Evolution in trees?

[Hamayun]

This is a question for the Atheists...

What did trees evolve from?

Did an Apple tree evolve from another tree? Will an Apple tree evolve to something else in a million years?

Thanks..

[Brasco]

:sl: akhi!


Bismillah!

Qur'an teaches us, that Allah ta'ala is Al Khaliq and Al Bari. Allah ta'ala has explained how He created everything in the universe and brought all life out of water. He created humans from earth and not monkeys. There is both in the Qur'an: creation and evolution and in both cases, it is only Allah ta'ala who has the power to do all things!

masalam!

[Hamayun]

^^ I know brother Brasco. Jazakallah Khair for your reply :D

This question was for the Athiests and their perspective on the subject :)

[Brasco]

:sl::D

Allah ta'ala explains in simple and direct terms about the creation of animals and their various functions and then assures us, that it is He who has the power to do everything. Allah ta'ala can if He wills, reshape and alter the creation as He chooses. There is clear evidence within many species of alteration and changes within the species. but there is no concrete evidence to support a cross over in development from one type to another, such as reptiles turning into birds or alligators turning into cows. The statements made in Qur'an are quite clear when Allah ta'ala tells us of having brought forth other life forms and then destroying or replacing them with others. This again, does not imply evolution in the sense of one type becoming or changing into another. Insha'allah this one will help you :)

if there was any cross over in development, the theory of evolution would be truth :) But there is not any fossil that supports this theory :D

masalam!

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

[Brasco]

now I got it! I am sorry akhi! I thought you needed help to discuss with one! I am sorry!! :D

maslam!!

[Hamayun]

Haha :D

Thanks for your posts Brother and I completely agree with you.

Jazakallah Khair.

[GuestFellow]

I never thought of that. O.O

[جوري]

(as a digression) yesterday I purchased some Cedar oil from a company called 'something cedar'.. I love to use it to give that beautiful scent to my wooden floors and wooden things in general..

I have three different types just like honey, they come in different scents, colors, potency.. the Virginiana is sweet, the texan is very musky very strong needs dilution, the mexican is earthy.. all of them come from cedar trees but even trees of the same taxon have differences.. it really makes you in awe.. I just love nature and love to use it to my benefit...

[Muhaba]

and why are there beneficial plants. how come all plants aren't harmful to animals/humans? If all plants were poisonous we would have a problem but wouldn't that be beneficial to the plants, helpful to their survival because animals and humans wouldn't be able to eat them? So what reason do evolutionists give? why did plants evolve so they wouldn't be harmful to humans & animals?

[alcurad]

brother, this has to do with science, not 'athiests' perspective', no?

[math]

What did trees evolve from?

Did an Apple tree evolve from another tree? Will an Apple tree evolve to something else in a million years?

Of course there are several questions in biology that are not entirely clear to biologists, but the questions you ask are quite well-agreed upon by scientists.

Yes, apple trees did evolve from other trees. Probably humans have helped evolution a bit, by only selecting the trees that gave the largest (or perhaps the most tastiest) apples for reproduction. So the ancestors of the current day apple tree was probably some tree with smaller apples.
A similar phenomenon can be seen in wheat. Corn is a version of grass that has evolved, with human help, in such a way that it has larger grains than 'regular' grass. For many species of corn, it is still quite easy to see from which species of grass it evolved, because of the striking similarities.
This apple-tree like ancestor of the current apple tree (which according to Wikipedia still grows in Central Asia) will have had some other tree as ancestor. The Wikipedia page on plant evolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...lant_evolution ) seems quite decent in case you would like to know all the details.

The apple tree will not only evolve in millions of years, but also during the current time. By combining 'fathers' and 'mothers' from a different family of apple trees, still new species of apples are created.

What the apple tree will evolve to in millions of years is harder to predict. It might be that the apple tree is extinct by then. It might also be that there will be an entirely new kind of apple tree-like species, or that the present day apple tree still exists. This will mainly depend on the circumstances in which the apple tree will grow (and of those circumstances humankind is probably an important one).

I hope this answered your question! If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Besides, I don't think you have to be atheist to subscribe to this point of view. At least in my country (The Netherlands), most Christians believe in evolution theory as well.

[math]

and why are there beneficial plants. how come all plants aren't harmful to animals/humans? If all plants were poisonous we would have a problem but wouldn't that be beneficial to the plants, helpful to their survival because animals and humans wouldn't be able to eat them? So what reason do evolutionists give? why did plants evolve so they wouldn't be harmful to humans & animals?

That is an interesting question. First of all, do not underestimate the number of harmful plants. If you go to the forest and start eating random plants, you will probably die very, very soon. The reasons humans (or other animals) do not get poisoned often in practice, is because animals are evolved in such a way that they do not like eating plants that are dangerous for them (any species that would enjoy eating poison is doomed to extinct). For example, many poisonous plants have a taste that is perceived as bad-tasting (often bitter) by humans.

I can think of a couple of reasons why not all plants are poisonous:
- It is hard for plants to develop a poison that works against any kind of animal, without poisoning oneself
- Many plants use animals for their reproduction. Think of bees carrying pollen, or animals carrying sticky seeds in their fur. Note that in most plants, the part containing the seeds (fruits/berries) is most tasty - exactly for this reason.

At least to me this seems quite plausible, I don't know how you think about this after reading my reply?

[Tony]

Have u ever noticed that the very people who attack us for saying Allah knows best or we cxannot understand it, use the same argument within science :?

[Hamayun]

Of course there are several questions in biology that are not entirely clear to biologists, but the questions you ask are quite well-agreed upon by scientists.

Yes, apple trees did evolve from other trees. Probably humans have helped evolution a bit, by only selecting the trees that gave the largest (or perhaps the most tastiest) apples for reproduction. So the ancestors of the current day apple tree was probably some tree with smaller apples.
A similar phenomenon can be seen in wheat. Corn is a version of grass that has evolved, with human help, in such a way that it has larger grains than 'regular' grass. For many species of corn, it is still quite easy to see from which species of grass it evolved, because of the striking similarities.
This apple-tree like ancestor of the current apple tree (which according to Wikipedia still grows in Central Asia) will have had some other tree as ancestor. The Wikipedia page on plant evolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...lant_evolution ) seems quite decent in case you would like to know all the details.

The apple tree will not only evolve in millions of years, but also during the current time. By combining 'fathers' and 'mothers' from a different family of apple trees, still new species of apples are created.

What the apple tree will evolve to in millions of years is harder to predict. It might be that the apple tree is extinct by then. It might also be that there will be an entirely new kind of apple tree-like species, or that the present day apple tree still exists. This will mainly depend on the circumstances in which the apple tree will grow (and of those circumstances humankind is probably an important one).

I hope this answered your question! If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Besides, I don't think you have to be atheist to subscribe to this point of view. At least in my country (The Netherlands), most Christians believe in evolution theory as well.

Thanks for your reply. I wasn't referring to human intervention. :)

Just wanted to know if there is any conclusive evidence that shows trees evolved from simpler forms of life. Maybe I didn't word it well.

Thanks.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Bro hamayun, there are alot of gaps which aren't explained in the evolution theory. What's usually done is that the theory makes logical sense to some extent, with some observations - so its taken as a general trend.

You probably won't find answers like these, just guesses.

[math]

Of course everything depends on what you mean exactly with 'conclusive evidence', but there is sufficient evidence that virtually all biologists agree about the evolution of trees from simpler forms of life.
Evolution of trees happened in parallel, i.e. the present day trees are distinguished in multiple families that each developed from a separate family of small plants. Some of these small plants that got children that evolved into trees are still on earth, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycophytes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_fern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsetail

Note that some of those plants look already like miniature versions of the current day trees.

[Muhaba]

That is an interesting question. First of all, do not underestimate the number of harmful plants. If you go to the forest and start eating random plants, you will probably die very, very soon. The reasons humans (or other animals) do not get poisoned often in practice, is because animals are evolved in such a way that they do not like eating plants that are dangerous for them (any species that would enjoy eating poison is doomed to extinct). For example, many poisonous plants have a taste that is perceived as bad-tasting (often bitter) by humans.

I can think of a couple of reasons why not all plants are poisonous:
- It is hard for plants to develop a poison that works against any kind of animal, without poisoning oneself
- Many plants use animals for their reproduction. Think of bees carrying pollen, or animals carrying sticky seeds in their fur. Note that in most plants, the part containing the seeds (fruits/berries) is most tasty - exactly for this reason.

At least to me this seems quite plausible, I don't know how you think about this after reading my reply?

but there are many plants that are poisonous. don't they also get poisoned themselves? and don't they depend on animals for reproduction? And how did the plants know that animals were necessary for helping them reproduce? They don't have eyes to see that some animal has the seeds stuck in their fur. Likewise how did the flowers know that bees would help them pollinate? how did they know what the bees were doing and that pollin would get stuck to the bees that the bees would then carry to other flowers?

Btw why do poisonous plants taste bad? what makes them that way? why couldn't there be sweet-tasting poisonous plants that humans and animals would eat? did the poisonous plant think "lets taste bad so no one would eat us?" how did they know what "bad-tasting" is and that animals wouldn't like such a taste?

thanks for replying.

[math]

but there are many plants that are poisonous. don't they also get poisoned themselves? and don't they depend on animals for reproduction?

Of course there are no plants that poison themselves, because any mutation that causes a plant to poison itself, would cause the plant to die, so that it cannot reproduce. Probably mutations that causes plants to poison themselves have occurred, but the plants probably died before we could research them. My point was rather that not any poison would work, and plants need the right balance between being poisonous for animals, but not so poisonous that their own system would be disturbed.

And how did the plants know that animals were necessary for helping them reproduce? They don't have eyes to see that some animal has the seeds stuck in their fur. Likewise how did the flowers know that bees would help them pollinate? how did they know what the bees were doing and that pollin would get stuck to the bees that the bees would then carry to other flowers?

Of course, plants do not really 'know' anything about this. You can imagine that at a certain point there only existed poisonous plants with non-sticky seeds. Because of a certain mutation, some plant suddenly got sticky seeds. This plant could more easily reproduce itself, because the animals would transport the seeds in their fur, so the plant could spread itself faster than the non-sticky plants (although it wouldn't happen often, because the plant was not attractive for animals because of its toxicity). From this point on, the plant would benefit from being non-toxic, so non-toxic 'children' would spread over the world faster. It is a quite beautiful system, I would say: although all the organisms in nature can be relatively simple and do not need to have explicit 'knowledge' about the organisms that act as their 'friends', still everything works well together.

Btw why do poisonous plants taste bad? what makes them that way? why couldn't there be sweet-tasting poisonous plants that humans and animals would eat? did the poisonous plant think "lets taste bad so no one would eat us?" how did they know what "bad-tasting" is and that animals wouldn't like such a taste?.

It works the other way around. You can imagine that animals at some point in time enjoyed eating poisonous food. But of course, such animals wouldn't live long. So only the animals that liked healthy food, and disliked poisonous food, would survive and be able to reproduce.

thanks for replying.

You are more than welcome. Fortunately these are simple questions that science has well-agreed answers on. But don't worry, there are more than enough questions left, for example about the origin of the universe, that science cannot answer and are free to religion to debate on :).

[Muhaba]

Of course there are no plants that poison themselves, because any mutation that causes a plant to poison itself, would cause the plant to die, so that it cannot reproduce. Probably mutations that causes plants to poison themselves have occurred, but the plants probably died before we could research them. My point was rather that not any poison would work, and plants need the right balance between being poisonous for animals, but not so poisonous that their own system would be disturbed.

What I meant is, if some plants did become poisonous, why didn't all plants become poisonous? it would be beneficial for their survival because animals wouldn't eat them (due to their bad taste). Why are there still non-poisonous plants that animals can eat? why haven't they become extinct? If evolution were true, shouldn't all plants be poisonous as they would survive while the non-poisonous would have become extinct because they would be the ones that the animals ate?

Of course, plants do not really 'know' anything about this. You can imagine that at a certain point there only existed poisonous plants with non-sticky seeds. Because of a certain mutation, some plant suddenly got sticky seeds. This plant could more easily reproduce itself, because the animals would transport the seeds in their fur, so the plant could spread itself faster than the non-sticky plants (although it wouldn't happen often, because the plant was not attractive for animals because of its toxicity). From this point on, the plant would benefit from being non-toxic, so non-toxic 'children' would spread over the world faster. It is a quite beautiful system, I would say: although all the organisms in nature can be relatively simple and do not need to have explicit 'knowledge' about the organisms that act as their 'friends', still everything works well together.

Why does everything work well together? why do plants get nutrients from soil? why is there soil in the first place? if there were only sand or rocks/pebbles, plants wouldn't be able to grow. Who created the soil?
why is rain beneficial to plants? if rain / water had been harmful (like acid rain) then plants and animals wouldn't survive. Who made the rain/water compatible with plant & animal needs?

Why are plants beneficial to animals? why aren't there only harmful plants? why is the sun beneficial to plants and animals? Why are plants able to use sunlight to make food? what if plants couldn't use sunlight to make food, or sunlight didn't cause plants to make chlorophyll, what would happen? Did all this really happen by itself or did God make it happen. It's unrealistic to think that it all happened by itself. It's impossible for it to happen by itself and so if anyone thinks with an open mind he/she will realize that God made it happen.

It works the other way around. You can imagine that animals at some point in time enjoyed eating poisonous food. But of course, such animals wouldn't live long. So only the animals that liked healthy food, and disliked poisonous food, would survive and be able to reproduce.

my question was, why should poisonous plants taste bad? what makes them taste bad? the bad taste wards off animals so animals don't eat them. That's good for the animals, otherwise animals would end up eating poisonous plants and dying. But why should poisonous plants taste bad while nonpoisonous plants taste good? Why don't all plants taste the same? if evolution had caused it, it would be equally likely for poisonous plants to taste good and nonpoisonous plants to taste bad. But actually, it didn't all happen by itself. God made it happen. God caused poisonous plants to taste bad to keep animals from eating them while nonpoisonous plants don't taste bad in order to make animals eat them, which is necessary for animals' survival.

You are more than welcome. Fortunately these are simple questions that science has well-agreed answers on.

unfortunately, science doesn't give the correct answers for these questions. just saying "it all happened by itself" is not correct. It's not sensible to believe that it could all have happened by itself and yet all work perfectly together. it's sad that those as knowledgable as scientists would believe such impractical ideas.

But don't worry, there are more than enough questions left, for example about the origin of the universe, that science cannot answer and are free to religion to debate on

yes, the origin of the universe is something all athiests/agnostics/evolutionists should first try to answer, before believing that evolution caused it all. where did the first cell or dust particle or matter come from from which everything evolved? As long as they haven't got the answer to this, the whole theory of evolution (that it all happened by itself) has no basis.


Allah mentions in various parts of the Quraan that what we have on earth, in the universe, etc are signs of Allah. For example, in Surah 17 (Al-Isra) verse 12 Allah says:

We have made the night and the day as two of our signs ...

Now if Allah (God) hadn't made the night and day, life on earth might be impossible or at least very difficult. Imagine if the earth didn't rotate around the sun and so one part of the earth always faced the sun and the other part always faced away from the earth (as is the case of the moon) what would happen? Wouldn't life on earth be difficult? Is it sensible to say that this happened by itself? Or are the night and day really great signs of Allah just as Allah has said in the Quraan?

In Surah 78 Al-Naba Verses 6 - 23, Allah says:

Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse*

And the mountains as pegs?

And (have We not) created you in pairs,

And made your sleep for rest,

and made the night as a covering,

and made the day as a means of subsistence?

And (have We not) built over you the seven firmaments,

and placed (therein) a Light of Splendour?

And do We not send down from the clouds water in abundance,

That We may produce therewith corn and vegetables,

And gardens of luxurious growth?

Verily the Day of Decision is a thing appointed -

the Day that the Trumpet shall be sounded, and you shall come forth in crowds;

and the heavens shall be opened as if there were doors,

and the mountains shall vanish, as if they were a mirage.

Truly Hell is as a place of ambush -

For the transgressors a place of destination:

They will dwell therein for ages.


*Note: the earth as a wide expanse is a metaphor. This doesn't mean that the Quraan is stating that the earth isn't round. If you look at the earth you will see it is expansive, spread out, and flat (as opposed to hilly and crators/valleys) - that is, it is fit for human habitation. Had the earth all been mountains and crators/valleys it would be difficult for humans to live on it.

Since Allah has given us everything to make our lives on earth possible and easy, likewise Allah has given us a way of life to follow and will judge us on the Day of Judgment. The Lord who had the power to create the universe the way it is has the power to recreate us after death, judge us and reward us with Hell or Heaven depending on our faith and deeds.

After mentioning some signs of Allah in verses 95 to 103 of Surah 6 (Al-Anam) Allah says in verse 104:

"Now have come to you, from your Lord, proofs (to open your eyes): If any will see, it will be for (the good of) his own soul; If any will be blind, it will be to his own (harm): I am not (here) to watch over your doings."

So it's important to think over all this with an open mind.

[nocturne]

Of course there are several questions in biology that are not entirely clear to biologists, but the questions you ask are quite well-agreed upon by scientists.

Yes, apple trees did evolve from other trees. Probably humans have helped evolution a bit, by only selecting the trees that gave the largest (or perhaps the most tastiest) apples for reproduction. So the ancestors of the current day apple tree was probably some tree with smaller apples.
A similar phenomenon can be seen in wheat. Corn is a version of grass that has evolved, with human help, in such a way that it has larger grains than 'regular' grass. For many species of corn, it is still quite easy to see from which species of grass it evolved, because of the striking similarities.
This apple-tree like ancestor of the current apple tree (which according to Wikipedia still grows in Central Asia) will have had some other tree as ancestor. The Wikipedia page on plant evolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...lant_evolution ) seems quite decent in case you would like to know all the details.

The apple tree will not only evolve in millions of years, but also during the current time. By combining 'fathers' and 'mothers' from a different family of apple trees, still new species of apples are created.

What the apple tree will evolve to in millions of years is harder to predict. It might be that the apple tree is extinct by then. It might also be that there will be an entirely new kind of apple tree-like species, or that the present day apple tree still exists. This will mainly depend on the circumstances in which the apple tree will grow (and of those circumstances humankind is probably an important one).

The idea of Evolution is interesting and fascinating. Being a muslim, i am more obliged to believe in creation than evolution.

But, i think they can both co-exist.

Anyway, i think this question was if the apple tree was left alone will it evolve. In my opinion, chances are that nothing will happen unless there is a drastic change in environment or any other induced man-made changes.

[nocturne]

What I meant is, if some plants did become poisonous, why didn't all plants become poisonous? it would be beneficial for their survival because animals wouldn't eat them (due to their bad taste). Why are there still non-poisonous plants that animals can eat? why haven't they become extinct? If evolution were true, shouldn't all plants be poisonous as they would survive while the non-poisonous would have become extinct because they would be the ones that the animals ate?

For plants to survive, reproduction must occur. I might be wrong on this, but plants produce fruits/flowers as a form of reproduction although, they store products of photosynthesis in it as well. Thus, becoming poisonous is counter-productive in most cases.

They are some plants which are poisonous to prevent themselves from being eaten. and others could just be a mistake of evolution.

Why does everything work well together? why do plants get nutrients from soil? why is there soil in the first place? if there were only sand or rocks/pebbles, plants wouldn't be able to grow. Who created the soil?
why is rain beneficial to plants? if rain / water had been harmful (like acid rain) then plants and animals wouldn't survive. Who made the rain/water compatible with plant & animal needs?

Yeah. this is where evolutionist often go wrong. i think its impossible for everything to happen by natural selection. There has to be a hand of god in all this.


my question was, why should poisonous plants taste bad? what makes them taste bad? the bad taste wards off animals so animals don't eat them. That's good for the animals, otherwise animals would end up eating poisonous plants and dying. But why should poisonous plants taste bad while nonpoisonous plants taste good? Why don't all plants taste the same? if evolution had caused it, it would be equally likely for poisonous plants to taste good and nonpoisonous plants to taste bad. But actually, it didn't all happen by itself. God made it happen. God caused poisonous plants to taste bad to keep animals from eating them while nonpoisonous plants don't taste bad in order to make animals eat them, which is necessary for animals' survival.

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

There still plenty of things for scientist to discover to fill in the missing gaps. End of the day, they still wont be able to answer why we exist.

[Hamayun]

Thanks for taking the time to reply :)

More questions :D

Of course, plants do not really 'know' anything about this. You can imagine that at a certain point there only existed poisonous plants with non-sticky seeds.

The problem is if their only existed poisonous plants at a certain point, they would not survive more than a generation due to their inability to reproduce properly.

A half baked reproductive system is no better than not having one.

Because of a certain mutation, some plant suddenly got sticky seeds.

What about before the mutation? If they were unable to reproduce successfully before the mutation how did survive long enough to produce a mutated version of the plant? The odds of mutating within one generation are preeeeetty slim.

Because of a certain mutation, some plant suddenly got sticky seeds. From this point on, the plant would benefit from being non-toxic, so non-toxic 'children' would spread over the world faster.

Lets apply the same logic to humans...

If a human was born with six fingers... would all his offsprings also have six fingers?

If this logic doesn't apply to humans please explain why?

Thanks :)

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you math,

Many plants use animals for their reproduction. Think of bees carrying pollen, or animals carrying sticky seeds in their fur.

This poses a problem, if plants were around before bees, how did they cross pollinate without bees?

Bees need flowers, so which came first the flowers or the bees?

Evolution is not a problem for us, but evolution without God is a problem.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Trumble]

This poses a problem, if plants were around before bees, how did they cross pollinate without bees?

Bees need flowers, so which came first the flowers or the bees?

Evolution is not a problem for us, but evolution without God is a problem.

Without knowing any of the details, a possible thesis might be that the plants cross pollenated by some other method, maybe by wind transmission. The bees just did the job more efficiently, so it was the plants that - for whatever reason - the bees found most attractive that were more likely to reproduce, and hence the bees became the dominant method of pollenation in the population of the plant concerned.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Trumble;

Without knowing any of the details, a possible thesis might be that

From abiogenesis to the life we see today needs billions or possibly trillions of separate things to happen, mostly building on what went before.

Chemicals always work in the same way, so you would need billions or possibly trillions of ways to adjust chemicals to make the life we see today.

How is this possible without God?

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[math]

Thank you all for your replies! I really appreciate your desire to get to know more about the believes of others. Because so many questions have been posed, I will try to answer briefly, as I am afraid my post will get terribly long anyway. If I have been too brief, don't hesitate to ask for further explanation.

If evolution were true, shouldn't all plants be poisonous as they would survive while the non-poisonous would have become extinct because they would be the ones that the animals ate?

I tried explaining this in my previous post: some plants actually do need animals for their reproduction.

it would be equally likely for poisonous plants to taste good and nonpoisonous plants to taste bad.

Sorry, I am afraid you missed my point, so I will try to explain it more precisely. There is no such thing as 'tasting good' in general. What tastes good for one human, might taste bad for another. Same with animals: what tastes good for one species, will taste bad for another. And of course animals for which healthy species taste best, will survive longer than animals for which poison taste best. Therefore, it would be totally unlikely for poisonous plants to taste good - the taste of 'good' and 'bad' of animals developed in such a way that they would not like poisonous substances. I hope the point is clearer now?

In my opinion, chances are that nothing will happen unless there is a drastic change in environment or any other induced man-made changes.

Yes you are right, that's what I said as well, or at least what I wanted to say (but don't underestimate, for example, the effect of changes in climate that might occur).

The problem is if their only existed poisonous plants at a certain point, they would not survive more than a generation due to their inability to reproduce properly.

To be able to transport in the fur of animals, toxicity is not a problem, of course. For plants that actually would need to be eaten, you can for example imagine that the change in toxicity and stickyness occured at the same time, of that the plant was poisonous, but killed the animal only after some time (and the seeds were transported already).

If they were unable to reproduce successfully before the mutation how did survive long enough to produce a mutated version of the plant?

Of course they could reproduce anyway, just transporting of the seeds was restricted to a small area (for example by the wind), instead of longer distances by animals.

If a human was born with six fingers... would all his offsprings also have six fingers?

Same logic applies to humans. If those six fingers are defined in his genes, his offspring would have six fingers as well.

Bees need flowers, so which came first the flowers or the bees?

Flowers don't need bees, of the first flowers their seeds could be spread by the wind. Flowers were first.

yes, the origin of the universe is something all athiests/agnostics/evolutionists should first try to answer, before believing that evolution caused it all.

Of course it would be nice if we could. But currently, the only things we can somehow understand are the rising and development of life. You believe the word of the Qur'an is the only accurate description, but there are tens (if not more) of other stories about the creation of the world, all with their own people who believe their story is the only right one. See this page on wikipedia for a really interesting overview. You can probably understand that it is not really possibly for me to decide which of those stories are right and which are not. So while you can use excerpts from the Qur'an for illustration, please don't expect me to straightforwardly believe everything you cite.


A number of you (muhaba, nocturne, Eric) raise the same concern, which could be summarized as 'Why does everything work so nicely together? How is it possible that all those steps necessary for nature to exist happened all by itself? How could this be possible without God?'

I think that the point is that we can only ask this question because us humans are there. It is possible to imagine a lots of universes where nature does not work as beautifully together as in our universe. But in those universes, there would be noone to observe the world they live in, simply because no creature complex enough to observe and describe the world could arise. The only worlds where intelligent beings can live, are worlds with a highly developed, stable nature. So the fact that we are intelligent observers, implies that we must live in a complex world where everything works together nicely.

Personally I believe that God might have played a role, but honestly I do not see why this should be necessarily so. If I look at our beautiful world, I really do not see a reason why God must exist.

if anyone thinks with an open mind he/she will realize that God made it happen.

Of course it is hard for anyone to really think with an open mind, because the ideas we are open for, are largely determined by the (sub)culture we live in and the education we received. From my point of view, I would have to disagree with your statement. For me open-mindedness is looking at the world as it is created by God (assuming it is) and listening to what other educated people have to say, rather than just believing the truth from one book. Believing the Qur'an without being able to question it does not appear as an example of open mindedness, though. Sorry if this sound offensive: it is not meant like that.
Don't you believe that God would like us to investigate his creation? Surely the world is much more beautiful if you get to understand more about it. Why then not believe the observations of biologists make about our earth? For me as a non-Muslim it is really hard to imagine that you don't want to accept the facts about evolution we notice in the world (and nearly all biologists agree about). Actually from my viewpoint it even looks like discrediting God's creation: why believe in God's words (which perhaps have been altered in the course of history?) over God's work, which we can directly see?

By the way, also note that many Christians made this change already. Many Christians (at least in Western-Europe, I'm not sure about other places) do believe in God, but do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and have no problems with accepting the evolution theory.

Of course, it is very hard for people and cultures to admit they always have been wrong (and I don't expect anyone in this forum to do so). This holds both for atheists and muslims, of course. Still I wonder if a similar development as has taken place in Christianity will also occur in the Islam at some time.

Again, this post is definately not intended to offend anyone. I just liked trying to show you how non-believers view the world, and meanwhile to learn more about your believes.

Once again thanks all for the replies and have a nice day!

[Azy]

OK yeah I'm a bit late with this but... meh

Without knowing any of the details, a possible thesis might be that the plants cross pollenated by some other method, maybe by wind transmission.

That and the fact that cross pollination isn't even a problem because insects were around for 300 million years before flowering plants.

Early plants (similar to modern ferns) didn't need to cross pollinate, reproducing using spores not seeds.

What were people hoping with this thread? That the world would suddenly gasp and say "oh ****, we didn't think about the trees!"?
Evolution happened the same way.

Anyone compared the chlorophyll and haemoglobin molecules?

[Hamayun]

What were people hoping with this thread? That the world would suddenly gasp and say "oh ****, we didn't think about the trees!"?
Evolution happened the same way.

Nice! Patronising people will definitely get your point across...

[Muhaba]

Once again thanks all for the replies and have a nice day!

You are more than welcome!

[Muhaba]

OK yeah I'm a bit late with this but... meh
That and the fact that cross pollination isn't even a problem because insects were around for 300 million years before flowering plants.

Early plants (similar to modern ferns) didn't need to cross pollinate, reproducing using spores not seeds.

What were people hoping with this thread? That the world would suddenly gasp and say "oh ****, we didn't think about the trees!"?
Evolution happened the same way.

Anyone compared the chlorophyll and haemoglobin molecules?

Well, we were sure science would've had something to say about it. But don't you ever wonder how it could be possible for everything to have come from one single cell? Not only the different animals but the many different types of plants, flowers, vegetables & fruits, trees and herbs, evergreens and seasonal plants, etc etc. Could they all have come from a single cell along with bacteria and viruses and the different types of animals?

And where did the first cell come from? Somewhere I read it probably came from a bacteria, but where did that bacteria come from?

What are your thoughts about this?

[Woodrow]

This is a question for the Atheists...

What did trees evolve from?

Did an Apple tree evolve from another tree? Will an Apple tree evolve to something else in a million years?

Thanks..

Both theists and atheists make an error in thinking that evolution or the lack of evolution proves or disproves the existence of Allaah(swt)

Us Muslims often make the error of jumping into a debate about evolution without understanding what is meant by evolution.

The concept of evolution in plants is so complex that many botanists get lost. The plant kingdom is so diverse and so many conditions affect plants it is often difficult to recognize what species a single plant is.

The plant family rosales is extremely complex. Rosale takes many forms and yet technically are the same species of plant although it is in many shape this family includes apples, roses, true cacti and most plants with thorns. They readily cross pollinate and hybrids abound. You can intercross nearly all of them with each other. Morphologically they are different plants but genetically they are all the same plant. It is not evolution, it is hybridization and growth according to soil and climate conditions.

So there has always been just one species of apple tree but it bears no resemblance to the apple trees of just a few hundred years ago, although the apples of today are still technically the same species of plant. In my own life time I have seen several new forms of apple trees. About 300 years ago all apples were small and tart like what ew call crab apples today. Less then a 500 years ago they were all like the fruit on hawthorns.

Add to that the word apple has been used for many different fruits over the centuries some other things that have been called apples are Pomegranates, Oranges, tomatoes, and rose hips(which actually are a true apple)

Between the actually definition of evolution and the problems with linguistics, it is best a person not engage in a debate about evolution, unless they have a solid scientific background in the concept of evolution, are knowledgeable in language changes and have enough biology to be able to identify a species of plant or animal.

[Azy]

I like it when Woodrow posts, usually interesting and informative.

Well, we were sure science would've had something to say about it. But don't you ever wonder how it could be possible for everything to have come from one single cell? Not only the different animals but the many different types of plants, flowers, vegetables & fruits, trees and herbs, evergreens and seasonal plants, etc etc. Could they all have come from a single cell along with bacteria and viruses and the different types of animals?

And where did the first cell come from? Somewhere I read it probably came from a bacteria, but where did that bacteria come from?

What are your thoughts about this?

There are a couple of misconceptions held about this topic.
One is that the first cell must have been something like a bacterium. The first instance of what we would call a 'cell' would be a thousand times simpler than any modern bacteria.

Another misconception is that there was a barren earth and then BAM a cell assembled by itself. Noone thinks that happened, more like hundreds of millions of years of self-replicating molecules gradually increasing in complexity.

As for how everything came about I don't think that takes much imagination. Think about algae, the single cell organism that photosythesises like plants. A mutation in one cell that led to photosythesis would lead to the ancestors of the plant kingdom, while ones that didn't and developed differently would be ancestors to the animals, bacteria, fungi etc.

[nocturne]

I think one of the brother here hit the nail right on the nail with his comments.

Evolution is not a problem, Evolution without god is.

The concept of everything starting off from bacterium and eventually ending up with humans is hard to comprehend. Especially, when we are specifically told that we were created by God.

But, in my personal opinion, the details of the creating of mankind is pretty vague in the Quran and it is open for various interpretation.There is still so much to understand and learn about evolution, shutting it off because it does not comply with what we understand of the Quran is wrong.

Salam

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you math;

Personally I believe that God might have played a role, but honestly I do not see why this should be necessarily so. If I look at our beautiful world, I really do not see a reason why God must exist.

Chemicals always work in the same way, so you would need billions or possibly trillions of ways to adjust chemicals to make the life we see today. So the evolutionary process would need a God like gene to produce all kinds of mutations that would work well together, more so in animals and man.

In other words I cannot see how the life we see today can be created without God.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[glo]

Both theists and atheists make an error in thinking that evolution or the lack of evolution proves or disproves the existence of Allaah(swt)

Us Muslims often make the error of jumping into a debate about evolution without understanding what is meant by evolution.

The concept of evolution in plants is so complex that many botanists get lost. The plant kingdom is so diverse and so many conditions affect plants it is often difficult to recognize what species a single plant is.

Great post, Woodrow.
I reminded me of this article I read today:

Nearly a quarter of Londoners and one in seven people nationwide believe in creationism - the theory that life on earth was created by God and has always existed in its present form.

Almost 150 years after Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking work, On the Origin of Species, just 48 per cent of Londoners agreed there was enough scientific evidence to support his theory of evolution, according to a survey published today.

One in five Londoners had never even heard of Darwin and a similar number of adults in the north of England had no understanding of or had never heard of the term, “evolution”.

Overall, more than half those surveyed, 54 per cent, across Britain said it was possible both to believe in God and to hold the view that life on earth, including human life, evolved over time as a result of natural selection.

[...]

Dr Fern Elsdon-Baker, head of the programme, said: “The most encouraging aspect of the survey shows that whilst there are diverse views on Darwin’s theory of evolution, there appears to a broad acceptance that science and faith do not have to be in conflict.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6610938.ece

[Hamayun]

Greetings and peace be with you math;



Chemicals always work in the same way, so you would need billions or possibly trillions of ways to adjust chemicals to make the life we see today. So the evolutionary process would need a God like gene to produce all kinds of mutations that would work well together, more so in animals and man.

In other words I cannot see how the life we see today can be created without God.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

Good post Brother Eric.

I accept evolution and I do believe that modern day organisms may have evolved from simpler forms of life.

I do not believe this was a result of an empty void exploding to cause planets to form with minerals and resources powerful enough to not only form living things but also ingredients that power our laptops, super computers, space ships, sattelites etc.

Coming back to the subject...

Lets say for example the first cell that came into existence was very simple...

Did the cell come into existence armed with a reproductive system (even if it was cell division).

Also when it evolved into more complex forms did it have two reproductive systems? One fully functional and the other partially functional? Wouldn't the partially functional organ be a hinderence rather than a benefit?

These are honest questions :)

[Muhaba]

I like it when Woodrow posts, usually interesting and informative.There are a couple of misconceptions held about this topic.
One is that the first cell must have been something like a bacterium. The first instance of what we would call a 'cell' would be a thousand times simpler than any modern bacteria.

Another misconception is that there was a barren earth and then BAM a cell assembled by itself. Noone thinks that happened, more like hundreds of millions of years of self-replicating molecules gradually increasing in complexity.

As for how everything came about I don't think that takes much imagination. Think about algae, the single cell organism that photosythesises like plants. A mutation in one cell that led to photosythesis would lead to the ancestors of the plant kingdom, while ones that didn't and developed differently would be ancestors to the animals, bacteria, fungi etc.

And you think it all happened by itself?

where did the barren earth come from? Who created it? or do you think that with the big bang everything came into being by itself? don't you ever wonder who caused the big bang with which the universe came into being?

Before the big bang, there was absolutely nothing. Not matter, not energy, nothing. Then the big bang happened and the universe came into being. Doesn't that show that God made it happen? Only God could make something out of nothing, because God can do anything. Or do you think that it's possible for something to be made out of nothing?

Just imagine the time before the big bang, when there was nothing? Is it possible for something to just magically appear without some outside force making it happen?

Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe...

... According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"?
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

And Allah says in the Holy Quraan (revealed over 1,400 years ago):
Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder. And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (Surah 21 (Al-Anbiya) Verse 30)

[Azy]

And you think it all happened by itself?

I haven't heard a reasonable alternative.

don't you ever wonder who caused the big bang with which the universe came into being?

The question itself is bordering on the ridiculous.

Or do you think that it's possible for something to be made out of nothing?

Yes.
Besides, if there was "nothing" before the universe then where was God? Waiting at the side of nothing to make his grand entrance?
Nothing means nothing, there was no space or time, "before" makes no sense.

There's recently been discussion about it in [this thread].

You might also have noticed that big-bang-theory.com is a website run by the Christian Science Institute, and despite the name it doesn't seem to have much actual science in there.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Azy;

Quote:
Originally Posted by muhaba
Or do you think that it's possible for something to be made out of nothing?
Yes.
Besides, if there was "nothing" before the universe then where was God? Waiting at the side of nothing to make his grand entrance?
Nothing means nothing, there was no space or time, "before" makes no sense.

The universe exists, something had to either have no beginning or come from nothing, how else can the first thing come into existence? There seems to be no logical explanation, unless you have one.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Woodrow]

Before we go too far off track let us remember the creation of matter and the evolution of life are 2 seperate subjects.

Returning to evolution in particular the evolution of trees we need to understand what evolution is and resolve if it can occur without intelligent guidance.

A very large amount of evolution in plants has taken place because of human intervention. Trees are a good example. Very few examples of original apple trees exist. The apple you buy in the store did not exist in nature and are very recent developments. Here most people accept the evolution of apples as the result of human intervention. Seems odd that the same people who see that evolution of apples could not have happened without the "intelligent" guidance of humans can not accept intelligent guidence for all things called evolution.

[Azy]

Seems odd that the same people who see that the directed evolution of apples to produce a crop plant with traits favourable to humans could not have happened without the "intelligent" guidance of humans can not accept intelligent guidence for all things called evolution.

Fixed ;)

[Woodrow]

Fixed ;)

Thank You, that is better wording

[alcurad]

^couldn't it be argued that humans as such are just a part of 'evolution' in general, not outside of it?
just as the all predators nowadays don't wipe out the herbivores entirely, or more clearly as Ants cultivate some vegetables-or was it fungi?-the mechanisms that made that possible could also be applied with a bit more tweaking to apples and humans?

^but of course that doesn't affect Woodrow's post at all: "Seems odd that the same people who see that evolution of apples could not have happened without the "intelligent" guidance of humans can not accept intelligent guidance for all things called evolution."
I was just posting a thought as it came,,

[barrio79]

^couldn't it be argued that humans as such are just a part of 'evolution' in general, not outside of it?
just as the all predators nowadays don't wipe out the herbivores entirely, or more clearly as Ants cultivate some vegetables-or was it fungi?-the mechanisms that made that possible could also be applied with a bit more tweaking to apples and humans?

^but of course that doesn't affect Woodrow's post at all: "Seems odd that the same people who see that evolution of apples could not have happened without the "intelligent" guidance of humans can not accept intelligent guidance for all things called evolution."
I was just posting a thought as it came,,

Evolution features a lot on cable television , you can get some answers from watching there

[alcurad]

^couldn't it be argued that humans as such are just a part of 'evolution' in general, not outside of it?
just as the all predators nowadays don't wipe out the herbivores entirely, or more clearly as Ants cultivate some vegetables-or was it fungi?-the mechanisms that made that possible could also be applied with a bit more tweaking to apples and humans?

^but of course that doesn't affect Woodrow's post at all: "Seems odd that the same people who see that evolution of apples could not have happened without the "intelligent" guidance of humans can not accept intelligent guidance for all things called evolution."
I was just posting a thought as it came,,

[Muhaba]

Fixed ;)

What about all the other plants that are favorable to humans? Did they all evolve by themselves or was intelligent guidance behind them as well?

[Azy]

Some were cultivated by men, like the apples, and some evolved independently of intelligent guidance.

[Woodrow]

Some were cultivated by men, like the apples, and some evolved independently of intelligent guidance.

Oh so a plant such as corn (maize) which can not grow without human cultivation (No wild form of maize has been found) which is the product of planned growth. Planning by primitive people who had no concept of biology.

If we can accept that the food crops are the result of inellibent planning by human, why can we not accept that all growth is the result of intelligent guidence. It is esy to see that many plants would not exist today if it was not for the intellegent guidance of humans. Why do some people assume that all plants could exist if it was not for the intelligent guidence of a Supreme Being?

Can any living organism fauna or flora develop without intelligent guidence having directed it?

[Woodrow]

What about all the other plants that are favorable to humans? Did they all evolve by themselves or was intelligent guidance behind them as well?

I can not think of a single food crop that has not been altered by intelligent guidance. Some of our food crops can not even be found in the wild. Maize is the best example. There has not been a wild maize plant found and maize is the only grain plant that grows a cob. No other known plant has a cob. Yet genetically the cob prevents corn from growing wild as the kernels can not plant or disperse themselves because of the cob. The cob prevents the plant from procreating itself by any natural means.

If you like I can go into a very long essay about pollination in corn(maize) That becames super complex while on the surface it look like simple wind pollination.

[Azy]

If we can accept that the food crops are the result of inellibent planning by human, why can we not accept that all growth is the result of intelligent guidence.

Because they're completely different things and one doesn't even remotely follow on logically from the other?

It's similar to your apple example and to animals like mules which are mostly born infertile. It might be reasonable to say that a sustainable population of these species would not currently exist without human help but that's not the same as saying they could never have existed.

I can not think of a single food crop that has not been altered by intelligent guidance.

It is virtually guaranteed that food crops will be altered by human interference, even if that boils down to something as simple as a pre-agricultural human picking the juiciest looking fruit and dropping the cores in a field. However, the interference needn't be human or even intelligent. When a bird/insect/animal feeds on a plant and helps spread seed/pollen it is promoting the growth and spread of plants it finds more attractive.

[Woodrow]

Because they're completely different things and one doesn't even remotely follow on logically from the other?

It's similar to your apple example and to animals like mules which are mostly born infertile. It might be reasonable to say that a sustainable population of these species would not currently exist without human help but that's not the same as saying they could never have existed.
It is virtually guaranteed that food crops will be altered by human interference, even if that boils down to something as simple as a pre-agricultural human picking the juiciest looking fruit and dropping the cores in a field. However, the interference needn't be human or even intelligent. When a bird/insect/animal feeds on a plant and helps spread seed/pollen it is promoting the growth and spread of plants it finds more attractive.

I can agree with that. The only difference I have is I can not comprehend how it could or would occur without intelligent planning.

[Yanal]

:sl:

I asked an atheist at another forum and he replied this answer which I think can be considered as a logical reply :

Yanal,why can't muslims leave us atheist alone? If we are wrong we will dwell in our own wrong doing and because us atheist believe in no god we do not fear giving answers and do not have rules to abide on,so why cant everyone,especially muslims leave us alone? If Muslims are right we will see in a later time.

What are all your views on this?

:w:

[Yanal]

:sl:

I asked an atheist at another forum and he replied this answer which I think can be considered as a logical reply :

Yanal,why can't muslims leave us atheist alone? If we are wrong we will dwell in our own wrong doing and because us atheist believe in no god we do not fear giving answers and do not have rules to abide on,so why cant everyone,especially muslims leave us alone? If Muslims are right we will see in a later time.

What are all your views on this?

:w:

[Woodrow]

:sl:

I asked an atheist at another forum and he replied this answer which I think can be considered as a logical reply :

Yanal,why can't muslims leave us atheist alone? If we are wrong we will dwell in our own wrong doing and because us atheist believe in no god we do not fear giving answers and do not have rules to abide on,so why cant everyone,especially muslims leave us alone? If Muslims are right we will see in a later time.

What are all your views on this?

:w:

I would answer him with:

My dear fellow traveller on this Earth. I did not think an Atheist and a Theist would ever find a point of agreement.
but, I concede I was wrong, I agree with you fully on all points.

[Yanal]

:sl:

Interesting reply..I would also agree with him. He is quite into researching religions.. insha'Allah he will find his way to the path of light which Islam brings. Any other views?

:w:

[Muhaba]

how can we leave them alone? If there were a pit of fire on a path and someone was going that way, wouldn't you warn them about it? What kind of person would you be if you didn't warn someone about the dangers lying ahead?

anyway, this has to be done with wisdom so we should all ask Allah to give us knowledge and wisdom and help us do dawah properly.

[Woodrow]

how can we leave them alone? If there were a pit of fire on a path and someone was going that way, wouldn't you warn them about it? What kind of person would you be if you didn't warn someone about the dangers lying ahead?

anyway, this has to be done with wisdom so we should all ask Allah to give us knowledge and wisdom and help us do dawah properly.

:sl:

Warn yes. But warn with kindness and not try to change with a sledge hammer. After being warned, do not pester or try to change them. Let them know you are available, but let them make their own choice.

[Muhaba]

^yes, i agree

[Ramadhan]

:sl:

Warn yes. But warn with kindness and not try to change with a sledge hammer. After being warned, do not pester or try to change them. Let them know you are available, but let them make their own choice.

I think this is one of the best ways of dakwah.
And I can see that this is how brother Woodrow reverted to Islam, and countless others I assume, so it's quite successful.