Or is there a specific niche that makes a lack of intelligence beneficial to survival?
Categorized | Affiliate Marketing 101
Spiritually Speaking, If Evolution Is True Then Why Does Matthew Or Any Creationist Lack Intelligence?
Posted on February 11, 2012.
Creationists don’t lack intelligence.
They just, for some reason, choose not to use it when it comes to anything which might conflict with their religious beliefs.
Firstly, lack of intelligence is not the same as adherence to obviously false propositions. For one our social group greatly affects our positions so even a smart person growing up surrounded by obviously false beliefs can still believe in them. Limited access to information can also curtail the ability of smart people to gravitate away from provably false ideas: You can be smart yet be discouraged from questioning preconceived beliefs or simply not have access to dis-confirming information.
Secondly, evolution isn’t perfect. Genetic defects are obviously not beneficial to survival yet they haven’t all been selected out. Instead there are a massive numbers of people with genetic defects. I for example have a slightly crooked spine which means I can’t carry as much as normal people can. I also lack the enzyme for digesting lactose which means I can’t drink milk, or I could but the experience is painful.
The theory of evolution is a brilliant and most logical attempt to explain the varied life forms we see today. The theory is supported to a certain extent by scientific observation after which it moves into the realm of philosophy, that is, outside the realm of science. Let me explain.
As everyone knows, all the organisms have different genetic make-up. That’s what makes organisms different. If evolution is true, the genes of one organism should evolve into another organism’s genes. But there is no mechanism for genes to evolve. Mutations are random and rare and cannot give rise to any new useful genes. There are mechanisms in place to correct any errors in DNA replication and transcription, and its subsequent translation. Even then some errors do escape and that is how one gets genetic disease.The only way organisms ‘evolve’ is either by switching ‘on’ or ‘off’ certain genes which is dependent on the chemical cues the cells receive. I will not go into the details here. The evolutionists find themselves in the strange position of having to explain the difference in genes between the life forms, for example, simpler (early) life forms have fewer genes compared to more complicated (later) life forms. Where did the new genes come from if not by mutation? But mutations do not allow what the evolutionists would like them to do, that is, to produce new genes. Mutations giving rise to new genes is just a fantasy.
Natural selection or artificial selection do not give rise to new genes either. They just bring out the traits/features selectively already present in the genome of an organism. A person is black or white, not because of addition or lack of any gene, but because the melanin producing genes are either ‘on’ or ‘off’. Switching ‘on’ or ‘off’ of genes happens in the body cells all the time. For example, the genes responsible for producing insulin are ‘on’ in the cells of the pancreas but the same genes are ‘off’ in muscle cells or other cells of the body. So no matter what variations a particular species undergoes, as a result of changing allele frequencies or genotype frequencies, those variations will always be produced by different genes getting activated at different times. No new genes are formed and, therefore, evolution is absent.
Another thing that confuses people is, our genes being about 98% similar to the genes of chimps – including cytochrome c, transposons, pseudogenes, LINEs and SINEs etc. That is because chimps and humans have a common design since they resemble each other the most from among all the other animals and not because we descended from a so-called common ancestor. For example, if we are asked to make a table there would be two things common to every table – a flat top and legs. The size, shape, and material of the flat tops are secondary as are the number of legs. If we had common descent, we should have been 98% similar, not only in looks, but in all our abilities (I don’t think even our resemblance to chimps is anywhere near 98%). If we had descended from common ancestors, why has every common ancestor disappeared? Just goes to show that common ancestors are creations of the evolutionary minds – even evolutionists believe in creation! It is common design, not common descent.
To the creationists, the evolutionary ‘tree’ may present a tougher test than the Tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden since our knowledge is much more than what Adam and Eve had but there is nothing in evolutionary literature that can refute creationism.
Natural selection is a far less active part of human society today. We are not exposed to the elements and in constant war with the neighbour on the other side of the mountain. So those which are weaker, those who can’t adapt and those who fall behind… Well we carry them on the shoulders of those who can. Is this right for us to do? I don’t think so.
Some regard themselves as “scientists” but all they do is dismiss scientific concepts usually without examining them.
Evolution is trying to make you confused. Know it by your knowledge but never accept it.
Christians do their best not to evolve, so that they can maintain their primitive beliefs.
Lol