/* */

PDA

View Full Version : ~ The Evolution Theory! ~



Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-24-2010, 07:40 PM
Aslaamu`Alaaykum. . .

I have a Q regarding Evolution, as muslims do we deny the theory of Evolution? I have a Friend who is an Ahmadi, they do not reject Evolution, as in they believe the Qur`aan to mention Evolution and agree with it etc. they believe we evolve from Apes :omg:, they believe the same things we humans have, the apes also have them too, like we are made from the same stuff, maybe even same features (apparently), so this makes us apes i think . But yeah what does Islaam really have to say about this? I dont understand InshaAllaah someone with Knowledge can clarify . . .
Jazakallah Khayr for replies will appreciate all answers given indeed! And hoope i made good sense!

Wa Alaaykum Salaam
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
tango92
05-24-2010, 07:50 PM
in islam we believe that the human race started from two adam and hawa, so far their is no evidence which contradicts this but it hasnt been proven yet either.

as for the evolution of animals, this is completely for you to make up your own mind. i think most muslims who believe in evolution of animals dont consider mutations to occur by chance but rather it is the will of Allah.

it doesnt really make sense that out of a whole population in a time of environmental change, a mutation happens to occur which happens to combat the environmental change, which spreads throughout the population of which the vast majority should now be dead due to the environmental change killing those without the mutation.
Reply

CosmicPathos
05-27-2010, 08:52 PM
Muslim Wrld: You should not have ahmadi "friends." The kufaar are friends of each other. Or did you mean acquaintance/colleague?

What else were you expecting from an Ahmadi? A person who believes that Muhammad (p) is not the last Prophet, he/she will believe in other crap too.
Reply

atheistbynature
05-27-2010, 09:47 PM
the human race started from two adam and hawa, so far their is no evidence which contradicts this but it hasnt been proven yet either.
If all humans came from a pair whose children then inbred this would be immediate obvious in the genome there is no way there could be the amount of genetic variation that there is in humans today if this was true. How long ago do you suppose this happened? Since there is such a large amount of evidence to show humans do share a common ancestor that I can't believe you'd say that there is none, We share 98% of our DNA much of which is purely vestigal.

it doesnt really make sense that out of a whole population in a time of environmental change, a mutation happens to occur which happens to combat the environmental change, which spreads throughout the population of which the vast majority should now be dead due to the environmental change killing those without the mutation.
Thousands of mutations occur over each generation, most of which are bad or neutral for the organism, only the good ones however are passed on. They do not spread through the population, they are passed on to the next generation and over a long period of time all the species have that gene.
Reply

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

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
tango92
05-27-2010, 10:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by atheistbynature
If all humans came from a pair whose children then inbred this would be immediate obvious in the genome there is no way there could be the amount of genetic variation that there is in humans today if this was true. How long ago do you suppose this happened? Since there is such a large amount of evidence to show humans do share a common ancestor that I can't believe you'd say that there is none, We share 98% of our DNA much of which is purely vestigal.

present your proof if you are truthful. what we are saying is that the Adam and Hawa and their children were not like us today, their gene pool and biology was suited to incestual reproduction.

Thousands of mutations occur over each generation, most of which are bad or neutral for the organism, only the good ones however are passed on. They do not spread through the population, they are passed on to the next generation and over a long period of time all the species have that gene.
sure amongst bacteria there are many mutations occuring, not higher level organisms as i indicated in my post. in a higher level organism the DNA is very stable. look at the aftermaths of hiroshima, where any of the mutations useful? or even neutral? stop being decpetive.
btw 1 single mutation even if it occured is useless. eg in order to stand upright we require many thousands of mutations.

the whole idea of evolution is, a mutation occurs which allows the survival of a species when faced with a specific threat. which is why organisms dont evolve when they dont "need" to. therefore a gradual spread throughout a population is useless.
Reply

CosmicPathos
05-27-2010, 11:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by atheistbynature
If all humans came from a pair whose children then inbred this would be immediate obvious in the genome there is no way there could be the amount of genetic variation that there is in humans today if this was true. How long ago do you suppose this happened? Since there is such a large amount of evidence to show humans do share a common ancestor that I can't believe you'd say that there is none, We share 98% of our DNA much of which is purely vestigal.



Thousands of mutations occur over each generation, most of which are bad or neutral for the organism, only the good ones however are passed on. They do not spread through the population, they are passed on to the next generation and over a long period of time all the species have that gene.
Well how do YOU explain the variation in among humans? Its not that much though.
Reply

AinEstonia
05-28-2010, 01:50 AM
Dan Dennett was totally right when he said that theory of evolution is dangerous to those with religious convictions.
Reply

جوري
05-28-2010, 02:09 AM
http://www.islamicboard.com/advice-s...es-come-3.html

is indeed much more scientific!

mutations have names by the way:

Single-base substitutions
  • Missense mutations
  • Nonsense
  • Silent mutations
  • Splice-site mutations


Insertions and Deletions
  • Fragile X Syndrome
  • Huntington's Disease
  • Muscular Dystrophy


Duplications
Translocations
Frequency of Mutations


stick them in a search engine and see if 'sepciation' or 'evolution' comes up


Theory of evolution is dangerous to 'religious people' must be far more dangerous to atheists for surely it precludes them from expending any sort of thought at all on the origins of life and on the complex machinery that will take to morph an inanimate object or 'seeds' from single celled organisms to complex sentient beings.. Not only do they give ignorance is bliss a new dimension, but the only sound arguments they can come up with are by way of bullying and developmentally challenged explanations that can't get past third grade biology!

all the best
Reply

CosmicPathos
05-28-2010, 02:25 AM
^ I love how you use that picture. I chuckle every time I see it on this forum. jazakAllah.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-28-2010, 02:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AinEstonia
Dan Dennett was totally right when he said that theory of evolution is dangerous to those with religious convictions.
This sentence does not make sense at all.
How can theory of evolution be dangerous?
Reply

جوري
05-28-2010, 02:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
^ I love how you use that picture. I chuckle every time I see it on this forum. jazakAllah.

I had a hilarious one for abiogenesis really wish I had saved it.. it was a dancing rock, then a dancing alligator, that turned into a dancing duck, then a dancing ape, then a dancing kid..

a shame I lost it. Hope someone makes a nice parody of it again!

:w:
Reply

جوري
05-28-2010, 02:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
This sentence does not make sense at all.
How can theory of evolution be dangerous?
Atheists have to compensate with braggart talk to make up for other area where they are apparently lacking, and sadly on top of that list is articulating science in a well 'scientific manner'... sob7an Allah.. whenever we finish with an evolution thread, another one pops up and the pugilists come a knocking!


:w:
Reply

marwen
05-28-2010, 02:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AinEstonia
Dan Dennett was totally right when he said that theory of evolution is dangerous to those with religious convictions.
Do you really think religious people, muslims in particular, are scared of theories that are in contradiction with islam ? That's one of the crudest atheistic convictions. But unfortunately big number of atheists (if I can't say all) do have this idea.
Reply

Woodrow
05-28-2010, 02:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by atheistbynature
If all humans came from a pair whose children then inbred this would be immediate obvious in the genome there is no way there could be the amount of genetic variation that there is in humans today if this was true.

Oh I see if the first 2 humans were human there would have been too much inbreeding to produce the variation we have today. But if the first 2 humans were the precursors of apes the inbreeding between those proto ape/humans would have caused the variations we see today.

Did I read/understand that correctly?
Reply

Dagless
05-28-2010, 02:54 AM
Someone else posted this in another thread. I have not made up my mind on which explanation I like best but I did find this one quite nice. It is also a good video for those eager to try some peacock ;)

Reply

CosmicPathos
05-28-2010, 07:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I had a hilarious one for abiogenesis really wish I had saved it.. it was a dancing rock, then a dancing alligator, that turned into a dancing duck, then a dancing ape, then a dancing kid..

a shame I lost it. Hope someone makes a nice parody of it again!

:w:
I'd stop at dancing apes, starting from dancing rocks. :D

Attachment 4078
Reply

AinEstonia
05-28-2010, 08:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
Do you really think religious people, muslims in particular, are scared of theories that are in contradiction with islam ? That's one of the crudest atheistic convictions. But unfortunately big number of atheists (if I can't say all) do have this idea.
It's not like the theory of evolution was greeted by devout Christians. Pretty much every scientific claim which contradicts the "accepted" views of the general population will face fierce opposition.
If religious people don't have a problem with the theory of evolution, or the only problem they have with it is the supposed lack of evidence, why should they ridicule it by claiming that evolution says humans evolved from apes, or that something came from nothing ?
Reply

atheistbynature
05-28-2010, 10:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Oh I see if the first 2 humans were human there would have been too much inbreeding to produce the variation we have today. But if the first 2 humans were the precursors of apes the inbreeding between those proto ape/humans would have caused the variations we see today.

Did I read/understand that correctly?
Yeh that's basically what i was saying. Note that humans and modern apes both evolved from a common ancestor that is not around today, humans did not evolve from modern. apes
Reply

Woodrow
05-28-2010, 12:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by atheistbynature
Yeh that's basically what i was saying. Note that humans and modern apes both evolved from a common ancestor that is not around today, humans did not evolve from modern. apes
So please explain why you believe that there would be a diversity problem from the origin being 2 humans but no problem if it is 2 proto humans. You would still be faced with the same inbreeding no matter what the original 2 were. In fact would not the genetic pool for humans be reduced if the origin was from 2 proto types as the genetic pool that became non-human would be lost for sharing among the human branch.
Reply

atheistbynature
05-28-2010, 05:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
So please explain why you believe that there would be a diversity problem from the origin being 2 humans but no problem if it is 2 proto humans. You would still be faced with the same inbreeding no matter what the original 2 were.
When humans evolved it was an entire population changing slowly through each generation as the less well adapted lost over a long period of time. There wasn't just one day 2 humans born from non-humans. So the everyone in that population can breed with each other and probably bred with different populations of 'proto humans' keeping the genetic variation high as happens today. In fact recent research suggests that early humans probably bred with neanderthals. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8671643.stm

In fact would not the genetic pool for humans be reduced if the origin was from 2 proto types as the genetic pool that became non-human would be lost for sharing among the human branch.
I don't understand what you mean there.
Reply

tango92
05-28-2010, 06:29 PM
^ but still many mutations must preceed each other, for generations. andmutations in higher level species is rare.

if one mutation occured, it is extremely likely that it would have no benefit to the organism it may infact be detrimental. therefore making it difficult to spread throughout the population. even if it did this reduces the gene pool. and then if for example we want to go from 4 legs to 2 we require more thousands of mutations all in the right sequence. this reduces the gene pool immensely.
Reply

Woodrow
05-28-2010, 07:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by atheistbynature

I don't understand what you mean there.
If man and apes et al came from the same gene pool. the gene pool would become smaller as a species formed that could not interbreed with the other's.

In spite of what is spread by old wive's tales and some old fiction movies, it is anatomically impossible for a human to interbreed with any of the Apes. Even if they are both consenting adults. I will not go into specifics as to why it is impossible, if you have a need to learn more about the subject enroll in an advanced comparative anatomy class.
Reply

Woodrow
05-28-2010, 07:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by atheistbynature
. In fact recent research suggests that early humans probably bred with neanderthals. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8671643.stm



.
I have no doubt that they did interbreed. And that means ???? It is a very well established fact that through out history there have been Humans that have interbred with anything where the physical possibility existed. What is lacking is any evidence this changed the genetics or added to the gene pool of the Human population. I have seen the theories that Red Hair and blue eyes were inherited from Neanderthals. but that does not seem to hold much credibility as current findings are those traits in Caucasians did not come about until long after the extinction of Neanderthals. Yes there have been past occurrences of Red Hair and Blue eyes occurring in Australoid and Negroid people, but they never had contact with Neanderthals.

Odd thought: Red Hair and Blue eyes occurred in black skinned people before they occurred in white skinned people.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-28-2010, 07:22 PM
Really? . . . .didnt know that :-\
Reply

Woodrow
05-28-2010, 08:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim World 12
Really? . . . .didnt know that :-\
Not only did red hair and blue eyes occur in Black people before it did in Caucasians so did white skin. The white race and especially caucasians with red hair and/or blue eyes is a very recent development among man kind. there is no evidence of a white race existing more than 41,000 years ago. All evidence indicates they came from Persians (Iranians) (Iran is the origin of the word Aryan) and from parts of India. The concept of a Caucasian race or Varietas Caucasia was developed around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German scientist and early anthropologist.

Several accounts by Greek writers mention redheaded people. A fragment by the Greek poet Xenophanes describes the Thracians as blue-eyed and red haired. The Greek historian Herodotus described the "Budini" (probably Udmurts and Permyak located on the Volga in what is modern-day Russia) as being predominantly redheaded. The Greek historian Dio Cassius described Boudica, the famous Celtic Queen of the Iceni, to be "tall and terrifying in appearance... a great mass of red hair... over her shoulders." Also, several mythological characters from Homer's Iliad, (themselves purportedly Greek) are described as being "red-haired" including Menelaus and Achilles.

The Roman author Tacitus commented on the "red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia (Scotland)",[5] which he connected with some red haired Gaulish tribes of Germanic and Belgic relation.

Red hair has also been found in Asia, notably among the Tocharians who occupied the northwesternmost province of what is modern-day China. Many of the 2nd millennium BC Caucasian Tarim mummies in China have been found with red and blonde hair

Red hair in Caucasians is no more than 100,000 years old. Most probably the first red hired Caucasians came about within the past 20,000 years.

Origins

Red hair is the rarest natural hair colour in humans. The pale skin associated with red hair may have been advantageous in far-northern climates where sunlight is scarce. Studies by Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza (1976) hypothesized that lighter skin pigmentation prevents rickets in colder latitudes by encouraging higher levels of Vitamin D production and also allows the individual to retain heat better than someone with darker skin.[21] Rees (2004) suggested that the vividness and rarity of red hair may lead to its becoming desirable in a partner and therefore it could become more common through sexual selection.[22]

Harding et al. (2000) proposed that red hair was not the result of positive selection but rather occurs due to a lack of negative selection. In Africa, for example, red hair is selected against because high levels of sun would be harmful to fair skin. However, in Northern Europe this does not happen, so redheads come about through genetic drift.[18]

Estimates on the original occurrence of the currently active gene for red hair vary from 20,000 to 100,000 years ago.[23][24]

A DNA study has concluded that some Neanderthals also had red hair, although the mutation responsible for this differs from that which causes red hair in modern humans.[25]
Extinction
See also: Disappearing blonde gene

A 2007 report in The Courier-Mail, which cited the National Geographic magazine and unnamed "genetic scientists", said that red hair is likely to die out in the near future.[26] Other blogs and news sources ran similar stories that attributed the research to the magazine or the "Oxford Hair Foundation". However, a HowStuffWorks article says that the foundation was funded by hair-dye maker Procter & Gamble, and that other experts had dismissed the research as either lacking in evidence or simply bogus. The National Geographic article in fact states "while redheads may decline, the potential for red isn't going away".[27]

Red hair is caused by a relatively rare recessive gene, the expression of which can skip generations. It is not likely to disappear at any time in the foreseeable future.[27]
SOURCE
Reply

glo
05-28-2010, 08:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
It is anatomically impossible for a human to interbreed with any of the Apes. Even if they are both consenting adults.
That made me chuckle! :giggling:
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-28-2010, 08:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Not only did red hair and blue eyes occur in Black people before it did in Caucasians so did white skin. The white race and especially caucasians with red hair and/or blue eyes is a very recent development among man kind. there is no evidence of a white race existing more than 41,000 years ago. All evidence indicates they came from Persians (Iranians) (Iran is the origin of the word Aryan) and from parts of India. The concept of a Caucasian race or Varietas Caucasia was developed around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German scientist and early anthropologist.

Several accounts by Greek writers mention redheaded people. A fragment by the Greek poet Xenophanes describes the Thracians as blue-eyed and red haired. The Greek historian Herodotus described the "Budini" (probably Udmurts and Permyak located on the Volga in what is modern-day Russia) as being predominantly redheaded. The Greek historian Dio Cassius described Boudica, the famous Celtic Queen of the Iceni, to be "tall and terrifying in appearance... a great mass of red hair... over her shoulders." Also, several mythological characters from Homer's Iliad, (themselves purportedly Greek) are described as being "red-haired" including Menelaus and Achilles.

The Roman author Tacitus commented on the "red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia (Scotland)",[5] which he connected with some red haired Gaulish tribes of Germanic and Belgic relation.

Red hair has also been found in Asia, notably among the Tocharians who occupied the northwesternmost province of what is modern-day China. Many of the 2nd millennium BC Caucasian Tarim mummies in China have been found with red and blonde hair

Red hair in Caucasians is no more than 100,000 years old. Most probably the first red hired Caucasians came about within the past 20,000 years.

SOURCE
Wow MashaAllaah i am impressed. . SubhaanAllaah and shocked that white people didnt exist along time ago . . . Interesting Info Jazakallahu Khayr Brother
Reply

Woodrow
05-28-2010, 09:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim World 12
Wow MashaAllaah i am impressed. . SubhaanAllaah and shocked that white people didnt exist along time ago . . . Interesting Info Jazakallahu Khayr Brother
Most people fail to see how few white people are on this planet. Very new group and has spread only in fairly recent times.

Only 8% of the world is white and 92% is non white. SOURCE
Reply

Rabi Mansur
05-28-2010, 09:36 PM
:sl:


especially caucasians with red hair and/or blue eyes is a very recent development among man kind.
Hmmm...as the human race continues to progress, red hair begins to develop among man.

Maybe those of us with red hair are just genetically superior. ;D

Sorry couldn't resist.

Carry on.


:wa:
Reply

Woodrow
05-28-2010, 09:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rabimansur
:sl:




Hmmm...as the human race continues to progress, red hair begins to develop among man.

Maybe those of us with red hair are just genetically superior. ;D

Sorry couldn't resist.

Carry on.


:wa:
Sorry that is rust. Not a sign of progress-- You guys are falling apart.
Reply

Rabi Mansur
05-28-2010, 10:09 PM
Sorry that is rust. Not a sign of progress-- You guys are falling apart.
So the red hair actually reflects Devolution not Evolution. I was afraid of that.

:hmm:

:wa:
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-28-2010, 10:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Most people fail to see how few white people are on this planet. Very new group and has spread only in fairly recent times.

Only 8% of the world is white and 92% is non white. SOURCE
MashaAllaah thats really really interesting. . .Jazakallahu khayr
Reply

Woodrow
05-28-2010, 10:53 PM
Now to relate all of this back to the topic and tie it in with a recent post:

format_quote Originally Posted by atheistbynature
When humans evolved it was an entire population changing slowly through each generation as the less well adapted lost over a long period of time. There wasn't just one day 2 humans born from non-humans. So the everyone in that population can breed with each other and probably bred with different populations of 'proto humans' keeping the genetic variation high as happens today. In fact recent research suggests that early humans probably bred with neanderthals. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8671643.stm


I don't understand what you mean there.
While there are numerous skin colors, hair colors, eye colors etc among Humans. There is no problem of locating people living today that have the genetic make up of all. There is no intermingling of races to produce a new race, It is there and has always been there in the genes of of the people from whom the diverse "Races" came. there are no actual races among humans. A pale skinned red headed blue eyed girl from Scandinavia has the very same ancestors as a Black skinned black haired brown eye man from South Africa. There is no indication that the genetic pool of humans came from any sources other than 2 original humans.
Reply

Skavau
05-29-2010, 03:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Now to relate all of this back to the topic and tie it in with a recent post:



While there are numerous skin colors, hair colors, eye colors etc among Humans. There is no problem of locating people living today that have the genetic make up of all. There is no intermingling of races to produce a new race, It is there and has always been there in the genes of of the people from whom the diverse "Races" came. there are no actual races among humans. A pale skinned red headed blue eyed girl from Scandinavia has the very same ancestors as a Black skinned black haired brown eye man from South Africa. There is no indication that the genetic pool of humans came from any sources other than 2 original humans.
This assumes that humans literally came out of nowhere, or were created (as I know you believe). But to simply outright state that there is no indication of any sort that the origins of homo sapiens show no evidence whatsoever of evolution is complete and utter nonsense. For some information (and you've used wiki as a source yourself), click here, here, here and here.
Reply

saifudheen
05-29-2010, 03:44 AM
Assalamu alaikum Akhees and ukthies;)
Reply

Woodrow
05-29-2010, 04:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
This assumes that humans literally came out of nowhere, or were created (as I know you believe). But to simply outright state that there is no indication of any sort that the origins of homo sapiens show no evidence whatsoever of evolution is complete and utter nonsense. For some information (and you've used wiki as a source yourself), click here, here, here and here.
I do not deny evolution in any species except for in humans. I have seen Hominid fossils that do present a strong appearance of being non-human ancestors of man. Yet no one has been able to provide a provable link between them and man. Most recent notable is Neanderthal Man who for a long time was considered to be man's direct ancestor. The relationship possibility fizzled out in recent years.
Reply

Lynx
05-29-2010, 11:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I do not deny evolution in any species except for in humans. I have seen Hominid fossils that do present a strong appearance of being non-human ancestors of man. Yet no one has been able to provide a provable link between them and man. Most recent notable is Neanderthal Man who for a long time was considered to be man's direct ancestor. The relationship possibility fizzled out in recent years.

I don't think scientists use any special means of investigation when looking at human evolution than they do when they look at animal evolution. Both use the same methodology and the same type of evidence.
Reply

Woodrow
05-30-2010, 02:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
I don't think scientists use any special means of investigation when looking at human evolution than they do when they look at animal evolution. Both use the same methodology and the same type of evidence.
True they apply the exact same criteria. The scientific method works, but sometimes those who are using it make flawed tests or hypothesis. The interesting thing to note is most scientist use the same original hypothesis when dealing with evolution of any species. Because the hypothesis fits in all cases is erroneously biased because it is assumed to be the only possible hypothesis. How many scientist have ever honestly tried to begin with a hypothesis that assume humans came from a single pair of ancestors. I will agre that model would not work for non-human bipedal life forms and I would not expect it to. I and other theists do believe that the fossil record shows the validity of that model.
Reply

Trumble
05-30-2010, 03:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
How many scientist have ever honestly tried to begin with a hypothesis that assume humans came from a single pair of ancestors. I will agre that model would not work for non-human bipedal life forms and I would not expect it to.
Actually, I suspect a substantial number did in Darwin's immediate wake at least, although perhaps not in the recent past. The reason for their failure is that such a hypothesis has no scientific justification whatsoever, and therefore that any work that assumes it to be true is scientifically valueless as a consequence.
Reply

Woodrow
05-30-2010, 03:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Actually, I suspect a substantial number did in Darwin's immediate wake at least, although perhaps not in the recent past. The reason for their failure is that such a hypothesis has no scientific justification whatsoever, and therefore that any work that assumes it to be true is scientifically valueless as a consequence.
This is another one of those occasions when I must agree with you. It would have no value at all to the scientific community. Using modern research methods would never be considered cost effective and any individual desiring to prove the hypothesis would not have the means to do so.

Moot point. because of no value to the secular world and not needed for those of us who believe.
Reply

Lynx
05-30-2010, 07:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
This is another one of those occasions when I must agree with you. It would have no value at all to the scientific community. Using modern research methods would never be considered cost effective and any individual desiring to prove the hypothesis would not have the means to do so.

Moot point. because of no value to the secular world and not needed for those of us who believe.
Trumble I think is saying that scientists have put that hypothesis to test but found that it could not match the explanatory power of the theory of evolution nor could the creationist hypothesis account for the evidence in support of evolution by common descent. Scientists in the early days of Darwin's theory had the utmost incentive to disprove Darwin's claim about the ancestors of man but it just didn't happen. I would assume the person who falsifies the theory of evolution today would be the single most respected and successful biologist of our time and perhaps in all of history so far; in fact, there is the whole creationist movement intent on doing so in the USA, albeit, without much success. Again, why would human evolution not be true if the evidence demonstrates animal evolution to be true? It's a bit hypocritical to accept the evidence for one claim that is not contradictory with your religious beliefs but to deny the very same body of evidence for a belief that is contradictory to your religious views.
Reply

Woodrow
05-30-2010, 10:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
It's a bit hypocritical to accept the evidence for one claim that is not contradictory with your religious beliefs but to deny the very same body of evidence for a belief that is contradictory to your religious views.
Depends on what side of the street you are standing on. I find it hypocritical that scientists do not investigate the religious views in the context of them being a possible cause. I have seen much evidence that relates to evolutionary development in some animals, but I have not seen anything to conclude it applies to all animals or humans. The actual fossil record is very small in regards to species. The fossil record of man is one of the smallest and very incomplete in regards to any human prior to Cro-magnon and I believe even most creationists will accept Cro-Magnon is/was human. Biologically there is no reason to suspect Cro-magnon was a species other than human.
Reply

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

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!