PDA

View Full Version : Pioneer species - Evolutiuon problem



Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 07:34 PM
Salaams

Pioneers species occur when a glacier melts and, and then lichens form on morains that the glacier has deposited, when the pioneer speices die they the decompose to form humus whihch provides nutrients thta enable mosses to clolonnise and so and son omn until thier is massive woodland.

I was thinkning to myself that could this happen by tise3lf or was there somthing in the glacier that enabled the lichens to grow like a seed, becasue how possible could life form on itself i on a dry tone like a morain.

Is this how evolution began?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
جوري
12-01-2008, 07:49 PM
Hope what is below helps you understand better?
Nothing on this earth appears EX nihilo -- you'll need at least seeds to germinate and some favorable conditions.. if you research some pioneer species a little you'll find that they are fast-growing, shade-intolerant and short-lived to linger around long enough for their own good let alone to speciate to a more complex organism!

hope that helps you?

http://www.pfaf.org/leaflets/pioneer.php

Pioneer Species - Re-establishing Woodland
We hear lots of reports about the destruction of the tropical rainforests, yet few people seem to realise that huge areas of Britain were deprived of their tree cover many centuries ago. It seems difficult to imagine when you travel in the countryside nowadays, but until humans arrived in Britain 97% of the country used to be covered in forest!

Forest clearance began with the need for fuel coupled with the desire for grazing and arable land as humans turned from hunter/gatherers to farmers. It gradually gathered pace as the human population grew and the need for wood increased, firstly for construction, ship building etc. and later for fuelling the industrial revolution.

With modern machinery it takes just a few minutes to chop down a tree that might have been growing for several hundred years. Remove all the trees in an area and it can become very difficult for the trees to re-establish themselves, especially if the land is exposed such as near the coast or at higher elevations. Yet trees are the natural vegetation for almost all of this country and without them we will lose much of our wildlife as well as causing environmental destruction in the form of soil erosion, flooding etc.

In the winter of 1990 - 1991 we planted out almost 15,000 native trees on a very windswept site in Cornwall. These trees in general have grown away satisfactorily, if rather slowly. By the end of 1996 they tended to average about 1.5 metres in height. However, there were huge differences between the different species with some still less than 1 metre tall and, at the other end of the scale, others were more than 5 metres tall.

Seeing these huge differences set me thinking about the way we were attempting to restore the tree cover on this site. Talking it over with a visiting Australian who designs permaculture sites in Australia and South America, I came to understand a little more about putting permaculture ideas into practice.

In conventional gardening there are certain species of plants just sitting there waiting to invade our freshly turned soil. These plants are either aggressively self-sowing, or they have aggressive root systems, or even worse they have both attributes. We call them weeds, but these are natures pioneers and some of her strongest survivors. Many of these plants are annuals or herbaceous perennials, and perhaps their seeds have been laying dormant in the soil for many years, buried too deep to be able to germinate. Digging the soil will have bought some of these to the surface where the light will stimulate germination. Others of these weeds will have very light seed that is carried by the wind and so can travel quite large distances in their search for suitable conditions to grow in. These plants will soon clothe the bare soil, protecting it from erosion and starting the process of regenerating it to its natural, or climax, vegetation. If you leave almost any land alone for sufficient time in Britain you will end up with a woodland growing there.

My Australian friend was taking advantage of this by deliberately introducing these pioneer species into his designs. However, instead of using these annuals and perennials, he would short-circuit the system by using those trees and shrubs that have the ability to invade land and act as pioneers. For example, if he was taking over a barren site, he would immediately plant it out with fast-growing leguminous trees. In his part of the world, these trees could grow 6 metres or more tall within 3 years of sowing the seed! By planting them fairly densely (at about 5 metre spacing), by the end of the first growing season he would have a mini woodland already 2 metres or more tall. Then, amongst these legumes he would start to plant out those species he really wanted to grow on the site. These plants would immediately start to benefit from the protection and the nitrogen that the legumes were providing.

By the end of the third year the new plantings would be established and growing away nicely. The site would be getting rather crowded and so he would start to cut down some of the fast-growing legumes, using the wood for fuel, construction or whatever and shredding everything that was left to be used as a mulch.

This is a marvellous method of restoring land to tree cover, especially in the more difficult situations where most woodland trees will struggle to survive, and it can also be used on a smaller scale to provide nourishment and protection for herbaceous plants. There are many species suitable for this in Britain, though don't expect the same rates of growth that can be achieved in warmer climates.

When deciding on which species to use as pioneers, it is important to take all the characteristics of your land and the way you intend to use it into account, and also to understand the habits of the different pioneer plants. Looking firstly at the habits of the plants, species such as the alders (Alnus species) and sea buckthorns (Hippophae species) are very good companion plants that will enrich the soil around them and improve the growth of neighbouring plants. Thus these species are ideal for using in the way described above and can be planted in quite large quantities on the site. However, other species such as the poplars (Populus species) and willows (Salix species) have very vigorous root systems that will compete strongly with other plants. When using these as pioneers it is better to plant them in a more compact way such as a hedge or shelterbelt - this will soon provide shelter on the land for your other trees without creating competition problems. Other species, such as the sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) are more neutral in their effect on other species and can be used in small quantities dotted around the site, thus ensuring plenty of diversity. When detailing the species to be used as pioneers, they will be divided into these three sections.

The second important factor to take into account is the land and its intended use. For example, if you have a very poor soil then you are going to want to concentrate on species that will improve the soil condition - these will generally be those plants in the first section below. If you land is on a slope, and erosion is a problem, then you will need to look for those species with vigorous root systems. If you are close to the coast then you will probably need plants that can tolerate maritime exposure. If your land is quite high up then you might need to be looking for those species that will tolerate cold, strong winds. There are many other factors to take into account here, but space does not allow it in this leaflet. In the end it is up to your own judgement of the site - try not to rush this judgement but give yourself time to be with the land and come to understand its nature. If you feel that you do not have enough experience to do this, then try to enlist the help of a more knowledgeable gardener in your area - preferably someone with an understanding of permaculture.

Detailed below are a few of the trees and shrubs that we have found to make good pioneer species. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it does indicate the potential that exists.

The soil enrichers
(Those species that can be used in quantity and interplanted with your other trees.)

Alnus species. The alders are perhaps the best species that can be used as pioneers - they really have everything going for them. They are fast-growing even in severe exposure - we have had some species reach 6 metres in height within 5 years of sowing the seed. They enrich the soil with nitrogen and their heavy leaf-fall in the autumn greatly increases the humus content of the soil. They are short-lived, and their seedlings are unable to establish themselves in shady conditions - thus they will never hang around to make a nuisance of themselves once they have done their job. Any members of the genus can be tried, most of which require a moist to wet soil if they are to really thrive. Those species we especially recommend are:-

A. cordata. The italian alder tolerates drier soils than other members of the genus, it also holds on to its leaves later into the autumn, thus giving extra protection from autumn gales.

A. glutinosa. Our native alder is not as fast growing as some other members of the genus, but it can still reach 4 metres in height within 5 years. Being native, it has the added advantage of being more useful for wildlife. The alder is also a superb source of dye materials, with brown, red, green, pink, yellow and cinnamon hues being obtained.

A. rubra. The red alder grows amazingly quickly, even in extreme exposure. We have plants that have reached 7 metres in height within 5 years.

Hippophae species. This is another genus that is very useful for re-establishing woodland. The plants are, in general, fast-growing though they may take a year or two to get going. They enrich the soil with nitrogen and will succeed even in extreme maritime exposure. In addition their fruit is incredibly nutritious and has been shown to have a wide range of medicinal applications, including in the prevention and treatment of cancer. Many members of this genus sucker very freely and so are not suitable for small areas, though this suckering habit means that the plants are ideal for stabilizing sandy soils or steep slopes. This makes them ideal plants for providing shelter near the coast and they are some of the most wind-resistant species that we grow. For more information see the Plant Portrait - Hippophae about the plant. We would particularly recommend the following two species:-

H. rhamnoides. Our native sea buckthorn grows wild by the coast. The fruit is very sharp, but is exceedingly rich in vitamin C and makes an excellent preserve.
H. salicifolia. The willow-leaved sea buckthorn is one of my most favourite plants. It is not hardy in the colder areas of the country, but where the climate suits it the plant will grow quickly and provide very good yields of fruit. This fruit is not as sharp as the native sea buckthorn, though it is still a strong lemon flavour. It can also be picked from middle August and will hang on the tree until early winter.
Lupinus arboreus. The tree lupin comes from California and is only hardy in the milder areas of the country. In areas where it is suited, it makes an excellent pioneer species for the smaller garden. It grows about 1.5 metres tall, and will do that in its first year from seed. Very tolerant of maritime exposure, it will quickly create sheltered conditions to allow less tolerant plants to become established, and will also feed them with some of the nitrogen formed on its roots by bacteria. The tree lupin will grow well on very poor sandy soils and its root system will help to bind the soil together, preventing erosion. The plant is quite short-lived - it flowers so freely that it quite literally flowers itself to death. However, it also self-sows freely if the seed is in a sunny position, so it will maintain itself until such time as the other plants are established and shade it out.

The neutral species
(Those which can be interlanted in smaller quantities to add diversity.)

Acer pseudo-platanus. sycamore has gained a bad reputation as an aggressive weed tree that can prevent native trees such as oak from maintaining themselves. However, recent research has shown that, in the longer term of 200 years or more, sycamore is not really such a bad species and, indeed, when we planted our native woodland the Forestry Commission insisted that we put in 10% sycamore to help the native species.

One real drawback with using this species as a pioneer is that it does not know when to go away and will continue to sow itself around long after the woodland has become established. However, it is still a useful species to use in the right situations, such as near the coast and does have a number of other uses including the sap which can be used to make a sweet drink and the leaves which impart a sweet flavour to food if they are wrapped around the food when baking.

The wood is also of reasonable quality and so perhaps the best way of using this species as a pioneer is to grow it for 10 years or so until the other trees are getting going, and then to gradually remove it over the next few years and utilize the wood.

Betula species. The birches are, in general, fast-growing trees that often invade bare land. They will withstand considerable wind exposure, but do not tolerate the more heavily exposed areas, becoming severely wind-pruned in such situations. Like the alders, they have the benefit of not hanging around too long once they have done what is asked of them, and they do not regenerate well in the shady conditions of a woodland. Unfortunately they do not have all the other benefits of the alder, but they can be grown in considerably drier conditions than the alder as well as tolerating areas with periodic inundation. Another disadvantage of the birches is that their thin branches are blown about in the wind and can act as whips if they are within reach of other trees, this can cause quite noticeable damage to these trees.

There are many species in this genus, and any of those that reach tree-size can be tried as pioneer plants, but we would especially recommend the native species, B. pendula, the silver birch, and B. pubescens, the downy birch. Apart from being superb trees for wildlife, these two very similar species also have a very wide range of uses. These include the sap, which can be taken off in the spring and used to make sweet drinks, beer or vinegar. The bark is very weatherproof and can be used to make drinking vessels, roofing tiles and so forth. A tar-oil is obtained from the white bark in spring and has fungicidal properties and is also used as an insect repellent and a shoe polish. The young branches are very flexible and are used to make whisks, besoms etc. They are also used in thatching and to make wattles. The leaves are a good addition to the compost heap, helping to improve fermentation. This list is far from exhaustive, but does give an indication of the value of these species.

Sambucus nigra. The elder is a wonderfully useful native plant for almost any situation. Whilst it will look rather battered, it will even grow in severe exposure and provide enough shelter to help the woodland trees become established. Unlike many other pioneer species, it will not know when to say goodbye, but will hang around in small numbers, especially along the edges of the woodland. This is a good thing, however, because it does have so many uses both for us and the many other creatures that use it. Just a few of its uses include the fruit which is edible, though few people could enjoy it raw. However, it makes a superb preserve and is widely used for making wine. The flowers can also be used in wine-making or as a flavouring in cooked fruits etc., though I prefer eating them raw. So long as you make sure to remove all the insects that are likely to be lurking in the flowers, they make a very refreshing munch on a summers day.

There are so many non-food uses of this plant that it is hard to know what not to include here. Therefore, because of lack of space I am going to restrict myself to just one. If, like me, you are the sort of person who, when in a group of people are always the first one to be bitten by midges or horseflies then this is the plant for you. Simply rub the leaves over areas of bare skin and the biting beasties will leave you alone for 2 hours or more - then simply top up the dose. You might find that you have a somewhat unique aroma, but you will only get the very occasional bite from a midge that has lost its sense of smell.

Sorbus species. Several members of this genus make excellent pioneer species. They are in general very wind resistant, though not totally happy in strong maritime exposure when the winds often carry salt. They are also quite tolerant of soil types, though do not like drought conditions and will fare badly in dry soils. Those species we particularly recommend are:-

S. aria. Our native whitebeam can reach 12 metres in height and is an excellent pioneer on chalk soils, though it is also quite tolerant of other soil types. It is also very tolerant of maritime exposure. The fruit can be eaten raw or cooked - it makes a nice jam though most people would not want to eat very many raw. However, it you blett it, which involves storing the fruit in a cool dry place until it is almost but not quite going rotten, then the fruit develops a delicious taste, somewhat like a luscious tropical fruit.

S. aucuparia. Another native, the mountain ash grows to 15 metres tall and succeeds at higher elevations than any other British tree and so is an excellent pioneer for upland areas. The fruit is very acid and few people would be able to eat more than one - though it makes an excellent jam. We use this fruit mainly for another purpose - the birds love it and will eat it in preference to apples, with which it ripens at the same time, and so this is a very good plant to grow in or near orchards.

S. decora. The American showy mountain ash grows to about 10 metres and does well on poor soils. Its fruit is slightly better than S. aucuparia and we occasionally eat it raw.

The greedy species
(Those which have aggressive tendencies and are best used in more compact areas such as hedges.)

Populus species. Many species of poplar are fast growing and make good pioneers, though most members of the genus will not thrive in very windy sites and all of them are quite aggressively rooting and so do not help to feed the soil or other plants growing in it. They are also rather large trees and many of the species will sucker freely, so they are not suitable for smaller gardens. You need to be careful when planting poplars near buildings, especially in clay soils, because their root systems can dry the soil and cause subsidence. Poplars usually require a rich soil if they are to thrive and will not do well in drier conditions. Those species we recommend include:-

P. alba. The white poplar will succeed in drier and poorer soils than most members of the genus, and is also quite tolerant of maritime exposure, though it dislikes strong cold winds.

P. balsamifera. The balsam poplar scents the air for quite a distance in the spring as its aromatic buds expand. These buds are often used medicinally, their aromatic oils being especially useful in the treatment of chest complaints. In sheltered conditions, try the hybrid 'TT32' which can grow 3 metres or more in a year!

P. tremula. The aspen is a native species which will grow in poorer soils than most poplars and is also quite wind tolerant. It will do very well in cold wet soils and, if you get the sub-species P. tremula davidiana it will also succeed in very alkaline conditions. It does sucker freely, however, and so can become a bit of a nuisance.

Rubus fruticosus. Our native blackberry is a species that very often invades cultivated land, and will soon gain a strong hold if left alone for a few years. It usually arrives first as a seed in the droppings of birds or other creatures and then rapidly spreads by forming new roots wherever the tips of the shoots touch the ground. Almost before you know it, there will be dense, impenetrable thickets that spread 2 metres or more in every direction each year. As long as the trees you want to grow there are fairly vigorous, and are allowed to get their heads above the blackberries, then they will normally thrive.

Whilst I would not normally recommend this species if you are trying to create an edible woodland garden, it can be very useful when establishing a native woodland. The dense growth and prickly stems will protect the trees from the predations of deer and rabbits and, eventually, the maturing trees of the woodland will cast lots of shade on the blackberries which, together with root competition, will greatly reduce the vigour of the blackberries and even eliminate them in places.

Most people know that blackberry fruits are edible, amongst the plants other uses you can eat the young shoots in spring and can also make quite a nice tea from the dried leaves. A fibre obtained from the stems has been used to make twine.

Salix species. There are many species of willow that can be used as pioneer plants - apart from the first one listed below we will only mention the native species here. If you do not live in Britain then you would be advised to look at your own native members of this genus in preference to those listed here. Willows are, in general, fast growing trees or shrubs and several species are very tolerant of extreme exposure. They do require a rich soil, though, and will not be very happy unless there is plenty of moisture. Like many other pioneer plants, their seeds are very light and can be carried for considerable distances so they will often find their way to bare sites. They are also quite short-lived, and will not regenerate well once there is shade caused by the developing woodland. Their main drawback is their extensive root system. Whilst this can be an advantage on slopes where the roots will hold the soil together and prevent erosion, there will also be considerable competition with other plants for nutrients.

All the willows mentioned here have similar uses - that is their stems are very pliable and can be used for making baskets etc. Also, the inner bark contains substances from which the pain-killer aspirin is made. Instead of buying in this drug, you can simply make a tea of the bark - but check with a good herbal book, or a herbalist, before doing this to ensure you get the dosage right.

One of the main advantages of using the willows is their cheapness. They are very easy to propagate by cuttings - you simply stick a bit of stem in the soil and it will root and grow away like no-ones business. Thus you only need to buy a few plants and then take cuttings every winter in order to increase your stock. The species we would most recommend include:-

S. 'Bowles hybrid'. This plant is a male cultivar, and so will never be able to regenerate unless you take cuttings. It grows incredibly quickly to its maximum height of 5 metres, and even in the strongest maritime exposure and will be providing good shelter in its third year.
S. alba. The white willow will grow quite rapidly and can eventually reach 20 metres or more in height.
S. aurita. The eared sallow is a very tough creature that is often the first woody plant to invade wetter land and is also useful in reclaiming poor soils. It will only grow up to 3 metres tall, but is exceedingly useful, especially when encouraging natural regeneration of native woodland. Unlike the other willows mentioned here, the stems are of little use for basket making. S. caprea, the goat willow growing up to 10 metres tall, and S. cinerea, the common sallow growing up to 5 metres tall, are very similar species with the same uses.
S. pentandra. The bay willow will grow up to 10 metres tall.
S. purpurea. The purple willow will reach about 5 metres tall and is a very good basket willow.
S. viminalis. The common osier will reach 6 metres in height and can provide an abundance of basket-making material.
You can also see the Woodland Garden Plants leaflet for ideas of things to plant to once you get your woodland going.
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 07:55 PM
So primary succesion cannot coccur by tis own, there needs to be a seed, then how does it occur on a moraine?
Reply

جوري
12-01-2008, 07:57 PM
I believe the operative sentence from the post is

We call them weeds, but these are natures pioneers and some of her strongest survivors. Many of these plants are annuals or herbaceous perennials, and perhaps their seeds have been laying dormant in the soil for many years, buried too deep to be able to germinate. Digging the soil will have bought some of these to the surface where the light will stimulate germination
in other words whether visible to you or not, you'll need seeds and a favorable condition albeit of very low standard for it to grow compared to other complex species that is..
does that help?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Banu_Hashim
12-01-2008, 08:00 PM
:sl:

The former process you described is called "succession"; a term in biology used to describe the stages from baren land to a woodland. The pioneer species (such as grass etc.) colonise the bare land, and over time this encourages the biodiversity to increase. This is a natural ecological process and quite different to evolution.

Evolution is something that Islam has a say about. But, biologically, it can occur through genetic variation, which can include; the different assortment of chromosomes, the crossing over between chromatids on homologous chromosomes, random fertilisation, random mating and mutation.

Although when Darwin suggested his theory, he knew nothing about genes. He proposed an idea that stemmed from his own findings and observations, which we know as 'Evolution by natural selection'. This means basically that the more advantageous traits in an organism are passed on to future generations, whilst the weak, and un-advantageous traits are weeded out. I.e. survival of the fittest.

Sorry if I rambled on, and if I haven't really answered your question at all !

:w:

EDIT: Oh yeah... there is the idea of evolution of new species... such as sympatric and allopatric speciation, but I won't bore you with that. :P
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 08:04 PM
Thanks all ur answers help, so you are saying that there has to be seeds for it to grow, it cannot happen on its own.

But im still confused though how did a plant suhc as lichen occur on arock which has no soil on it at all???
Reply

جوري
12-01-2008, 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by Banu_Hashim
:sl:

The former process you described is called "succession"; a term in biology used to describe the stages from baren land to a woodland. The pioneer species (such as grass etc.) colonise the bare land, and over time this encourages the biodiversity to increase. This is a natural ecological process and quite different to evolution.

Evolution is something that Islam has a say about. But, biologically, it can occur through genetic variation, which can include; the different assortment of chromosomes, the crossing over between chromatids on homologous chromosomes, random fertilisation, random mating and mutation.

Although when Darwin suggested his theory, he knew nothing about genes. He proposed an idea that stemmed from his own findings and observations, which we know as 'Evolution by natural selection'. This means basically that the more advantageous traits in an organism are passed on to future generations, whilst the weak, and un-advantageous traits are weeded out. I.e. survival of the fittest.

Sorry if I rambled on, and if I havn't really answered your question at all :p !

:w:
:sl:
you haven't rambled on and I don't want to derange the thread or waste too much time on this than needs be...
the proposed mechanism for evolution is as you mention indeed, or proposed to be through several mutations (frame shift, nonsense, missense, silent, acrocentric breaks in DNA or even jumping genes) the problem is in fact none of those mutations in documented science have conferred speciation-- in fact if you google any let's take any random example, say the translocation of the Philadelphia chromosome for instance t(9;22)(q34;q11). and you'll find that we end up with chronic myelogenous leukemia in lieu of mammoth to elephant.. just do that for each of the proposed mechanisms and see what you get..
also in terms of natural selection, research such things as trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders
Huntington Disease
Spinobulbar Muscular Atrophy
Spinocerebellar Ataxias (SCA types 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 17)
Dentatorubro-Pallidoluysian Atrophy
Non-polyglutamine Disorders
Fragile X Syndrome
Fragile XE Mental Retardation
Friedreich Ataxia (
Myotonic Dystrophy (DM, not MD)
Spinocerebellar Ataxias (

to name a few and you'll find that the least favorable traits are chosen and get successively worst with each generation.. thus, those of us who have a problem with some aspects of evolution theory, are skeptical from known science and observation rather than religious fervor!

:w:
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 08:13 PM
Thanks all ur answers help, so you are saying that there has to be seeds for it to grow, it cannot happen on its own.

But im still confused though how did a plant suhc as lichen occur on arock which has no soil on it at all???
Reply

جوري
12-01-2008, 08:14 PM
Originally Posted by Faisal Pervaiz
Thanks all ur answers help, so you are saying that there has to be seeds for it to grow, it cannot happen on its own.

But im still confused though how did a plant suhc as lichen occur on arock which has no soil on it at all???
some species only survive in acid environment some in thermopilc some aquatic etc etc.. every specie exists in a particular environs.. I don't think that is a very difficult concept to grasp?

:w:
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 08:16 PM
but how could the plant just form on a dry stone such as a morine with nothing their, and if something was formed on acid tdoes there have to b a seeds on the acidd for it to form.?

Why does the pioneers speicies such as a lichen need a glacier to reterat for it to form??
Reply

Banu_Hashim
12-01-2008, 08:20 PM
Well pioneer plants are able to survive in very difficult conditions; some, for example wild lupins, are able to fix nitrogen, which helps them to grow even when there is almost no nitrate in the soil. The presence of lupins and other pioneer plants gradually changes the environmental conditions; they provide shelter for other seeds to germinate.

I know your asking, does there have to be seeds there to start off with. Possibly, or they are moved there by birds etc.
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 08:22 PM
Well then is there a ned for god then if this can happen all by itself??
Reply

جوري
12-01-2008, 08:22 PM
these groups are cryptogamic organisms they reproduce by means of spores once they find a host... you can have spores in honey that wouldn't germinate otherwise until they find a warm intestine of a 6 months old child and then cause botulinum-- but wouldn't do so in an adult intestine, hence for instance we recommend that honey not be given to children younger than two...

I am not a botanist you'll need someone expert in plants to discuss this in any further detail but I have taken your example from plants and given you an every day example in hopes that it would help insha'Allah

:w:
Reply

جوري
12-01-2008, 08:26 PM
Originally Posted by Faisal Pervaiz
Well then is there a ned for god then if this can happen all by itself??
who said it is happening by itself, I am not following?

Do you not think that everything in the heaven and earth happens by his permission? How do you propose that even the seeds came about?

do listen to this sura especially from verse 57 on

Media Tags are no longer supported
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 08:27 PM
So what you are saying is that God created all of this??
Reply

Banu_Hashim
12-01-2008, 08:28 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
:sl:
you haven't rambled on and I don't want to derange the thread or waste too much time on this than needs be...
the proposed mechanism for evolution is as you mention indeed, or proposed to be through several mutations (frame shift, nonsense, missense, silent, acrocentric breaks in DNA or even jumping genes) the problem is in fact none of those mutations in documented science have conferred speciation-- in fact if you google any let's take any random example, say the translocation of the Philadelphia chromosome for instance t(9;22)(q34;q11). and you'll find that we end up with chronic myelogenous leukemia in lieu of mammoth to elephant.. just do that for each of the proposed mechanisms and see what you get..
also in terms of natural selection, research such things as trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders
Huntington Disease
Spinobulbar Muscular Atrophy
Spinocerebellar Ataxias (SCA types 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 17)
Dentatorubro-Pallidoluysian Atrophy
Non-polyglutamine Disorders
Fragile X Syndrome
Fragile XE Mental Retardation
Friedreich Ataxia (
Myotonic Dystrophy (DM, not MD)
Spinocerebellar Ataxias (

to name a few and you'll find that the least favorable traits are chosen and get successively worst with each generation.. thus, those of us who have a problem with some aspects of evolution theory, are skeptical from known science and observation rather than religious fervor!

:w:
Don't mean to get too off topic either, but that's really interesting. I'll definitely research these things (when I get the time!)
Reply

جوري
12-01-2008, 08:30 PM
Originally Posted by Faisal Pervaiz
So what you are saying is that God created all of this??
Maybe the aliens from planet X..
I am stultified by your questions at times..
be that as it may, whether or not you believe God did it, is a personal choice.. You should exhaust the possibilities and share your findings on age old questions
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 08:41 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Maybe the aliens from planet X..
I am stultified by your questions at times..
be that as it may, whether or not you believe God did it, is a personal choice.. You should exhaust the possibilities and share your findings on age old questions
i do belive that there is only one god and that is allah.

Sorry about my questions brother i am just having trouble bleiving that a plant can grow on its own without and nutirents a a soil free rock such as a moraine.

why must there be a reterat of a glacier to make this possible?

Was there seeds on the morine, did the glacier depsoit seeds or something?
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 08:46 PM
is there a need for a god for all this to happen?

sorry for these questions, i just want to strengthen my iman
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 08:51 PM
someone please answer
Reply

جوري
12-01-2008, 08:53 PM
Originally Posted by Faisal Pervaiz
i do belive that there is only one god and that is allah.

Sorry about my questions brother i am just having trouble bleiving that a plant can grow on its own without and nutirents a a soil free rock such as a moraine.
for starters I am a sister :D

I have already given you an example how spores can live in honey, why is it difficult to imagine that they live on glacier or in bat caves undisturbed for millions of yrs?

why must there be a reterat of a glacier to make this possible?

Was there seeds on the morine, did the glacier depsoit seeds or something?

I don't know why glaciers are important for this, but as I have given you an example that there are thermopilic organisms surviving only in extreme heat or extreme acid, there must be others with opposite traits needing extreme cold.. I really don't know.. I have a general concept and I apply it, but again I am not a botanist!
Reply

- Qatada -
12-01-2008, 08:55 PM
:salamext:


bro faisal, lets just look at the concept of living organisms. The main one being the living cell. This is made up of proteins which are made up of amino acids, and i'm not sure - maybe you're aware that atheists say this cell came to life by chance by non living matter.


But let's look at the possibility of a protein forming on this earth by chance;

If there really was organic living cells on the planet at one time, there was no Ozone layer to protect them. So the cells would be bombarded with UV rays which would destroy the living cells. So the chance would be extremely low [it would be the fraction of 1 over 10, to the power 300 - 300 zeros after it)] whereas in mathematics, 1 over 10 to the power 50 (50 zeros after it) is an impossible probability.

So the probability of a cell coming to life by non life is more impossible than impossible itself! [Let alone the possibility of it surviving and forming into other more complex organisms for such a long time period without being destroyed on a chaotic planet (the earth had alot of volcanic eruptions and chemical reactions [causing destruction] at that time)!]


http://www.islamicboard.com/dawah/134272121-muslims-vs-atheists-our-foundations-debate-2.html#post1050839

That's just one example of how strong the arguments of the atheists really are. So always question their validity before taking their statements as fact.
Reply

جوري
12-01-2008, 08:55 PM
Originally Posted by Faisal Pervaiz
is there a need for a god for all this to happen?

sorry for these questions, i just want to strengthen my iman
Yes there is a need for God for all of this.. Life can only be granted through God-- you may think it is insignificant but it is not.. all the gears in the clock big or small need to work together for it to be functional and working!
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 08:57 PM
lol thank you SISTER, this has been very informative you have increased my iman and i thank you for that.

i now realise that therte were seeds in the glacier that when depsoted casued the seeds to pop out and germinate.
i need to give you some rep, errr how do i do that again?
W.Sallams
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 09:00 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
:salamext:


bro faisal, lets just look at the concept of living organisms. The main one being the living cell. This is made up of proteins which are made up of amino acids, and i'm not sure - maybe you're aware that atheists say this cell came to life by chance by non living matter.


But let's look at the possibility of a protein forming on this earth by chance;

If there really was organic living cells on the planet at one time, there was no Ozone layer to protect them. So the cells would be bombarded with UV rays which would destroy the living cells. So the chance would be extremely low [it would be the fraction of 1 over 10, to the power 300 - 300 zeros after it)] whereas in mathematics, 1 over 10 to the power 50 (50 zeros after it) is an impossible probability.

So the probability of a cell coming to life by non life is more impossible than impossible itself! [Let alone the possibility of it surviving and forming into other more complex organisms for such a long time period without being destroyed on a chaotic planet (the earth had alot of volcanic eruptions and chemical reactions [causing destruction] at that time)!]


http://www.islamicboard.com/dawah/134272121-muslims-vs-atheists-our-foundations-debate-2.html#post1050839

That's just one example of how strong the arguments of the atheists really are. So always question their validity before taking their statements as fact.
wouldnt the plants evolve though?
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 09:01 PM
and werent there clees before us, for e.g. dinosours, how did they survive?
Reply

Banu_Hashim
12-01-2008, 09:02 PM
lol, I'm not sure how glaciers came into this either.
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 09:05 PM
Originally Posted by Banu_Hashim
lol, I'm not sure how glaciers came into this either.
ithink when the glaciers melted they lft begind gravel depsotes such as moraines and the morains probbaly contined seeds which casued them to germinate when exposed to the sunlight
Reply

- Qatada -
12-01-2008, 09:06 PM
Originally Posted by Faisal Pervaiz
wouldnt the plants evolve though?

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.
http://www.islamicboard.com/dawah/13...ml#post1050831
Reply

جوري
12-01-2008, 09:06 PM
Originally Posted by Faisal Pervaiz
lol thank you SISTER, this has been very informative you have increased my iman and i thank you for that.

i now realise that therte were seeds in the glacier that when depsoted casued the seeds to pop out and germinate.
i need to give you some rep, errr how do i do that again?
W.Sallams
:sl:

I don't need reps.. I want you to understand how science works better since Allah swt favors his scientist servants over the others and for just such reasons.. the wonder of creation..

I recommend you purchase this book to understand better pls because it is such an expansive topic and I can't nor really have the patience to dedicate to it such a great length of time..

You'll really enjoy this book I guarantee

On Growth and Form
By Dr. D'Arcy Thompson

you need to understand that spores have a very hard exterior and extremely resistant to environmental and ecological changes.. but at the same time they are very simple organisms, they don't need much to survive or to thrive..

hope that halps insha'Allah

:w:
Reply

- Qatada -
12-01-2008, 09:06 PM
Originally Posted by Faisal Pervaiz
and werent there clees before us, for e.g. dinosours, how did they survive?
:salamext:


By feeding off other organisms?
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 09:09 PM
thanks
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 10:02 PM
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.
http://www.islamicboard.com/dawah/13...ml#post1050831

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

Faisal Pervaiz
12-01-2008, 10:21 PM
please answer brother
Reply

Banu_Hashim
12-01-2008, 10:25 PM
No one can answer that for sure. Only Allah knows.
Reply

جوري
12-01-2008, 11:12 PM
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

:w:
Reply

- Qatada -
12-02-2008, 11:48 AM
:salamext:


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.)
Reply

Tony
12-02-2008, 12:56 PM
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
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-02-2008, 06:56 PM
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?
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
12-02-2008, 07:41 PM
Please answer brother
Reply

جوري
12-02-2008, 07:51 PM
what are you talking about small giraffes and big giraffes-- what is your question?
Reply

- Qatada -
12-02-2008, 08:31 PM
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?

:salamext:


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
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-10-2014, 11:09 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-10-2008, 08:55 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 06:16 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-30-2007, 12:34 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!