D
Deleted member 6380
Af jooga looma adeego
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2020
- Posts
- 12,035
- Reputation
- 13,916
TL;DR: Darwin's Letter to his friend, Sir Thomas Thompton, 1861: “ I believe in the theory of evolution, not because I have proof, but because it helps me in classification, Morphology, Embryology, and rudimentary organs..."
The word instinct is used by the proponents of evolutionary theory to explain the ability of an animal to perform a certain behavior from birth. There were many questions about how animals acquired this instinct and how the first instinctive behavior appeared in animals, as well as about how this instinct was transferred to an adult.
All these questions remain without a response or answer.
There is a geneticist and an evolutionist called Gordon Taylor Rottary .
In his book, " The Great Evolution Myster ," he admits that the theory is incapable of answering questions of instinct as follows:
If we asked how the first instinctive behavior appeared and how this instinctive behavior was inherited, we would not find any answer ( 1 ).
There are others along the lines of " Gordon Taylor" " believe in the theory of evolution does not wish to recognize this fact and instead are trying to stick to answer vague and does not have any real meaning. For their opinion, the instincts are considered genes present in animals appear in the form of behavioral patterns, and based on this definition Honey bees build the hive on the regular shape known as hexagonal geometric building blocks according to the animal instinct. In other words, there is a special gene in the bodies of all honey bees that makes these species instinctively build their cells according to the known shape.
In this case, the thinking, rational person raises his logical question: If living organisms were programmed to behave in this particular behavior, who would have programmed this behavior? Since there is no program that is programmed on its own and must be programmed ?!
The advocates of the theory of evolution did not find a specific answer to this question, and they used another method of maneuver, as they emphasize the acquisition of this instinct by living beings through Mother Nature, and as we know nature is composed of stone, dirt, trees, plants..etc. Which of these elements have the ability to give living things this programmatic behavior? What part of nature has the ability and mind to do that? All that we see in nature is a creature and cannot be a creator, and a rational person cannot say when he sees a beautiful oil painting, what is the sweetest pigments that painted this painting, without a doubt, this speech is illogical. So the claim that a creature is the creator of things is without a doubt an illogical claim.
There is no one who is more capable of directing this creation and organizing its gift than God Almighty. So God Almighty mentioned the miracle of honey in his dear book as an example of his inspiration for living things to follow a certain behavior, that is, the instinct that the advocates of the theory of evolution repeat, or as they say: that animals are programmed to perform a certain behavior is nothing but a divine inspiration for these living things, and this fact was mentioned in Qur'an: ] the Lord inspired the bees to Atakve of homes in the mountains and in the trees and what they erect, then eat of all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord made easy come out of their bellies , the colors of various syrup wherein is healing for people in this is a sign for those who reflect [ [bees: 68 - 69]
The advocates of the theory of evolution close their eyes to this fact to deny the divine existence, and they certainly have seen and still see the behavioral patterns of animals and are still searching for an explanation for them and know with certainty the inability of the theory of evolution to explain it logically. We often find familiar phrases and sentences when we read authors who propagated this theory, and among these phrases: “To accomplish this work, there must be a high-level mind, and because animals do not have such a mind, science is unable to answer this question.”
We cite the following example concerning the behavior of silkworm on the tongue of a well - known advocates of the theory of evolution called « Haimar Dithfurth - Von Hermann von Datfort» where he says: The idea of taking multiple means of fixed leaves to camouflage brilliant idea, see this be the owner of the idea? Who came up with this clever idea that reduces the likelihood of a bird finding the prey it is looking for? The worm must have learned genetically from the owner of this smart idea ... All these phenomena must be available to a very intelligent person trying to survive, and we must accept this fact, knowing that the silkworm is a very simple nervous system as well as a primitive one. Its life behavior, and this worm lacks the ability to define a specific goal and move towards that goal.
But how could this worm invent this means to defend itself when it is so weak from the formation? And when the ancient naturalists encountered such phenomena, they found no explanation for them except by a miracle. That is, they adopted the idea of an unnatural creative force, that is, they believed in the existence of God who gives his creatures certain mechanisms for self-defense. Regarding this way of thinking, it is considered as the suicide of a scientist or a researcher in nature, and on the other hand, modern science explains these phenomena without meaning by adhering to the concept of instinct, because contrary to what most of us think, the interpretation of behavior by instinct means the animal's acquisition of these behavioral patterns. By birth, this explanation does not present or delay our questioning, but rather hinders our search for a limited and clear answer, and it is not possible to talk about the rational behavior of a silkworm that lacks the existence of such a mind.
Once again, we return to talking about the specific behavior of animals, as there is what imposes itself before our eyes, which is the rational arrangement of these behavioral patterns, even if this particular behavior is not such as defining a goal or anticipating for the future or anticipating what any other animal can perform and calculating the necessary reaction Towards him as a sign of the existence of an mastermind and a thinking, so what is the explanation for this behavior? ( 2 )
This is what this adopter of the theory of evolution says while analyzing or trying to arrive at a logical analysis of the behavior of the silkworm, this studied rational behavior, we do not find in such books and publications except questions without clear responses, or intellectual contradictions that only lead to a dead end. Even the theorist Charles Darwin himself admitted this fact, stating that the behavior and instincts of animals pose a clear threat to the validity of his theory, and he mentioned this in his book "On the Origin of Species" several times and clearly and unambiguously: " Most instincts have a great influence and raise a great degree of confusion, and how they arose. And its development may seem to the reader of my theory sufficient to demolish my theory from the ground up " ( 3 ).
As for Charles Darwin's son, Francis Darwin , he analyzed and explained his father’s messages in a book called “ The Life and Letters of Darwin ” and mentioned the extent of the difficulties that Darwin faced in his interpretation of instincts, saying in the book (meaning the origin of species ) and in the third chapter of it. In the first section, he talks about animal habits, instincts, and the difference in them. The reason for introducing this topic at the beginning of the chapter is to displace the readers ’thought from the possibility of rejecting the idea of the development of instincts through natural selection. The chapter on instincts is one of the most difficult topics contained in the book" On the Origin of Species " ( 4 ).
Instincts cannot develop
The advocates of the theory of evolution argue that most animal behavior is the result of instinct, but as we said earlier, they cannot provide an acceptable explanation of how instincts arose, nor about how instinct first appeared, nor about how animals acquired it, and if one of them was besieged by questions, he would be attached to the following claim : Animals acquire behavioral patterns through experience, and the strongest are selected by natural selection. At a later stage, these successful behavior patterns are inherited through successive generations. "
There are logical errors that the mind cannot accept in this claim, let us examine these errors in sequence:
1- The errors inherent in the saying: choosing beneficial behaviors through natural selection:
Natural selection is the cornerstone of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Natural selection means choosing any beneficial and beneficial change to the organism (this change may be structural or behavioral) and choosing that organism to pass on that change to subsequent generations.
There is an important point in this claim that we must not overlook, which is: Nature, according to Darwin's claim, is the test to distinguish the useful from the harmful, and it is the effective and rational force in existence, but there is no in nature who distinguishes between the harmful and the useful as an influential force where there is no between animals or other animals that Whoever has a decision for that or the ability to make this decision, only from the creation of nature and what it contains and the creation of everything has reason, logic and the ability to distinguish harmful from useful.
In fact , Darwin himself admits the impossibility of acquiring useful behaviors through natural selection , but it is back and defend his point of view that is pure fiction and continued to defend his opinion despite being Hdhira and is illogical , where he says: «In the end can be considered that the instincts that make Zaghloul bathroom He expels his half-brothers from the nest, and makes the kingdom of bees divided into servants and queen who are not gifted or created instincts, but living and small details of a general constitution for the living world, and these small details assume the task of multiplying and changing by selecting the fittest from the weakest. But this consideration does not seem logical to me, but it is close to the ideas that revolve in my mind » ( 5 ).
Another advocate of the theory of evolution, this time in Turkey, Professor Jamal Yıldırım, admits that the maternal affection of the mother cannot be explained by natural selection and says in this regard:
“Is there a possibility to explain maternal affection towards children by means of a blind system that lacks spiritual feelings such as the natural selection system? Undoubtedly, biologists, including Darwin’s supporters, have failed to provide a convincing answer to this question. There are moral qualities in living beings that are not rational and that they cannot acquire These qualities are by her will, so there must be someone who gave her these qualities, and since nature and the law of natural selection are unable to give living things this moral nature because they lack the moral qualities, the bright truth, like the sun, is that all living things are under divine providence and its tight management, and for these advanced reasons we can In nature, we see behavioral patterns of some animals that arouse bewilderment and surprise, and make us wonder: How did this animal find its way to this behavior, and how could this or that animal think in this way?
2- Mistakes related to the inheritance of beneficial and selected behaviors through natural selection:
The second step for Darwin's supporters is their claim that beneficial behaviors chosen through natural selection are passed down through generations. This claim is weak and extremely fragile in various respects. First of all, any new behavior that an animal acquires through experience cannot be passed down to a later generation in any way, because the acquired experience belongs to that generation alone, and this new behavioral experience acquired cannot be entered into the genetic structure of the animal at all.
Says Gordon Rtaylor expressing his opinion against the opinion of those who claim to propagate behavioral patterns through successive generations the following: "biologists claim that there is a possibility to propagate behavioral patterns across successive generations can be seen this phenomenon in nature , for example , Dobzhansky claims that all the functions of the body of the organism is only The product of inheritance resulting from the influence of the elements and factors available in the external environment, and in this case the matter is ultimately acceptable for all kinds of behavioral patterns, but this is not true at all and it is considered a sad matter that this is the opinion of a scientist with a position like Dobzhansky and it can be said: There are some behavioral patterns Some neighborhoods are inherited through subsequent generations, but it cannot be generalized to all behavioral patterns. "
The apparent fact is that there is no scientific evidence that can prove the inheritance of some behavioral patterns by means of the genetic map of the organism. It is known that genes are only responsible for building proteins, where they are built more than the secretion of some hormones to control the behavior of the organism (in general), for example that The animal is active or vice versa, or the newborn is more connected to its mother, but there is no evidence to prove the inheritance of the special behavior that makes the animal build its nest in the known order, synchronization and regularity.
If this is the case, then what are the genetic units responsible for the inheritance process? Because there are hypotheses that prove their existence, and no one has been able to answer this question (6).
As reported by Gordon Rtaylor , the claim that patterns are heritable is not scientifically acceptable. Building their nests, beaver building dams, and honey bee workers' secretion of wax requires the presence of some kind of complex behavioral patterns such as design and planning for the future, and these cannot be inherited through generations. There is another example that imposes itself strongly which is Concerning the behavior of underage workers in the ant kingdom.
These workers have a special behavior that is distinguished by them, which requires them to be fully aware of the account and have extensive experience, but these behavioral patterns of ant workers cannot be acquired by inheritance for the sole reason that they are minors and cannot reproduce, so they cannot inherit these behavioral patterns for subsequent generations, and as long as Likewise, the following question should be directed to the advocates of the theory of evolution: How was the first minor worker ant able to pass on these behavioral patterns to subsequent generations of child workers when they certainly could not reproduce? And these workers, whether ants, bees, or any other animal, have been working for millions of years with this behavior, which reflects the extent of rationality, portability, solidarity, regularity, and the accurate distribution of roles in addition to the spirit of sacrifice, but these creatures have not been able at all to inherit these behavioral patterns since they were first created.
We cannot say that these creatures have made an effort to acquire these behavioral patterns because they begin to follow this behavior from the first moments of their existence on the face of the earth in the fullest form. It does not encounter in any stage of its life any stage of education and all its behavior is inherently acquired, and this is permissible with all living things. So who taught living organisms these behavioral patterns? It is the same question that Darwin asked 150 years ago, and the advocates of the theory of evolution could not answer it, and there is a contradiction that Darwin himself expressed, saying:
"It is a big mistake to talk about the hypothesis that instinctive behavioral patterns are acquired by naturalization and bequeathed to later generations, because as we know there are very confusing instincts such as those of ants or bees that can never be acquired by nature."
If we assume that the working ant or any other insect has acquired all its distinct traits through natural selection and gradually, that is, we assume that it is a selection process for the good traits and then it is passed on to subsequent generations and in a successive manner and each time a useful trait is chosen to be passed on to a later generation and so on, if We assumed this because our hypothesis became impossible for the sole reason that the working ant is not similar to its parents to a large extent in addition to being sterile, and that is why it cannot inherit the new acquired traits and behavioral patterns to subsequent generations. Here the question arises: How can this state be explained by natural selection (7)?
Jamal Yıldırım, a believer in the theory of evolution, expresses the contradiction that the adopters of this theory have fallen into: “Let us take, for example, insects that live in the form of societies such as ants and bees. These insects are sterile and do not have any possibility of passing on any new biological traits that they transmit to subsequent generations, but they show Amazing adaptation to the conditions of the ocean in which they are located at the highest levels ». (8)
It is clear from the foregoing confessions and sayings of scientists the impossibility of explaining the bewildering behavioral patterns of these living organisms by means of the theory of evolution because these behavioral patterns were not acquired through natural selection and cannot be passed down to subsequent generations.
The fall of the idea of the evolution of instincts with the evolution of the living
The theory of evolution claims that organisms arose from one another through evolution. According to this theory, reptiles may have originated from fish and birds from reptiles ... But we must not forget that the same type is completely different in terms of behavior, as the fish differs from the reptiles completely. The following question revolves around: Has the behavior of the organism been subjected to evolution, as its biological biological structure has been subject to evolution?
This question is considered one of the contradictions and intellectual dilemmas that the advocates of the theory of evolution fell into. Darwin put his finger on this contradiction and reached the impossibility of acquiring instincts through natural selection and changing them through evolution, where he asked: Is it possible to acquire instincts through natural selection, develop them and change them later? What can we say in front of honey bees building their hives in this geometrical shape that preceded mathematicians long ago? What can we say in front of this instinct? (9).Various examples of this contradiction can be found in all kinds of animals, such as fish, reptiles, and birds. Fish have their own characteristics in terms of reproduction, hunting and self-defense, as well as creating their own homes in their own way, and these special qualities are in a state that fits perfectly with the aquatic environment in which they live. There are some types of fish that stick their eggs under the stones on the sea floor, and after sticking their eggs to their eggs, they flap their fins over them to allow the largest amount of oxygen needed to breathe the embryos inside the eggs. As for birds, they lay their eggs in specially constructed nests that they build for this purpose and lie on their eggs for a specific period of time necessary for the eggs to hatch.
As for crocodiles, which are considered wild animals, they have a completely opposite behavior, so they bury their eggs under the sand for two full months, which are necessary for them to hatch, and there are some fish laying their eggs inside the stones on the sea floor and on the other hand there are some wild animals that build their dwellings on the edges of the upper trees using branches and scales Trees. As for birds, they establish their nests using herbs and wild plants. As for frankincense, which they claim to have originated from reptiles, they are completely different in terms of reproduction from the rest of the living things. While the rest of the animals reproduce with eggs, frankincense reproduces by carrying her embryos inside their stomachs for several months, and after they give birth to their fetus, they feed them with the milk that their body excretes.
There is a different method of hunting for each type of neighborhood, while some remain latent for hunting for a long time, some of them disguise the color of the place in which they are located, and others depend on speed and surprise. As it becomes clear, there is a great and wide difference between wild animals and aquatic animals, and each species is distinguished by a clear difference according to the environment in which it lives.
From this presentation, we conclude that the change in instincts must accompany the development taking place in the living. For example, for a fish that lays its eggs under the rocks of the sea floor and flaps its fins to take care of it, a wild animal whose developed instinct leads it to build special nests on tree edges and lie on eggs for a certain period in order to hatch them. This matter is impossible of course, and the other impossibility in this matter can be explained by assuming the inability of the organism to live as a result of the inappropriateness of its undeveloped behavior to its advanced structure as a result of the change in the environment in which it lives, where the fish that mastered hiding in the sea can only live after finding a new means of defense, and in addition Due to the lack of time to achieve this, because it must change its behavior, way of life, and build its body on an ongoing basis, otherwise it is vulnerable to death and the extinction of its offspring.
It is clear that no unreasonable animal possesses the ability to make such a quick and strategic decision that requires mental powers. So how do you explain the behavior of animals suitable for building their bodies and the conditions of the environment in which they live? Darwin made his change in this regard in response to the criticism directed at his book "On the Origin of Species", saying: There was an objection to the idea of the origin of species that the change in the building of the organism must coincide with the change in its instincts as well as the fact that they are compatible with each other because any A contrast that occurs between them means certain death / (10).
It is clear from the foregoing that animal behavior cannot be explained by evolution over time, by chance, or by the influence of mother nature. So how did living things acquire those traits and characteristics that allow them to continue their lives? The answer to the question is very precise and clear. A person who is familiar with the way of living of the living can see the impossibility of forming these behavioral patterns on their own or by means of a series of coincidences. The source of these behavioral patterns is neither in their bodies nor in the environment in which they live. So there is a force that cannot be seen with the naked eye that is managing the behavior of these living things. Prepare the appearances of life and the secrets of survival are God Almighty, whose mercy expanded everything. The result: living things are moved by divine inspiration.
As we mentioned in the previous pages, the advocates of the theory of evolution faced major problems related to the interpretation of the behavior of animals, while the truth is clear, which is the inability of the non-rational organism to distinguish clear differences or to link between facts or make a correct decision, in addition to its inability to plan For several future stages, along with other things that require a mind, thinking and perception. Evolutionists say that these organisms are programmed to perform these actions, so who created this program? What is the force that causes honey bees to secrete special wax to build the hive? The answer is clear and precise, and it is an impossibility that generates these behavioral patterns on their own or purely by chance. It is clear that there is a force that governs and directs this nature and has a direct influence on those beings. And the owner of this power, without a doubt, is God, the All-Knowing, Creator. And a theory that is unable to explain how the organism was created must be incapable of explaining its behavior and its source. ] I trust in God , my Lord and your Lord , what creature is only taking her forelock my Lord on a straight path [ . [Hood: 56].
The sacrificial spirit of living things refutes Darwin's claim that the fittest survive
As we have already said in the previous pages, the matter according to Darwin's claim depends on the law of natural selection, meaning that living organisms that can adapt to the conditions of the environment in which they live can continue their lives and preserve their offspring, and as for weak organisms that cannot adapt to these conditions, they are vulnerable. To perish and annihilate, and based on this, the logical definition of nature according to Darwin's law of natural selection is the place where living beings struggle with each other for survival, so that the strong remains and the weak perish.
Based on this definition, every living being must be strong and distinguished from others in order to struggle and survive. In a midst such as this, some features such as altruism, sacrifice and solidarity cannot be talked about, as they may have negative effects on the organism itself. According to this logic, he is characterized by the utmost selfishness and has no concern except for searching for food, establishing the house that houses it, and protecting himself from the danger of enemies.
But is it true that nature is the place that includes beings who are engaged in a bitter struggle to eliminate some of them with the utmost brutality and selfishness? Research into this matter to this day has negated the evolutionists' claims. Nature contains countless examples in its corners that reveal images intended to sacrifice for the sake of others.
Jamal Yildirim mentions in his book "Extremism and the Law of Evolution."
The reasons that made Darwin and other men of science in his day portray nature as a theater of war between the living can be summed up in the following points: The men of science in the nineteenth century were lurking in their laboratories or their workplaces for a long time and did not study nature in the field, and this is why their imaginations simply went to surrender to the idea that living organisms in a silent state of war among themselves, and the world like feat Haley Haley could not save himself from the clutches of this illusion (11).
The world 's Peter Kropotkin , Peter Kropotkin , who also believes in the theory of evolution mentions in his book Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution or " the common goal: influencing factor in the development of " error which occurred when Darwin and his supporters , saying: Darwin and his supporters knew nature as a place locked in which living organisms Continuous wars between them. Portrays Huxley Haxley the animal world as an arena in which animals are wrestling a bitter struggle among themselves and prevail among them the intelligent and rapid who can live to start the next day a new conflict and so on . From the very first glance, it becomes clear to us that Huxley's view on nature is not scientific ... (12).
This situation is considered as a testament to the lack of reliance on the theory of evolution on scientific observations, and scientists overcome intellectual rigidity by analyzing some existing phenomena according to their whims. In fact, the war that Darwin claims spread throughout nature turned out to be a big mistake, so we do not find the neighborhoods that
They only struggle for survival, but we also find living creatures that exert remarkable cooperation towards other living things, and the oddest thing about this is that they sometimes affect them on themselves. Hence, evolutionists are unable to explain the phenomena of altruism. An article issued in a scientific journal contained a text depicting the impotence of these people: “The problem lies in the reason for which living organisms cooperate, and as for Darwin's theory, it says that every living organism must strive for survival and reproduction, and helping the rest of living things reduce Chances of success of that organism in survival and on this basis this behavioral pattern must be removed through evolution, but it is noticeable that altruism is still present in the behavior of living organisms (13).
The simplest example of altruism is the behavior of a bee worker, as she stings any animal that enters her hive with the certainty that she will die, so her stinging needle remains embedded in the body that it bites and due to the close association of this needle with the insect's internal organs, she pulls these organs out with them, causing the death of the bee. This clearly shows that the worker bee sacrifices its life for the safety of the rest of the hive.
As for the male penguin and its female, they guard their nest until death. The male watches over the new chick between its legs for four continuous months without interruption, and throughout this period he cannot eat anything of food. As for the female, she goes to the sea to bring food as she collects it in her throat and brings it to her chick And they show remarkable dedication to their chick.
It is known that the crocodile is one of the wild animals, but the care it gives to its children raises extreme confusion, when the young crocodiles come out after the eggs have hatched, the mother collects them in her mouth until they reach the water and then works to care for them and carry them until they grow and become stronger and become able to face the difficulties themselves. When the little crocodiles feel any danger, they quickly flee, taking refuge in the mouth of their mother, which is a safe haven for her. This behavior raises surprising, especially if we know that crocodiles are wild animals and are expected to eat their children and devour them, not to care for and protect them ...
There are some animal mothers who leave the herd in which they live to breastfeed their children, so the mother falls behind with her son and continues to breastfeed him until he is satisfied, putting her life at great risk. Animals are known to care for their newly born children or those who have been out of eggs for long periods of time, up to days, months, or even a few years, so these animals provide their young with food, housing and warmth and defend them from the danger of predatory enemies. Most bird species is feeding their babies of 4 - 20 times per hour during the day, while the female gum he told her different as it requires them to feed well when breastfeeding their calves even provide them with sufficient milk, and throughout this period increased infant weight while losing mother of weighing significantly .
As for the natural and expected in these cases, it is for these irrational animals to neglect their young and leave them alone because they do not understand the meaning of motherhood or kindness, but on the contrary they bear the responsibility of caring for and defending them wonderfully.
And living things do not take such behavior with their young only, but they may show the same sympathy and tenderness towards other animals or other individuals that live with them in the same groups, and this can be observed when food sources are scarce, so it is expected in such difficult cases that the strong will set off from them to annihilate the weak. It takes over the food that exists, but what happens is the opposite of what evolutionists expect. Kropotkin, who is known for his support for this theory, cites many examples related to this topic, for example: ants begin to eat what they have saved when food sources are scarce, while birds begin to migrate en masse to another place, and young beavers head to the north and old beavers to the south of the rivers where they live there crowded. (14).
What can be understood from these examples is that there is no competition or competition between animals for food. On the contrary, many examples of their cooperation and sacrifices can be seen even in the harshest of circumstances. Often times, it works to alleviate the burden and harsh conditions. However, there is an issue that must be taken into consideration which is that it is the lack of thinking that causes them to make these decisions and establish this system. How can one explain the gathering of these animals into groups with one goal and their collective work to achieve this common goal?
Undoubtedly, the one who created these living quarters and inspired them to follow what benefits them and the one who preserves them is God, Lord of the Worlds, his power is glorified. True to the Almighty said to her: ] and creature on earth but God knows their livelihood and Mstqrha and all its warehouse in the book shown [ . [Hood: 6]
Faced with these facts, evolution claims that nature is a theater of war fall in which only those who are selfish and those who see only their interests are victorious, John Maynard Smith asked the famous evolutionist question of his peers in thought related to this type of behavior in animals: If natural selection means choosing traits Good for the living being, which guarantees its survival and reproduction, so how can we explain the quality of sacrifice in some animals? (15th)
The instinct of preserving the offspring
As it turned out in the previous pages, evolutionists could not explain the sacrifice in the behavior of some animals. There are numerous examples of sacrifice in nature that undermine the intellectual basis of this theory. Even Stephen Jay Goui talks about sacrifice as a difficult problem facing the theory of evolution (16).
On the other side is talking about Gordon Tyler Gorden Taylor as an obstacle or a barrier in front of a great theory to reflect the depth of the ideological dilemma facing them in their defense of them. This sacrifice and compassion that can be seen carries great understandings and is considered a fatal stab in the body of theory for those who view nature as a purely materialistic view and consider it the product of only coincidences.
And there are some of their yields who have interpreted these phenomena with a different interpretation, which he called the law of the selfish gene, and the pioneer of this idea is one of the extremists of our time and called Richard Dawkins, who believes that the sacrifice expressed by some creatures is nothing but the product of their selfishness, and according to him, when an animal makes a sacrifice He does not do this in defense of the rest, but rather to preserve his genes, meaning that when the mother defends her young, she is in fact defending the genes that she was born from, because when her baby is saved, he can pass these genes to later generations, and on this basis the living things become what they contain. Humans are similar to machines that generate genes and are responsible for passing them on to future generations.
They claim that living organisms are programmed to preserve offspring and transmit genes to later generations and thus behave in a manner appropriate to this program. We give an example of the way these people think and their interpretation of the behavior of animals by viewing a text taken from a book in biology adopting this theory and entitled Essentails of Biology : Or the principles of biology and the text as follows: How to explain the behavior that leads its owner to danger in order to save others? Some of the behaviors based on sacrifice are the source of selfish genes, and it is more likely that living organisms exposing themselves to danger in order to bring the necessary food for their young will behave this behavior according to a specific genetic program, and this behavior aims at the safety of the transmission of genes from parents to children and from them to future generations, and it seems This reaction of living organisms towards their enemies is a type of behavior to achieve a specific goal, and this specific program of animal behavior is manifested in smell, sound, appearance and other forms (17).
If we look at the previous text, it becomes clear to us that the author means that living beings in their behavior seem to be seeking a certain thing, not with knowledge and understanding, but because they are programmed to behave like this behavior, and here the following question arises: What is the source of this programming? The gene we are talking about is similar to a set of informational codes, but this set of codes cannot think, and the gene lacks intelligence, reason and appreciation. That is why if a special gene is found that prompts the organism to sacrifice, then that gene cannot command the sacrifice. The computer has been designed by a rational and knowledgeable designer to stop working when the stop button is pressed, so the computer does not shut down by itself and the shutdown button does not work by chance without a designer. Someone has programmed this button to stop the device from working when pressed.
So there are genes that are programmed to push this organism towards self-sacrifice, and there is a force of mind and know-how designed and programmed these genes in this way, and this force inspires beings every moment and watches them and guides them to follow a specific behavior, and this power is God has glorified his power, and this fact is mentioned by the Qur’an as follows: ] God worship is in the heavens and on earth creature and the angels they are not proud * they fear their Lord above them and do what they are commanded [ [bees: 49 50].
] God who created seven heavens and the earth like it descends among them to know that God over all things and that God had taken note of everything [ [divorce: 12].
The word instinct is used by the proponents of evolutionary theory to explain the ability of an animal to perform a certain behavior from birth. There were many questions about how animals acquired this instinct and how the first instinctive behavior appeared in animals, as well as about how this instinct was transferred to an adult.
All these questions remain without a response or answer.
There is a geneticist and an evolutionist called Gordon Taylor Rottary .
In his book, " The Great Evolution Myster ," he admits that the theory is incapable of answering questions of instinct as follows:
If we asked how the first instinctive behavior appeared and how this instinctive behavior was inherited, we would not find any answer ( 1 ).
There are others along the lines of " Gordon Taylor" " believe in the theory of evolution does not wish to recognize this fact and instead are trying to stick to answer vague and does not have any real meaning. For their opinion, the instincts are considered genes present in animals appear in the form of behavioral patterns, and based on this definition Honey bees build the hive on the regular shape known as hexagonal geometric building blocks according to the animal instinct. In other words, there is a special gene in the bodies of all honey bees that makes these species instinctively build their cells according to the known shape.
In this case, the thinking, rational person raises his logical question: If living organisms were programmed to behave in this particular behavior, who would have programmed this behavior? Since there is no program that is programmed on its own and must be programmed ?!
|
Evolutionists claim that Mother Nature , which is made up of lakes, mountains, trees ... etc have the ability to creation, see any part of these parts has the ability to give the beaver instinct to create his home in this way Adept or give different animals of different behavioral patterns? |
There is no one who is more capable of directing this creation and organizing its gift than God Almighty. So God Almighty mentioned the miracle of honey in his dear book as an example of his inspiration for living things to follow a certain behavior, that is, the instinct that the advocates of the theory of evolution repeat, or as they say: that animals are programmed to perform a certain behavior is nothing but a divine inspiration for these living things, and this fact was mentioned in Qur'an: ] the Lord inspired the bees to Atakve of homes in the mountains and in the trees and what they erect, then eat of all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord made easy come out of their bellies , the colors of various syrup wherein is healing for people in this is a sign for those who reflect [ [bees: 68 - 69]
The advocates of the theory of evolution close their eyes to this fact to deny the divine existence, and they certainly have seen and still see the behavioral patterns of animals and are still searching for an explanation for them and know with certainty the inability of the theory of evolution to explain it logically. We often find familiar phrases and sentences when we read authors who propagated this theory, and among these phrases: “To accomplish this work, there must be a high-level mind, and because animals do not have such a mind, science is unable to answer this question.”
We cite the following example concerning the behavior of silkworm on the tongue of a well - known advocates of the theory of evolution called « Haimar Dithfurth - Von Hermann von Datfort» where he says: The idea of taking multiple means of fixed leaves to camouflage brilliant idea, see this be the owner of the idea? Who came up with this clever idea that reduces the likelihood of a bird finding the prey it is looking for? The worm must have learned genetically from the owner of this smart idea ... All these phenomena must be available to a very intelligent person trying to survive, and we must accept this fact, knowing that the silkworm is a very simple nervous system as well as a primitive one. Its life behavior, and this worm lacks the ability to define a specific goal and move towards that goal.
But how could this worm invent this means to defend itself when it is so weak from the formation? And when the ancient naturalists encountered such phenomena, they found no explanation for them except by a miracle. That is, they adopted the idea of an unnatural creative force, that is, they believed in the existence of God who gives his creatures certain mechanisms for self-defense. Regarding this way of thinking, it is considered as the suicide of a scientist or a researcher in nature, and on the other hand, modern science explains these phenomena without meaning by adhering to the concept of instinct, because contrary to what most of us think, the interpretation of behavior by instinct means the animal's acquisition of these behavioral patterns. By birth, this explanation does not present or delay our questioning, but rather hinders our search for a limited and clear answer, and it is not possible to talk about the rational behavior of a silkworm that lacks the existence of such a mind.
|
There is only one explanation for the phenomenon of caring for unreasonable living creatures for their young with this compassion and tenderness and protecting them from them. |
This is what this adopter of the theory of evolution says while analyzing or trying to arrive at a logical analysis of the behavior of the silkworm, this studied rational behavior, we do not find in such books and publications except questions without clear responses, or intellectual contradictions that only lead to a dead end. Even the theorist Charles Darwin himself admitted this fact, stating that the behavior and instincts of animals pose a clear threat to the validity of his theory, and he mentioned this in his book "On the Origin of Species" several times and clearly and unambiguously: " Most instincts have a great influence and raise a great degree of confusion, and how they arose. And its development may seem to the reader of my theory sufficient to demolish my theory from the ground up " ( 3 ).
As for Charles Darwin's son, Francis Darwin , he analyzed and explained his father’s messages in a book called “ The Life and Letters of Darwin ” and mentioned the extent of the difficulties that Darwin faced in his interpretation of instincts, saying in the book (meaning the origin of species ) and in the third chapter of it. In the first section, he talks about animal habits, instincts, and the difference in them. The reason for introducing this topic at the beginning of the chapter is to displace the readers ’thought from the possibility of rejecting the idea of the development of instincts through natural selection. The chapter on instincts is one of the most difficult topics contained in the book" On the Origin of Species " ( 4 ).
Instincts cannot develop
The advocates of the theory of evolution argue that most animal behavior is the result of instinct, but as we said earlier, they cannot provide an acceptable explanation of how instincts arose, nor about how instinct first appeared, nor about how animals acquired it, and if one of them was besieged by questions, he would be attached to the following claim : Animals acquire behavioral patterns through experience, and the strongest are selected by natural selection. At a later stage, these successful behavior patterns are inherited through successive generations. "
There are logical errors that the mind cannot accept in this claim, let us examine these errors in sequence:
1- The errors inherent in the saying: choosing beneficial behaviors through natural selection:
Natural selection is the cornerstone of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Natural selection means choosing any beneficial and beneficial change to the organism (this change may be structural or behavioral) and choosing that organism to pass on that change to subsequent generations.
There is an important point in this claim that we must not overlook, which is: Nature, according to Darwin's claim, is the test to distinguish the useful from the harmful, and it is the effective and rational force in existence, but there is no in nature who distinguishes between the harmful and the useful as an influential force where there is no between animals or other animals that Whoever has a decision for that or the ability to make this decision, only from the creation of nature and what it contains and the creation of everything has reason, logic and the ability to distinguish harmful from useful.
In fact , Darwin himself admits the impossibility of acquiring useful behaviors through natural selection , but it is back and defend his point of view that is pure fiction and continued to defend his opinion despite being Hdhira and is illogical , where he says: «In the end can be considered that the instincts that make Zaghloul bathroom He expels his half-brothers from the nest, and makes the kingdom of bees divided into servants and queen who are not gifted or created instincts, but living and small details of a general constitution for the living world, and these small details assume the task of multiplying and changing by selecting the fittest from the weakest. But this consideration does not seem logical to me, but it is close to the ideas that revolve in my mind » ( 5 ).
Another advocate of the theory of evolution, this time in Turkey, Professor Jamal Yıldırım, admits that the maternal affection of the mother cannot be explained by natural selection and says in this regard:
“Is there a possibility to explain maternal affection towards children by means of a blind system that lacks spiritual feelings such as the natural selection system? Undoubtedly, biologists, including Darwin’s supporters, have failed to provide a convincing answer to this question. There are moral qualities in living beings that are not rational and that they cannot acquire These qualities are by her will, so there must be someone who gave her these qualities, and since nature and the law of natural selection are unable to give living things this moral nature because they lack the moral qualities, the bright truth, like the sun, is that all living things are under divine providence and its tight management, and for these advanced reasons we can In nature, we see behavioral patterns of some animals that arouse bewilderment and surprise, and make us wonder: How did this animal find its way to this behavior, and how could this or that animal think in this way?
2- Mistakes related to the inheritance of beneficial and selected behaviors through natural selection:
The second step for Darwin's supporters is their claim that beneficial behaviors chosen through natural selection are passed down through generations. This claim is weak and extremely fragile in various respects. First of all, any new behavior that an animal acquires through experience cannot be passed down to a later generation in any way, because the acquired experience belongs to that generation alone, and this new behavioral experience acquired cannot be entered into the genetic structure of the animal at all.
Says Gordon Rtaylor expressing his opinion against the opinion of those who claim to propagate behavioral patterns through successive generations the following: "biologists claim that there is a possibility to propagate behavioral patterns across successive generations can be seen this phenomenon in nature , for example , Dobzhansky claims that all the functions of the body of the organism is only The product of inheritance resulting from the influence of the elements and factors available in the external environment, and in this case the matter is ultimately acceptable for all kinds of behavioral patterns, but this is not true at all and it is considered a sad matter that this is the opinion of a scientist with a position like Dobzhansky and it can be said: There are some behavioral patterns Some neighborhoods are inherited through subsequent generations, but it cannot be generalized to all behavioral patterns. "
The apparent fact is that there is no scientific evidence that can prove the inheritance of some behavioral patterns by means of the genetic map of the organism. It is known that genes are only responsible for building proteins, where they are built more than the secretion of some hormones to control the behavior of the organism (in general), for example that The animal is active or vice versa, or the newborn is more connected to its mother, but there is no evidence to prove the inheritance of the special behavior that makes the animal build its nest in the known order, synchronization and regularity.
If this is the case, then what are the genetic units responsible for the inheritance process? Because there are hypotheses that prove their existence, and no one has been able to answer this question (6).
As reported by Gordon Rtaylor , the claim that patterns are heritable is not scientifically acceptable. Building their nests, beaver building dams, and honey bee workers' secretion of wax requires the presence of some kind of complex behavioral patterns such as design and planning for the future, and these cannot be inherited through generations. There is another example that imposes itself strongly which is Concerning the behavior of underage workers in the ant kingdom.
These workers have a special behavior that is distinguished by them, which requires them to be fully aware of the account and have extensive experience, but these behavioral patterns of ant workers cannot be acquired by inheritance for the sole reason that they are minors and cannot reproduce, so they cannot inherit these behavioral patterns for subsequent generations, and as long as Likewise, the following question should be directed to the advocates of the theory of evolution: How was the first minor worker ant able to pass on these behavioral patterns to subsequent generations of child workers when they certainly could not reproduce? And these workers, whether ants, bees, or any other animal, have been working for millions of years with this behavior, which reflects the extent of rationality, portability, solidarity, regularity, and the accurate distribution of roles in addition to the spirit of sacrifice, but these creatures have not been able at all to inherit these behavioral patterns since they were first created.
We cannot say that these creatures have made an effort to acquire these behavioral patterns because they begin to follow this behavior from the first moments of their existence on the face of the earth in the fullest form. It does not encounter in any stage of its life any stage of education and all its behavior is inherently acquired, and this is permissible with all living things. So who taught living organisms these behavioral patterns? It is the same question that Darwin asked 150 years ago, and the advocates of the theory of evolution could not answer it, and there is a contradiction that Darwin himself expressed, saying:
"It is a big mistake to talk about the hypothesis that instinctive behavioral patterns are acquired by naturalization and bequeathed to later generations, because as we know there are very confusing instincts such as those of ants or bees that can never be acquired by nature."
If we assume that the working ant or any other insect has acquired all its distinct traits through natural selection and gradually, that is, we assume that it is a selection process for the good traits and then it is passed on to subsequent generations and in a successive manner and each time a useful trait is chosen to be passed on to a later generation and so on, if We assumed this because our hypothesis became impossible for the sole reason that the working ant is not similar to its parents to a large extent in addition to being sterile, and that is why it cannot inherit the new acquired traits and behavioral patterns to subsequent generations. Here the question arises: How can this state be explained by natural selection (7)?
Jamal Yıldırım, a believer in the theory of evolution, expresses the contradiction that the adopters of this theory have fallen into: “Let us take, for example, insects that live in the form of societies such as ants and bees. These insects are sterile and do not have any possibility of passing on any new biological traits that they transmit to subsequent generations, but they show Amazing adaptation to the conditions of the ocean in which they are located at the highest levels ». (8)
It is clear from the foregoing confessions and sayings of scientists the impossibility of explaining the bewildering behavioral patterns of these living organisms by means of the theory of evolution because these behavioral patterns were not acquired through natural selection and cannot be passed down to subsequent generations.
The fall of the idea of the evolution of instincts with the evolution of the living
The theory of evolution claims that organisms arose from one another through evolution. According to this theory, reptiles may have originated from fish and birds from reptiles ... But we must not forget that the same type is completely different in terms of behavior, as the fish differs from the reptiles completely. The following question revolves around: Has the behavior of the organism been subjected to evolution, as its biological biological structure has been subject to evolution?
This question is considered one of the contradictions and intellectual dilemmas that the advocates of the theory of evolution fell into. Darwin put his finger on this contradiction and reached the impossibility of acquiring instincts through natural selection and changing them through evolution, where he asked: Is it possible to acquire instincts through natural selection, develop them and change them later? What can we say in front of honey bees building their hives in this geometrical shape that preceded mathematicians long ago? What can we say in front of this instinct? (9).Various examples of this contradiction can be found in all kinds of animals, such as fish, reptiles, and birds. Fish have their own characteristics in terms of reproduction, hunting and self-defense, as well as creating their own homes in their own way, and these special qualities are in a state that fits perfectly with the aquatic environment in which they live. There are some types of fish that stick their eggs under the stones on the sea floor, and after sticking their eggs to their eggs, they flap their fins over them to allow the largest amount of oxygen needed to breathe the embryos inside the eggs. As for birds, they lay their eggs in specially constructed nests that they build for this purpose and lie on their eggs for a specific period of time necessary for the eggs to hatch.
As for crocodiles, which are considered wild animals, they have a completely opposite behavior, so they bury their eggs under the sand for two full months, which are necessary for them to hatch, and there are some fish laying their eggs inside the stones on the sea floor and on the other hand there are some wild animals that build their dwellings on the edges of the upper trees using branches and scales Trees. As for birds, they establish their nests using herbs and wild plants. As for frankincense, which they claim to have originated from reptiles, they are completely different in terms of reproduction from the rest of the living things. While the rest of the animals reproduce with eggs, frankincense reproduces by carrying her embryos inside their stomachs for several months, and after they give birth to their fetus, they feed them with the milk that their body excretes.
There is a different method of hunting for each type of neighborhood, while some remain latent for hunting for a long time, some of them disguise the color of the place in which they are located, and others depend on speed and surprise. As it becomes clear, there is a great and wide difference between wild animals and aquatic animals, and each species is distinguished by a clear difference according to the environment in which it lives.
From this presentation, we conclude that the change in instincts must accompany the development taking place in the living. For example, for a fish that lays its eggs under the rocks of the sea floor and flaps its fins to take care of it, a wild animal whose developed instinct leads it to build special nests on tree edges and lie on eggs for a certain period in order to hatch them. This matter is impossible of course, and the other impossibility in this matter can be explained by assuming the inability of the organism to live as a result of the inappropriateness of its undeveloped behavior to its advanced structure as a result of the change in the environment in which it lives, where the fish that mastered hiding in the sea can only live after finding a new means of defense, and in addition Due to the lack of time to achieve this, because it must change its behavior, way of life, and build its body on an ongoing basis, otherwise it is vulnerable to death and the extinction of its offspring.
It is clear that no unreasonable animal possesses the ability to make such a quick and strategic decision that requires mental powers. So how do you explain the behavior of animals suitable for building their bodies and the conditions of the environment in which they live? Darwin made his change in this regard in response to the criticism directed at his book "On the Origin of Species", saying: There was an objection to the idea of the origin of species that the change in the building of the organism must coincide with the change in its instincts as well as the fact that they are compatible with each other because any A contrast that occurs between them means certain death / (10).
It is clear from the foregoing that animal behavior cannot be explained by evolution over time, by chance, or by the influence of mother nature. So how did living things acquire those traits and characteristics that allow them to continue their lives? The answer to the question is very precise and clear. A person who is familiar with the way of living of the living can see the impossibility of forming these behavioral patterns on their own or by means of a series of coincidences. The source of these behavioral patterns is neither in their bodies nor in the environment in which they live. So there is a force that cannot be seen with the naked eye that is managing the behavior of these living things. Prepare the appearances of life and the secrets of survival are God Almighty, whose mercy expanded everything. The result: living things are moved by divine inspiration.
As we mentioned in the previous pages, the advocates of the theory of evolution faced major problems related to the interpretation of the behavior of animals, while the truth is clear, which is the inability of the non-rational organism to distinguish clear differences or to link between facts or make a correct decision, in addition to its inability to plan For several future stages, along with other things that require a mind, thinking and perception. Evolutionists say that these organisms are programmed to perform these actions, so who created this program? What is the force that causes honey bees to secrete special wax to build the hive? The answer is clear and precise, and it is an impossibility that generates these behavioral patterns on their own or purely by chance. It is clear that there is a force that governs and directs this nature and has a direct influence on those beings. And the owner of this power, without a doubt, is God, the All-Knowing, Creator. And a theory that is unable to explain how the organism was created must be incapable of explaining its behavior and its source. ] I trust in God , my Lord and your Lord , what creature is only taking her forelock my Lord on a straight path [ . [Hood: 56].
The sacrificial spirit of living things refutes Darwin's claim that the fittest survive
As we have already said in the previous pages, the matter according to Darwin's claim depends on the law of natural selection, meaning that living organisms that can adapt to the conditions of the environment in which they live can continue their lives and preserve their offspring, and as for weak organisms that cannot adapt to these conditions, they are vulnerable. To perish and annihilate, and based on this, the logical definition of nature according to Darwin's law of natural selection is the place where living beings struggle with each other for survival, so that the strong remains and the weak perish.
Based on this definition, every living being must be strong and distinguished from others in order to struggle and survive. In a midst such as this, some features such as altruism, sacrifice and solidarity cannot be talked about, as they may have negative effects on the organism itself. According to this logic, he is characterized by the utmost selfishness and has no concern except for searching for food, establishing the house that houses it, and protecting himself from the danger of enemies.
But is it true that nature is the place that includes beings who are engaged in a bitter struggle to eliminate some of them with the utmost brutality and selfishness? Research into this matter to this day has negated the evolutionists' claims. Nature contains countless examples in its corners that reveal images intended to sacrifice for the sake of others.
Jamal Yildirim mentions in his book "Extremism and the Law of Evolution."
The reasons that made Darwin and other men of science in his day portray nature as a theater of war between the living can be summed up in the following points: The men of science in the nineteenth century were lurking in their laboratories or their workplaces for a long time and did not study nature in the field, and this is why their imaginations simply went to surrender to the idea that living organisms in a silent state of war among themselves, and the world like feat Haley Haley could not save himself from the clutches of this illusion (11).
The world 's Peter Kropotkin , Peter Kropotkin , who also believes in the theory of evolution mentions in his book Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution or " the common goal: influencing factor in the development of " error which occurred when Darwin and his supporters , saying: Darwin and his supporters knew nature as a place locked in which living organisms Continuous wars between them. Portrays Huxley Haxley the animal world as an arena in which animals are wrestling a bitter struggle among themselves and prevail among them the intelligent and rapid who can live to start the next day a new conflict and so on . From the very first glance, it becomes clear to us that Huxley's view on nature is not scientific ... (12).
This situation is considered as a testament to the lack of reliance on the theory of evolution on scientific observations, and scientists overcome intellectual rigidity by analyzing some existing phenomena according to their whims. In fact, the war that Darwin claims spread throughout nature turned out to be a big mistake, so we do not find the neighborhoods that
|
The penguin stands on its feet for months to protect the little girl from the cold. |
The simplest example of altruism is the behavior of a bee worker, as she stings any animal that enters her hive with the certainty that she will die, so her stinging needle remains embedded in the body that it bites and due to the close association of this needle with the insect's internal organs, she pulls these organs out with them, causing the death of the bee. This clearly shows that the worker bee sacrifices its life for the safety of the rest of the hive.
As for the male penguin and its female, they guard their nest until death. The male watches over the new chick between its legs for four continuous months without interruption, and throughout this period he cannot eat anything of food. As for the female, she goes to the sea to bring food as she collects it in her throat and brings it to her chick And they show remarkable dedication to their chick.
|
A female crocodile carries her young in her mouth to protect them. |
There are some animal mothers who leave the herd in which they live to breastfeed their children, so the mother falls behind with her son and continues to breastfeed him until he is satisfied, putting her life at great risk. Animals are known to care for their newly born children or those who have been out of eggs for long periods of time, up to days, months, or even a few years, so these animals provide their young with food, housing and warmth and defend them from the danger of predatory enemies. Most bird species is feeding their babies of 4 - 20 times per hour during the day, while the female gum he told her different as it requires them to feed well when breastfeeding their calves even provide them with sufficient milk, and throughout this period increased infant weight while losing mother of weighing significantly .
As for the natural and expected in these cases, it is for these irrational animals to neglect their young and leave them alone because they do not understand the meaning of motherhood or kindness, but on the contrary they bear the responsibility of caring for and defending them wonderfully.
And living things do not take such behavior with their young only, but they may show the same sympathy and tenderness towards other animals or other individuals that live with them in the same groups, and this can be observed when food sources are scarce, so it is expected in such difficult cases that the strong will set off from them to annihilate the weak. It takes over the food that exists, but what happens is the opposite of what evolutionists expect. Kropotkin, who is known for his support for this theory, cites many examples related to this topic, for example: ants begin to eat what they have saved when food sources are scarce, while birds begin to migrate en masse to another place, and young beavers head to the north and old beavers to the south of the rivers where they live there crowded. (14).
What can be understood from these examples is that there is no competition or competition between animals for food. On the contrary, many examples of their cooperation and sacrifices can be seen even in the harshest of circumstances. Often times, it works to alleviate the burden and harsh conditions. However, there is an issue that must be taken into consideration which is that it is the lack of thinking that causes them to make these decisions and establish this system. How can one explain the gathering of these animals into groups with one goal and their collective work to achieve this common goal?
Undoubtedly, the one who created these living quarters and inspired them to follow what benefits them and the one who preserves them is God, Lord of the Worlds, his power is glorified. True to the Almighty said to her: ] and creature on earth but God knows their livelihood and Mstqrha and all its warehouse in the book shown [ . [Hood: 6]
Faced with these facts, evolution claims that nature is a theater of war fall in which only those who are selfish and those who see only their interests are victorious, John Maynard Smith asked the famous evolutionist question of his peers in thought related to this type of behavior in animals: If natural selection means choosing traits Good for the living being, which guarantees its survival and reproduction, so how can we explain the quality of sacrifice in some animals? (15th)
The instinct of preserving the offspring
As it turned out in the previous pages, evolutionists could not explain the sacrifice in the behavior of some animals. There are numerous examples of sacrifice in nature that undermine the intellectual basis of this theory. Even Stephen Jay Goui talks about sacrifice as a difficult problem facing the theory of evolution (16).
On the other side is talking about Gordon Tyler Gorden Taylor as an obstacle or a barrier in front of a great theory to reflect the depth of the ideological dilemma facing them in their defense of them. This sacrifice and compassion that can be seen carries great understandings and is considered a fatal stab in the body of theory for those who view nature as a purely materialistic view and consider it the product of only coincidences.
And there are some of their yields who have interpreted these phenomena with a different interpretation, which he called the law of the selfish gene, and the pioneer of this idea is one of the extremists of our time and called Richard Dawkins, who believes that the sacrifice expressed by some creatures is nothing but the product of their selfishness, and according to him, when an animal makes a sacrifice He does not do this in defense of the rest, but rather to preserve his genes, meaning that when the mother defends her young, she is in fact defending the genes that she was born from, because when her baby is saved, he can pass these genes to later generations, and on this basis the living things become what they contain. Humans are similar to machines that generate genes and are responsible for passing them on to future generations.
They claim that living organisms are programmed to preserve offspring and transmit genes to later generations and thus behave in a manner appropriate to this program. We give an example of the way these people think and their interpretation of the behavior of animals by viewing a text taken from a book in biology adopting this theory and entitled Essentails of Biology : Or the principles of biology and the text as follows: How to explain the behavior that leads its owner to danger in order to save others? Some of the behaviors based on sacrifice are the source of selfish genes, and it is more likely that living organisms exposing themselves to danger in order to bring the necessary food for their young will behave this behavior according to a specific genetic program, and this behavior aims at the safety of the transmission of genes from parents to children and from them to future generations, and it seems This reaction of living organisms towards their enemies is a type of behavior to achieve a specific goal, and this specific program of animal behavior is manifested in smell, sound, appearance and other forms (17).
If we look at the previous text, it becomes clear to us that the author means that living beings in their behavior seem to be seeking a certain thing, not with knowledge and understanding, but because they are programmed to behave like this behavior, and here the following question arises: What is the source of this programming? The gene we are talking about is similar to a set of informational codes, but this set of codes cannot think, and the gene lacks intelligence, reason and appreciation. That is why if a special gene is found that prompts the organism to sacrifice, then that gene cannot command the sacrifice. The computer has been designed by a rational and knowledgeable designer to stop working when the stop button is pressed, so the computer does not shut down by itself and the shutdown button does not work by chance without a designer. Someone has programmed this button to stop the device from working when pressed.
So there are genes that are programmed to push this organism towards self-sacrifice, and there is a force of mind and know-how designed and programmed these genes in this way, and this force inspires beings every moment and watches them and guides them to follow a specific behavior, and this power is God has glorified his power, and this fact is mentioned by the Qur’an as follows: ] God worship is in the heavens and on earth creature and the angels they are not proud * they fear their Lord above them and do what they are commanded [ [bees: 49 50].
] God who created seven heavens and the earth like it descends among them to know that God over all things and that God had taken note of everything [ [divorce: 12].
