I'm reviewing a bigotry classic,
Dobzhansky's bigotry finds its full supplement in his profanity.
With evolutionism, Dobzhansky is lobbying to retire God, or else, Dobzhanky is willing to be pejorative, by calling Him various foul names -- (hasha) "senseless operation," "in a jocular mood," "blind process," "cheating," "absentminded."
If reflecting honestly, even anthropomorphism would suffice to empathize that Allah is sensible, programming/crafting the processes/hardware marvelously [modularly].
Ironically, all that profanity of Dobzhansky, may count as his confessions that he finds no meaning in biology, "except" evolutionism, which he labels with the listed.
The rest of this review, is slamming Dobzhansky, tracking the pathology, throughout his sections
The exaggerative nature of Dobzhansky almost all the time ensures that he is himself a lot more false than the opponent he mentions. So unsupportably that, you see the pattern of his evolutionism. How he had been a pioneer of illusion, by painting genetics evolutionistically, and has been momentous in the history of evolutionism. Evolutionists need such shameless [& godless] heresy makers, to subscribe to.
The godlessness may be optional for evolutionists -- in case they may specify the sort of "god" they make-believe in. They seem to want a strictly inactive "god."
Note that, this review is naturally slamming Dobzhansky, because Dobzhansky is foul in more than 90% of the issues. Whether he is foul in 100% of the cases, is left to guessing, though. In cases not related to (sunni) Islam, I may be only guessing what people saw in the other they oppose, unless they openly tell what they oppose.
Dobzhansky starts with the typical evolutionist trickery of juggling what a "theory" is.
Macro-evolutionism is merely a sci-fi paradigm. Not a theory, in any positive sense.
Physics was/is the well-respected role model for science. For example, from the history of psychology, I know that, the Gestalt psychologists were influenced by physics, too. But evolutionists try to shortcut to the reward title, without achieving through the honest way of science. Gestaltists had a field theory, inspired to formulate psychological theories. That is respectible, scientific attitude. In contrast, is the case of evolutionists. They take the shortcut of name-grabbing, to look as if similar to the status of studies in physics. The term "theory" becomes meaningless.
For a muslim, if a "theory" is proven to contradict the Quran, that is not "mere theory." Refuted theory.
The Quran is not troubled, whether Copernicus, or bin Baz might be right, because there is no mention of the Earth being stationary vs mobile. Nor [directly] relating to the Sun, "except" for our need.
There, bin Baz might have been right, if he was opposing some hypocrites who might have committed their regular jocular stupidness, such as trying to relate back "the Copernican truth" to the timing "while (you see) the Sun sliding in view." That is so! We live on Earth, and we see that thus. Nothing changes for our daily prayer timing. The mockery of the hypocrites were probably to bother the people, that was what, presumably, caused bin Baz to fume. (This does not neglect the possibility that, bin Baz, as a wahhabi, might have thought up a strictness that the rest of the [sunni] muslims may not be knowing. Nor denying his right to oppose Copernicus.)
We know through astronomy that, the Sun is mobile in the galaxy. That is, there is the divine order beyond the max & min that we see. Electrons orbit their atoms, the Sun is orbiting its upper level (and so on). That is a few levels. The Quran is right.
The Quran is just like the Universe. Both created by Allah (the God), they allow you go wrong, if you merely guess. That case in scientific matters, in fact, further affirms the sunni view that, we need to subscribe to the prophet, Muhammed (s.a.s.), for intricacies/model of Islam (like for namaz, and tesettur) -- just how we may need the scientific methods of physics, while interpreting the Quran relating to physics.
Would you guess that concludes the case of Dobzhansky, with bin Baz? No!!! Dobzhansky appends lots of non-Quranic trivia, probably from the Bible. You probably know what they are, because even the Bible has only a couple of troubled issues, such as in geology, and that is what the materialists try to base their godlessness on. Allah sent the Quran, right, long before the modern scientific establishment.
Thus, we need to acknowledge that, Allah, the God, surely knows the stuff.
The Quranic ayet "the day & night wrap/ensphere in turns", is hinting that the World is spherical (or, topologically-equivalent]. To ensphere (yookevvir) is from the root kvr (küre, sphere). To encircle, circle.
Sometimes, the bigotry/illusionism of "scientists" make me think that, if sphericity were not written in the Quran, I could support the christians who believe the Earth to be flat. Why believe the likes of Dobzhansky, or photos told to be shot from air?
Then, Dobzhansky assaults a christian, P.H. Gosse, who was probably invoking the (priorly known) mind (vs. body) philosophy, upon which Dobzhansky prohibits God doing that "absurd deceitfulness."
I guess, Dobzhansky was guessing Allah having pledged to allow all of the truth to be visible, to even His deceitful enemies. But that is the vice versa. (As a muslim, I see no need to support the Bible, in such geological [false] trivia, but the truth is that Allah actually reserves the right to not fully inform, nor equally inform all people.)
What we muslims uphold with the Bible, is the biology of Adam (a.s.) & Eve. That is the common point. Not supporting the doctrine of original sin, nor trinity. But we support that Jesus (a.s.) was born to a virgin mother. Allah is able to create thus.
The Quran is informing us that, the old books of Allah have not been kept intact, after the prophet (a.s.) passed away. Those geographical trivia that contradict science, might have been a change (tahrif, muharref) -- maybe, while translating.
Just how the Quran, if translated to Greek yesterday, or worse, two-centuries ago, would probably not be so right to trace for scientific matters, because the translator might not have known the critical issues some word was referring to. (For example, see the bad coinage of the computer terms veritabani, and bilgisayar, in turkish.)
The "deceitfulness" is not a legitimate label left at your whim. Allah is totally sensible. In His book, He is telling that straightly. In Enam(6):146 "... and certainly, Allah is truthful", the word "truthful" is told with the word "Sadiqun" that also is in the sense of loyal (to His word, telling the right word). Then, what is His word about deceit, and deceitful people? Will He give full information to deceitful people, so that they may tell their lies against Allah, to fool the credule people (through fine-tuning their lies with data)? No. Allah reserves the right to bury people in (essentially) darkness, Baqara(2):257. In fact, that is only relieved for faithful and even that is not all at once. That is, a saint (or, maybe the honest scientist, in some field) may advance to a high clarity level, but yet not totally out of curtains that hide the truths.
Whether because of lieful hypocrisy, or total bigotry (or both), Dobzhansky was that who turned genetics into the evolutionistic-story-inventing business. Why? Had Allah hidden the data? No. But Dobzhansky had sold his spirit to evolutionism, obviously.
Baqara(2):17 is fitting the case of Dobzhansky. "The condition of these is like who lights a fire. While the fire is lighting the surrounding, Allah removes the vision-ability of their eyes and leaves in darknesses, they becoming not able to see."
Dobzhansky is trying to make a cheapshot out of the creativity. He asks "Is there an explanation, to make intelligible to reason this colossal diversity of living beings?" Why is the diversity so ungodly in his opinion? Is he craving to object Allah? That is the typical bigotted evolutionist/materialist urge.
I may trivially slam that, in kind, through questioning.
I'm not to pretend a bible expert but "01:001:020 ... Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." suggests variety, coupled with the Mendel work that, genome of a species carry lots of possible combinations.
The point is only what is the flexibility of a specific genome. If able to look only wrinkled vs. round, that is all. If may be dwarf vs. normal vs. big, that is a dimension, too. So on. Who has proven that any significant mutation has brought any new genome capability that was non-existent at the times of Adam (a.s.)? Furthermore, how would a mutation suggest spontaneous/godless evolutionability, at all? Who set up the corresponding gene-expression? Is gene-expression somehow auto-magical to Dobzhansky (& those who follow him)? In software, only bits would tell nothing -- until a specific platform would make sense of the bit pattern, and run or open that file. In biology, all alone, the genome of a species is only dummy bits, which must be interpreted by the gene-expression, the semantics from Allah.
His question was obviously no question. If that were, he would think. Right? He was just shouting something/babble not to hear or think, it seems. Likewise, how tens (or, hundreds?) of millions of people supported the evolutionist "Modern Synthesis", although Dobzhansky was obviously false.
Their mouth is busy, with talking. That makes noise. No sense.
The Quran is containing the two of Allah and Jesus (a.s.) talk. Allah points out that Jesus (a.s.) was gifted by Allah. Jesus (a.s.) was able to mold the substance into the shape of a bird, then Allah was giving life to that. We would point out that, that is a miracle. Living vs. non-living is vastly different.
Surely, we may think swallowing some mineral that is non-living. That is having a biological context in our body, but this would reflect what our body makes of that mineral. The mineral is not "living" but our body is living, thus we have "interaction."
If a virus were non-living, that would be only like minerals. No news. But what we find Dobzhansky to illusion us about, is the willingness to neglect living vs. non-living.
Dobzhansky subscribes to godlessness. Period. There is no sense in his materialism. No material support. He illogically subscribes to the less-supportable tautology. Neglects God.
Whether a species would adapt or become extinct, in both cases, Dobzhansky assumes that to be godless. That is his faith. In contrast, people who keep faith in God, would think that Allah might have resolved to keep or quit that species on the stage. We have no right to presume His not interacting.
If/when Allah would like to continue that species, He would do that somehow (whether by motivating that species to face that challenge, or perhaps to migrate).
If the genomic flexibility of that species is able to accommodate that new setting, surely, transforming may happen, too. That is the genetics free-market. Allah created us with genomes, and reserves the right to guide us throughout processes.
The free-market "invisible hand" is Allah, as well as that who could sustain a species through tricky adaptations. (People code game software, for playing. So what? Is Allah (hasha) not entitled to command the processes He created?) Unlike the normalcy of introductory economics, we know that not all the free people have full information. Likewise, in the nature. There, expect from Allah, marvelous phenomena of how he refines adaptations, to context, or even transcending the immediate context -- despite our being limited to our limited, contextual knowledge.
Evolutionists, being faithful in godlessness of nature, talk just as tautological stuff.
Dobzhansky is so sold to evolutionism that, when he sees a miraculously tightly-fitting couple, he tries to enlist that to refute the creativity of Allah, rather than accept the intricately-woven divine style.
When multi-national corporations publish software, or chemicals, for local markets, nobody name-calls such corporations, such as "they must be in a jocular mood."
Then, overstating the fossil record, Dobzhansky reflects about the not-currently-living species (that is, mostly the "missing links"), with name-calling the God "what a senseless operation it would have been, on God's part, to fabricate a multitude of species ex nihilo and then let most of them die out!" Why not?
How is that "senseless" to create mortal beings or mortal species?
By now, Dobzhansky is long dead, too. Would he confess that his existence was "senseless?"
Lots of scientists conduct simulation studies to see how processes develop.
A less-than-well-thought biologist is telling God, what (not) to do?
Not to mention that, the "missing links" may have not existed.
Has Dobzhansky not gone to a theater (nor watched TV)? Or, was he yelling at the director, throughout the film or acts, because some were not staying on stage, maybe some totally dieing in the scenario?
People watch sports events to see who will win. All players staying in the game?
The species we know through the fossil records, have been probably less than the species which went extinct in the last century. But I have never thought the lost species of last century to be refuting the creativity of the Creator. Dobzhansky is absurd in his attempts to pigeonhole the stage of the Creator.
He repeats his nonsense in the last paragraph of that section, too. "But what is the sense of having as many as 2 or 3 million species living on earth?" Dobzhansky's little mind thinks that number is "too big."
Does Allah have to limit Himself to the intuitive grasp capacity of Dobzhansky?
Having listed that much absurd bias toward materialism without any good scientific cause, Dobzhansky is obviously a proponent of godlessness -- as far as the creativity visible in the nature is concerned.
He published that paper, apparently to make us fellow sheep like himself -- souls sold to evolutionism.
Dobzhansky subscribes to the make-believe philosophy which believes evolution to be "God's, or Nature's method of creation." But, he has no right to presume that!
Dobzhansky is only a profane, less than well-thought ideologue. Evolution is a hoax.
That evolutionist foot-in-the-door gimmick, is unable to fool me. Oh, surely, if Allah "would like to create evolutionistically," then He just could. But we have no indicator toward that, and have no right to presume that, on His behalf. If Allah is preferring His art to be known as His, who is Dobzhansky to suggest Him to hide Himself?
I'm a muslim, and totally having faith in the special createdness of Adam (a.s.), & Eve. (No scientific "birth record" is to be found, to disprove this.) Not from hominid.
Furthermore, to oppose the materialists' trying to trivialize the existence of lives, I like to presume that there is no spontaneous-continuous-macro-evolution, at all.
Allah may masih (change) some (like human to monkey), as reported in the Quran.
The bigotry is perhaps most absurd, when Dobzhansky is trying to paint the unity of life, toward refuting the Creator. That massive ignorance/bigotry, & hypocrisy, in that section, might be some record level.
The unity of the basic mechanism, is supporting that the Creator is unique. Allah has made that point extensively in the Quran, such as "If there were multiple gods, there would be no order in the Universe."
The unity of DNA is such a big support to that point. Look at how various computer companies (intel, motorola, arm, microchip, etc., etc.) craft various chips. In little more than half a century, people have kept crafting herds of incompatible computer architectures. A program compiled for one CPU, would rarely run in the other.
Surely, Allah could opt for having various mechanisms, too. Allah has free-will. But if data suggest that Allah is opting for a smooth/integrated system, and even unique, mechanism & basic blocks, for all of life, that acknowledges only Allah, the God.
If Dobzhansky guesses even DNA (thus, life) "had evolved" from mere matter, how is he explaining the constancy? Why not continue evolving? Pointing at the constancy, then suggesting the opposite ("evolution"), is absurd. How do the evolutionists think that both DNA & RNA sophisticated mechanism, if evolvable from inorganic material somehow, then kept constant all the way?! That is the most absurd.
In contrast, to create modularly, is what craftspeople regularly do. Why not?
How is the God not entitled to keep His favorite building blocks?!
Perhaps, for inspiring the crafts metaphor to fend off (all) evolutionists, that Allah wrote the Quranic statement "Allah is the finest creator" after listing the stages of fetal development -- true cases of "nature's destiny" (vs. the macro-evolutionistic).
A software is like genome. For example, frozen@mid80 is flexible in representing different hierarchies (combining from the pre-existing macro-list in the software), but frozen@mid80 is not able to work like Media-tangle. They are different software.
I have the flight-&-fight strategy, a critical concern, when I publish software, etc.
Allah might have taught me this strategy, for me reflecting on His case vs. mushriks.
In truth, (non-evolutionist) creationists do not accuse God of "cheating," at all. That is Dobzhansky's heretical, hypocritical, bigotted, constantly swearing mouth. Dobzhansky's offense is a bluff. We see.
The majority of the Dobzhansky slogans, need no biology data, to debunk. The bigotry is obvious, and refuted. But the tickery when he reports comparisons, would be somewhat a problem that would linger.
I stated that "Ape family may "resemble" humans, although not totally. Elephants resemble less. If there were no apes, you would tell that about elephants? You look at the one that seems most-similar, then think that we must have been like that?!?"
A philosophical reflex to point out the nature of the baselessness of interpolating.
Furthermore, in 1985, Denton published his (first) book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis." The chapter 12 of that book, is valuable for pointing out the biochemical case for opposing the evolutionist blindness.
Dobzhansky tells only the distances from humans. See Denton's EvoCr (chap. 12). When the full view is considered, the whole thing affirms taxonomy, not evolutionism.
Dobzhansky is a type of fanatic TV broadcast, "looking" with a total bias.
Denton informed the public. The point is understood well. That is a good thing, in war. A motto is that, "who is knowing a lot, is likely to get killed" -- or, bugged numb.
Then, Dobzhansky is pretending as if genetics were evolutionist, by listing mock-evolutionist cases.
The section of the paper titled "Comparative Anatomy and Embryology" is full of self-deception, too.
Dobzhansky again opposes the Creator, because of His signature similarities in His art. A "homology" category of anatomical similarities, such as having five fingers, listing constancies across creatures.
See the previous sections, above, for how I may respond.
Dobzhansky suggests that "embryonic similarities are undeniable impressive and significant."
Well, I'm a human and I have no gill slits, to state first. If in the womb, I would have needed that, because that was aqueous context, then my perfect Creator, would have designed me with those transitional gill slits, for only that period, but thankfully, not keeping that after I got out -- because now, that would not be so valuable, unlike while living in the womb. Besides, all of that supposedly evolutionary evidence, is known as a scientific hoax of evolutionists. Creationists happily publish about that, at internet/www.
Just search "gill slits." For example, I retrieved (Mar. 3, 2009), the two of 1r & 2r.
Thus, we have to revolt both against Dobzhansky's ignorance in biology, and his reporting that as if he had true knowledge. If he truly knew what is not there (no functioning gills, not respiring thus), why/how not know the non-existence of gill-slits?
Thank Allah, though. I'm not craving that gill-slits hoax, even if I could have explained that well. I'm a muslim, and we know that the Quran3, 4 & hadiths5 have miraculous accuracies in priorly telling what embryology would find out in 20th/21st centuries.
As of this writing, I had not looked up what a barnacle, or a cyclop is. I guess no new issue, there.
Then, I looked up what that is, but nothing there, yet. Darwin mentions barnacles, but not cyclops. Am I to guess what makes Dobzhansky thinks bar-cyc as if convincing?
From what Dobzhansky is reporting, I guess, the bar-cyc case is only what I thought the gill-slits case were. Back to the portion I wrote (paragraph-start with "Well, ...")
In the section titled "Adaptive radiation: Hawaii's Flies", Dobzhansky relates to his own research field. He was the father of that absurd evolutionistic fallacy -- the shallowness of his bigotted logic.
Dobzhansky had probably seen techno-scientific museums, encyclopedias, or how-to guides. Right?!
Allah is documenting His craft, there. Hawaii as a catalogue of drosophilid genome. Demonstrating the genomic flexibility of the "mere fly" drosophila is just celebrating the Quran ayet Hajj(22):73.
That ayet is pointing out how miraculous, even merely a fly is. The in-your-face impossibility of people to create that fly (inclusive of a fly genome, now we know).
With respect to that ayet, that Hawaii genome museum is surely marvelous. The evolutionist mockery is not able to hide the truth. Just the vice versa. A fly is not only a tiny helicopter, but is a reproductive-machine, with a massively flexible genome.
Like craftspeople documenting their craft. The software business is that way, extensively. Shipping their software with documented examples of "how to," demonstrating what the software is capable of. Furthermore, third people publish books (& www documents) for filling niches, with gadgets/software.
I have not published extensive catalogues of samples, but frozen@mid80 is able to freeze (into mid80.frz), for archival. For backtracking, or for a theme-museum.
If Dobzhansky would see you make your archives, for a theme museum, would he call you "absent-minded?" Materialists think Allah to be so absurdly refutable?!
People formally study a [foreign] language, through studying the grammar (with lots of rules listed).
Fortifying that with the bundled famous literary/eloquent examples -- poetry, stories.
Besides, what sense of evolutionism makes Hawaii so prone to drosophilids?! Both the smallest, and the biggest drosophilids being there -- which Dobzhansky "confesses" but he wishes to twist that.
I would think there is a special will there -- just how Maxwell's daemon is to oppose the thermal regular behavior. Allah has gathered drosophilids as a museum there -- rather than randomly-distributed, equally-found-in-variety, all around the World.
Just like frozen@mid80 representing dynamics, genomes most likely remain within their structure.
You see, Dobzhansky himself is referring to all of the drosophilids as drosophilids, not even bees, let alone cats. If I have no potential to fly, no matter how challenging the city traffic may be, how would I fly? Where do I get that extra ("mutation") from?
Such expectancies of miraculously-fit mutations to be normal to micro-"evolve" (in short time), makes one recall the case of the vice versa. What happens when you try to do Ph.D. work (or, cases of having invested time-&-money, and perhaps his/her/their reputation, into research), but then not able to develop the wishable novelty? "Make do" (a tail, off to cities, such as Northwestern82, or Yale92), or make-believe (such as the evolutionist theory fanatic Dobzhansky's Silly-thesis)?
To expect like that, is equivalent to Lamarckian -- through "mutation" automagic.
The case is terrifying from the point of view of pure logic, to notice that Dobzhansky is unable to think.
For a person who is respectful to the God, finding sensible logic for the phenomenon, might not be hard. But Dobzhansky is in the business of profane offensive, to get rid of the God, out of the nature.
Dobzhansky is looking at the result, and Dobzhansky is thinking that might be only a result of "a fit of absentmindedness" (hasha). I'm finding Allah perfectly sensible.
If Dobzhansky believes God to be "creating through evolution", then wasn't that supposed to be God's resolve? Who resolved that result to be thus? Besides, how is a perfectly niche-filling resolve called "absent minded?" Dobzhansky wants Allah to distribute the creatures equally, all around the World? Then, his materialist logic would refute the divine intervention, again. That "logic" is in abysses of absurdity.
To summarize, the Creator is having that genome museum there, like craftspeople documenting their craft. In this case, demonstrating what a fly genome is capable of. Rather than approve the Quran upon having seen that genome flexibility/versatility, Dobzhansky is totally denying the God out of resolving.
Trying to keep God out of the creation business, what else, Dobzhansky finds himself left with "pile of sundry facts." That is how he explains his evolutionistic bigotry -- sounding a chicken-egg dilemma.
I see how that sort of his self-fueling/fooling caused Dobzhansky's Silly-thesis.
Dobzhansky's evolutionism is probably following that of Henry F. Osborn (of the "Nebraska man" blunder/hoax). Osborn is variously considered a Marxist (communist), or "faithful christian" whose opinion of creation was evolution. Dobzhansky is simiarly mixed up. That evolutionistic theism concept [coupled with the mass brainwash around the times of the Scopes monkey trial], might have subdued Dobzhansky's mind, to see evolutionist "evidences" where even there is exactly the vice versa.
His self-contradictions must have confused people sufficiently that, Dobzhansky is reporting that,
Maybe people could not understand that limited (or, non-existent) belief in God.
When evolutionists propagandize something as "perfectly tuned by evolution", I trivially know that, they confess that, Allah created that phenomenon perfectly.
Dobzhansky is massively bigotted, to the point of trying to hijack the-unity-of-life.
Until evolutionists tell their absurd evolutionistic lore, people may hardly guess the thing as even remotely considerable to be evolutionistic. Like the list under review.
That evolutionistic bankruptcy of biology, is unlikely to motivate research to find the cause of something. If I think you are truly absentminded, would I truly try to understand your acts beyond that? Probably, no. That is what we see in the evolutionist story-telling business. Rather than truly research the causes of phenomena, they have the tendency of labeling things "vestigial" -- then, most or all have turned out to be not vestigial. Such ad hoc "evolutionistic" story-telling, is sci-fi.
Then, he iterates his voiding of religious texts out of material truth. To him, they seem to be only metaphorical. The sects in Christianity may or may not subscribe to that, because the Bible is not the exact copy that Jesus (a.s.) was holding. (But, once you acknowledge that, the Bible is remarkable, too? So far, I have not heard a major scientific issue, except a handful of times/geological data. Is that all the "why" to subscribe to the religion of evolution/materialism, expecting Allah to hide His signs out of the nature?) But muslims have no need to presume such materialism, nor agnosticism, at all.