It’s a naive and illogical oversimplification. As explained before, not all changes are equal. Random replication error is not equal to cell-mediated adaptive process. see #1245
Agreed, it is.
It’s true that the accumulation of random error/damage is "harmful". See # 8606 and # 8613
Darwin's Illusion | Page 431 | Religious Forums
Latest scientific finds proved that Beneficial changes are always due to a cell-mediated process (directed mutation) not simply...
In which language? Do you mean English?
This is not the case in the language of Quran, i.e., Arabic.
sure, they do. Survival is the highest priority for any living organism. The question is why? What is “instinct” as a mechanism that control behavior? If the organism doesn’t have such strong...
From a bird's eye view, the car makes rational decisions towards a destination; any damage to the car affects such ability. The car appears responsible for the decisions. Yes, the bird can never see the driver, but it doesn’t mean that there is no driver.
The spirit is the source of...
Yes, self-editing occurs in the forebrain. Quran touched upon this fact in “Al-Alaq, 16” and associated the act of “lying and sinning” with the forehead.
“Have you seen if he denies and turns away. Knows he not that Allāh sees? Nay! If he ceases not, We will surely castigate the forehead...
The point is about fairness/justice/mercy.
Can you hold your 7-year-old kid responsible for the finances of your house? If you do and he fails, is that a surprise to you? Is that his fault? You cannot hold him accountable except for things within his capacity and when you do, (such as holding...
Empty claims. There is no evidence of multiverse nor it can be falsified. That’s why it will never be a scientific theory, merely a hypothesis.
You have the habit of throwing in some terminology to imply an explanatory merit without any demonstration of how such terminology supports your view...
Not at all. Physical explanation of mind was never established while NDE research did establish that consciousness is not dependent on the functions of the brain.
I never claimed a common signal, but rather a unique one. Every consciousness is unique. You cannot even know how the specific...
Empty claims, there are no evidence of time or space beyond our spacetime that emerged after the Big Bang.
Good, that you understand that multiverse is a hypothesis (that can neither be proven or falsified) but regardless, why is a conscious first cause is a problem to you. I previously...
Simply an “Ad Populum” fallacy, it matters not how many didn’t catch up with the latest in the felid or simply being blind followers of outdated textbooks. See #7947
Darwin's Illusion | Page 398 | Religious Forums
You call them “fundamentalists” but whether you accept it or not, the fact is...
It’s a naive generalization/oversimplification. It’s totally the other way around. The argument is way stronger when I quote prominent scientists from your side. You wouldn’t accept otherwise. Would you?
The real irony is when prominent scientists disprove all central assumptions of the Modern...
As usual, you make up some empty claims merely because you said so without any demonstration and try to confuse the uninformed reader.
But NO, “error” in the scientific context of DNA replication means a deviation from the specific original DNA sequence being replicated, specifically when the...
Exactly. But a description of the process, it’s steps and what the scientists learned has nothing to do with the fact that a cell-mediated event placed a copy of the previously silent, unexpressed citT under the control of the adjacent rnk gene's promoter, which directs expression when oxygen is...
No, “error” in a scientific context means a deviation from the specific original DNA sequence being replicated, specifically when the error escapes the proofreading mechanisms of the cell.
Nonsense, the same language (errors) is repeatedly used in all relevant scientific sources. See the quotes...
Not at all. It’s just your empty assertions not the predictions of the theory itself.
Again, the theory assumes that all transformations of all kinds are not only possible but did take effect even the transformation of microorganisms into elephants, provided you give the process time, random...
Not at all. In essence, a gene is indeed a unique code for a function. Again, what is a gene if not a function? Please don’t tell me it’s a sequence of nucleotides in DNA. That would be really pathetic.
whether you accept it or not but the more we see of your pathetic reaction, the stronger the evidence points to how painful is the action. Obviously, it’s very painful for you to the point that you can barely keep your sanity but it’s also obvious that you’re the kind that enjoys pain.
Have fun...