{"id":8527,"date":"2013-02-05T21:25:15","date_gmt":"2013-02-06T05:25:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/?p=8527"},"modified":"2018-03-24T13:12:08","modified_gmt":"2018-03-24T20:12:08","slug":"the-blind-faith-needed-in-evolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/2013\/02\/the-blind-faith-needed-in-evolution\/","title":{"rendered":"The Blind Faith Needed in Evolution"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Evolution by Fr. Nikita Grigoriev –
\nEvolution [also known as macro-evolution] is a philosophical idea and must only be accepted purely on [blind] faith. Evolution is not a science and is not based on a single fact or observation or on any scientific process. It is based on the entirely false idea of Malthus about the perpetual universal shortage of food, and on the completely false idea of Lamarck concerning the inheritance of physical changes by a new generation from a previous generation. These two pillars on which the fantasy of evolution was originally built, in and of themselves, are likewise, in no way scientific, but are purely abstract and philosophical.<\/p>\n

Adaptation is often confused with evolution.<\/strong> Adaptation is a fact and it\u2019s quite real. Evolution is a myth and does not exist in reality at all, only in fantasy. There is a fine line separating them. Adaptation is when an individual or a species collectively changes to adapt to their environment. Such changes can be subtle or very striking. The changes are physical (phenotype) and, in the case of an individual, can be brought about in a direct response to a stimulus from the environment. An example of this is a suntan, or the strong right arm of a blacksmith, to use Lamacrk\u2019s example. These are temporary adaptations of an individual and are definitely not inherited or passed on to the next generation. <\/p>\n

The phenotype (physical characteristics) of the next generation individual are determined at birth by, and only by, the combination of genes that the individual received from his or her parents (genotype) at the time of conception. Now, in the case of a population (large number of individuals of a species), adaptation does have a genetic aspect. A population adapts to its environment by favoring those gene combinations within the species that produce individuals that are more adapted to their environment. This is like a special breed within a species. And this is a very important point: this group remains a breed within the species, not a new species.<\/p>\n

Adaptation is a fact and it\u2019s quite real. Evolution is a myth and does not exist in reality at all, only in fantasy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The genotype (gene pool) of this breed is definitely skewed with a preponderance of gene combinations that produce the favored phenotype (physical characteristics) that is advantageous for surviving and thriving under these conditions. This is why St. Bernards and not Chihuahuas (both members of the species Canis \u2013 dog) are used for rescuing avalanche victims. Granted, dogs are bred \u201cartificially\u201d by humans to adapt them to special environments but they still remain dogs, and don\u2019t become a \u201cnew species\u201d.<\/p>\n

This is observed naturally among different \u201dbreeds\u201d of humans, who are all nevertheless human and not some other \u201cspecies\u201d. Hence, aboriginal people who live in tropical areas generally have dark skin (high melanin for UV protection) and a higher surface area to volume ratio (tall and lanky \u2013 for easier heat dissipation). Conversely Inuits, the people of the Arctic regions, tend to have fair skin (low melanin \u2013 not much need for sun protection) but a considerably lower surface area to volume ratio (a propensity for portliness \u2013 for better heat retention).<\/p>\n