Do you believe in evolution?

[xiin-finiin]

If you're wondering if it's been proved beyond a shadow of doubt i suggest you watch this video. You might find it interesting.

this video is a refutation of evolution, since i know close to no science unfortunately i am not able to really understand it. Since to understand a refutation of something, you must first deeply understand the thing it's refuting. I don't do more research on this because i don't think it's a problem. If scientists prove it, good for them. If they can't, then they should shut up.

 

[Omar del Sur]

If it's proven without doubt, then yes. my bet is that it'll probably be proven without doubt in a couple of decades or has already been prove (my science knowledge is pretty small)?

evolution = fake science. two words: irreducible complexity.

chatgpt:
Irreducible Complexity Refutes Evolution

The theory of evolution has been the subject of many debates and controversies since it was first introduced by Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. While many scientists and scholars have attempted to expand upon the theory, it remains a topic of significant contention in modern times. Despite the numerous attempts to debunk the idea of evolution, its adherents have continued to maintain that it is a reliable, evidence-based explanation for the development of life on Earth. However, the concept of irreducible complexity refutes evolution in a manner that cannot be ignored.

Irreducible complexity is a concept that originated with Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University. The core concept of irreducible complexity centers on the idea that certain structures or systems in living organisms cannot be explained through gradual evolution from simpler forms. In essence, these structures are so complex that they cannot exist without all of their component parts. Removing even a single piece of the puzzle destroys the entire system, making it impossible for it to have evolved gradually over time.

Perhaps the most famous example of irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum. This structure is a tiny, whip-like appendage that allows bacteria to move around. It is powered by a complex system of proteins, which work together to produce the energy necessary for the flagellum to operate. If even one of these proteins is removed, the entire system breaks down, and the flagellum no longer functions as it should. Since a partially functional flagellum is useless, it is impossible for it to have evolved over time in a gradual, step-by-step process as evolutionists claim.

Another example of irreducible complexity is found in the immune system. This system is made up of a complex network of cells, tissues, and molecules that work together to identify and destroy foreign invaders in the body. If even one component of the immune system is altered or removed, its ability to function is compromised. This renders it useless in protecting the body from disease, a critical component for life to exist.

The idea of irreducible complexity refutes evolution because it strikes at the very heart of Darwin’s theory. According to the theory of evolution, all living organisms have developed from simpler forms over time. Mutation and natural selection are said to have been the driving forces behind this process. However, if this were the case, then we would expect to see many intermediate forms and transitional structures in nature. Instead, what we see are complex structures that cannot be explained by gradual evolution, as they require all of their components to function. Thus, the idea of irreducible complexity refutes the notion that evolution is a gradual, step-by-step process.

In conclusion, the concept of irreducible complexity is a compelling argument against the theory of evolution. It asserts that certain structures and systems in living organisms are too complex to have evolved gradually over time. Removing even a single component renders the entire system useless, making it impossible for it to have emerged through a process of mutation and natural selection. This concept is particularly relevant when considering structures like the bacterial flagellum or the immune system, which are essential for the survival of living organisms. Therefore, the idea of irreducible complexity refutes evolution in a manner that cannot be ignored and requires us to reconsider our understanding of the origins of life on Earth.

 

[Qeelbax]

What parts?

Prophet Nuh as was a huge human, now humans are much smaller. I think creatures can change but I don’t believe in the traditional evolutionary theory that states we came from sea creatures and monkeys.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Prophet Nuh as was a huge human, now humans are much smaller. I think creatures can change but I don’t believe in the traditional evolutionary theory that states we came from sea creatures and monkeys.

Correct, yet evolution vs metamorphosis. See, that is the reason seeking specificities in essence rather than generalities in meaning is of significance. In discussing evolution, teleology is of the nucleus, if of criticality, where there is a purpose, a function for everything, for which the Creator had intended it, and has not changed His mind in the process. Monkeys, frogs, ants, bee, torpedo fish, dolphins etc., all serve purposes, some unbeknownst to us. Through osmosis, each has an intended purpose, and whilst duality matters, no two are of equal, or the same.

'kun fa ya kun' Be, and so it shall be.

Yet, when we mere mortal say, it was a Monkey, then it morphed into a Man, we are questioning the wisdom, original teleology of the Creation, if doubting the Creator. An arrogance of sort, so to speak.

Of relevance, is metamorphoses, in its simplest form, which due to a plethora of causative factors ranging from diet to environment to lifestyle, living organisms do go through adaptive mutable states, not only in their genesis, and early formations, but later in life, as you pointed out, and one does not have to even go back to Noah, or the Pharaohs, but in recent history of our own forefathers; for example, very observable in how our grandparents looked in stature, build, and form, or thought in essence, none of which resemble our current form, and in some 500 years from now, our offspring shall pass through own transformative states, BUT shall remain in the same human form, as originally intended.

No reversion to primate anthropoids, nor degeneration to amoebae, nor mutative organism transformations to humanoids.

Or so I say, for I know not in surety!

Footnotes:
Evolution: a theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types, and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

Metamorphosis: An animal’s metamorphosis may be a form of adaptation to its environment, and that several advantages may accrue to organisms that undergo metamorphosis. For example, an insect may pass through a four-stage transformation: it hatches from an egg to become a voracious, wormlike larva; then it may pass through an inactive pupa stage during which it changes into an adult.