Evolution and Islam

[MicroSalma]

Salaam! So I've not long joined and I'm already bringing the tone down! Sorry! Hehe

So we're all familiar to some extent with the evolution versus creationism debate which has recently picked up some momentum in America (amongst the evangelicals, anyway). The problem is, I've yet to hear a reconciliation of evolution with the Qur'an!

Many Christian denominations, including Catholicism and Anglicanism, have taken such a liberal (and some would say 'loose') interpretation of their scripture that they now accept evolution. So clearly it can be united with faith (although I feel they have cheated a bit).

My question however, is how we unite evolution with Islam. From what I've read, it seems quite bleak, as virtually all scholars (and, naturally, critics) seem to consider them incompatible. Even Dr Zakir Naik, someone whose opinion I've longed respected, responded to the problem with 'evolution is only a theory'!

Indeed, the Qur'an gives quite an elaborate account (2:30-39) of how Allah created Adam (and then Eve) in Heaven, and then sent them to the Earth for having sinned, and that we humans all descend from the single soul of Adam (4:1), etc.

But this of course is a very different story to what really happened! I'm wondering whether these verses are to be taken allegorically? Indeed, 3:6 tells us that some verses should be taken allegorically...

So what are your thoughts? I've heard some Muslims claim that they are compatible...

I anticipate that some (hopefully few) of you will respond that evolution is rubbish, but as someone who has studied biology for the past decade and now works in the field of evolutionary biology, that would be like telling me the world is flat, so please don't bother.

Looking forward to your replies!

Salma.

P.S. Sorry for the long post.
P.P.S. Sorry to any moderators if this is in the wrong topic area!

[omar ibrahim]

that would be like telling me the world is flat<<I disagree with you %100

there is a big different between the theory of evolution and the earth

it seems logical for any person

[MicroSalma]

that would be like telling me the world is flat<<I disagree with you %100

there is a big different between the theory of evolution and the earth

it seems logical for any person

The evidence in support of evolution is as overwhelming as that for a round Earth, and I'm willing to discuss/debate evolution further in another thread, but I'd prefer this thread be reserved for those who take evolution as a premise.

Thank you.

[Chuck]

The evidence in support of evolution is as overwhelming as that for a round Earth

Actually, no. Scope of shape of earth is very small and it is directly observable. On the other hand, evolution is very big subject with many sub-theories, some are directly observable, others not, and others have no evidence.

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

[Ramadhan]

Indeed, the Qur'an gives quite an elaborate account (2:30-39) of how Allah created Adam (and then Eve) in Heaven, and then sent them to the Earth for having sinned, and that we humans all descend from the single soul of Adam (4:1), etc.

Hence it is already clear that Adam and Hawa pbut were already created in the human form.

But this of course is a very different story to what really happened!

What really happened?

I'm wondering whether these verses are to be taken allegorically? Indeed, 3:6 tells us that some verses should be taken allegorically...
So what are your thoughts? I've heard some Muslims claim that they are compatible...

Allahu alam.
Everything will be made clear to us during the judgement day.

I anticipate that some (hopefully few) of you will respond that evolution is rubbish, but as someone who has studied biology for the past decade and now works in the field of evolutionary biology, that would be like telling me the world is flat, so please don't bother.

As you started this thread and you are an evolutionary biologist, please tell us what you think about this issue, because you have not really stated your opinion.

if you think the creation of Adam is compatible with current theory of evolution, how could it be so?
In my limited general understanding of evolution, if we are to accept that both were compatible, than it means you have to acknowledge that Adam was no more than a single-celled prokaryote who started to live on earth 3.5 billions years ago.

And if you think that the creation of Adam is different than the rest of living things on earth, that means you reject the evolution theory.

so what's your position?

[Ramadhan]

The evidence in support of evolution is as overwhelming as that for a round Earth, and I'm willing to discuss/debate evolution further in another thread, but I'd prefer this thread be reserved for those who take evolution as a premise.

Thank you.

I am afraid you are heavily biased because it is your profession.

You can go to the International Space Station and directly observe from there that the earth is a sphere.

Or did I miss the latest news?
Did anyone go into a time machine and traveled through approx. 3.5 billions years to record the journey from single-celled prokaryote to modern man?

[MicroSalma]

Chuck, as I say, I'm willing to debate evolution further in another thread.

What really happened?

All life on Earth evolved, from a common ancestor. Again, I'm willing to discuss evolution further in another thread.

As you started this thread and you are an evolutionary biologist, please tell us what you think about this issue, because you have not really stated your opinion

Well, of course, I accept evolution as a fact. As for my opinion regarding how this fits in with Islam: I simply don't know, which is why I'm asking.

I know that the Christians (who have an almost identical genesis account) take Adam and Eve to be allegorical (Wikipedia has an article on 'Allegorical interpretations of Genesis' if you'd like to find out more about that). So I'm looking for a parallel way in Islam, but as you point out, I can't find much room for one!

[MicroSalma]

I am afraid you are heavily biased because it is your profession.

That's not true in the slightest; if I had any grounds to doubt evolution, I never would have spend so many years (and so much money) obtaining an education in it.

You can go to the International Space Station and directly observe from there that the earth is a sphere.

Such flawed arguments are so depressing.

You cannot directly observe the Romans, nor have we taken a time machine back in time to see them, but you don't consider their existence as a mere hypothesis do you? They have left huge amounts of evidence behind; historical documents, the aqueducts, the spread of Latin and Christianity, etc.

Likewise, evolution has left a lot behind, that to deny it is like denying the Romans.

(Besides, evolution as a process can (and has been) observed numerous times; Lenski's experiments with E.coli is just one of many such examples.)

[Ramadhan]

You cannot directly observe the Romans, nor have we taken a time machine back in time to see them, but you don't consider their existence as a mere hypothesis do you? They have left huge amounts of evidence behind; historical documents, the aqueducts, the spread of Latin and Christianity, etc.

Again, your analogy are not equal.
I believe the romans existed because the left not only direct records of themselves, but also indirect records/evidence.
I even believe dinosaurs existed because there are fossils of them.
But where is the records of evolution from prokaryotes to human? And I don't mean the fossils, because the fossils are only evidence that such creatures existed, not that they changed from bacteria, to jellyfish, to fish, rats, to apes, to humans.

Likewise, evolution has left a lot behind, that to deny it is like denying the Romans.

I did not know that accepting the romans means accepting common descent theory. This is new.

In my limited understanding, the Qur'an does not detail about the creation of living things on earth, but it clearly tells the story about the creation of Adam. There is also story about Adam's children and the first murder. And there are also hadists about Adam and his family.

To deny that Adam is a special creation is like denying the Qur'an, which means denying Allah.

(Besides, evolution as a process can (and has been) observed numerous times; Lenski's experiments with E.coli is just one of many such examples.)

I never argued that evolution mechanisms and processes have not never been observed. You can directly observe mutations, adaptation, even speciation. But to extrapolate that to humans descending from prokaryote is not logical if not scientific.

[omar ibrahim]

ok ok i see.However, sister if you believe that we came from monkeys

and believe that the story of Adam was no more than fiction then you are

not muslim anymore :statisfie because its very important in faith to believe

in Allah and his angels and his books ...etc

by the way i will remind you that all the creation of Allah some of them might be similar and this is ok in islam

والذين آمنوا بالباطل وكفروا بالله أولئك هم الخاسرون } [ العنكبوت :52]

and those who are believing in falsehood and disbelieve in Allah those are the losers:cry:

sister we are not enemy if we disagree with you because we are fearing Allah.

In addition Allah has supported his book with scientific facts so there will

be no excuse in the day of judgment for people who are living especially

nowdays :statisfie

[Gator]

MicroSalma,
In the comparative religion section there is a thread called "Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective" in the sticky section on top.

Its closed, but you may want to browse that. That might give you some ideas about positions and arguments.

Here's a link: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...rspective.html


Thanks.

[CosmicPathos]

Salaam! So I've not long joined and I'm already bringing the tone down! Sorry! Hehe

So we're all familiar to some extent with the evolution versus creationism debate which has recently picked up some momentum in America (amongst the evangelicals, anyway). The problem is, I've yet to hear a reconciliation of evolution with the Qur'an!

Many Christian denominations, including Catholicism and Anglicanism, have taken such a liberal (and some would say 'loose') interpretation of their scripture that they now accept evolution. So clearly it can be united with faith (although I feel they have cheated a bit).

My question however, is how we unite evolution with Islam. From what I've read, it seems quite bleak, as virtually all scholars (and, naturally, critics) seem to consider them incompatible. Even Dr Zakir Naik, someone whose opinion I've longed respected, responded to the problem with 'evolution is only a theory'!

Indeed, the Qur'an gives quite an elaborate account (2:30-39) of how Allah created Adam (and then Eve) in Heaven, and then sent them to the Earth for having sinned, and that we humans all descend from the single soul of Adam (4:1), etc.

But this of course is a very different story to what really happened! I'm wondering whether these verses are to be taken allegorically? Indeed, 3:6 tells us that some verses should be taken allegorically...

So what are your thoughts? I've heard some Muslims claim that they are compatible...

I anticipate that some (hopefully few) of you will respond that evolution is rubbish, but as someone who has studied biology for the past decade and now works in the field of evolutionary biology, that would be like telling me the world is flat, so please don't bother.

Looking forward to your replies!

Salma.

P.S. Sorry for the long post.
P.P.S. Sorry to any moderators if this is in the wrong topic area!

Hi, thou are truly the enlightened one through your scientific pursuits! Can you remove us out of darkness by telling us "what really happened?"

[Chuck]

Chuck, as I say, I'm willing to debate evolution further in another thread.

Read this: http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...-bucaille.html

But it is not a debate and text is pro-evolution from Islamic perspective. I've similar opinion. Quoted book is available online, check the link in the last post.

[MicroSalma]

... sister if you believe that we came from monkeys and believe that the story of Adam was no more than fiction then you are not muslim anymore

If I had to choose between Islam and evolution, it would be evolution. Not because I don't have faith, but because I value facts over faith (and I hope you all do too).

No amount of faith could convince you that the Earth is flat, could it? Well it's like that for me.

Nevertheless, I'm not yet convinced that they're incompatible.

In the comparative religion section there is a thread called "Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective" in the sticky section on top.

Thank you, I read the original post in that thread (but lost interest in the comments that followed once they started flaming each other and making ludicrous claims). It's certainly on the right topic, but it doesn't seem correct to me: it appears to claim that all other life may (or may not) have evolved, but humans definitely did not. Despite what the article claims, this is in contradiction with modern science...

Can you remove us out of darkness by telling us "what really happened?

I already have: we evolved. Want to know more? Read a book on it - thousands have been written over the past 150 years, so take your pick.

Read this: http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...-bucaille.html

But it is not a debate and text is pro-evolution from Islamic perspective. I've similar opinion. Quoted book is available online, check the link in the last post.

Thank you. I read Chapter 4, and although I like the references to 'stages', they seem very vague (and in context, most are clearly referring to embryonic development). More importantly though, it doesn't appear to resolve the problem of Adam and Eve...

[CosmicPathos]

If I had to choose between Islam and evolution, it would be evolution. Not because I don't have faith, but because I value facts over faith (and I hope you all do too).

No amount of faith could convince you that the Earth is flat, could it? Well it's like that for me.

Nevertheless, I'm not yet convinced that they're incompatible.



Thank you, I read the original post in that thread (but lost interest in the comments that followed once they started flaming each other and making ludicrous claims). It's certainly on the right topic, but it doesn't seem correct to me: it appears to claim that all other life may (or may not) have evolved, but humans definitely did not. Despite what the article claims, this is in contradiction with modern science...



I already have: we evolved. Want to know more? Read a book on it - thousands have been written over the past 150 years, so take your pick.



Thank you. I read Chapter 4, and although I like the references to 'stages', they seem very vague (and in context, most are clearly referring to embryonic development). More importantly though, it doesn't appear to resolve the problem of Adam and Eve...

Thats a logically fallacious argument. Ive read millions yet I did not find a rational answer. You are arguing from authority while I hold that authority in gutter.

[Ramadhan]

I see that you have made your position very clear in this.

so what do you think Adam a.s. was?

[MicroSalma]

Thats a logically fallacious argument. Ive read millions yet I did not find a rational answer. You are arguing from authority while I hold that authority in gutter.

I did not claim evolution was right because scientists say so. You merely asked the origin of man, and I referred you to books.

If you are indeed educated on the subject, but still do not believe it, then that's another matter. I'd be happy to discuss details with you if you create a new thread on the subject. Please stop hijacking this one.

so what do you think Adam a.s. was?

I really don't know - I was hoping for an allegory, but given that we don't believe in original sin, that makes things a bit difficult...

[CosmicPathos]

I did not claim evolution was right because scientists say so. You merely asked the origin of man, and I referred you to books.

If you are indeed educated on the subject, but still do not believe it, then that's another matter. I'd be happy to discuss details with you if you create a new thread on the subject. Please stop hijacking this one.



I really don't know - I was hoping for an allegory, but given that we don't believe in original sin, that makes things a bit difficult...

Why do you think I am hijacking it, I am still discussing evolution and Islam.

What does hijacking mean? How could I possible hijack this thread when every other member has the freedom to write here whatever they want. Hijacking means that you take control over everything and restrict movement of everyone else. You need to be much learned in philosophy yet.

You told me to "read millions of books on it." There are thousands of books written on existence of aliens and santa clause's existence. I am rather asking you to clarify to us what evidence shows that humans have evolved. If you cannot defend your position in the first place, I doubt anyone would give any value to what you believe in.

[MicroSalma]

Why do you think I am hijacking it, I am still discussing evolution and Islam.

What does hijacking mean? How could I possible hijack this thread when every other member has the freedom to write here whatever they want. Hijacking means that you take control over everything and restrict movement of everyone else. You need to be much learned in philosophy yet.

Hijacking, in the context of forums, means
"when a thread is taken from one direction of discussion to another completely off course topic or many different topics in a short period of time."

The topic of this thread is how to unite evolution with Islam, taking evolution as a premise. That is fundamentally different to asking whether evolution is true.

I've asked at least five times for us to discuss the former topic. Hence, you are hijacking my thread.

[CosmicPathos]

Hijacking, in the context of forums, means
"when a thread is taken from one direction of discussion to another completely off course topic or many different topics in a short period of time."

The topic of this thread is how to unite evolution with Islam, taking evolution as a premise. That is fundamentally different to asking whether evolution is true.

I've asked at least five times for us to discuss the former topic. Hence, you are hijacking my thread.

its not your thread. Its not your forum. Get rid of that ego before reconciling evolution with Islam.

If you want to get the verdict, evolution of man from primitive animals is not Islamic at all and goes against the interpretation of Islam as done by Prophet Muhammad.

That definition of hijacking is completely wrong. that is not what hijacking means. Even if it was true, I have not veered off in any other topic. before reconciling evolution with Islam on Islamic forum, you have to first convince majority of members on this forum that whether evolution is true or not.

[Ramadhan]

I really don't know - I was hoping for an allegory, but given that we don't believe in original sin, that makes things a bit difficult...

As a muslim, we are free to believe in anything as long as it does not contradict the Qur'an or has not been prohibited.

As for creation of living beings, the Qur'an tells us that all living beings on earth are water-based (QS. 21:30), which confirms latest theory that living cells first appeared in the sea. But the Qur'an does not detail the process of creation of plants and animals, however we know from the Qur'an that plants and animals had already existed on earth when Adam and Hawa were expelled from Heaven and put on earth.

Hence, Qur'an leaves the door open for evolution of plants and animals, but evolution of man is certainly out of question as the Qur'an verses and hadiths detail that creation of man is special and separate from creation of other living beings.

Here's something to ponder:

If you totally believe in common descent (that is, human came from single-celled prokaryotes), then how would you explain the fact that human is the only creature on earth, out of billions species, that are so developed (I dont have to list countless advanced characteristics that human has over any other animals)?
How are there not animals, under the sea, on land or airborne that at least a little bit closer to human's advanced and unique characteristics if they all have also evolved for billions of years?
Don't tell me that humans suddenly made a lights years jump in intelligence just a few tens of thousands years ago out of necessity or natural selection, because billions of other species also underwent same thing for billions of years, but not even one approach human's level.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MicroSalma;

Many Christian denominations, including Catholicism and Anglicanism, have taken such a liberal (and some would say 'loose') interpretation of their scripture that they now accept evolution. So clearly it can be united with faith (although I feel they have cheated a bit).

I am a Catholic, and I agree with you that when Christians accept evolution they may be cheating a bit with their faith. It seems that you might also be asking your Muslim brothers and sisters to cheat a bit and find ways to bend their faith and accept evolution.

I guess this thread seems a little heated at the moment, but please do not feel downhearted or give up. I often find that when some part of scriptures seems wrong to me, it keeps niggling away in my mind, and it keeps me searching for truth,

I have faith in the Bible, that every species was created according to its kind, so I cannot agree with the theory of evolution either.


In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Chuck]

f I had to choose between Islam and evolution, it would be evolution. Not because I don't have faith, but because I value facts over faith (and I hope you all do too).

I would choose Islam. Not that because I don't value facts, but all facts are not always available and decisions has to be made beyond looking at just the surface. Life is much more complicated than that and thus that would be hypocritical for me to do that with God. It is the worst place to be hypocritical.

No amount of faith could convince you that the Earth is flat, could it?

As I explained earlier you are comparing oranges with apples.

I read Chapter 4, and although I like the references to 'stages', they seem very vague (and in context, most are clearly referring to embryonic development).

I don't really see a problem, the author articulated his understanding very well that that understanding can't be ruled out. There is nothing specific in the verse to rule that out.

More importantly though, it doesn't appear to resolve the problem of Adam and Eve...

What Adam and Eve problem exactly? You mentioned the verses I don't see them going against any known facts and understanding from Quran.

I can't go through all of them 1 by 1, I've busy schedule, but I'll make some room.

lets look at 2:30-39

(30) AND LO! Thy Sustainer said unto the angels: "Behold, I am about to establish upon earth one who shall inherit it." They said: "Wilt Thou place on it such as will spread corruption thereon and shed blood -whereas it is we who extol Thy limitless glory, and praise Thee, and hallow Thy name?" [God] answered: "Verily, I know that which you do not know."

Nothing there against known facts.

(31) And He imparted unto Adam the names of all things; then He brought them within the ken of the angels and said: "Declare unto Me the names of these [things], if what you say is true."
(32) They replied: "Limitless art Thou in Thy glory! No knowledge have we save that which Thou hast imparted unto us. Verily, Thou alone art all-knowing, truly wise."
(33) Said He: "O Adam, convey unto them the names of these [things]." And as soon as [Adam] had conveyed unto them their names, [God] said: "Did I not say unto you, `Verily, I alone know the hidden reality of the heavens and the earth, and know all that you bring into the open and all. that you would conceal'?"
(34) And when We told the angels, "Prostrate yourselves before Adam!" -they all prostrated themselves, save Iblis, who refused and gloried in his arrogance: and thus he became one of those who deny the truth.
(35) And We said: "O Adam, dwell thou and thy wife in this garden, and eat freely thereof, both of you, whatever you may wish; but do not approach this one tree, lest you become wrongdoers."

I don't see any problem there.

(36) But Satan caused them both to stumble therein, and thus brought about the loss of their erstwhile state. And so We said: "Down with you, [and be henceforth] enemies unto one another; and on earth you shall have your abode and your livelihood for a while!"

I don't see issue there either except what is meant by the place they were sent down from. Which is debatable. If that is the issue than I can add more on that.

(37) Thereupon Adam received words [of guidance] from his Sustainer, and He accepted his repentance: for, verily, He alone is the-Acceptor of Repentance, the Dispenser of Grace.
(38) [For although] We did say, "Down with you all from this [state]," there shall, none the less, most certainly come unto you guidance from Me: and those who follow My guidance need have no fear, and neither shall they grieve;
(39) but those who are bent on denying the truth and giving the lie to Our messages - they are destined for the fire, and therein shall they abide.

I don't see any problem.

Now lets look at 4:1

(1) O MANKIND! Be conscious of your Sustainer, who has created you out of one living entity, and out of it created its mate, and out of the two spread abroad a multitude of men and women. And remain conscious of God, in whose name you demand [your rights] from one another, and of these ties of kinship. Verily, God is ever watchful over you!

It says specifically, ip so facto, that we have descended from a single entity it could be Adam (or Eve) or something else like a cell. What is exactly the problem with that? So supposedly all living creatures have common decent, but human race can't have common decent. I don't really see why that goes against evolution, actually, majority of evidence is pointing to single origin theory for humans, but it is not specific enough to know that all humans have common ancestor or not.

[CosmicPathos]

If I had to choose between Islam and evolution, it would be evolution. Not because I don't have faith, but because I value facts over faith (and I hope you all do too).

No amount of faith could convince you that the Earth is flat, could it? Well it's like that for me.

Nevertheless, I'm not yet convinced that they're incompatible.



Thank you, I read the original post in that thread (but lost interest in the comments that followed once they started flaming each other and making ludicrous claims). It's certainly on the right topic, but it doesn't seem correct to me: it appears to claim that all other life may (or may not) have evolved, but humans definitely did not. Despite what the article claims, this is in contradiction with modern science...



I already have: we evolved. Want to know more? Read a book on it - thousands have been written over the past 150 years, so take your pick.



Thank you. I read Chapter 4, and although I like the references to 'stages', they seem very vague (and in context, most are clearly referring to embryonic development). More importantly though, it doesn't appear to resolve the problem of Adam and Eve...

Modern science is in contradiction with itself. I would not bet over it.

Regarding your assertion that you'd take evolution over Islam, it remains for you to prove whether those facts are unbiased or not.

[tetsujin]

Salaam! So I've not long joined and I'm already bringing the tone down! Sorry! Hehe

So we're all familiar to some extent with the evolution versus creationism debate which has recently picked up some momentum in America (amongst the evangelicals, anyway). The problem is, I've yet to hear a reconciliation of evolution with the Qur'an!

I have not found a way to reconcile the creation story as presented in the Quran with the theory of evolution.

The closest I got was something similar to Dr. Israr Ahmed's view that evolution is true, however natural selection is not the driving mechanism. Each stage (generation) required a "kun" (a commandment) from Allah, and therefore Allah was guiding the path of genetic "variations". I guess I don't need to explain to you the problems with that idea.

Anyways... as it stands, evolution doesn't state that god cannot exist. It does conflict with special creation myths, and religions with creation stories. Islam is one of them. Evolution doesn't care whether or not you believe in God.

Many Christian denominations, including Catholicism and Anglicanism, have taken such a liberal (and some would say 'loose') interpretation of their scripture that they now accept evolution. So clearly it can be united with faith (although I feel they have cheated a bit).

I felt the same way. You can't selectively choose what you want to believe, then it's no longer the same religion.

But this of course is a very different story to what really happened! I'm wondering whether these verses are to be taken allegorically? Indeed, 3:6 tells us that some verses should be taken allegorically...

Which ones? The one's that deal with the facts of nature? If we can't take those at face value, how are we supposed to believe that an angel whose wings span the entire horizon visited a desert merchant, gave him a hug, and passed on poetry and the meaning of life or that a winged mule took him to heaven and back.

So what are your thoughts? I've heard some Muslims claim that they are compatible...

None that I know of, at least none that understand the implications of this controversial issue.

I anticipate that some (hopefully few) of you will respond that evolution is rubbish, but as someone who has studied biology for the past decade and now works in the field of evolutionary biology, that would be like telling me the world is flat, so please don't bother.

What are you working on?


All the best,


Faysal

[CosmicPathos]

I have not found a way to reconcile the creation story as presented in the Quran with the theory of evolution.

The closest I got was something similar to Dr. Israr Ahmed's view that evolution is true, however natural selection is not the driving mechanism. Each stage (generation) required a "kun" (a commandment) from Allah, and therefore Allah was guiding the path of genetic "variations". I guess I don't need to explain to you the problems with that idea.

Anyways... as it stands, evolution doesn't state that god cannot exist. It does conflict with special creation myths, and religions with creation stories. Islam is one of them. Evolution doesn't care whether or not you believe in God.



I felt the same way. You can't selectively choose what you want to believe, then it's no longer the same religion.



Which ones? The one's that deal with the facts of nature? If we can't take those at face value, how are we supposed to believe that an angel whose wings span the entire horizon visited a desert merchant, gave him a hug, and passed on poetry and the meaning of life or that a winged mule took him to heaven and back.



None that I know of, at least none that understand the implications of this controversial issue.




What are you working on?


All the best,


Faysal

What sort of problems you reckon arise from that idea?

[Dagless]

In answer to the question posed by the OP:

If we accept evolution then I can think of 3 ways to try and make it compatible...

1) If Adam and Eve (pbut) were not in created in currently accepted human form and we evolved from them (or they were in human form and we are not in human form - if that sounds more respectful).

2) If the process of creation is evolution, and Adam (as) was created incrementally.

I don't think either of the above ways are acceptable in Islam. The first might be semi-true because it is mentioned that those who came before us were taller/larger (although that doesn't mean a different species)... which leads me onto...

3) Accepting natural selection, but only within species boundaries.

Lastly, if you agree with everything else in the Quran and the truth lines up, then you can surely give it the benefit of the doubt over evolution?

Maybe evolution will be added to later, or some parts disproven long after our deaths? I know it seems unlikely, but doesn't it always?

Personally I am more comfortable bending evolution to fit within Islam than trying to find a way to interpret Islam to fit into evolution. I think that's a sure way to go astray in the long run.

[CosmicPathos]

In answer to the question posed by the OP:

If we accept evolution then I can think of 3 ways to try and make it compatible...

1) If Adam and Eve (pbut) were not in created in currently accepted human form and we evolved from them (or they were in human form and we are not in human form - if that sounds more respectful).

2) If the process of creation is evolution, and Adam (as) was created incrementally.

I don't think either of the above ways are acceptable in Islam. The first might be semi-true because it is mentioned that those who came before us were taller/larger (although that doesn't mean a different species)... which leads me onto...

3) Accepting natural selection, but only within species boundaries.

Lastly, if you agree with everything else in the Quran and the truth lines up, then you can surely give it the benefit of the doubt over evolution?

Maybe evolution will be added to later, or some parts disproven long after our deaths? I know it seems unlikely, but doesn't it always?

Personally I am more comfortable bending evolution to fit within Islam than trying to find a way to interpret Islam to fit into evolution. I think that's a sure way to go astray in the long run.

She's bragging about facts as if she knows em all in the capacity of "an evolutionary biologist who has 10 years of experience and takes facts over faith." I am sure her supervisor allowed her to work in his/her lab based on his faith in her potential to succeed and not the facts when she would have none as a student with no publication. Scientists probably bragged about Newtons Theory of Gravity as the sole "fact" that they knew which the laymen did not but then Einstein's theory of general relativity showed that Newton's work was semi-accurate, it was only an approximation of reality and it failed to work in systems where masses were huge ...
It is as likely for evidence to emerge which shows that current understanding of evolution was totally wrong. As a Muslim, would you bet your faith over such " evolving (the irony) facts?"

[tetsujin]

What sort of problems you reckon arise from that idea?

Many.

Why would god choose the one mechanism that could work independently?

Why would god create so much wasteful genetic code to produce the alive on Earth today? or Why would god create so much life on earth prior to humans? or Why would god make it seem that the earth is so old?

Why does every phylogenetic tree or every maternal or paternal DNA lineage show that we are related to other species beyond what is statistically negligible.

How does Islam explain the innumerable species which died and were extinct prior to our best estimate of the first human?

Why did god create viruses?

Why would god create creatures that do not have 2 sexes (either one or many)?

and more....


All the best,


Faysal

[CosmicPathos]

Many.

Why would god choose the one mechanism that could work independently?

Why would god create so much wasteful genetic code to produce the alive on Earth today? or Why would god create so much life on earth prior to humans? or Why would god make it seem that the earth is so old?

Why does every phylogenetic tree or every maternal or paternal DNA lineage show that we are related to other species beyond what is statistically negligible.

How does Islam explain the innumerable species which died and were extinct prior to our best estimate of the first human?

Why did god create viruses?

Why would god create creatures that do not have 2 sexes (either one or many)?

and more....


All the best,


Faysal

Those are not scientific questions because you brought God in. You cannot answer why God did what He did but only how God did what He did. By that token, any idea creates problems. Why does God put Muslims in trials even though they are on truth?

Dr. Israr's explanation is for those who believe in God.

[Dagless]

Please delete (mad_scientist beat me to it).

[tetsujin]

Personally I am more comfortable bending evolution to fit within Islam than trying to find a way to interpret Islam to fit into evolution. I think that's a sure way to go astray in the long run.

It's not honest. Why can't I say to god that I tried my best to look at the facts and make my own decision. How could god reward a life lived in self delusion over a life lived in honest doubts.

She's bragging about facts as if she knows em all in the capacity of "an evolutionary biologist who has 10 years of experience and takes facts over faith." I am sure her supervisor allowed her to work in his/her lab based on his faith in her potential to succeed and not the facts when she would have none as a student with no publication.

I don't know what she has or has not done, but i find it unlikely that someone could keep a job after years of incompetence or without demonstrating that they understand the concepts in order to get an education. When you demonstrate that you have an ability it is no longer a matter of faith, whether that ability is arc welding, software engineering, brain surgery, or shooting a ball into a net. In any case, who is here to judge people?

Scientists probably bragged about Newtons Theory of Gravity as the sole "fact" that they knew which the laymen did not but then Einstein's theory of general relativity showed that Newton's work was semi-accurate, it was only an approximation of reality and it failed to work in systems where masses were huge ...

And the layman did not argue against the force of gravity being inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the two bodies. Scientists refine the theories because scientists have reasonable doubts. If an experiment doesn't produce the expected results you question the process or the hypothesis, or get someone else to do it.

It is as likely for evidence to emerge which shows that current understanding of evolution was totally wrong. As a Muslim, would you bet your faith over such " evolving (the irony) facts?"

Do you doubt the existence of gravitation, or do you doubt the mechanism by which it acts upon bodies of mass? Group selection may be wrong, sexual selection may be wrong, who knows what tomorrow brings and what mechanism was in place. That we have evolved is a matter of history, written not in books but in our cells, our DNA and our graves.

All the best,


Faysal

[Lynx]

Salaam! So I've not long joined and I'm already bringing the tone down! Sorry! Hehe

So we're all familiar to some extent with the evolution versus creationism debate which has recently picked up some momentum in America (amongst the evangelicals, anyway). The problem is, I've yet to hear a reconciliation of evolution with the Qur'an!

Many Christian denominations, including Catholicism and Anglicanism, have taken such a liberal (and some would say 'loose') interpretation of their scripture that they now accept evolution. So clearly it can be united with faith (although I feel they have cheated a bit).

My question however, is how we unite evolution with Islam. From what I've read, it seems quite bleak, as virtually all scholars (and, naturally, critics) seem to consider them incompatible. Even Dr Zakir Naik, someone whose opinion I've longed respected, responded to the problem with 'evolution is only a theory'!

Indeed, the Qur'an gives quite an elaborate account (2:30-39) of how Allah created Adam (and then Eve) in Heaven, and then sent them to the Earth for having sinned, and that we humans all descend from the single soul of Adam (4:1), etc.

But this of course is a very different story to what really happened! I'm wondering whether these verses are to be taken allegorically? Indeed, 3:6 tells us that some verses should be taken allegorically...

So what are your thoughts? I've heard some Muslims claim that they are compatible...

I anticipate that some (hopefully few) of you will respond that evolution is rubbish, but as someone who has studied biology for the past decade and now works in the field of evolutionary biology, that would be like telling me the world is flat, so please don't bother.

Looking forward to your replies!

Salma.

P.S. Sorry for the long post.
P.P.S. Sorry to any moderators if this is in the wrong topic area!

Hello

Why do you think Islam ought to be reconciled with Evolution? As someone who tried to do the same thing I found it a dead end. It gets worse with the hadith where you get things like God made Eve from Adam's rib & God made Adam in His image. Maybe you should find God elsewhere.
In all honesty I think if anyone were to reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution it would be using the same 'cheating' that you find with the Pope's explanation of it. One thing came way before the other thing got discovered and that's that.

[tetsujin]

Those are not scientific questions because you brought God in. You cannot answer why God did what He did but only how God did what He did. By that token, any idea creates problems. Why does God put Muslims in trials even though they are on truth?

Dr. Israr's explanation is for those who believe in God.

I believe the OP wants to reconcile religion, Islam in the case, with Evolution. If you want to believe in Allah, those questions should be answered.

Whether or not you believe god did it is irrelevant. Problems arise when you try to create models for the universe.

How do you observe a phenomena, ascribe an operational definition, and make it externally valid when the mechanism is an omnipotent being capable of doing whatever, whenever, however or not.

Are you confining what god can and cannot accomplish and what methods are available?

Is god controlling this seemingly deterministic universe? In what sense is that control?

Why would god not create a universe which acted according to laws that god set? If we remove god post "creation" and/or from the "Planck scale", in what sense do we need god in our model of creation?

For the Believer, God is, and is everywhere, and does everything, and knows what you will do with or without your belief in "free will"/determination. The End.

All the best,

Faysal

[MicroSalma]

A bit of a long response. I'll be back later (or more likely tomorrow) to add some more replies.

its not your thread. Its not your forum. Get rid of that ego before reconciling evolution with Islam.

In every forum I've been to, we have a system whereby the person who asks the question gets to decide the topic. This way, the asker can ensure that their question is addressed. It also prevents people from ranting randomly and disrupting an intelligible conversation.

So either this forum is unique (in a bad way), or you're just a very rude person (which appears more likely). In fact, I don't intend on responding to any of your comments here on out, so don't waste your breath. But first...

That definition of hijacking is completely wrong. that is not what hijacking means.

Actually, it is commonly used internet lingo; indeed, UrbanDictionary has an entry for it (which is the definition I borrowed).

then how would you explain the fact that human is the only creature on earth, out of billions species, that are so developed (I dont have to list countless advanced characteristics that human has over any other animals)?

This isn't an original question, and it's frustrating that these same questions are asked over and over again even after they've been answered. I'm not dodging the question though, as it's a decent one:

First of all, there are not 'billions' of species, more like millions. Second of all, how many features can you really list that are completely unique to humans?

Physically, we are 'holomorphic' to countless other animals; and even many of our mental characteristics are not unique - other animals exhibit emotions (such as attachment, sorrow, and loneliness) plus altruism. Many animals cry out when suffering. Language is not unique to us. And many animals are amazing at problem solving (chimpanzees and even birds have outsmarted humans in solving certain problems!)

However, I of course don't deny that (despite the adorable, painting elephants), humans are the only ones with an appreciation for art, and we have the most complex language. But the most amazing characteristic of humans is our ability to reason and rationalise. So the question is: how is it that we can rationalise but others cannot? The answer is of course that our brain (in particular the cerebral cortex) has swelled up - it's massive. You might say 'ah! Well that's unique!' but no, not really. All mammals have a cerebral cortex, ours is just the largest.

You then asked why we're so much smarter than other animals, why aren't there others as intelligent as us? Well that's like asking why is there no animal that can travel faster than the Peregrine Falcon?

ONE animal has to be the fastest, just like one animal has to be the smartest. That animal is us. But then you might ask why our brains are so much bigger than others. But again, it's not that bizzare. The Peregrine Falcon can fly at about 200 mph, whereas the second fastest animal (the spine-tailed swift) can fly at only 100mph. If you were a Peregrine Falcon, you'd be arguing 'god must have created ME because I'm not only a bit faster than you, but TWICE as fast!'

The human brain is not even twice the same of a chimpanzees!!


Moving on... Thank you, Eric.

As I explained earlier you are comparing oranges with apples

Not to me it's not.

What Adam and Eve problem exactly? You mentioned the verses I don't see them going against any known facts and understanding from Quran

The problem is that humans evolved, whereas the literal interpretation of Adam and Eve contradicts this quite clearly by saying that there was a 'first human', and that 'first human' was created in his present form (rather than having evolved).


Chuck, I shall try and respond to your comment on verses 2:30-39 in a moment (my post is becoming too large right now!) But quickly regarding 4:1: whose translation are you using? Pickthal uses the word 'soul' instead of 'living entity', and Yusuf Ali uses 'person'. Moreover, it's surely referring to Adam and Eve when it says (your translation) 'and out of it created its mate'.

but human race can't have common decent

Care to elaborate?


Thank you for the comments, tetsujin and Dagless.
And, mad_scientist: you are an incredibly unpleasant person.

[Dagless]

It's not honest. Why can't I say to god that I tried my best to look at the facts and make my own decision. How could god reward a life lived in self delusion over a life lived in honest doubts.l

It is honest (imo). Following the other way would be dishonest. Look at it this way, if the everything you've read in the Quran has been confirmed or deemed accurate by you then how could evolution be wrong? It would be like saying "well yes 99% is right but this 1% is wrong because I trust science which is prone to change over this book which I believe to be the unchanging word of God". Its not much of an argument is it.

Btw once again we are going away from what was asked.

[CosmicPathos]

A bit of a long response. I'll be back later (or more likely tomorrow) to add some more replies.



In every forum I've been to, we have a system whereby the person who asks the question gets to decide the topic. This way, the asker can ensure that their question is addressed. It also prevents people from ranting randomly and disrupting an intelligible conversation.

So either this forum is unique (in a bad way), or you're just a very rude person (which appears more likely). In fact, I don't intend on responding to any of your comments here on out, so don't waste your breath. But first...



Actually, it is commonly used internet lingo; indeed, UrbanDictionary has an entry for it (which is the definition I borrowed).



This isn't an original question, and it's frustrating that these same questions are asked over and over again even after they've been answered. I'm not dodging the question though, as it's a decent one:

First of all, there are not 'billions' of species, more like millions. Second of all, how many features can you really list that are completely unique to humans?

Physically, we are 'holomorphic' to countless other animals; and even many of our mental characteristics are not unique - other animals exhibit emotions (such as attachment, sorrow, and loneliness) plus altruism. Many animals cry out when suffering. Language is not unique to us. And many animals are amazing at problem solving (chimpanzees and even birds have outsmarted humans in solving certain problems!)

However, I of course don't deny that (despite the adorable, painting elephants), humans are the only ones with an appreciation for art, and we have the most complex language. But the most amazing characteristic of humans is our ability to reason and rationalise. So the question is: how is it that we can rationalise but others cannot? The answer is of course that our brain (in particular the cerebral cortex) has swelled up - it's massive. You might say 'ah! Well that's unique!' but no, not really. All mammals have a cerebral cortex, ours is just the largest.

You then asked why we're so much smarter than other animals, why aren't there others as intelligent as us? Well that's like asking why is there no animal that can travel faster than the Peregrine Falcon?

ONE animal has to be the fastest, just like one animal has to be the smartest. That animal is us. But then you might ask why our brains are so much bigger than others. But again, it's not that bizzare. The Peregrine Falcon can fly at about 200 mph, whereas the second fastest animal (the spine-tailed swift) can fly at only 100mph. If you were a Peregrine Falcon, you'd be arguing 'god must have created ME because I'm not only a bit faster than you, but TWICE as fast!'

The human brain is not even twice the same of a chimpanzees!!


Moving on... Thank you, Eric.




Not to me it's not.




The problem is that humans evolved, whereas the literal interpretation of Adam and Eve contradicts this quite clearly by saying that there was a 'first human', and that 'first human' was created in his present form (rather than having evolved).


Chuck, I shall try and respond to your comment on verses 2:30-39 in a moment (my post is becoming too large right now!) But quickly regarding 4:1: whose translation are you using? Pickthal uses the word 'soul' instead of 'living entity', and Yusuf Ali uses 'person'. Moreover, it's surely referring to Adam and Eve when it says (your translation) 'and out of it created its mate'.




Care to elaborate?


Thank you for the comments, tetsujin and Dagless.
And, mad_scientist: you are an incredibly unpleasant person.

Micro: you are utterly an unpleasant person because you are egoistic and arrogant woman. You come here and insult Quran and expect me to spread roses in your path. I also do not intend to reply to your deluded comments of reconciling evolution with Islam as they are devoid of any logic. The facts are in: you cant reconcile Islam with evolution.

[Chuck]

Not to me it's not.

It doesn't matter whether to you it is or it is not, but technically you are comparing apples with oranges. You said you value facts, well, facts are not with you on this one.

The problem is that humans evolved, whereas the literal interpretation of Adam and Eve contradicts this quite clearly by saying that there was a 'first human', and that 'first human' was created in his present form (rather than having evolved).

That is a truth statement that humans evolved, I don't know the exact truth, I can assess and make conclusion but that wouldn't be the truth. Neither the literal text in Quran is specific enough to tell that God created Adam as it is or it was a long process of fashioning first human into Adam. This issue is not a clear from the text and it is open to interpretation.

The things that are specifically mentioned are the virgin birth of Jesus (pbuh) and Moses (pbuh) staff turn into serpent. These would have been more clear examples, of what is established in science vs Quran.

But quickly regarding 4:1: whose translation are you using? Pickthal uses the word 'soul' instead of 'living entity', and Yusuf Ali uses 'person'. Moreover, it's surely referring to Adam and Eve when it says (your translation) 'and out of it created its mate'.

I'm using Mohammad Asad's translation.

As for "and out of it created its mate", it just says that but doesn't explain how God created out of him his mate. Second, issue is not quite clear going by the actual text.

According to the Qur’ān, Eve was not created from Adam’s rib. The first verse of Sūrah Nisā explicitly states that the first man and woman (Adam and Eve) were created directly by the Almighty:

O mankind! Fear your Lord who created you from a single soul and of like nature his mate and from the two scattered [like seeds] countless men and women. (4:1)

Some people translate this verse as ‘It is he Who has created you from a single person (Adam) and then He created from him his wife (Eve)’. They explain this verse by saying that Eve was created from the rib of Adam. This misleading translation has probably arisen because of the Arabic words khalaqa minha zawjaha, which if literally translated mean ‘created from him [-- the initial soul--] his wife’. Actually the word minha (from the soul) does not imply that ‘Eve was made from Adam’; they rather imply that Eve was made from the same species as Adam, meaning that both were human. A similar verse points to this interpretation:

It is God who has made from your species your mates. (16:72)

A literal translation of the words ja‘ala lakum min anfusikum azwājā of the above quoted verse (which are very similar to khalaqa minha zawjaha) would mean ‘it is God which has created your mates from you’ implying that every wife is made from her husband as Eve was. This of course is incorrect; the word anfus (plural of nafs) in this verse means ‘genre’, ‘species’ and not ‘physical being’.
As far as the Hadīth you have quoted is concerned, it needs to be appreciated that in Arabic the words ‘created from’ do not necessarily refer to the substance of creation; they can also refer to the nature of something. For example the Qur’ān says: ‘Man has been created from hastiness’, (21:37). This does not of course mean that man’s substance is hastiness; it only refers to his nature.
Secondly, if all the texts of the Hadīth you have referred to are collected and analyzed, it becomes evident that the Prophet (sws) has compared the nature of a woman with a rib. The comparison subtly alludes to the fact that a woman’s nature is very delicate and tender as well as a bit adamant. The Prophet (sws) has advised men to treat them tactfully keeping in view this nature. Instead of forcing them to accept a particular point of view which will only bring out their obduracy, men should try to convince and persuade them.

http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/i...ry.aspx?id=483

I'll quote a friend of mine:

As far as the actual point of this verse, as Hussein would agree, it is meant to demonstrate that both Adam and Eve are the same nature, thus the idea of inequality, according to the Quran, is absolutely baseless. The Quran then goes on to say that all human beings stem from this couple, meaning they are all brethren and from the same family. This abolishes the idea of class systems as well as racial inequality.

As far as the creation of Adam, it is meant not for scientific purposes, but to demonstrate certain fundamental ideas which relate to the destiny and position of man. While Adam was created from this very earth, he also possesses a divine element which makes him unique in the scheme of the Almighty. This divine element gives expression to free will and the moral conscious, which man is suppose to develop to the best of his/her abilities. Since he is of this earth, the expression of the divine will happens in this earth.

Care to elaborate?

I mean how evolution is against humans descended from single parents or in other words a common ancestor? I don't see a problem. Actually, this is one of the place where they are close to each other.

[omar ibrahim]

so you trust science more than Allah you you are traying to fit evolution

with islam and you dont believe in the story of Adam and Eva even though

the contradiction of scientists :statisfie

regarding faysal who asked questions like why why why why...?

i just feel sorry about you ,all your questions were like why would people think differently?

meaning that Allah is not thinking like you because there are no equals to him in your human nature

[omar ibrahim]

one more thing you forget that when Allah wants to do anything he just

say be and it is

if you are a sincere muslim who pray 5 times a day on time ask Allah to guide you and make it easy for you to understand the holy quran clearly
and give you real faith.He answes my duaa if i do a good deeds,thats one of the reason why i trust him.

[Ramadhan]

This isn't an original question, and it's frustrating that these same questions are asked over and over again even after they've been answered. I'm not dodging the question though, as it's a decent one:

The question may have been asked before, but has it been resolved and answered satisfactorily? I think not.

First of all, there are not 'billions' of species, more like millions.

The estimates for the number of existing species wildly range from 3 - 100 millions, 1.6 millions of which have been named/discovered.
So surely there must have been billions of species that ever existed on earth in the past 3.5 billions of years.

how many features can you really list that are completely unique to humans?
Physically, we are 'holomorphic' to countless other animals; and even many of our mental characteristics are not unique - other animals exhibit emotions (such as attachment, sorrow, and loneliness) plus altruism. Many animals cry out when suffering. Language is not unique to us. And many animals are amazing at problem solving (chimpanzees and even birds have outsmarted humans in solving certain problems!)
However, I of course don't deny that (despite the adorable, painting elephants), humans are the only ones with an appreciation for art, and we have the most complex language.

You can claim that animals posses similar mental characteristics as humans. But the facts do not support your claim.
animals may "cry out" when hurt, but humans are the only creatures that "cry" tears of emotion.
there are examples of animals displaying some intelligence, but are they anywhere near humans? why is that the intelligence levels of dolphins and chimnps are similar with each other, although aside from being mammals, they are nowhere similar? Why is chimps level of intelligence not closer to humans?
Language is not unique to us? Animals may have some sort of sound codes to communicate extremely simple and limited ideas with each other, but true language? I think not.
I don't know why you can't admit that human mental capacities are truly unique.

But the most amazing characteristic of humans is our ability to reason and rationalise. So the question is: how is it that we can rationalise but others cannot? The answer is of course that our brain (in particular the cerebral cortex) has swelled up - it's massive. You might say 'ah! Well that's unique!' but no, not really. All mammals have a cerebral cortex, ours is just the largest.

so how did human brain suddenly increase it size twice in such short period of time? why didn't chimps and gorillas?
And then why, after suddenly became so big, modern human brain size just stopped growing?
why couldn't sharks which have been around for hundreds of millions of years could not grow their brain size by one bit?
Why is human the only creature that have highly developed mental capacities?

you then asked why we're so much smarter than other animals, why aren't there others as intelligent as us? Well that's like asking why is there no animal that can travel faster than the Peregrine Falcon?

ONE animal has to be the fastest, just like one animal has to be the smartest. That animal is us. But then you might ask why our brains are so much bigger than others. But again, it's not that bizzare. The Peregrine Falcon can fly at about 200 mph, whereas the second fastest animal (the spine-tailed swift) can fly at only 100mph. If you were a Peregrine Falcon, you'd be arguing 'god must have created ME because I'm not only a bit faster than you, but TWICE as fast!'

I am starting to doubt your sincerity when claiming you regard FACTS as your number one priority. Certainly in this case, you are very loose and lax with facts. The Peregrine Falcon is only fastest when in hunting dive mode, that is, when diving down vertically aiming for a prey. Peregrine falcon is not even among the top ten fastest birds in natural flight.
Saying peregrine falcon is the fastest bird would be like saying humans can run faster than horses because usain bolt can run 9.5 seconds in 100 m.

I am also surprised you, again, make analogy which are not equal. Are you really saying that difference in mental capacity between man and chimps is as meaningless as the difference between the flight speeds of birds?

Also, if you are saying that human brain is not really remarkable, then why the brains of chimps and gorillas are so similar with each other but both are so different than human? After all, according to theory of evolution, humans are in the apes family right?

human brain is not even twice the same of a chimpanzees!!

I am SHOCKED!!!

Are you sure you are an evolutionary biologist?

The average size of human brain is around 1,400, while chimps' is around 400 cc. If I do my math right, that is around 3 times larger!

Not to mention that human brain has a structure which is a lot more complex and so different than chimps, gorilla or orang utan, whose brains are similar with each other.


Here's something else to ponder (maybe it's also unoriginal for you):

why do people have complete faith in evolution of prokaryote --> human when there is no direct evidence, and yet have absolutely no faith in God the Creator when logic tells that God must certainly exist and the evidence and signs are so overwhelming and everywhere.

[tango92]

heres a question, humans can choose paths that are directly against their instinct. ie perfectly normal people can choose to kill their own kids, im not saying its likely actually its quite hard to imagine. but animals cannot even fathom making desicions that run counter to their biology.

how can such an evolutionary mechanism account for this?

[CosmicPathos]

The question may have been asked before, but has it been resolved and answered satisfactorily? I think not.



The estimates for the number of existing species wildly range from 3 - 100 millions, 1.6 millions of which have been named/discovered.
So surely there must have been billions of species that ever existed on earth in the past 3.5 billions of years.



You can claim that animals posses similar mental characteristics as humans. But the facts do not support your claim.
animals may "cry out" when hurt, but humans are the only creatures that "cry" tears of emotion.
there are examples of animals displaying some intelligence, but are they anywhere near humans? why is that the intelligence levels of dolphins and chimnps are similar with each other, although aside from being mammals, they are nowhere similar? Why is chimps level of intelligence not closer to humans?
Language is not unique to us? Animals may have some sort of sound codes to communicate extremely simple and limited ideas with each other, but true language? I think not.
I don't know why you can't admit that human mental capacities are truly unique.



so how did human brain suddenly increase it size twice in such short period of time? why didn't chimps and gorillas?
And then why, after suddenly became so big, modern human brain size just stopped growing?
why couldn't sharks which have been around for hundreds of millions of years could not grow their brain size by one bit?
Why is human the only creature that have highly developed mental capacities?





I am starting to doubt your sincerity when claiming you regard FACTS as your number one priority. Certainly in this case, you are very loose and lax with facts. The Peregrine Falcon is only fastest when in hunting dive mode, that is, when diving down vertically aiming for a prey. Peregrine falcon is not even among the top ten fastest birds in natural flight.
Saying peregrine falcon is the fastest bird would be like saying humans can run faster than horses because usain bolt can run 9.5 seconds in 100 m.

I am also surprised you, again, make analogy which are not equal. Are you really saying that difference in mental capacity between man and chimps is as meaningless as the difference between the flight speeds of birds?

Also, if you are saying that human brain is not really remarkable, then why the brains of chimps and gorillas are so similar with each other but both are so different than human? After all, according to theory of evolution, humans are in the apes family right?



I am SHOCKED!!!

Are you sure you are an evolutionary biologist?

The average size of human brain is around 1,400, while chimps' is around 400 cc. If I do my math right, that is around 3 times larger!

Not to mention that human brain has a structure which is a lot more complex and so different than chimps, gorilla or orang utan, whose brains are similar with each other.


Here's something else to ponder (maybe it's also unoriginal for you):

why do people have complete faith in evolution of prokaryote --> human when there is no direct evidence, and yet have absolutely no faith in God the Creator when logic tells that God must certainly exist and the evidence and signs are so overwhelming and everywhere.

you nailed this so-called evolutionary biologist who is just another nil student! Kudos.

She thinks she is an evolutionary biologist after taking one semester credit at some no-name liberal arts undergrad school. Or perhaps at a community college.

[Trumble]

so how did human brain suddenly increase it size twice in such short period of time? why didn't chimps and gorillas?
And then why, after suddenly became so big, modern human brain size just stopped growing?
why couldn't sharks which have been around for hundreds of millions of years could not grow their brain size by one bit?
Why is human the only creature that have highly developed mental capacities?

The reason is pretty much the same in all those cases, the changes perpetuate only when there is distinct survival benefit from them doing so. Sharks didn't 'grow their brains' because there was no benefit to being 'smart' as long as there was no severe food shortage that brought them into direct competition with each other - and even then sensory enhancements would probably have proved far more useful.

The brain size thing is pretty much irrelevant, it generally increases with the size of the animal rather than 'highly developed mental capacities' (both whales and elephants have far bigger brains than humans). It is different and enhanced brain structures that are important, and there is no reason at all that different species in the same 'family' should not develop to varying degrees and in varying ways. The whole classification system is merely a convenient labelling device, anyway. At some point in the future (assuming we don't destroy the planet first) our descendants will no longer be 'apes' and, in all probability, neither will those of chimpanzees. Apes, human or otherwise, will be as extinct as dodos and dinosaurs.

[CosmicPathos]

The reason is pretty much the same in all those cases, the changes perpetuate only when there is distinct survival benefit from them doing so. Sharks didn't 'grow their brains' because there was no benefit to being 'smart' as long as there was no severe food shortage that brought them into direct competition with each other - and even then sensory enhancements would probably have proved far more useful.

The brain size thing is pretty much irrelevant, it generally increases with the size of the animal rather than 'highly developed mental capacities' (both whales and elephants have far bigger brains than humans). It is different and enhanced brain structures that are important, and there is no reason at all that different species in the same 'family' should not develop to varying degrees and in varying ways. The whole classification system is merely a convenient labelling device, anyway. At some point in the future (assuming we don't destroy the planet first) our descendants will no longer be 'apes' and, in all probability, neither will those of chimpanzees. Apes, human or otherwise, will be as extinct as dodos and dinosaurs.

Probably "probably" never occurred. See, a manifesto of probabilities. There is no evidence for what you claim is the reason for sharks not growing their brains. Speculation ad nauseam.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you mad_scientist;

you nailed this so-called evolutionary biologist who is just another nil student! Kudos.

She thinks she is an evolutionary biologist after taking one semester credit at some no-name liberal arts undergrad school. Or perhaps at a community college

However much we might disagree with someones views, there is still the need for kindness.


In the spirit of praying for those who are different to ourselves.

Eric

[tango92]

The reason is pretty much the same in all those cases, the changes perpetuate only when there is distinct survival benefit from them doing so. Sharks didn't 'grow their brains' because there was no benefit to being 'smart' as long as there was no severe food shortage that brought them into direct competition with each other - and even then sensory enhancements would probably have proved far more useful.

The brain size thing is pretty much irrelevant, it generally increases with the size of the animal rather than 'highly developed mental capacities' (both whales and elephants have far bigger brains than humans). It is different and enhanced brain structures that are important, and there is no reason at all that different species in the same 'family' should not develop to varying degrees and in varying ways. The whole classification system is merely a convenient labelling device, anyway. At some point in the future (assuming we don't destroy the planet first) our descendants will no longer be 'apes' and, in all probability, neither will those of chimpanzees. Apes, human or otherwise, will be as extinct as dodos and dinosaurs.

but see bacteria are the most sucessful organisms on earth, suviving anywhere, theres no need to even evolve past that stage.

and if we descended from apes why were their apes living in countries like africa alongside humans? surely these apes would have needed to evolve for survival aswell?

[Chuck]

you nailed this so-called evolutionary biologist who is just another nil student! Kudos.

Another nil student bites the dust. ;D just kidding.

[tetsujin]

but see bacteria are the most sucessful organisms on earth, suviving anywhere, theres no need to even evolve past that stage.

and if we descended from apes why were their apes living in countries like africa alongside humans? surely these apes would have needed to evolve for survival aswell?

Evolution is not a linear process, and it is not a process driven by individual organisms. I can't evolve because I feel the need to evolve.

The easiest way to grasp it is to think about your own extended family. Generally, brothers and sisters look similar to their parents but there are small differences. These differences are passed down to their children. So cousins may look similar to their own brothers and sisters but may look very different from their other cousins.

Evolution simply states that genetic differences accumulate over time, and those differences eventually lead to a split in the species.

All the best,


Faysal

[CosmicPathos]

Evolution is not a linear process, and it is not a process driven by individual organisms. I can't evolve because I feel the need to evolve.

The easiest way to grasp it is to think about your own extended family. Generally, brothers and sisters look similar to their parents but there are small differences. These differences are passed down to their children. So cousins may look similar to their own brothers and sisters but may look very different from their other cousins.

Evolution simply states that genetic differences accumulate over time, and those differences eventually lead to a split in the species.

All the best,


Faysal

and that is exactly when evolution becomes a dogma.

[tetsujin]

and that is exactly when evolution becomes a dogma.

Are you saying we have not found any evidence for speciation?

All the best,


Faysal

[CosmicPathos]

Are you saying we have not found any evidence for speciation?

All the best,


Faysal

We have not found any evidence that accumulation of genetic changes eventually leads to successful speciation. Just like how we do not have a working definition of life, we do not have a working definition of "species" even if scientists think otherwise for spreading the dogmatic belief.

[Ramadhan]

Evolution simply states that genetic differences accumulate over time, and those differences eventually lead to a split in the species.

Many species have not changed one bit for hundreds of millions of years.

Meanwhile, humans suddenly experienced an explosive increase in brain size and structure within very short time. And then the increase suddenly stopped.

[CosmicPathos]

Many species have not changed one bit for hundreds of millions of years.

Meanwhile, humans suddenly experienced an explosive increase in brain size and structure within very short time. And then the increase suddenly stopped.

and then throw in the differential in brain size depending on human gender.

[tetsujin]

We have not found any evidence that accumulation of genetic changes eventually leads to successful speciation. Just like how we do not have a working definition of life, we do not have a working definition of "species" even if scientists think otherwise for spreading the dogmatic belief.

The fact that there are several different ways to delimit species, depending on the species, means that we will have several definitions of speciation and species.

All the best,


Faysal

[CosmicPathos]

The fact that there are several different ways to delimit species, depending on the species, means that we will have several definitions of speciation and species.

All the best,


Faysal

we all scientists have several definitions of life too but all agree that none is completely accurate. Just like how water was defined as "liquid, transparent, dissolving and thirst quenching substance" by scientists before it was found that its made up 2 H atoms and 1 O atom, such is the nature of our definition of life today.

[Argamemnon]

Why do atheist evolutionists claim that they do not adhere to any dogma when they obviously do? Why do they rudely interrupt this young brain surgeon from Turkey while asking some critical questions in this Vatican conference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9L5VLZYk7s(see 3:16)?

They remove the microphone while he is asking questions. These kind of reactions prove that some of these people blindly and fiercely adhere to atheist dogmas. They give science a bad name.

[CosmicPathos]

Why do atheist evolutionists claim that they do not adhere to any dogma when they obviously do? Why do they rudely interrupt this young brain surgeon from Turkey while asking some critical questions in this Vatican conference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9L5VLZYk7s(see 3:16)?

They remove the microphone while he is asking questions. These kind of reactions prove that some of these people blindly and fiercely adhere to atheist dogmas. They give science a bad name.

I dont understand what the discussion was about. Whats going on in that video? Do you understand Turkish?

[Chuck]

I guess he brought something from Harun Yahya.

[CosmicPathos]

I guess he brought something from Harun Yahya.

is he a brain surgeon? If he is then why would he bring something from Harun Yahya?

[Chuck]

is he a brain surgeon? If he is then why would he bring something from Harun Yahya?

Just a guess since he was from Turkey. Anyhow, I want to know to what he was saying and why he was shut off.

[tetsujin]

I dont understand what the discussion was about. Whats going on in that video? Do you understand Turkish?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXi0s_UqQYk


Apparently a conference in Rome. Not sure what the conference is about or the format. He could have been speaking to the wrong person about the issue, or the wrong place/time.



All the best,

Faysal

[Tornado]

:shade:
Hello Salma and everybody :coolious:,

Once upon a time, I too had searched hard for the answer.
The best I got was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPZX_dNeBTM
(From Let The Quran Speak with Shabir Ally)

Peace :D