Assalamualykum






"If skepticism is the basis of science, then in the same way that Darwinists believe that chance brought all things into being, they must also allow the possibility that Allah (God) created them. Since science requires skepticism, then they must admit at least a 50% probability that Allah created life."



http://tinyurl.com/3qvtwb

.

Well the real question is: what was the first living being? How it came into being and when it happened?

As far as science is concerned, it was due to coincidence. The 'how's are answered by the theories of abiogenesis and natural selection. And both of these are backed by scientific evidence. Unlike creation, which is only faith based.

Here's a good concept, when theres a row of dominoes - the first domino needs to be pushed by someone. The creation needs to be triggered by God, a starting point.

Our belief that Allah is Perfect because He isn't created is a concept which allows us to realise that if Allah was 'created', He wouldn't be God. So by believing that He isn't created allows us to understand that He is Perfect.



Bro steve discussed abiogenesis and the biases that Miller had in his study:

In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids. However, much larger percentage of substances (carboxylic acids, and tar) harmful to life were mixed with it. Next to that the experiment does not account for all required amino acids to make proteins, and the experiment also does not explain how these amino acids would then go on to form the required proteins. The experiment also showed some of the building blocks for nuclide acids, but again does not account for how they could have formed DNA/RNA. Furthermore, there were both left handed as right handed isomers, whereas only one type is common in biology.

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

Natural selection, or micro evolution doesn't contradict Islam. Animals surviving due to certain strengths compared to others is a pattern in Allah's creation.



Creation indeed does require faith, but the concepts of life coming into existence by abiogenesis is only a concept, which 'if it were to occur' caused life to remain on earth. So basically, if the theory did happen - then that's how life survived on earth. However, the theory in of itself is questionable, so it can't be fact.



And Allah knows best.

The hypothesis goes that simple molecules gradually over billions of years gave rise to complex ones and DNA came much later into the picture.

simple molecules --> complex molecules --> polymers --> self-replicating polymers --> protobionts

Unstable polymers were destroyed by other molecules, the stable ones continued to replicate. The ones which, by chance, formed barriers or coats around them (protobionts), had a better chance of replicating. (natural selection applies here). These early systems then grew complex gradually through further natural selection, over millions and millions of years to give the DNA we are familiar with. Considering the time it took for these replicators to evolve, and the conditions of the early earth, this primordial soup hypothesis is very plausible.

As for that experiment, that was a one time simulation and it still yielded some amino acids. I should say thats very strong evidence for their case, considering that we do not start from amino acids, there were billions of such chemical reactions taking place on the early Earth, and millions of years were available for the replicators to form and evolve. So the odds are that such chemicals should have formed. It would have been highly remarkable if they hadn't.

i'm not a pro on this bro, but still check out the link of bro steve (aka Abdul Fattah) insha Allah


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

I think debating molecules and soups sort of misses the point from the perspective of a person of faith. As was mentioned before, that first domino is the point. I understand that athiests and others will simply theorize that over millions and millions of years human beings evolved from a chemical mixture. Resting on that assumption takes just as much faith as belief in a divine source of creation. Yes, there is circumstantial evidence of evolving lifeforms at the cellular level, but I don't think that answers the central question of where the original spark of life came from.

I'm not speaking as a Christian with a doctrine, just in the most vague philosophical sense. Was that original spark of life simply a random effect of...what? Hypothetically, where did these chemicals come from? Did the universe just appear out of void? I think these questions are what keep most theists from buying in to the scientific pseudo-explanations of the issue.

Hmm... quite possibly one of the the most meaningless pieces of rhetorical gibberish I have ever seen, although of course that is only to expected from the author. It falls in the first clause with a show-stopping strawman.

Skepticism is not "the basis of science", the scientific method is the basis of science. Skepticism has its place in science, certainly, the principal one being questioning claims which lack empirical evidence. The simple fact is while there is empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution (however convincing you may, or may not, find it) there is none whatsoever for creationism. Game over in scientific terms. Quite where Yahya plucked '50%' from I don't know. I doubt he does either.. nice round number, I suppose.

Just a "........." hypothesis.Any proof ??
Can any create human DNA just mixing up hydrogen ,Oxygen and nitrogen atoms today with all possible resources available? If no why to presume such type of hypothesis which are so ridiculous?

Could you elaborate why it is "Ridiculous"? Abiogenesis is the most successful hypothesis yet proposed.

Miller-Urey experiment, that was a one time simulation and it still yielded some amino acids. I should say thats very strong evidence for their case, considering that we do not start from amino acids, there were billions of such chemical reactions taking place on the early Earth, and millions of years were available for the replicators to form and evolve. So the odds are that such chemicals should have formed. It would have been highly remarkable if they hadn't.

Quantum theory and evolution defy common sense. Evidence is always required. This, hypothesis is much like man being created from clay and sent down to Earth. Like natural selection, science methodically discards each based on their fitness to survive, i.e their ability to provide evidence. And among those, the highest evolved seems to be this primordial soup hypothesis as of yet.

You prove this hypothesis because burden of proof is the responsiblity of the person who claims.

There is no "defiance" of common sense.Just lack of knowledge of mankind.If something is against the common sense today will be according to common sense tomorrow.
Till yesterday mankind was thinking about the procreation that it requires 'male and female 'for animal (I am not talking about parthenogenesis ) ,today cloning has proved it wrong.So islamic claim the Jesus was born without "father" is becoming "common sense " now.

^I understand abiogenesis to be a field of research. There are lots of hypotheses are being studied by this field, of which this primordial soup has been the most succesful so far, as far as I know.

I agree that its speculation, but its speculation based on facts we know. Every scientific theory has passed through this stage, and we can't throw out a hypothesis based on the mere fact that its speculation. Evidence is our yardstick. The more evidence it has, the more acceptable. And I honestly hope you have some new hypothesis which I hadn't heard of. But since I haven't come across any convincing ones yet, I suppose I'll have to take what I can get and wait for the evidence to back it up. The answer is still being fleshed out, and I'm ready to throw this model away if a new one with stronger evidence comes up or this one is disproved somehow. That answer, although vague, is at least true.

Unlike the hypothesis of a Cosmic being- which has no evidence.

Not simply mixing up atoms: Read my previous post.

simple molecules --> complex molecules --> polymers --> self-replicating polymers --> protobionts

Unstable polymers were destroyed by other molecules, the stable ones continued to replicate. The ones which, by chance, formed barriers or coats around them (protobionts), had a better chance of replicating. (natural selection applies here). These early systems then grew complex gradually through further natural selection, over millions and millions of years to give the DNA we are familiar with. Considering the time it took for these replicators to evolve, and the conditions of the early earth it is possible.

If this is ridiculous, show me an alternative Hypothesis backed with evidence.

Amazing. Since when are the religious concerned about the burden of proof? This must be a new thing.

So let me get this straight, what you are asking is for someone to take a proverbial beaker and put in a cocktail of all the atomic constituents of a human, not in organic molecular form but in their atomic proportions, stir the beaker, and eventually end up with "human" DNA.

Is that right? Take a beaker, agitate it enough and voila?

You have a profound misconception of the scientific concept of the process of abiogenesis. You're making an appeal to chance, wherein you may correctly conclude that the odds of creating a replica of any strand of human dna from scratch, without intervention in the process is nearly impossible, that is simply not what abiogenesis is.

You argument is not new and has taken other forms like:

A tornado through a scrapyard would never build a Boeing 747

If you drew all the cards from a standard deck of 52 playing cards, and took that as the model for human dna... the odds of randomly hitting that exact strand are 1 in 2.3084x10^71..... then you take the volume of water on earth etc.... and state it's impossible blah blah blah....

Using statistical calculations such as these are meaningless when the presumption upon which they are based have no connection to the idea they are trying to debunk.

When you learn what the arguments are, then you can proceed to read the following:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854


By then, you will have an understanding as to why abiogenesis is plausible.

Sorry I missed this the first time around.


In the rare instance that this ever occurs, and I mean ever, the child would be a female. If you can demonstrate how two unfertilized eggs can fuse to produce a male, I'm listening. I once heard of this happening to a woman during WWII under nazi occupation, but I couldn't find the documentation for it.



Also, just to add onto my previous post.

http://www.rockefeller.edu/evolution....php?src=coyne

Yes for the time being it cannot be proved scientifically.It is exactly like this that a few years back no one could prove that an animal can be created without mating of a male and female.Now it is possible.Science yet to discover a lot of mysteries.Tomorrow it will be discovered.Science has reached upto this level that there are XY females and XX males.With mutation of genes any possiblity cannot be ruled out.
If you look at 50yr back science ,many things were unexplicable but now we have some answer to them.
First step of Fatherless Jesus is solved that animal procreation is possible without mating .
Second step has to be solved how a female can give birth to male child without mating.
Atheists could not even think of procreation without mating upto just a few year back.But Islam declared it 1500 yr ago by describing the birth of Jesus Christ PBUH that birth is possible without mating.