?!
Before answering this question, it is necessary to clarify is important, he noted many scientists that over time may appear slight changes in the offspring descending from living organisms, a process he called Charles Darwin "turned offspring after birth", has been Note these changes direct observation and documented scientific tests, and the Molde plant and animal exploit brilliantly in their field, so these could be considered minor changes in the box so-called "evolution flour," and this label itself carry an implicit reference to the confirmed many scientists: that these minor changes are proof to process another very different one can not be observed, they call it the name "Galilee development."
The truth is that Darwin gone too far in interpreting these observed changes, it was stated in his famous book The Origin of Species in English: "I see that all beings are not creatures came into existence all alone own, but are breeds descended directly from a small number of objects," said Darwin that this "small number of objects" or so-called life forms simple evolution slowly over long periods of time by "shifts very simple", thus leading to millions of different forms of life on earth, and knows evolutionists that these minor changes accumulated and resulted in changes Great that turned the fish into amphibians and monkeys to humans!
And for many, this claim second logically, According to their opinion, including that minor changes can occur within the same species, why cause evolution major changes over long periods of time?!
Galilee teaching of evolution is based on three key assumptions:
1 - form the basis for mutations emergence of new species.
2 - natural selection leads to the emergence of new species.
3 - confirms the fossil record of Galilee development in girls and animals.
Does the evidence of very compelling Galilee development so that it can be considered a reality?!
There are many details in plants and animals determined by the information in the blades genetic, any plans to build an organism that contain them the nucleus of every cell, researchers have discovered that mutations of any random changes in the genetic code that can produce changes in the strains of plants and animals, so in 1946 he claimed American doctor Herman Muller Nobel laureate and founder of genetics Mutagenic: "The accumulation of many changes are rare, and often small, not only the main vehicle enters humans through which improvements to the animals and plants, but more importantly the way it happened evolution, under the guidance of natural selection. "
If, that the idea of evolution Galilee based on the allegation that the mutations do not produce new types only, but also new species of plants and animals, Is there any way to confirm this claim assertive?!
In the late thirties of the twentieth century, adopted scientists enthusiastically notion that if possible for natural selection to produce new types of plants by random mutations, can succeed more human in the production of new plant if selected mutations himself, has "swept the joy and enthusiasm among biologists Generally, geneticists and specialists in generating plants, especially. "
He also said Wolf - Eckhart to Onag a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Research on generating plants in Germany and conducted over 28 years ago research in the field of genetics mutation in plants: "thought they report that the time has come to revolutionize the traditional ways of breeding plants and animals, it has They thought that the development and selection of useful mutations which can produce better plants and animals. "
As a result, scientists launched in the United States, Asia and Europe funded research programs with huge capital, means users thought it would speed up the process of evolution, and what were the results after more than 40 years of extensive research?!
Says researcher Peter von Zingbosh: "Despite the huge amounts of money that has been spent on this research, the attempt to generate cruel high productivity with rays failed miserably."
He said the world German Onag: "By the eighties of the twentieth century was Amal scientists and enthusiasm immersive may have dimmed as a result fiasco around the world, no longer breeding by mutations field is research based itself in Western countries, all mutations almost" evaluated negative evaluation ", ie they died or turned out to be weaker than the natural variants. "
Nevertheless, the data gathered over a period of about 100 years of studies on mutations in general and 70 years of breeding by private mutations, help scientists see if mutations are able to produce new types of organisms.
After examining this evidence had understood Onag: "We can not make mutations species - plants or animals - turning into a new kind is totally different, and this conclusion complies with all laboratory test results in studies on mutations in the twentieth century, as well as compatibility with the laws of probability theory , and so in tune with the law of frequent genetic change, the genetically distinct species has limits that can not be canceled or closed by random mutations. "
If scientists specialists are unable to produce new types of organisms through the development of artificial mutations and selection of useful, is it possible to produce the random process devoid of any intelligence?! As long as the research has shown that mutations can not make some sort of living organisms turn into a new and different type, Vikv supposed to be Galilee development has happened?!
Darwin was convinced that what he called natural selection promotes the survival of life forms that fit best with their environment, while the shapes least suited die gradually, and he knows evolutionists today that while spread of species and isolated, I choose natural selection of species that have made them Tafradtha genetic fittest to their new environment , and evolutionists assumed that as a result these groups became isolated with time entirely new kinds of organisms.
Evidence that resulted from research Chirh strongly that mutations can not produce an entirely new varieties of plants and animals, but what is the evidence provided by evolutionists to support their claim that natural selection useful mutations chooses to produce new types?!
Says a brochure issued by the Institute of Science national in the United States in 1999: "A typical example of the emergence of new species - by evolution - is species the 13 Acharashir studied by Darwin in the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Ecuador, which is now known Basaver Darwin Darwin's finches".
In the seventies of the twentieth century began to a team of researchers headed by Peter and Rosemary Grant to study these birds, and found that after years of drought was survival easier for birds with beaks biggest little of it on the birds with beaks younger, and as the size of the beak and shape are two of the main methods to determine of the 13 species of birds, attached great importance to these results.
Follow the booklet: "I guess - Peter and Rosemary - Grant that if drought occurs on the island once every 10 years almost, enough passage of 200 years for the emergence of new types of birds."
However, the brochure Sciences Institute American does not remember the facts are important but embarrassing, in the years that followed drought proliferated birds with beaks younger again and become the majority, and so wrote Grant and his assistant, a graduate student Lyle Gibbs, in the Journal of Natural Scientific British in English in 1987 they witnessed a "perversion of natural selection in the opposite direction."
Grant wrote in 1991 that "the group, which is subject to natural selection oscillating back and forth" with every change in the climate.
The researchers also said that some of the different types of birds mate with each other and produce offspring able to throw alive more than his predecessors, and conclude Peter and Rosemary Grant if it continues, it integrates two mating within only 200 years old.
In 1966 wrote biologist George Williams Chritstopr in favor of the theory of evolution: "I find it regrettable that the theory of natural selection has originally developed evolutionary explanation for the changes, they are more useful in the interpretation of the continuing adjustment."
In 1999 American wrote Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, the owner of the theories of evolution, that if Williams conclusions were correct, natural selection is a contributing factor for species to adapt to the changing requirements to stay, but "does not create anything new."
Indeed the birds Darwin not become "something new", still Cherashir, and the fact that they mate with each question the standards followed by some evolutionists to determine the type, and it is proof that scientific institutes famous also not منزهة for disseminating the results of their research in a way biased.
The brochure of the National Institute for Science quoted them Anfa leave the reader Western impression that fossils discovered by scientists give evidence adequate to develop the Galilee, they remember: "I have discovered so many life forms medium between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and down to rank primate strains, so it is very difficult to accurately identify the stage where there has been a shift from one type to another. "
That this bold statement for amazing really, why?! In 2004 National Geographic magazine described in English fossil record as being like "a film about the evolution cut it in the editing room 999 a snapshot of 1000."
Is documented footage of $ 1 per thousand functioning of the process of evolution of Galilee right documentation?! What the fossil record actually reveals?! Recognizes Niles Eldridge, one of the staunchest defenders of the theory of evolution, that the record shows "no accumulation of evolutionary changes or accumulation of only a few in most species" over long periods of time.
I dig scientists around the world even today some 200 million fossil large and billions of fossils microscopic and prepared schedules, and approve researchers by many that this record large and detailed shows that all major groups of animals suddenly appeared not arise significant changes, while some species suddenly disappeared as appeared.
He writes American biologist Jonathan Wells after reviewing evidence provided by the fossil record: "at the level of the worlds and people and rows - Categories senior living - do not notice shift offspring after birth, and given the evidence of fossil and molecular, is not there a strong foundation for this theory."
Why does he insist many prominent evolutionists that evolution Galilee reality?! Wrote pro prominent evolution of American biologist Richard Wontin, after he criticized some ideas Richard Dawkins, that many scientists are ready to accept allegations of scientific absurd sense "because we have an obligation to advance, commitment doctrine material, we do not want to leave any room for any divine intervention."
In this regard, Scientific American magazine quoted sociologist Rodney Stark as saying: "two hundred years ago promotes propaganda to the effect that if you want to be thinking scientifically, you should remain free from the shackles of debt, and the interest of those who occupy senior positions in the scientific community to be داروينيين".
"Evolution as established fact that the heat of the sun is an established fact," this is confirmed by English Professor Richard Dawkins, a scientist prominent supporter of the development at the age of seventy years.
And can certainly scientific proof testing and direct observation that the sun generates heat, but you can use the test of scientific and direct observation of proof that evolution and constant reality there is no room to doubt it?!
Before answering this question, it is necessary to clarify is important, he noted many scientists that over time may appear slight changes in the offspring descending from living organisms, a process he called Charles Darwin "turned offspring after birth", has been Note these changes direct observation and documented scientific tests, and the Molde plant and animal exploit brilliantly in their field, so these could be considered minor changes in the box so-called "evolution flour," and this label itself carry an implicit reference to the confirmed many scientists: that these minor changes are proof to process another very different one can not be observed, they call it the name "Galilee development."
The truth is that Darwin gone too far in interpreting these observed changes, it was stated in his famous book The Origin of Species in English: "I see that all beings are not creatures came into existence all alone own, but are breeds descended directly from a small number of objects," said Darwin that this "small number of objects" or so-called life forms simple evolution slowly over long periods of time by "shifts very simple", thus leading to millions of different forms of life on earth, and knows evolutionists that these minor changes accumulated and resulted in changes Great that turned the fish into amphibians and monkeys to humans!
And for many, this claim second logically, According to their opinion, including that minor changes can occur within the same species, why cause evolution major changes over long periods of time?!
Galilee teaching of evolution is based on three key assumptions:
1 - form the basis for mutations emergence of new species.
2 - natural selection leads to the emergence of new species.
3 - confirms the fossil record of Galilee development in girls and animals.
Does the evidence of very compelling Galilee development so that it can be considered a reality?!
There are many details in plants and animals determined by the information in the blades genetic, any plans to build an organism that contain them the nucleus of every cell, researchers have discovered that mutations of any random changes in the genetic code that can produce changes in the strains of plants and animals, so in 1946 he claimed American doctor Herman Muller Nobel laureate and founder of genetics Mutagenic: "The accumulation of many changes are rare, and often small, not only the main vehicle enters humans through which improvements to the animals and plants, but more importantly the way it happened evolution, under the guidance of natural selection. "
If, that the idea of evolution Galilee based on the allegation that the mutations do not produce new types only, but also new species of plants and animals, Is there any way to confirm this claim assertive?!
In the late thirties of the twentieth century, adopted scientists enthusiastically notion that if possible for natural selection to produce new types of plants by random mutations, can succeed more human in the production of new plant if selected mutations himself, has "swept the joy and enthusiasm among biologists Generally, geneticists and specialists in generating plants, especially. "
He also said Wolf - Eckhart to Onag a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Research on generating plants in Germany and conducted over 28 years ago research in the field of genetics mutation in plants: "thought they report that the time has come to revolutionize the traditional ways of breeding plants and animals, it has They thought that the development and selection of useful mutations which can produce better plants and animals. "
As a result, scientists launched in the United States, Asia and Europe funded research programs with huge capital, means users thought it would speed up the process of evolution, and what were the results after more than 40 years of extensive research?!
Says researcher Peter von Zingbosh: "Despite the huge amounts of money that has been spent on this research, the attempt to generate cruel high productivity with rays failed miserably."
He said the world German Onag: "By the eighties of the twentieth century was Amal scientists and enthusiasm immersive may have dimmed as a result fiasco around the world, no longer breeding by mutations field is research based itself in Western countries, all mutations almost" evaluated negative evaluation ", ie they died or turned out to be weaker than the natural variants. "
Nevertheless, the data gathered over a period of about 100 years of studies on mutations in general and 70 years of breeding by private mutations, help scientists see if mutations are able to produce new types of organisms.
After examining this evidence had understood Onag: "We can not make mutations species - plants or animals - turning into a new kind is totally different, and this conclusion complies with all laboratory test results in studies on mutations in the twentieth century, as well as compatibility with the laws of probability theory , and so in tune with the law of frequent genetic change, the genetically distinct species has limits that can not be canceled or closed by random mutations. "
If scientists specialists are unable to produce new types of organisms through the development of artificial mutations and selection of useful, is it possible to produce the random process devoid of any intelligence?! As long as the research has shown that mutations can not make some sort of living organisms turn into a new and different type, Vikv supposed to be Galilee development has happened?!
Darwin was convinced that what he called natural selection promotes the survival of life forms that fit best with their environment, while the shapes least suited die gradually, and he knows evolutionists today that while spread of species and isolated, I choose natural selection of species that have made them Tafradtha genetic fittest to their new environment , and evolutionists assumed that as a result these groups became isolated with time entirely new kinds of organisms.
Evidence that resulted from research Chirh strongly that mutations can not produce an entirely new varieties of plants and animals, but what is the evidence provided by evolutionists to support their claim that natural selection useful mutations chooses to produce new types?!
Says a brochure issued by the Institute of Science national in the United States in 1999: "A typical example of the emergence of new species - by evolution - is species the 13 Acharashir studied by Darwin in the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Ecuador, which is now known Basaver Darwin Darwin's finches".
In the seventies of the twentieth century began to a team of researchers headed by Peter and Rosemary Grant to study these birds, and found that after years of drought was survival easier for birds with beaks biggest little of it on the birds with beaks younger, and as the size of the beak and shape are two of the main methods to determine of the 13 species of birds, attached great importance to these results.
Follow the booklet: "I guess - Peter and Rosemary - Grant that if drought occurs on the island once every 10 years almost, enough passage of 200 years for the emergence of new types of birds."
However, the brochure Sciences Institute American does not remember the facts are important but embarrassing, in the years that followed drought proliferated birds with beaks younger again and become the majority, and so wrote Grant and his assistant, a graduate student Lyle Gibbs, in the Journal of Natural Scientific British in English in 1987 they witnessed a "perversion of natural selection in the opposite direction."
Grant wrote in 1991 that "the group, which is subject to natural selection oscillating back and forth" with every change in the climate.
The researchers also said that some of the different types of birds mate with each other and produce offspring able to throw alive more than his predecessors, and conclude Peter and Rosemary Grant if it continues, it integrates two mating within only 200 years old.
In 1966 wrote biologist George Williams Chritstopr in favor of the theory of evolution: "I find it regrettable that the theory of natural selection has originally developed evolutionary explanation for the changes, they are more useful in the interpretation of the continuing adjustment."
In 1999 American wrote Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, the owner of the theories of evolution, that if Williams conclusions were correct, natural selection is a contributing factor for species to adapt to the changing requirements to stay, but "does not create anything new."
Indeed the birds Darwin not become "something new", still Cherashir, and the fact that they mate with each question the standards followed by some evolutionists to determine the type, and it is proof that scientific institutes famous also not منزهة for disseminating the results of their research in a way biased.
The brochure of the National Institute for Science quoted them Anfa leave the reader Western impression that fossils discovered by scientists give evidence adequate to develop the Galilee, they remember: "I have discovered so many life forms medium between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and down to rank primate strains, so it is very difficult to accurately identify the stage where there has been a shift from one type to another. "
That this bold statement for amazing really, why?! In 2004 National Geographic magazine described in English fossil record as being like "a film about the evolution cut it in the editing room 999 a snapshot of 1000."
Is documented footage of $ 1 per thousand functioning of the process of evolution of Galilee right documentation?! What the fossil record actually reveals?! Recognizes Niles Eldridge, one of the staunchest defenders of the theory of evolution, that the record shows "no accumulation of evolutionary changes or accumulation of only a few in most species" over long periods of time.
I dig scientists around the world even today some 200 million fossil large and billions of fossils microscopic and prepared schedules, and approve researchers by many that this record large and detailed shows that all major groups of animals suddenly appeared not arise significant changes, while some species suddenly disappeared as appeared.
He writes American biologist Jonathan Wells after reviewing evidence provided by the fossil record: "at the level of the worlds and people and rows - Categories senior living - do not notice shift offspring after birth, and given the evidence of fossil and molecular, is not there a strong foundation for this theory."
Why does he insist many prominent evolutionists that evolution Galilee reality?! Wrote pro prominent evolution of American biologist Richard Wontin, after he criticized some ideas Richard Dawkins, that many scientists are ready to accept allegations of scientific absurd sense "because we have an obligation to advance, commitment doctrine material, we do not want to leave any room for any divine intervention."
In this regard, Scientific American magazine quoted sociologist Rodney Stark as saying: "two hundred years ago promotes propaganda to the effect that if you want to be thinking scientifically, you should remain free from the shackles of debt, and the interest of those who occupy senior positions in the scientific community to be داروينيين".
Evolution by
Darwin
Charles
Darwin
