Absurdities of the theory of evolution according to chnnews.pl

Why do portals dealing with churches, and in this case the Catholic Church, attack the theory of evolution? In my previous entry, I wrote about how many people believe that the theory of evolution is a weapon against faith, although it has little to do with it.

https://steemit.com/evolution/@medievaler/is-evolution-theory-a-weapon-against-the-creator

Why, then, is Darwin's discovery still attacked by so many theological portals? In this entry, I would like to respond to the allegations made against the natural selection mechanism, which is once again misunderstood.

The chnnews. pl portal writes:
https://chnnews.pl/slowo/item/4206-absurd-teorii-ewolucji-dobitnie-pokazany.html

The retina of the eye contains more than 10 million photosensitive cells (...), the human sees finally with a delay of 0.135 seconds. (....), John Stevens scientist in Byte magazine compared this processing capability to that of an advanced computer. Since the supercomputer is a product of an intelligent creator, how obvious it is that it is the same with an eye! (....) And yet, in spite of all these (and many others) impressive information, evolutionists blindly believe that the eye (and everything else in nature) came into being by chance. (...)

How many didactic mistakes were made in this entry? Let us note the following verse:

"If a supercomputer is a product of an intelligent creator, how obvious it is that it is the same with an eye!"

How did the authors manage to combine the hypothesis that if a supercomputer was created by an intelligent organism, then it must be the same with an eye? In logical terms, such an error is called the false dilemma error, this error refers to the incorrect acceptance of the number of possible solutions to a given problem.

An example:
Either you believe in God and reject scientific knowledge or you are an atheist and accept science.

Is acceptance of science to be reserved for atheists only? Certainly not.

Let us move on to our article. So if the computer was created by an intelligent being - a human being, was the eye also created by an intelligent being?
(For the occasion of a small digression, in which I must boil down to a similar logical error as the authors. Well, we could ask the question here whether if a person was needed to create such an advanced mechanism as a computer - is it necessary - if, following this generalisation of authors, a person should also be the creator of the eye? After all, there are no other intelligent creators visible on Earth, so the eye should not appear at all.

The authors explain that the only possible solution is to indicate here God, because the evolution would assume that:

"The eye (and everything else in nature) was created by fortuitously ."

So what are the real assumptions of the theory of evolution? Well, according to there is at least one mechanism which acts as a driving force for the evolution of organisms. The choice is natural. Natural selection, as Darwin rightly pointed out, allows for the further transfer of genes, only the strongest unit that has best adapted its body to changing environmental conditions.

Let us give an example:
A very good example of the above definition is the frequently quoted evolutionary ones, i. e. the peppered moth (Biston betularia). Peppered is a butterfly who lives, in the forests of Great Britain.
Its initial blurring was white, as was the colour of the birch trunk. However, gradually increasing industrialisation of the natural environment of butterflies has had an impact on the change in air quality. From factories, then a huge amount of heavy smoke escaped, which was gradually settling on nearby trees for many years. As a consequence of this event, the colour of the birch trunk was getting darker and darker year on year, until soon afterwards, it became almost completely dark. It was unbelievably bad information for the pencilage, which after many years, through its colour, became very visible on trees, which made it easy to fall prey to its predators. Over the years, however, when this history took place, natural selection has contributed to the adaptation of butterflies to this new situation. Namely, these moths had a higher chance to survive, the colour of wings of which at that time was the closest colour to the birch on which animals were sitting. Other animals that were more visible did not reach an age suitable for further donation of their genes, or were very effectively eliminated by their predators.
In this way, after a long period of time, the pennant population in that region has completely changed the colour of their wings, by eliminating individuals that were not adapted enough to the new environment.

Below we have a peppered moth, whose camouflage perfectly worked in the initial conditions before the birch started to change its colour:

(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth)

And at the moment when natural selection led to a new adaptation of the moths (melanistic variety):

(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth)

Thus, as we can see, evolution relies on gradual changes of single mutations, the accumulation of which in the pool of genes of data of individuals allows to influence visible changes within the whole species living in a specific zone of the species.

Going back to faith in a word:
The atheists would ask the authors of the entry:
If such an advanced project as the eye had to have its own designer, how big and intelligent had to be the one who designed God? Let us be honest that this question does not lead us to an answer, but merely raises another series of questions about designers and designers. If God did not need it to be designed, why then the same, cannot be with the existing universe?

All things considered:
Evolution is a non-accidental process (only the best adapted, they are able to pass on genes, and this will not be done by the butterfly, which immediately strikes predators), consisting of a gradual change within DNA, whose accumulation in the gene pool of a given population leads to the development of significant changes within a given species.

Interesting facts:
A similar thought error is the example given by Sir Fred Hoyle:

The probability that higher forms of life could have been formed spontaneously can be compared to the probability that a tornado passing through a rubbish dump could be assembled by Boeing 747 with the materials found there.

As we already know. Evolution is not only not a spontaneous work, but also consists of gene accumulation, and therefore calculating probability in this way leads to erroneous results. The organism already has a certain set of genes, and subsequent mutations are passed on to future generations. In Fred's example, the assumption is based on a calculation of probability from 0 per direct stroke to such a complex mechanism as the eye.

It is worth seeing: