Why the theory of evolution should be expunged from curriculum of biology.


In order to fully explain the origin of different plants and animals that exist on the earth, all various theories of evolution ( neo-darwinian model, punctuated equilibrium model and neutral model of molecular evolution) completely focus on how the genetic information contained in the DNA are being "changed" or "rewired" by mutations (as the theories assumed).

Not only that these evolutionary theories completely neglect how the first complete set of DNA information ( contained in the first living cell ) came to exist in the first place, but they also completely neglect the ultimate origin of the underlying design ( like meiotic cell division, fertilization, mitotic cell division, cellular differentiation and morphogenesis ) that even make the transformation of these DNA information into physical plants and animals to be possible.

Hence, the similitude of the evolutionary scientists are like researchers who completely focus on how the instructions contained in the cooking manual are being changed in order to fully explain the origin of the varieties of food found in a particular restaurant and completely neglect how those cooking instructions are being actually transformed into different plates of food served before the customers.


Yet it is agreed by all that the underlying design ( a well- furnished kitchen with cooking utensils, cooking appliances, cooking ingredients and cooking experts that would read, interpret and implement the cooking instructions ) that make the transformation of instructions contained in the cooking manual into different plates of food to be possible is far far more important than the cooking instructions itself.


Similarly, the underlying design ( like meiotic cell division, fertilization, mitotic cell division, cellular differentiation and morphogenesis) that make the transformation of the DNA information into physical plants and animals to be possible is far far more important than the DNA information itself

(1)If this is true, then why do all the theories of evolution completely focus on how the genetic information contained in the DNA are being "changed" or "rewired" by mutations (as the theories assumed) in order to fully explain the origin of different plants and animals and completely neglect the ultimate origin of the underlying design (like meiotic cell division, fertilization, mitotic cell division, cellular differentiation and morphogenesis) that make the transformation of these DNA information into physical plants and animals to be possible ?


Even if we assume that the first living cell managed to evolve from non living materials and again managed to replicate itself ( abiogenesis—a problem that all the world scientists are yet to be solved), then:

(2) What later caused some of these self-replicating cells to abandon their diploid way of life and suddenly change to become haploid cells (meiotic cell division)—an event that make sexual reproduction to be possible— ?


( 3) What later caused two of these haploid cells to start fusing with one another during sexual reproduction in order to restore their original diploid state ( fertilization) ?


(4) What later caused this fused cell (called zygote) to multiply and form a compact ball of similar cells (mitotic cell division) ?


(5) What later caused this compact ball of similar cells to "differentiate" and "specalize" to form different types of cell (like bone cells, muscle cells, blood cells, nerve cells, skin cells, cartilage cells, epithelial cells, endothelia cells, liver cells, kidney cells, brain cells, retinal cells etc) using a complex cascade of genetic program known as developmental gene regulatory network (dGRN) ( cellular differentiation) ?


(6) What if the similar ball of cells just continue to multiply (like what we observed with cancer cells ) and never stop to start differentiation process ?


(7) Besides, how did last ball of cell to multiply get to "know" that it is time to stop multiplication and start the differentiation process ?


( What later caused these group of differentiated and specialized cells to start "arranging" themselves in a particular way in order to form various tissues and distinct organs of different size, shape and function at different location ( morphogenesis) ?


(9) What if all the differentiated cells just come together to form a big mass of intermingled tissue (like a bulk of shapeless meat) without forming any distinct organ ?


(10) So how does these differentiated cells "know" which direction to take, which pattern of arrangement to follow and to what extent they will multiply in order to construct a distinct organ of a particular shape and size in a specific location ?

(11) If all this knowledge regarding the shape, size and location of a particular organ in a body plan are already encoded in the genetic information, then what or better yet who encoded this knowledge ? And how does the cells even manage to decode this knowledge and act accordingly if there is no any "intelligent planning" that went ahead the whole show ?


If evolutionary scientists have no convincing answers to all these questions and even have no convincing explanation concerning the origin of the first living cell, then why does theory of evolution is still being portrayed in the academic circle as a scientific fact that fully explain how different plants and animals on earth came to exist without the need of being created by anyone ?


Is it not the high time for the theory of evolution to be completely expunged from the curriculum of biology both at the secondary school level and at university ?

Some people may want to argue: if the theory of evolution is not true and we are truly created by someone intelligent, then why do we "sometimes" observe some birth defects and congenital anomalies in the newborn babies ?


The existence of birth defects and congenital anomalies that seldom observe in newborn babies is meant to prove that hundreds of complex events involved in the transformation of a tiny ball of cell (called zygote) into a newborn baby is not the work of nature ( which can only operate through its fixed or varying natural processes) but the work of intelligence outside the nature .

For if those hundreds of complex embryonic events is the work of fixed natural processes which are based on necessity , then no birth defects would be observed because there is no way for the fixed natural processes to change to cause such anomalies in the newborn babies.


Again, if those hundreds of complex embryonic events is the work of varying natural processes which are based on chance , then the number of such anomalies in the newborn babies would be far far greater than the number of normal births. In fact, all newborn babies must posses one birth defect or the other . But this is not the case.


But could those hundreds of complex embryonic events be the work of fixed natural processes and the work of varying natural processes combined together ?


If an event is a work of fixed natural process , then such an event can only happen in one way. Hence, such an event cannot be based on a work of varying natural process which make an event to happen in more than one way. Therefore, work of fixed natural processes and work of varying natural processes directly contradict each other. Hence, both of them cannot just operate together in the same event. One must leave for the other to operate. Hence, to assert that an embryonic event is due to work of fixed natural processes and work of varying natural processes combined together is nothing but contradiction in terms.


However, if we go extreme to assume that some of the embryonic events are purely base on the work of fixed natural processes while other events are purely base on the work of varying natural processes , then the number of birth defects would be roughly equal to the number of normal birth. Again, this is not the case: the number of normal births is far far greater than the number of birth defects.


Therefore, after the elimination of the work of nature (i:e fixed natural processes and varying natural processes), then the only option left to account for those hundreds of complex embryonic events is the work of intelligent design


This is exactly how the birth defects and congenital anomalies that we sometimes observe in the newborn babies prove that complex events involved in the transformation of a zygote into a beautiful new born baby is the work of intelligent design.


In fact, if the complex events involved in the transformation of a zygote into a beautiful newborn baby are neither orchestrated by fixed natural processes nor by varying natural processes, then this very transformation must have been orchestrated by one intelligence that must operate "outside" the natural processes.
This very intelligent agent who is outside the nature is what many people depicted as God .


But if you're not satisfy with this answer and you still insist that evolution is true and creation is false, then invite any evolutionary scientists to answer all the questions cited above (especially question 10 and 11).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ApJzGl5Nts

Oh Bleep-a-doodle-do... *face palm*... *groan*... Here we go again. The ol' Evolution Denial routine... *heavy sigh*...

More to the point, though, it is not even remotely necessary for me to be highly knowledgeable in that area, because my being an atheist is remarkably independent of anything having to do with evolution or Abiogenisis. I am now an atheist strictly because of what is in the bible and how I was raised in a religious home/community. All the current findings in the realm of evolution, Abiogenisis, bible development, and astrophysics serve only to reinforce my position. However, even if you were somehow able to completely debunk evolution with your very next post, I would STILL BE an atheist. Because your proving evolution to be wrong DOES NOT prove, or even indicate, the existence of your god.

So, what else you got, Sparky?

Abdulgaffar22:
If an event operate by obeying a work of natural laws, then such an event can only happen in one way.

That is the most ridiculous statement I've read this week; but hey it's only Tuesday.

Abdulgaffar22:
Of course, some people may want to argue: if the theory of evolution is not true and we are truly created by someone intelligent, then why do we "sometimes" observe some birth defects and congenital anomalies in the newborn babies ?

Well one can argue, what is the better model.. a bayesian probability approach to evolutionary theory, in which we know 99% and that's currently good enough (but continue to search) or a god of the gaps argument which requires the suspension of all known laws I.e. physics.

Lets say you overturn all of what is known of evolutionary biology, and prove evolution wrong. That does not get you one step closer to demonstrating a god exists. You do understand that atheism existed long before Darwin came up with his theory, right?

Your 'god did it' hypothesis has to be supported with demonstrable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence (and valid and sound logic), on its own merits, whether evolution is correct of not.

So, your entire opening posts are pretty much non-sequiturs.

You arent condeming evolutionary theory because you think its wrong. You exhibit too little understanding of research of recent decades to propose any meaningful critiques. You are simply and ineffectively defending your unverifiable belief in creation mythology.

What viable objective evidence do you have for a supernatural deity? If you believe creation is true, please provide empirical evidence to support your assertion.

Abdulgaffar22:
But if you're not satisfy with this answer and you still insist that evolution is true and creation is false, then invite any evolutionary scientists to answer all the questions cited above (especially question 10 and 11).

NO! Do it yourself!



E/ Kinda looks like a giant copy and paste OP. Or maybe that's just me, but it sure sounds extremely familiar...

Thankfully, you are not in charge of the school curriculum, and not only will evolution not be expunged from the school curriculum, evolution would evolve over time and be taught in every subject that we'd wonder why we waited so long for evolution to evolve into the entire school curriculum!

https://www.nairaland.com/5238668/evolution-101#79231074

Abdulgaffar22:
Why the theory of evolution should be expunged from curriculum of biology.


In order to fully explain the origin of different plants and animals that exist on the earth, all various theories of evolution ( neo-darwinian model, punctuated equilibrium model and neutral model of molecular evolution) completely focus on how the genetic information contained in the DNA are being "changed" or "rewired" by mutations (as the theories assumed).

Not only that these evolutionary theories completely neglect how the first complete set of DNA information ( contained in the first living cell ) came to exist in the first place, but they also completely neglect the ultimate origin of the underlying design ( like meiotic cell division, fertilization, mitotic cell division, cellular differentiation and morphogenesis ) that even make the transformation of these DNA information into physical plants and animals to be possible.

Hence, the similitude of the evolutionary scientists are like researchers who completely focus on how the instructions contained in the cooking manual are being changed in order to fully explain the origin of the varieties of food found in a particular restaurant and completely neglect how those cooking instructions are being actually transformed into different plates of food served before the customers.


Yet it is agreed by all that the underlying design ( a well- furnished kitchen with cooking utensils, cooking appliances, cooking ingredients and cooking experts that would read, interpret and implement the cooking instructions ) that make the transformation of instructions contained in the cooking manual into different plates of food to be possible is far far more important than the cooking instructions itself.


Similar

Is it not the high time for the theory of evolution to be completely expunged from the curriculum of biology both at the secondary school level and at university ?

Am absolutely brilliant piece from an absolutely brilliant thinking mind.

Of course, this mind-numbing mumbo-jumbo should be expunged from school curricula at both secondary and tertiary levels, and after which the proponents of this nonsense should tender a heart-felt apology for having mislead most educated people for centuries.

Personally, I have always thought of the evolution theory as some sort of large(global) scale stupidity test I.e. a test to determine how low the so-called educated minds would stoop to subscribe to a looney and dumb idea that is ostensibly scientifically corroborated. And the results are shockingly positive.
The educated were never taught to make use of their cerebral capacity but rather were conditioned to identify and follow a fixed pattern of reasoning. This is why it may not occur to them to demand a valid, pithy, and convincing explanation on the origin of the first cell, and without which evolution will remain garbage and be best consigned to the dustbin.

The problem of the macroevolution of animal form is unsolved because neo-Darwinian theory has not incorporated the logic of development into its models (Transformation rules, T1 and T3 in Lewontin’s 1974 schema).

Crick challenged me with the statement that nothing can be said about evolution until we understand how organisms are put together. Why do we need to know, as Crick said, “how organisms are put together” to understand evolution ? If we think of A and B as representing animal taxa, their differences in form would constitute a macroevolutionary transformation. But these are the adult forms. They are constructed by developmental pathways, and it is those pathways which evolution must modify. Thus, Crick’s challenge to Dover – i.e., that Dover needed to know “how organisms are put together” – means that animal evolution lies analytically downstream of understanding the details of animal development. Putting development into a black box, as neoDarwinism did, puts evolution in there as well: not understood

Abdulgaffar22:
The problem of the macroevolution of animal form is unsolved because neo-Darwinian theory has not incorporated the logic of development into its models (Transformation rules, T1 and T3 in Lewontin’s 1974 schema).

Crick challenged me with the statement that nothing can be said about evolution until we understand how organisms are put together. Why do we need to know, as Crick said, “how organisms are put together” to understand evolution ? If we think of A and B as representing animal taxa, their differences in form would constitute a macroevolutionary transformation. But these are the adult forms. They are constructed by developmental pathways, and it is those pathways which evolution must modify. Thus, Crick’s challenge to Dover – i.e., that Dover needed to know “how organisms are put together” – means that animal evolution lies analytically downstream of understanding the details of animal development. Putting development into a black box, as neoDarwinism did, puts evolution in there as well: not understood

Before I tackle you, where did u copy this junk from?

So glad that people like the OP are not in ascendancy. We probably won't even have the internet talk more of the ability to clearly see the nature of our origins.