Originally Posted by Faisal Pervaiz

and werent there clees before us, for e.g. dinosours, how did they survive?

By feeding off other organisms?

thanks

Originally Posted by - Qatada -

Plants and animals can evolve to an extent, but the idea of all species coming from one common ancestor is false, and even evolutionists cannot prove any of this.

I'll explain a simple point which evolutionists can't totally address with ease; If so much animals evolved, some got extinct - these animals could have been like half fish, half bird - so why don't we find their fossils now? Surely they got extinct so there should have been quite a few thousand atleast. Since it took them stages for that fish to become a bird etc. So where have they vanished? Did ALL them fossils vanish totally from the face of the earth, or maybe it just never happened?



There's two types of evolution;

Micro Evolution (the small evolution) doesn't contradict Islamic teachings. For example, if there are 2 giraffes - 1 with a small neck and 1 with a long neck - its more likely the long necked one will survive if there are taller trees. So this rule of survival does not contradict Islam, so long as you believe that it is a pattern in Allah's creation. Meaning - the taller giraffe's descendants are more likely to survive [since they will be taller] compared to the shorter necked species.



Macro Evolution (the big evolution [where species become from 'one to the other'] is discussed here:

http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm


He says:

To making comparisons, some try to enter the fossil record as proof for common descent, the argument goes, that fossils show up in certain layers of ground which in term are linked to certain eras in time. If you then make a timetable of which time the fossilized creatures lived in, it matches the timetable that common descent proposes. Well first of all, that's hardly any proof, all it does is proof which creatures lived at which time, it doesn't proof which evolved into which. Creationists might just as well claim that this proves when certain animals were created. The fossil record does not favor common descent over creation. In fact quite the opposite can be said, the fossil has many issues that reflect bad on common descent. Like the cambrian explosion. and era where there's a sudden high concentration of entirely new species, as opposed to the slower pace of other eras. Another problem are the large number of missing links. There are so many proposed intermediate species missing, that some scientists have started suggesting that rather then a slow step by step evolution, there must have been "jumps" to. But that's of course very unlikely. A mutation that carries benefit is in itself unlikely, many mutations at once that carry some benefit is close to impossible. Other than that it needs to be noted that there's a lot of controversy regarding the accuracy of dating fossils. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's all a hoax, but it does need a lot of work. (Muslims vs Atheists [our foundations in debate])

http://www.islamicboard.com/dawah/13...ml#post1050831 (Muslims vs Atheists [our foundations in debate])

Why did Allahj create the Giraffe with the smaller neck in the first place?

please answer brother

No one can answer that for sure. Only Allah knows.

You should reflect on the complexity of creation.. perhaps that is the lesson to be gained.. the impossibility of everything being a mere chance act.. what use would evolution have for a long necked creature with many micro-valves to maintain its blood pressure for instanc?e
what would prompt a unicellular primitive organism to take on a few base pairs every few centuries or so to give you a giraffe or a rabbit or a dinosaur or a human and by what mechanism.. or where did this unicellular organism come from to begin with? How did it develop sentience? how did it know which combination of proteins would be functional and which are extraneous, why does this force impose death after it has fashioned such an amazing delicate process that favors life? can we replicate those mechanisms to understand the origins of life and origins of species.. without coming up with those grotesque robots that have neither grace nor function aside from their programming capabilities?

I think if you reflect long and hard you'll realize that something beyond great caused all of these chain reactions .. and it is very humbling.. that it just can't be ignored..

as I suggested for you do purchase On Growth and Form

Remember that we said that it was possible that it could occur [and it wouldnt contradict islam] (if some antelopes evolved to giraffes) not that its fact.

Even then, we know that Allah allows certain events to occur gradually, ie. He sends down rain which brings the dead earth come back to life with different fruits, flowers, vegetables for our human use - to show that indeed he gives life back to the dead. (atheists might ask why He doesnt give us food directly in a plate, whereas we know all this is for a greater wisdom.)

Someone can even argue that Allah allowed animals to go through the survival of the fittest concept so that there would be longer living and healthier animals for the large human population in the world today. And that animals who werent as strong in the old days may need a less longer survival, so to be on the equilibrium of the food chain they never populated the world as much? because the world werent as highly populated with humans back then. And animals are provided from Allah for human benefit and survival. (this isnt fact but its possible.)

salem, wow hope you figure it all out people. Allahs awesomeness really being revealed in your discussion, He has the power to do everything, and it is easy for Him. Allahu Akbar

Sop what you are saying is that Allah created a small giraffe knwing that it would evolve into a giraffe into a long neck, i thought genes didnt allow this, how did this evolve, if giraffes evolved like this cant apes also evolve like this into humans?

Please answer brother

what are you talking about small giraffes and big giraffes-- what is your question?

Originally Posted by Faisal Pervaiz

Sop what you are saying is that Allah created a small giraffe knwing that it would evolve into a giraffe into a long neck, i thought genes didnt allow this, how did this evolve, if giraffes evolved like this cant apes also evolve like this into humans?

What was said in the post on evolution was that it may be possible for species to evolve i.e. an antelope into a giraffe over a long time period (if longer necked antelopes survive by eating off tall trees and the shorter necked antelopes have nothing to eat [because they can't reach the tall trees in that area - so they become extinct. The ones with longer necks mate more, so their offspring has longer necks too.. to the extent that these become like giraffes.] I know this is something overstretched, but its just for arguments sake.

I don't say that this is a fact, but i say that if this concept is true - it does not contradict Islamic teachings.



In regard to monkeys evolving into human beings, then scientists will have to prove this with full proof which is undeniable. And the reason why this would contradict Islam is because Allah clearly informs us that Allah created Adam with His own hands, showing that we didn't evolve off monkeys like evolutionists may claim.


This info might be of some use insha Allah;

why are humans so much like other animals if they didn't evolve off them?


humans are created from earth, according to the evolution theory - animals also came and were produced from this earth. we say God allowed it to occur, and it happened by His will & control. He created humans the way He wanted (this is explained in the Qur'an), and since alot of explanation isn't given about how animals were formed - the issue of them evolving over time doesn't contradict Islamic teachings.



why are they and we so similar physically? because they and we were created/produced from similar materials - the (chemicals of the) earth and water.


why are their and our behaviours so similar? animals were on the planet before humans, scientific research shows this. humans lived on the planet and they also interacted with the animals during their lifetimes, they learnt survival techniques off these animals, they learnt hunting and many other world techniques by watching what animals do and progressing on that.


Those are the similarities. ^





The difference between humans and animals is that Allah/God has given humans an intellect, He has given humans the ability to understand wrong and right, to think ahead into the future, and He has given them many blessings so they have control over a great deal of His creation.

But this doesn't come for free, He has made us responsible for all that He has given us. The more we have, the more we're held responsible for. So Allah sends us guidance to give us a Criterion between right and wrong, truth and falsehood etc. We as humans have the choice to accept the guidance or reject it.


Those who accept the guidance and follow it - then they will have a life of goodness, and high morality in this life, and a greater reward in the life to come. Whereas those who reject the guidance, then they will continue following their vain desires EXACTLY like the animals, without any aid or light to guide them in their ways. So they will be equal to the animals, made from the same materials, doing the same things.. but without a beneficial purpose.

They have hearts wherewith they understand not, they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones. [Qur'an 7:179]



Those who accepted the guidance, they learnt higher morals, rules and even worldly advances through the guidance which Allah sent to the Messengers' - messages to unite the people on where they differed. This guidance raised these people from being like lost animals, to the most honorable and helpful people to humanity and creation.

These Messengers' were sent to the people to warn them of the consequences of their actions and that they are responsible for them in the sight of God, since they have the choice of doing right and wrong, and have the concept of understanding consequences for their actions. We will return to Him who will inform us of all that we used to do, and none will be dealt with unjustly on that Day.

Those who did believed and did good, will be given good, but those who turned away and did evil - then they won't be punished except for their own evil deeds.


also read;
http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cf...sub_cat_id=792




Monkey Skulls are primitive Humans?!


Here's a discussion on some examples of skulls scientists have found, and how they thought they were monkeys evolved into humans, and how it was found out that these weren't really evolved; but simply humans or monkeys. He says:


The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another. That is off course uncertain. Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie. The similarity does not prove one belief to be more likely than the other. Also note that the comparisons are usually made in the wrong way. For example, many of the alleged intermediate species between ape and human, are argued to be human afterall. Here are some proposed missing links:

* Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago

* Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago

* Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago

* Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago



The false claims from Richard leakey and Donald C Johanson that the australopithecus walked erected has been refuted and it seems the Australopithecus is closely related with urangutans which according to evolutionists is from a different branch then the one mankind origenated from.

* Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago (proposed in the 60's as first humanoid that walked erecte and used tools). New discoveries in 80's showed a different picture and Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace said that this was in fact nothing more then An Australopithecus habilis. So it's just another extinct african ape.


* Homo rudolfensis 1.9 to 1.6 million years ago. It refers to a single fragmented skull found in Kenia. However most scientists have accepted it again as nothing more then Australopithecus habilis.

* Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago. Although this skeleton is exactly the same as human, evolutionists have classified it as a transendiery specie, based on the small skullcontents (900-1100 cc) and because of the big eyebrows (of the skull). However, there are humans alive today with that skullcontents (i.e. Pygmees), and that have such eyebrows (i.e. Australian aborigenals)! So there is no reason to assume these skelletons are a missing link, they are just humans. In fact the New Scientists of 1998 14 march even wrote an excelent article of how Homo erectus had the technology to build and use transport ships.

* Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago. Again there's no reason to assuùme they weren't human, in fact many researchers have even concluded that they are exactly the same as Australian aborigenals. They even found skeletons of them showing that they lived up to recently in villages in Italy and Hungary. The dramatic pictures of hary human-like apes you found in schoolhandbooks are just indulgance into imagenation, remmeber we've only found skelletons.

* Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago. Erik Trinkus, paleontologist of university of mexico writes: detailed study of the skelleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intelect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man.

Now I'm not going to claim there's some sort of crazy conspiracy going on here, and that evolutionists purposely create false intermediate species. But perhaps people are just looking so hard for these unfound missing links that they start to see things that aren't there.


http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm
__________________

Are monkeys related to humans because they have a similar immune system?


The atheists then argue that some monkeys have similar immune systems to humans, and this might be a link to how they're related to each other. But the response given by the same brother is:

Yeah there are some interesting things to say there. For example, humans are more vulnerable to pig diseases as opposed to monkey diseases, so are we closer to pigs than to monkeys on the alleged tree of evolution or is their a flaw in their argument?

Also immune system is only partially DNA-Dependant, part of the immune grows as we develop based on our environment. So any similarities could just as well be environment-based as opposed to DNA based. This shows again you cannot really debate evolution unless you're looking at DNA. Problem is though, we still haven't figured out DNA, we might have already decoded it, but there's so many genes we don't know the function of, so many things we haven't figured out. The science is way to immature to have this debate.




'Common Ancestor'


There is a point in debate where atheists try to say that we are born with a common ancestor to monkeys. i.e. that we didn't evolve off each other - but that humans and monkeys had a forefather who was the 'same' - that's why we're so 'similar'.


The response to this is quite simple; There is NO PROOF for this concept whatsoever. (any fossils they used to support this theory have been shown to be humans in history and not any 'common ancestor' or monkey.) Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same 'common ancestor'.

So its false, and atheists only resort to this idea out of desperation or ignorance.


http://www.islamicboard.com/dawah/13...-debate-2.html (Muslims vs Atheists [our foundations in debate])