Can genetic engineering replace evolution / natural selection?

Answer 1

natural selection is an oxymoron.
as is the term 'nature provided'
evolution provided, all of the evolutionary terms are indeed causal without cause.
by default, there is
A. No reason for life to evolve.
B. No reason for life to become increasingly complicated.
Why? Even if I fell for the one in a trillion(cubed) chance life evolved, the very basis of evolution "survival of the fittest" would merely require the single celled organism to live it's robuts little life. As a living organism, there would be absolutely no0 reason to become more and more complicated, and thus more and more likely to die off.

Answer 2

Simply put, yes. It is possible to breed and/or alter genetics on a plant to make it more viable than its competitors in a given area. With time, those more successful plants and their descendants will take over the niches held by the previous species. We have seen this with the introduction of non-native species; the same principles apply to introduction of genetically manipulated organisms. Even now, the engineered genes in some strains of corn have spread to the seeds fields downwind of the original planting. Were those downwind seeds be used to plant further generations of corn, the manipulated genes would spread further until few if any strains of corn would be without the manipulated genes.

Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage depends on the genes actually inherited in the process of reproduction.

Answer 3

To creationists who shop up with the difficulty of evolution that's not information because of the fact it replaced into already documented over a decade in the past. i'm happy you published the object link. My interior reach newspaper revealed a shorter version of that article. If I had not examine the longer article you linked to i would not have examine that the college professor ADMITTED that, "They nonetheless have some UNDISCOVERED ancestor that probable lived 2 million to 3 million years in the past, a time that has not LEFT plenty FOSSIL record," so which you will desire to objectively understand that the above fact shows which you will desire to have blind faith and have self assurance that there might desire to be some style of unknown ancestor even even with the undeniable fact that there is not any foundation or information of it. information isn't mandatory for lots of evolutionary theory to be commonly used. I continually ask your self why maximum atheists or agnostics do not purely say some thing extra truthful like, " ok God does exists yet i don't choose to settle for Him," as a replace of attempting to persuade themselves and others to settle for a theory that has no observable information of transmutation of species and is going against the certainty that significant varieties of species are discovered completely stepped forward collectively interior the earliest fossil record with out predecessors- the Cambrian Explosion it is rarely defined by using evolutionists. thank you for the submit!

Answer 4

Invitro fertilization is too expensive for everyone to use. There were serious complications with cloning. Everyone is here for a reason and God makes those choices. Science is wonderful and is a modern day blessing that so much is understood about life but playing with it could land us in serious problems.

Answer 5

It would be artificial selection, playing a role in evolution of the species.

Answer 6

Strictly speaking, no. They are different things. One is directed, the other is undirected. However, they both rely on random variation - it's just the selection mechanism that is different.

Answer 7

No, but it can become the dominant (not in a Mendelian sense) factor.