Evolution in Islam

[jay786]

:sl:

What does Islam think about the whole concept of Evolution?

[Ramadhan]

One thing is for sure, Adam and Hawa were already in the perfect form of human when created and even given knowledge about so many things.

As for animals and plants, we do not know for certain.
Microevolution and adaptation in animals and plants have been directly observed, but macro-evolution in larger species cannot be proven.

[Sampharo]

Islam does not have a specific stance towards evolution, it is evolution that violates basic givens of Islam and the other Abrahimic extracted religions in that Adam and Eve are the origin of mankind, and that animals and plants were created separately and individually designed.

Evolution however in terms of living creature mutation to produce different animals, or that all living things are related to each other and descended through ancestral micro-organisms that came about from a bolt of lightening striking some amino acids triggering life, or the view that humans are evolved apes, have all recently been re-examined and scientifically disproven outside the religious realm, and for most people the theory of evolution is now defunct.

Adaptation of living things to their environment, natural selection, and survival of the fittest that have been observed and measured are not in contraction with any religious texts.

[Lynx]

Certainly, Adam and Eve being made perfectly and then giving birth to other humans is problematic in light of evolution (which is btw the currently accepted model of how living things exist as you see them today by most biologists).

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

[tango92]

Islam does not have a specific stance towards evolution, it is evolution that violates basic givens of Islam and the other Abrahimic extracted religions in that Adam and Eve are the origin of mankind, and that animals and plants were created separately and individually designed.

Evolution however in terms of living creature mutation to produce different animals, or that all living things are related to each other and descended through ancestral micro-organisms that came about from a bolt of lightening striking some amino acids triggering life, or the view that humans are evolved apes, have all recently been re-examined and scientifically disproven outside the religious realm, and for most people the theory of evolution is now defunct.

Adaptation of living things to their environment, natural selection, and survival of the fittest that have been observed and measured are not in contraction with any religious texts.

salaam bro, where can i find said scientific research?

[Skavau]

Evolution however in terms of living creature mutation to produce different animals, or that all living things are related to each other and descended through ancestral micro-organisms that came about from a bolt of lightening striking some amino acids triggering life, or the view that humans are evolved apes, have all recently been re-examined and scientifically disproven outside the religious realm, and for most people the theory of evolution is now defunct.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life, whereas Evolution talks about the origins of species. I seriously doubt your credibility on a specific topic when you demonstrate an inability to even understand the meaning of it.

Moreover, there is no serious debate over the validity of evolution by the scientific community. It is overwhelming accepted as both a fact and a theory. Every single credible scientific establishment in the entire planet accepts evolution. Every single credible university on the entire planet accepts it as completely valid. The whole notion that evolution is being dropped, or discarded en masse is a complete fabrication by the bogus creationist movement.

In any case, you are right about just one thing. Islam has nothing to say on it specifically and acceptance of evolution by Muslims is greater than Christians (perhaps excluding Catholics) in my experience.

[Skavau]

salaam bro, where can i find said scientific research?

http://www.talkorigins.org/

For, real information.

[Sampharo]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life, whereas Evolution talks about the origins of species. I seriously doubt your credibility on a specific topic when you demonstrate an inability to even understand the meaning of it.

You are free to doubt whatever you want and still be pointless as with vast majority of your posts, just because you chose to dig at an older incidence of part of the theory of evolution and take on the minority view that wished to treat them separately, a movement growing today after its foundation, the Miller-Ulrey experiment, was completely bashed to pieces.

Charles darwin presented origin of life as a fundamental portion of his theory of evolution, and your sad attempts at casting doubt at my credibility is not helping revive it because it's not me who's claiming anything.

Moreover, there is no serious debate over the validity of evolution by the scientific community. It is overwhelming accepted as both a fact and a theory. Every single credible scientific establishment in the entire planet accepts evolution. Every single credible university on the entire planet accepts it as completely valid. The whole notion that evolution is being dropped, or discarded en masse is a complete fabrication by the bogus creationist movement.

In any case, you are right about just one thing. Islam has nothing to say on it specifically and acceptance of evolution by Muslims is greater than Christians (perhaps excluding Catholics) in my experience.

Now you are creating a delusion. Feel free to swim in it by yourself. This forum has already had enough evolution arguments and almost everyone here is familiar with and knows how to repost Harun Yahya articles or visit www.evolutiondeceit.com and wouldn't even bother anymore with your nonsense.

[Lynx]

You are free to doubt whatever you want and still be pointless as with vast majority of your posts, just because you chose to dig at an older incidence of part of the theory of evolution and take on the minority view that wished to treat them separately, a movement growing today after its foundation, the Miller-Ulrey experiment, was completely bashed to pieces.

Charles darwin presented origin of life as a fundamental portion of his theory of evolution, and your sad attempts at casting doubt at my credibility is not helping revive it because it's not me who's claiming anything.

Even if God created the first lifeforms it would not make a difference to evolutionary theory in any way. Evolution does not talk about how life came into existence; it only talks about how, after life came into existence, it forms the diversity of animals you see today.

Also, Darwin laid the framework for evolution but the evolutionary theory of today is far far far more advanced than what Darwin talked about. Darwin didn't even know about DNA for instance.

Last, there has been more and more miller-urey type experiments done that have not been bashed to pieces. I can link you some of these newer studies if you want.

[Skavau]

You are free to doubt whatever you want and still be pointless as with vast majority of your posts, just because you chose to dig at an older incidence of part of the theory of evolution and take on the minority view that wished to treat them separately, a movement growing today after its foundation, the Miller-Ulrey experiment, was completely bashed to pieces.

Minority view? Every single reputable scientific establishment has evolution as distinct from abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is research into the origin of life from from inanimate matter. Evolution is the study of how living things change over time.

Evolution and belief in God do not conflict. Your complaint about evolution being invalid because our understanding of abiogenesis is not complete, or rooted with historical inaccuracy is about as coherent as complaining that the general theory of relativity is invalid because it doesn't explain where gravity came from.

Charles darwin presented origin of life as a fundamental portion of his theory of evolution, and your sad attempts at casting doubt at my credibility is not helping revive it because it's not me who's claiming anything.

No he did not, and I challenge you to back this claim up specifically. I also want you to explain why and how that even if Charles Darwin did include abiogenesis as an aspect of evolution - how that has any baring on our understanding of evolution now.

I mean, you do understand that the study of evolution has significantly moved on since Charles Darwin died well over 100 years ago now?

In any case, I suggest you read this quote:

Darwin wrote in correspondence that:

It will be some time before we see 'slime, protoplasm, &c.' generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter. [29 March 1863, quoted in Francis Darwin, The Life of Charles Darwin, London, John Murray, 1902, p267]

Source

Now you are creating a delusion. Feel free to swim in it by yourself. This forum has already had enough evolution arguments and almost everyone here is familiar with and knows how to repost Harun Yahya articles or visit www.evolutiondeceit.com and wouldn't even bother anymore with your nonsense.

Adnan Oktar is not a credible scientist.

[جوري]

salaam bro, where can i find said scientific research?

:sl:

here are two very in depth scientific articles on evolution.

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf

pioneers and real science seekers, don't appeal to authority as their pièce de résistance when at a loss to defend folly otherwise!

:w:

[The Adogmatist]

pioneers and real science seekers, don't appeal to authority as their pièce de résistance when at a loss to defend folly otherwise!

I completely agree with your quote, arguments from authority has no place in honest search for knowledge. :)

However, I'm having some problems understanding the articles you linked to. The first one seems to not address evolution at all, but rather abiogenesis. Also, it seems to investigate the mathematical probability of making a modern cell using only random chance. The second article also talks about random Brownian motion. Yet the whole idea of evolution by natural selection is that it is not random, why do both articles treat a non-random process as random?

Also, why do none of them talk about biology, and empirical observations made of living organisms? It is nice to do theoretical calculations like they do, but it is necessary to check those calculations with empirical evidence. If I calculate that a stone does not fall to the ground, yet when I drop it it falls, is it not my calculations that needs to be checked more closely?

[جوري]

I completely agree with your quote, arguments from authority has no place in honest search for knowledge. :)

However, I'm having some problems understanding the articles you linked to. The first one seems to not address evolution at all, but rather abiogenesis. Also, it seems to investigate the mathematical probability of making a modern cell using only random chance. The second article also talks about random Brownian motion. Yet the whole idea of evolution by natural selection is that it is not random, why do both articles treat a non-random process as random?

Also, why do none of them talk about biology, and empirical observations made of living organisms? It is nice to do theoretical calculations like they do, but it is necessary to check those calculations with empirical evidence. If I calculate that a stone does not fall to the ground, yet when I drop it it falls, is it not my calculations that needs to be checked more closely?

Greetings Adogmatist and :welcome: aboard.

empiricism is by definition based on speculations rather than experimentation, all the sciences are intertwined as such you can't view one science without the other. You can't discuss biology without delving into genetics or physics without mathematics and all of them are leaves to the same tree.
Now, I don't how evolution can exist independent of abiogenesis or panspermia or whatever other belief that divorces itself from the notion of creation as absurd as it is. Why should we stop or start from a point that is neat and ignore the step preceding that point especially that we collectively agree that humans in their modern form didn't always exist?

Showcasing perfect complete specimen next to each other doesn't denote 'evolution' happened as also that term is a catchall, as we need to define the difference between macro and micro-evolution. Certainly adaptation is observed and noted, speciation on the other hand isn't..

The mechanisms stated for said speciation in fact yield a completely different outcome than proposed and I have discussed that in quite the detail in our previous (and if I may add numerous) evolution threads in the health and science section, I don't really want to delve into the topic any more than is necessary for our purposes here least of which when we border upon philosophy..

all the best

[Sampharo]

Minority view? Every single reputable scientific establishment has evolution as distinct from abiogenesis.

You are using the term "Every single reputable scientific establishment" to refer to a hidden condition in your mind that ONLY includes those that obnly cling to evolution, and are representing less than 25% of the universities of the World today perhaps?! In your little delusional claims you forgot to mention that more than 70% of the universities of the World including the oldest five consider evolution as defunct and assert that direct creation has much more established evidence. Of course you being an athiest will prefer to "professionally disbelieve" and self-declare that such institutions are not scientific or not secular. That is the whole premise of the claim that "support for evolution is almost universal" in that it is universal amongst the people who supported it, and all those who don't support it are immediately branded as non-secular unscientific religious dogma.

Evolution and belief in God do not conflict.

Again in your own little world of athiesm maybe. As I said and as scholars have agreed: Foundational documented evidence of Islamic, christian, and Judaic books are fundamental to that living creatures were created separately and individually. Fish did not slither on land and got lungs because they "needed" it, nor did birds descend from reptiles, nor did multicellular organisms evolve out of single-celled ones.

Your complaint about evolution being invalid because our understanding of abiogenesis is not complete

What nonsense that I never even thought of! I never made such a complaint nor need to. Evolution is defunct by scientific analysis and research and experiments that showed it to be impossible, had nothing to do with the first moment of birth of life on Earth.

I mean, you do understand that the study of evolution has significantly moved on since Charles Darwin died well over 100 years ago now?

Does not matter how far it moves, as long as it abides by the notion that animals mutate out of need of improvement and that birds descended from reptiles and humans from apes, it is still a laughable disproven theory. However with the lack of information in Darwin days it was understandable to make such assumptions, but with the line of supporting evidence that Darwin himself lined up and said needs to be found but until now hasn't been found (or was found and proven fabricated) and with the sufficient information about the complexity of single-cell organisms and the scientific evidence that disproved the possibility of evolution found today, it is ludicrous to continue pushing for this defunct theory.

Adnan Oktar is not a credible scientist.

To your minority maybe, along with any scientist who supports creation and intelligent design with evidence and correct analysis. Just deal with it: More than 60% of people do not believe in evolution anymore in the Western (secular) countries, (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...2/1791814.aspx) and more than 90% in Middle Eastern and Asian ones also believe in distinct creation of first life and each individual family of animals down to the creation of Adam and Eve.

Of course I know you love having the last word so go ahead and make your incessent arrogant nonsensical arguments and flood us with misinformation and false statistics and blow off your steam, then smile to yourself having scored another victory for the evolution athiest camp, for that is what you like to do as "a professional disbeliever".

I however will not waste my time with any further discussion on this matter, as I explained before it was discussed to pieces on this forum already.

[- Qatada -]

Certainly, Adam and Eve being made perfectly and then giving birth to other humans is problematic in light of evolution (which is btw the currently accepted model of how living things exist as you see them today by most biologists).

Not really :)

Wouldn't the children of Adam die of inbreeding due to incest?

Now to answer the question;

Mutations also aren't as common as you make it seem, and it is very unlikely that the first children already all had these mutations. It would probably take several generations.

Secondly, merely for the sake of argument, even if their children would have these mutations, it's highly unlikly for them to all have the same mutations, hence the second generation will not have an issue with this either.

And thirdly, again, as muslims we don't believe in the existence of chance, everything follows a cause and effect. And you build on the premise that indeed an omnipotent and omniscient God created them, then it seems perfectly plausible that God didn't "cause" any mutations to occur in the first few generations, untill there was a large enough population to intermingle.

[- Qatada -]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life, whereas Evolution talks about the origins of species. I seriously doubt your credibility on a specific topic when you demonstrate an inability to even understand the meaning of it.

Quoting Abdul Fattah aka steve;

Evolution is a tricky and controversial subject. To avoid semantic misunderstanding, lets consider some definitions. The word evolution, could technically speaking refer to practically anything, since so many things can evolve one way or the other. However when most people use the word evolution without clarifying which evolution they are referring to, they usually mean "the evolution of the different species". I can understand why people would simply say "evolution" for practical reasons, but that is somewhat confusing. Because of this, many people think that the the term "evolution of the different species" refers to exactly the same as "biological evolution". I would disagree and say that although the evolution of the different species is indeed a part of biological evolution, the term biological evolution entails a lot more than just that.

• Biological evolution.
  This general term can be split up into two separate theories:
  
  • Evolution of life out of lifeless matter a.k.a. abiogenesis.
    This is the theory on how the first biological life evolved out of lifeless matter on earth.
  
  
  
  • Evolution of the different species a.k.a. origin of the different species. This is a group name for several other theories such as the theory of genetic mutation, survival of the fittest, genetic drift, and so on. These theories can be mainly categorized into three segments:
    
    • The theory of micro evolution.
      How genetic drift trough variation and mutation creates new breeds of a certain specie that then grow larger in numbers trough survival of the fittest.
    
    
    
    • The theory of macro evolution.
      How mutations on a genetic level can cause new species.
    
    
    
    • The theory of common descent.
      How trough micro and macro evolution, all existing creatures evolved out of the same ancestral being. This is not a scientific theory but a historical one. In other words it doesn't tell us something about the nature of physics, or the physics of nature, instead it speculates on how the currently existing organisms have evolved in the past.

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

So he's saying that it can be argued that abiogenesis is part of evolution [although he prefers to use the term Biological evolution for this], and if someone was to have a whole debate over this issue - they'd just be arguing semantics.

[Skavau]

You are using the term "Every single reputable scientific establishment" to refer to a hidden condition in your mind that ONLY includes those that obnly cling to evolution, and are representing less than 25% of the universities of the World today perhaps?!

Can you give me statistics on this please? Why do you suppose by the way that all of the top universities, all of the top scientists and all of the most valued scientific research outfits on the entire planet accept evolution?

Please prove to me that only 25% of universities accept evolution. Here, I'll give you my information:

Level Of Support For Evolution. That includes many links to other sources about the level of support for evolution (including the humourous project steve).

In your little delusional claims you forgot to mention that more than 70% of the universities of the World including the oldest five consider evolution as defunct and assert that direct creation has much more established evidence. Of course you being an athiest will prefer to "professionally disbelieve" and self-declare that such institutions are not scientific or not secular.

[Citation needed]

To your minority maybe, along with any scientist who supports creation and intelligent design with evidence and correct analysis. Just deal with it: More than 60% of people do not believe in evolution anymore in the Western (secular) countries, (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...2/1791814.aspx) and more than 90% in Middle Eastern and Asian ones also believe in distinct creation of first life and each individual family of animals down to the creation of Adam and Eve.

No, that's just America (your link). I don't really care what the general public thing about evolution.

I note you did not address my refutation on your claim about Charles Darwin.

[Skavau]

So he's saying that it can be argued that abiogenesis is part of evolution [although he prefers to use the term Biological evolution for this], and if someone was to have a whole debate over this issue - they'd just be arguing semantics.

No sir, go and find me any scientific definition for evolution and tell me where it necessarily includes abiogenesis. Abdul just made the claim that somehow, abiogenesis is a part of it.

[- Qatada -]

Quoting Abdul Fattah again;

Theory or hypothesis?

Just as with abiogenesis, common descent is closer to being a hypothesis rather then a theory. And just like abiogenesis, it's strictly speculation at this point. There's no proof, no falsifiability and no testability. The hypothesis is based on the sweeping generalization that since some organism[s] evolved from one another, all must have evolved from the same one! This is obviously a logical fallacy. But more importantly, one could argue that since this theory speculates on what happened in the past; that this is actually a history theory build on different scientific theories rather then a scientific theory itself!

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

[- Qatada -]

No sir, go and find me any scientific definition for evolution and tell me where it necessarily includes abiogenesis. Abdul just made the claim that somehow, abiogenesis is a part of it.

I don't really care if it didn't. Sampharo made a point against abiogenesis because that's an issue which is more controversial and hypothetically leads towards evolution. If he made a mistake, so what?

[Skavau]

Quoting Abdul Fattah again;

Theory or hypothesis?

Just as with abiogenesis, common descent is closer to being a hypothesis rather then a theory. And just like abiogenesis, it's strictly speculation at this point. There's no proof, no falsifiability and no testability. The hypothesis is based on the sweeping generalization that since some organism[s] evolved from one another, all must have evolved from the same one! This is obviously a logical fallacy. But more importantly, one could argue that since this theory speculates on what happened in the past; that this is actually a history theory build on different scientific theories rather then a scientific theory itself!

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

Has mr. Abdul Fattah ever typed into google "observed instances of speciation"?

He might be surprised.

I don't really care if it didn't. Sampharo made a point against abiogenesis because that's an issue which is more controversial and leads towards evolution. If he made a mistake, so what?

Because Sampharo unfairly links abiogenesis to evolution, mistakenly points out that Charles Darwin claimed abiogenesis is a part of it (with no citation, and Darwin on record said the converse) and has the audacity to claim that he has the knowledge and information to condemn evolution when he's already demonstrate that he doesn't even know what the term 'evolution' means!

[- Qatada -]

Has mr. Abdul Fattah ever typed into google "observed instances of speciation"?

He might be surprised.

He has indeed. And his comment still stands.

Because Sampharo unfairly links abiogenesis to evolution, mistakenly points out that Charles Darwin claimed abiogenesis is a part of it (with no citation, and Darwin on record said the converse) and has the audacity to claim that he has the knowledge and information to condemn evolution when he's already demonstrate that he doesn't even know what the term 'evolution' means!

Darwin himself did hint at abiogenesis*, so it wouldn't be surprising if someone was to think that Darwin was attempting to associate the hypothesis of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution.

* "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

written in 1871, published in Darwin, Francis, ed. 1887. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray. Volume 3. p. 18

[The Adogmatist]

Thanx for the welcome Gossamer skye :)

I was under the impression that empiricism IS based on experimentation, and that philosophy is based on speculation. At least I've been used to calling it "empirical evidence" when it is evidence based on observations.

And just to clarify my point of view on what one is discussing when discussing evolution:

"Evolution" is an English word that basically means "change over time". The word itself can be used for almost anything related to that, like: "Throughout the season, our cricket-team evolved into a coordinated unit of professional players"

When I come across the word evolution in biological sciences, I've actually only seen it used in two ways:

1: To describe the change we observe in living organisms as they go from generation to generation. How some rats get immune to rat-poison when most of their ancestors were not, and how some banana-flies divide into groups that can no longer breed with the other groups (also called speciation). This is just something we see, like when a rock falls to the ground and we call it gravity. Therefore it is also called "the fact of evolution".

2: Just like Newton described the falling of a rock with his theory of gravity, there are theories to describe the change of life. By far the most successful of these is the theory put forward by Darwin and Wallace, where they proposed that natural selection was the mechanism that gave direction to the process of evolution. Just like Newton's theory of gravity has since been expanded and mostly replaced by Einstein's theory of gravity, Darwin and Wallace's theory has been improved by many scientists since. It is often called "the theory of evolution through natural selection" to separate it from other theories that attempts to explain the observed evolution (like Lamarcism).

Now, regardless of what one thinks of other things like abiogenesis, creation of the universe etc. What does Islam, in your opinion, think of these two versions of evolution? How do Muslims relate to the observed changes of life, and what do they think of the mechanism that most biologists use to explain these changes?

[Chuck]

Certainly, Adam and Eve being made perfectly and then giving birth to other humans is problematic in light of evolution (which is btw the currently accepted model of how living things exist as you see them today by most biologists).

What would be the problem exactly? Whole life can come from a common ancestor but human species can't come from common parents? :omg:

[جوري]

Thanx for the welcome Gossamer skye :)

I was under the impression that empiricism IS based on experimentation, and that philosophy is based on speculation. At least I've been used to calling it "empirical evidence" when it is evidence based on observations.

Greetings,

It is good to have you aboard:

here is the Meriam definition, I didn't render it my own meaning:

empiricism




Main Entry: em·pir·i·cism
Pronunciation: \im-ˈpir-ə-ˌsi-zəm, em-\
Function: noun
Date: 1657
1 a : a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory b : quackery, charlatanry
2 a : the practice of relying on observation b : a tenet arrived at empirically
3 : a theory that all knowledge originates in experience
— em·pir·i·cist \-sist\ noun



and here it is on word-web for a second opinion:

Noun: empiricism em'pi-ri,si-zum

1. (philosophy) the doctrine that knowledge derives from experience
   - empiricist philosophy, sensationalism, phenomenalism
2. The application of empirical methods in any art or science
3. Medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings
   - quackery

Derived forms: empiricisms
Type of: investigating, investigation, medical practice, philosophical doctrine, philosophical theory
Encyclopedia: Empiricism


Anything else on evolution I have covered in quite the expansive detail on the numerous threads here with fine examples. I really have no interest in this topic otherwise, I recognize that it is a contentious place for many people for it defines their being and purpose for their existence and philosophical inclinations.. and as stated I am not interested in philosophy or alternate theories as to how we came to be since I already accept that we were created, and I accept that we don't know how we were created as per Quran:


مَا أَشْهَدتُّهُمْ خَلْقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمَا كُنتُ مُتَّخِذَ الْمُضِلِّينَ عَضُدًا {51}
[Pickthal 18:51] I made them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their own creation

This I am not interested in inane speculations or 'empirical observations' that claim to have the answers when at the same time the same 'empiricists' are having a difficult time coming up with a cure for the common cold!

all the best

[The Adogmatist]

Thank you for your reply Gossamer skye, I guess it is the "practice of relying on observation"-meaning of empiricism I am most used to. The wikipedia page elaborates a bit more on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

I will of course not press you to discuss a topic you have no wish to discuss further, my questions were meant for anyone who wishes to explain these things to me.

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of the Quran, as I have not read the book itself, only a Norwegian translation. However, at first glance it would seem to me that the verse you quoted implies that the Quran is not saying anything either for or against any kind of the two types of evolution I mentioned, or even different types of abiogenesis for that matter. But that is how I read it, others may read it differently.

I also fail to see how the common cold is related to this, I didn't understand that part :)

[جوري]

Thank you for your reply Gossamer skye, I guess it is the "practice of relying on observation"-meaning of empiricism I am most used to. The wikipedia page elaborates a bit more on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

I will of course not press you to discuss a topic you have no wish to discuss further, my questions were meant for anyone who wishes to explain these things to me.

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of the Quran, as I have not read the book itself, only a Norwegian translation. However, at first glance it would seem to me that the verse you quoted implies that the Quran is not saying anything either for or against any kind of the two types of evolution I mentioned, or even different types of abiogenesis for that matter. But that is how I read it, others may read it differently.

I also fail to see how the common cold is related to this, I didn't understand that part :)

Greetings,
It isn't that I have no desire to discuss the topic, it is that the topic has been discussed here amply you'll find threads in the way of 30~40 pages of back and forth debated, if this were as simple as all that then there wouldn't be contentions about the debate. And you are correct in understanding the verse, we don't know how God created us and I doubt we'll know, we can figure out how things function but not how they came together nor why..

the common cold was an analogy of something very simple and self-limiting eluding scientists for a 'cure' for them to take on some as grand as the keys to creation..

I don't usually think of wikipedia as a credible source but I thank you for the link..

all the best

[Ramadhan]

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of the Quran, as I have not read the book itself, only a Norwegian translation. However, at first glance it would seem to me that the verse you quoted implies that the Quran is not saying anything either for or against any kind of the two types of evolution I mentioned, or even different types of abiogenesis for that matter. But that is how I read it, others may read it differently.

These are among the verses that tell the story about the creation of humankind:


It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth. Then He directed Himself to the heaven, [His being above all creation], and made them seven heavens, and He is Knowing of all things. (QS.2:29)

And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know." (QS. 2:30)

And He taught Adam the names - all of them. Then He showed them to the angels and said, "Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful." (QS. 2:31)

They said, "Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise." (QS. 2:32)

He said, "O Adam, inform them of their names." And when he had informed them of their names, He said, "Did I not tell you that I know the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed." (QS. 2:33)

And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate before Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees. He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers. (QS. 2:34)

From these successive ayats, it is clear that humanity were already in the perfect form when created and the earth with everything on it were already created perfectly for human to live.

Hence, a muslim must reject the notion of evolution that postulates human evolved from apes who in turn evolved from amino acids striked by lightning.

[Lynx]

Not really :)

Wouldn't the children of Adam die of inbreeding due to incest?

Now to answer the question;

Mutations also aren't as common as you make it seem, and it is very unlikely that the first children already all had these mutations. It would probably take several generations.

Secondly, merely for the sake of argument, even if their children would have these mutations, it's highly unlikly for them to all have the same mutations, hence the second generation will not have an issue with this either.

And thirdly, again, as muslims we don't believe in the existence of chance, everything follows a cause and effect. And you build on the premise that indeed an omnipotent and omniscient God created them, then it seems perfectly plausible that God didn't "cause" any mutations to occur in the first few generations, untill there was a large enough population to intermingle.

I don't know why you thought I was talking about incest. As far as I know the problem with two parents responsible for 6 billion people besides the mathematics involved (population rates etc) is that with such a limited gene pool any disease would have wiped out humanity. Anyway, that wasn't my point; what I was saying is that the problem with Adam & Eve & Evolution is that humans didn't just appear as is according to modern evolutionary theory which contradicts the whole 'adam was the first human made out of clay'. According to evolutionary theory adam would have to be (i guess) the first homo sapien evolved from lower apes. Is that coherent with Adam and Eve? Was adam the child of an ape? explain.

[Ramadhan]

what I was saying is that the problem with Adam & Eve & Evolution is that humans didn't just appear as is according to modern evolutionary theory which contradicts the whole 'adam was the first human made out of clay'. According to evolutionary theory adam would have to be (i guess) the first homo sapien evolved from lower apes. Is that coherent with Adam and Eve? Was adam the child of an ape? explain.

You got it right, actually.
The evolution theory contradicts the creation of humankind (with Adam a.s. as the first human), and when something contradicts what the Qur'an says, we muslims have to reject it.

Anyway, fyi, the evolution theory is just that, a theory, and NOT A FACT.

[Skavau]

You got it right, actually.
The evolution theory contradicts the creation of humankind (with Adam a.s. as the first human), and when something contradicts what the Qur'an says, we muslims have to reject it.

Anyway, fyi, the evolution theory is just that, a theory, and NOT A FACT.

I take it you are not aware of the meaning of 'theory' in science?

[Chuck]

Has mr. Abdul Fattah ever typed into google "observed instances of speciation"?

He might be surprised.

So he doesn't exactly agree with you it means he doesn't know about those species? There is search function, he has discussed this on the forum before. Take look at it.

[- Qatada -]

I don't know why you thought I was talking about incest. As far as I know the problem with two parents responsible for 6 billion people besides the mathematics involved (population rates etc) is that with such a limited gene pool any disease would have wiped out humanity.

Couldn't an omnipotent God prevent such events from occuring until the human population was diverse enough and spread out? The post you've quoted addresses this already.

Anyway, that wasn't my point; what I was saying is that the problem with Adam & Eve & Evolution is that humans didn't just appear as is according to modern evolutionary theory which contradicts the whole 'adam was the first human made out of clay'. According to evolutionary theory adam would have to be (i guess) the first homo sapien evolved from lower apes. Is that coherent with Adam and Eve? Was adam the child of an ape? explain.

No, this is hypothetical and not proven. Common descent is based on a slippery slope that just because some organisms evolved from others, that ALL organisms had to evolve off each other. This then becomes an educated guess, but not scientific fact.



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 ofcourse 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 assu?me 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.

[CosmicPathos]

Someone quoted a verse from the Quran that Allah has said that the creation of man is hidden from him. As such, I think as Muslims we cannot ever know how we were formed. Evolutionists can claim all they want.

Going through a nature magazine from past years, as is my hobby, came across an article which described the theories which explain why we primates are hairless compared to other primates. One theory proposed that primitive human mothers practiced infanticide and killed hairy babies at the expense of hairless babies because hairless babies seemed more "cute, fit and genetically superior." :D Still does not explain the growth of pubic hair.

[Lynx]

Couldn't an omnipotent God prevent such events from occuring until the human population was diverse enough and spread out? The post you've quoted addresses this already.

Yeh, "maybe" or maybe not ;) I think you just made a hypothesis that requires some investigation :P

No, this is hypothetical and not proven. Common descent is based on a slippery slope that just because some organisms evolved from others, that ALL organisms had to evolve off each other. This then becomes an educated guess, but not scientific fact.



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 ofcourse 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 assu?me 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.

Well I am not sure what you're getting at here. All scientific facts are generalizations; that is the nature of inductive reasoning which is the basis for scientific reasoning. Scientists claim they have a good deal of evidence to show that ALL currently existing biological lifeforms shared a common ancestor. The thing is, no lifeform has been found to disprove evolutionary theory. There are sets of things to be found that would falsify evolution and so if any of these things would be found evolution would be falsified but they are not found. So you have to take into account the positive evidence and the lack of contradicting evidence...for 150 years no less!

As for the bit about human skulls..first you should note one thing: evolution is not based on 'if they look alike then they evolved from each other'. That is completely untrue. So I think you ought to stop reading bad sources. Anyway, I'll leave you with this: evolution became a 'fact' in light of the evidence produced in fields like molecular biology and genetics. As some scientists put it, even if we had no fossils, the evidence from other fields like genetics and DNA would scream evolution at us.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

[Chuck]

the mathematics involved (population rates etc) is that with such a limited gene pool any disease would have wiped out humanity.

Don't exaggerate.

[- Qatada -]

Yeh, "maybe" or maybe not ;) I think you just made a hypothesis that requires some investigation :P

As Muslims, we admit our belief that Adam and Eve were the first humans, who were created by God separately from other species.

But one thing we agree on is that there were two humans once upon a time; male and female who fathered the human race - to allow it to descend and spread. We can say its Adam & Eve, you'll just say i don't know what their name is.

Well I am not sure what you're getting at here. All scientific facts are generalizations; that is the nature of inductive reasoning which is the basis for scientific reasoning. Scientists claim they have a good deal of evidence to show that ALL currently existing biological lifeforms shared a common ancestor.

They don't :)

The thing is, no lifeform has been found to disprove evolutionary theory. There are sets of things to be found that would falsify evolution and so if any of these things would be found evolution would be falsified but they are not found. So you have to take into account the positive evidence and the lack of contradicting evidence...for 150 years no less!

Since the theory of a common ancestor speculates on what happened in the past; this is actually a history theory built on different scientific theories rather then a scientific theory itself!

As for the bit about human skulls..first you should note one thing: evolution is not based on 'if they look alike then they evolved from each other'.

There is many propaganda used to try to fool ignorant people.

An example of such propaganda is the below pic;

That's propaganda for you. There are too many missing links, and too much flaws in the research - as I explained in the above post - which are ignored by many pro-evolutionists.

Images like the above will continuously be shown, even when they're not true. Makes you wonder whether this is just a quest for truth, or a massive cult based on false facts?

Anyway, I'll leave you with this: evolution became a 'fact' in light of the evidence produced in fields like molecular biology and genetics. As some scientists put it, even if we had no fossils, the evidence from other fields like genetics and DNA would scream evolution at us.

I can even argue that God used a similar design for all species [because it's a good design], so their DNA and genetics are similar.

[CosmicPathos]

Yeh, "maybe" or maybe not ;) I think you just made a hypothesis that requires some investigation :P




Well I am not sure what you're getting at here. All scientific facts are generalizations; that is the nature of inductive reasoning which is the basis for scientific reasoning. Scientists claim they have a good deal of evidence to show that ALL currently existing biological lifeforms shared a common ancestor. The thing is, no lifeform has been found to disprove evolutionary theory. There are sets of things to be found that would falsify evolution and so if any of these things would be found evolution would be falsified but they are not found. So you have to take into account the positive evidence and the lack of contradicting evidence...for 150 years no less!

As for the bit about human skulls..first you should note one thing: evolution is not based on 'if they look alike then they evolved from each other'. That is completely untrue. So I think you ought to stop reading bad sources. Anyway, I'll leave you with this: evolution became a 'fact' in light of the evidence produced in fields like molecular biology and genetics. As some scientists put it, even if we had no fossils, the evidence from other fields like genetics and DNA would scream evolution at us.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

Similarities on molecular level do not imply descent from common ancestor. If you are talking about retroviruses genome found in "exact" same locations in humans and chimps, it very well could be that these retroviruses had a bias to insert at the same/similar locations on lower primate and human genome.

[Lynx]

Qatada: you are seriously under-read on the topic. Not surprisingly though.

mad_scientist: Well the molecular evidence is ONE thing, there is other evidence in the DNA and genetics etc...that is NOT based on similarity. Check out talkorigins section on evidence for evolution.

[- Qatada -]

I find it funny how you make so much assumptions about me when i'm purposelly answering you with general answers, since you're not actually making any specific points.

Its quite easy to reply with links, but i dont think thats really an argument. Anyone can do that.

[Chuck]

I find it funny how you make so much assumptions about me when i'm purposelly answering you with general answers, since you're not actually making any specific points.

Its quite easy to reply with links, but i dont think thats really an argument. Anyone can do that.

It seems he doesn't know what he is talking about :hmm:

[جوري]

It seems he doesn't know what he is talking about :hmm:

well when all else fails they reference you to some website which in turn makes them 'well-read' by proxy..

here is a website that is equally enlightening:

http://www.bfro.net/

courtesy of the bigfoot field researchers organization!

:w:

[Lynx]

Why would I need to summarize an entire body of scientific literature for people who willfully ignore opposing arguments? The evidence is there freely on the website. If you are too lazy or too obsessed with 'winning' an argument to actually read on a topic and educate yourselves then there is no point in me wasting my time doing your research for you. Why? Because I couldn't care less if people accepted evolution or not. I post for fun and doing work for lazy people ain't fun :D

Again, the research is there for all to read. Stop reading bad sources that's giving you misinformation.

It's just funny that you all want 150 years worth of scientific research to be demonstrated in a post on the internet. Amazing. I think this the type of laziness that has crippled the intellectual progress of Muslims. Dogma fails.

[جوري]

The 'evidence' has been thoroughly refuted and flaws have been painfully pointed out. This is a two street, The age of research means nothing.

On Growth and form by Dr. Thompson:

comes well after 'Darwinian evolution' and shoots it right between the eyes, yet I haven't heard any of you make mention of his research.. is it selective reading? intellectual dishonesty, or a topic well over your heads that the best you can do is bully people with logical fallacies and so-called numerous research spanning decades. Every topic from Zoroastrianism to big foot has massive research spanning centuries. How do you sort between fact and fiction before you ask others to subscribe to your brand of truths and try so hard to silence a guffaw which ironically is being had at your expense!

[Predator]

The ancestor of the apes and pigs were the Jews .Thus its The apes had come from from humans

Because of their constant defiance and blasphemy of GOD Almighty's Divine and Holy Words, some Jews were transformed into swines and apes during Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) times:

"Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from God? those who incurred the curse of God and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!" (The Noble Quran, 5:60)"

[Lynx]

The 'evidence' has been thoroughly refuted and flaws have been painfully pointed out. This is a two street, The age of research means nothing.

On Growth and form by Dr. Thompson:

comes well after 'Darwinian evolution' and shoots it right between the eyes, yet I haven't heard any of you make mention of his research.. is it selective reading? intellectual dishonesty, or a topic well over your heads that the best you can do is bully people with logical fallacies and so-called numerous research spanning decades. Every topic from Zoroastrianism to big foot has massive research spanning centuries. How do you sort between fact and fiction before you ask others to subscribe to your brand of truths and try so hard to silence a guffaw which ironically is being had at your expense!

*sigh*

You couldn't find an older piece of reference? I honestly cannot believe that you would cite a book written before the Modern Synthesis in order disprove it. Really now, if you are going to talk about science and then use outdated references then there is SOMETHING wrong. You might as well have quoted Newton on Einstein :)

Check out pubmed and how many articles presuppose evolution...:)

And yes, Zoroastrianism is still taught in philosophy classes today and Big-Footology is studied extensively in any credible university. It's sad that you are so incapable of critical thought.

The ancestor of the apes and pigs were the Jews .Thus its The apes had come from from humans

Because of their constant defiance and blasphemy of GOD Almighty's Divine and Holy Words, some Jews were transformed into swines and apes during Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) times:

"Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from God? those who incurred the curse of God and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!" (The Noble Quran, 5:60)"

I laughed as hard reading this as you did writing it.

[جوري]

*sigh*

You couldn't find an older piece of reference? I honestly cannot believe that you would cite a book written before the Modern Synthesis in order disprove it. Really now, if you are going to talk about science and then use outdated references then there is SOMETHING wrong. You might as well have quoted Newton on Einstein :)

Are you a freaking hypocrite or what? you are not the fellow writing of '150 yrs worth of 'research' so funny but the brand of evolution you spew is actually older and far less relevant than this book, and I doubt you have read anything on the topic past a frequent reference which you can't gauge to save your dear life!
truly there is nothing worse than ignorance save for little knowledge!

Check out pubmed and how many articles presuppose evolution...:)

Have you actually read the articles? I have when you allege for instance as one of the articles does that a frameshift mutation causes a change from ape jawline to a humanoid like one and can't prove it, it is rendered nothing more than speculative and theoretical for we all know that the results of framshift mutations are Tay-Sachs disease, CCR5 HIV receptor and some types of familial hypercholesterolemia amongst others!

I laughed as hard reading this as you did writing it.

That is because you are plain pathetic it doesn't take me two minutes to refute you!.. I'd get those outbursts checked out it is a sign of mental illness!

all the best

[Lynx]

Are you a freaking hypocrite or what? you are not the fellow writing of '150 yrs worth of 'research' so funny but the brand of evolution you spew is actually older and far less relevant than this book, and I doubt you have read anything on the topic past a frequent reference which you can't gauge to save your dear life!
truly there is nothing worse than ignorance save for little knowledge!

Lol. There is at least 150 years worth research in physics too but that doesn't mean you should be citing old sources. Get current research.
And what do you mean my brand of evolution is older than your book? Do you know what the currently accepted paradigm is amongst biologists? Do you think biologists think Adam and Eve were the first two humans and all humans resulted from them? Or do you think its common descent? What do you think the mass majority of biologists believe in? The problem with your book is that it was dated before the Synthesis. Since then, in light of the evidence accumulated in different fields, evolution is accepted by most biologists. Go to your Uni or whatever and ask the biology department.

That is because you are plain pathetic it doesn't take me two minutes to refute you!.. I'd get those outbursts checked out it is a sign of mental illness!

all the best

So you think apes and swine were descended from Jews? I think you ought to check for mental illness ;\

[جوري]

Lol. There is at least 150 years worth research in physics too but that doesn't mean you should be citing old sources. Get current research.
And what do you mean my brand of evolution is older than your book? Do you know what the currently accepted paradigm is amongst biologists? Do you think biologists think Adam and Eve were the first two humans and all humans resulted from them? Or do you think its common descent? What do you think the mass majority of biologists believe in? The problem with your book is that it was dated before the Synthesis. Since then, in light of the evidence accumulated in different fields, evolution is accepted by most biologists. Go to your Uni or whatever and ask the biology department.

You should perhaps teach yourself that then before peddling a '150' year old idea as if they were biblical? .. as for your brand of evolution.. well I wasn't the one mentioning '150' yrs, perhaps you should think before you tighten the noose around your own neck?
1- hypocrite
2- appeal to authority without gauging any topic beyond referencing us to a website (btw my undergrad and masters were in molecular biology) and there is no 'consensus' beyond your delusions as to 'agreed upon'
3- I never stated that my book was the only refutation, it is a refutation amongst many and on the first page I have linked to ultra modern research
4- what the hell are you talking about with 'synthesis'. yes we synthesis, synthesis do you have a point?

So you think apes and swine were descended from Jews? I think you ought to check for mental illness ;\

according to you we are all descendants from an apely common ancestor so I don't see why the Jews should be excluded or are they too good to be true? you are only a pig and an ape if you choose to be by your deeds and actions!

pls. take a hike!

[Woodrow]

I have lost count of the number of threads that have been made about evolution.

This one does not seem to be adding anything new to what has been covered in other threads,

:threadclo:

[Predator]

I laughed as hard reading this as you did writing it.

I 'll have the last laugh then as Scientists have indeed confirmed that the closest animals, in both DNA and characteristics, to humans, are the pigs and monkeys and Darwin is wrong .

http://www.answering-christianity.co...is_similar.htm

[Chuck]

*sigh*

I guess you didn't like the taste of your own medicine. We can throw around general links and references here and there, all around, but that wouldn't be discussion. Here we are having a discussion. Nobody expects you to come up with your own research, of course you can reference works, but what is expected is to have a discussion and not "read this and that" which you have done so far.

People usually do this when they have an opinion about something but they don't really know about it.