/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Scientists now say humans didn'te volve from chimps, so much for evolution!



islamirama
09-18-2010, 02:25 AM
Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found

10-01-09


WASHINGTON – The story of humankind is reaching back another million years as scientists learn more about "Ardi," a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia. The 110-pound, 4-foot female roamed forests a million years before the famous Lucy, long studied as the earliest skeleton of a human ancestor.

This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution, said anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University.

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

"This is not that common ancestor, but it's the closest we have ever been able to come," said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.

The lines that evolved into modern humans and living apes probably shared an ancestor 6 million to 7 million years ago, White said in a telephone interview.

But Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes, leading to the conclusion that the apes evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor.

A study of Ardi, under way since the first bones were discovered in 1994, indicates the species lived in the woodlands and could climb on all fours along tree branches, but the development of their arms and legs indicates they didn't spend much time in the trees. And they could walk upright, on two legs, when on the ground.

Formally dubbed Ardipithecus ramidus — which means root of the ground ape — the find is detailed in 11 research papers published Thursday by the journal Science.

"This is one of the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution," said David Pilbeam, curator of paleoanthropology at Harvard's Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

"It is relatively complete in that it preserves head, hands, feet and some critical parts in between. It represents a genus plausibly ancestral to Australopithecus — itself ancestral to our genus Homo," said Pilbeam, who was not part of the research teams.

Scientists assembled the skeleton from 125 pieces.

Lucy, also found in Africa, thrived a million years after Ardi and was of the more human-like genus Australopithecus.

"In Ardipithecus we have an unspecialized form that hasn't evolved very far in the direction of Australopithecus. So when you go from head to toe, you're seeing a mosaic creature that is neither chimpanzee, nor is it human. It is Ardipithecus," said White.

White noted that Charles Darwin, whose research in the 19th century paved the way for the science of evolution, was cautious about the last common ancestor between humans and apes.

"Darwin said we have to be really careful. The only way we're really going to know what this last common ancestor looked like is to go and find it. Well, at 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it," White said. "And, just like Darwin appreciated, evolution of the ape lineages and the human lineage has been going on independently since the time those lines split, since that last common ancestor we shared."

Some details about Ardi in the collection of papers:

• Ardi was found in Ethiopia's Afar Rift, where many fossils of ancient plants and animals have been discovered. Findings near the skeleton indicate that at the time it was a wooded environment. Fossils of 29 species of birds and 20 species of small mammals were found at the site.

• Geologist Giday WoldeGabriel of Los Alamos National Laboratory was able to use volcanic layers above and below the fossil to date it to 4.4 million years ago.

• Ardi's upper canine teeth are more like the stubby ones of modern humans than the long, sharp, pointed ones of male chimpanzees and most other primates. An analysis of the tooth enamel suggests a diverse diet, including fruit and other woodland-based foods such as nuts and leaves.

• Paleoanthropologist Gen Suwa of the University of Tokyo reported that Ardi's face had a projecting muzzle, giving her an ape-like appearance. But it didn't thrust forward quite as much as the lower faces of modern African apes do. Some features of her skull, such as the ridge above the eye socket, are quite different from those of chimpanzees. The details of the bottom of the skull, where nerves and blood vessels enter the brain, indicate that Ardi's brain was positioned in a way similar to modern humans, possibly suggesting that the hominid brain may have been already poised to expand areas involving aspects of visual and spatial perception.

• Ardi's hand and wrist were a mix of primitive traits and a few new ones, but they don't include the hallmark traits of the modern tree-hanging, knuckle-walking chimps and gorillas. She had relatively short palms and fingers which were flexible, allowing her to support her body weight on her palms while moving along tree branches, but she had to be a careful climber because she lacked the anatomical features that allow modern-day African apes to swing, hang and easily move through the trees.

• The pelvis and hip show the gluteal muscles were positioned so she could walk upright.

• Her feet were rigid enough for walking but still had a grasping big toe for use in climbing.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and others.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/...ci_before_lucy
comment:

Their theory of evolution from apes was nothing but a made up story yet they argued and fought it as if they saw it happen. To top it off, they accused the religious people of believing in something (God) without any reason/proof. Now, one small discovery and their theory of evolution from apes is again nothing more than some made up story.

Family Tree

A little girl asked her father:
'How did the human race appear?'

The father answered, 'God made Adam and Eve;
they had children; and so was all mankind made.'

Two days later the girl asked her mother the same question.

The mother answered:
'Many years ago there were monkeys from
which the human race evolved.'

The confused girl returned to her father and said:
'Dad, how is it possible that you told me the
human race was created by God,
and Mom said they developed from monkeys?'

The father answered:
'Well, Dear, it is very simple.
I told you about my side of the family,
and your mother told you about hers.'
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Trumble
09-18-2010, 01:06 PM
Now, one small discovery and their theory of evolution from apes is again nothing more than some made up story
Er, what?!! I don't know what point you think you are making, but the hominids ARE the great apes! It's a very important discovery as Ardi seems one step closer to that common ancestor, but iy does nothing to 'disprove' the theory of (human) evolution, indeed it's one step to filling in the gaps in our knowledge of exactly what happened that creationists are always whining about.
Reply

Snowflake
09-18-2010, 01:58 PM
The only thing common between humans and apes is that they were created by the One and Only God - Allah. Allah Himself, will make that clear to the disbelievers soon.


"We will show them Our signs in the universe and within their own beings until it will become manifest to them that it is the truth." (41:53)
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-18-2010, 08:33 PM
My understanding is that Muslims believe in evolution with regard to other species, just not with regard to human beings. Is that correct?

Also, do Muslims accept the ages that are reported for these fossils such as Lucy and Ardi? Or are Muslims of the same opinion as many conservative and fundamentalist Christians that the earth is only a few thousand years old and thus these datings are erroneous?
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
Ramadhan
09-19-2010, 02:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
My understanding is that Muslims believe in evolution with regard to other species, just not with regard to human beings. Is that correct?
This is not correct.
Pease refer the many other previous discussions about evolution.

Also, do Muslims accept the ages that are reported for these fossils such as Lucy and Ardi? Or are Muslims of the same opinion as many conservative and fundamentalist Christians that the earth is only a few thousand years old and thus these datings are erroneous?
Unlike your scripture (ir. bible) who says that earth is 6,000 thousands year old, the qur'an does not tell the age of the earth.

You know, you may want to check if bible is also wrong on many accounts to, just make sure whether you base your life on such erroneous book.
Reply

Zafran
09-19-2010, 02:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
My understanding is that Muslims believe in evolution with regard to other species, just not with regard to human beings. Is that correct?

Also, do Muslims accept the ages that are reported for these fossils such as Lucy and Ardi? Or are Muslims of the same opinion as many conservative and fundamentalist Christians that the earth is only a few thousand years old and thus these datings are erroneous?
Fundemental christians came up with idea that the earth is a few thousand years old - i dont think any othe religion promotes the idea - this ofcourse comes from the 6000 years idea.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-19-2010, 03:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
This is not correct.
Pease refer the many other previous discussions about evolution.
You can't quickly provide the correct answer?


Unlike your scripture (ir. bible) who says that earth is 6,000 thousands year old, the qur'an does not tell the age of the earth.
Our scriptures don't actually say that. That is the interpretation that some (but certainly not all, I don't believe even a majority) have when they read certain passages.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-19-2010, 03:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Fundemental christians came up with idea that the earth is a few thousand years old - i dont think any othe religion promotes the idea - this ofcourse comes from the 6000 years idea.
OK. Thanks. So, Muslims would accept the idea that there has been life on earth for millions upon millions of years.

What do Muslims believe regarding the evolution from one species to another? Please don't make me search the threads for an answer. Here is what I had read regarding Islam and evolution from a book teaching Islamic beliefs:
Muslim scholars have unanimously agreed that the universe developed over a long period of time and that life arose on Earth through natural processes. One of God's names, from the Ninety-nine Names of Allah is, strangely enough, Al-Bari, of the Evolver. The caveat that Muslims add is that it was God who provided the spark to those two lonely proteins in the ancient nutrient-rich sea. He is the one who guided the developement of all the diverse life forms on our planet, and He is the one who authored animal instinct. "Glorify the Name of your Lord, the Most High, Who creates and completes all things, determines their length, and directs them to their conclusion." (Qur'an 87:1-3)

This line of argument works wel and brooks little dissent wamong the members of our community--until we get to the formation of human beings. In general, most Muslims are of the view that God created humans in a unique way, apart from the evolutionary mechanism. Although a few theologians argue that humans could have been evolved as well, with Adam and Eve being the first of our kind in the chain of development, this view is currently in the extreme minority. So while Islamic theology can generally go along with many aspects of evolutionary theory with regard to plants and animals, Muslim opinion leans more strongly toward creationism where human beings are concerned.
Given that statement, I trust one can see why I said that my understanding is that Muslims believe in evolution with regard to other species, just not with regard to human beings. If that is not correct, then please, at least give me links to where I might learn otherwise and explain why Yahiya Emerick, and Imam and author of the above quote, would publish wrongly on this point, and in addition have his work recommended by Qasim Najar who was a founding member of the Islamic Society of North America.

What do other Muslims know that they don't?
Reply

Amoeba
09-19-2010, 08:03 AM
I'm a bit confused about this. First of all nobody who studies evolution said that humans evolved from chimps.

"Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way."

This has been the commonly accepted standpoint for a long time now, not really news.

I also don't see how any of this disproves evolution. Going by your comment at the end of the post I assume you think it does just because the commonly accepted opinion has changed according to the article (which it hasn't, as I said it's been thought for a long time now that humans are not descended from chimps or a chimp-like ancestor).

Even if this species doesn't represent a human ancestor, it also does nothing to disprove evolution of animals. I'm not saying this to mean that it is proof of evolution, I'm just saying it's not disproof.
Reply

Argamemnon
09-20-2010, 07:46 PM
The overwhelming majority of Muslims don't know anything about the theory of evolution. Some believe in this pagan religion (except with regard to human beings) because they are brainwashed into believing that it's science like most people.
Reply

أحمد
09-20-2010, 08:11 PM
:sl:

format_quote Originally Posted by Argamemnon
The overwhelming majority of Muslims don't know anything about the theory of evolution. Some believe in this pagan religion (except with regard to human beings) because they are brainwashed into believing that it's science like most people.
The problem is when it is blended in with science; the theory (belief) is presented as if it were a fact. Science doesn't work around disproving evolution, but certain theories do go about discrediting themselves. Rather than wasting time trying to disprove a weak theory; for which the only defence points come from the theory itself, one should try to understand the theory, and see if they can spot anything authentic.

:wa:
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-20-2010, 10:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argamemnon
The overwhelming majority of Muslims don't know anything about the theory of evolution. Some believe in this pagan religion (except with regard to human beings) because they are brainwashed into believing that it's science like most people.
So, you are suggesting that the Islamic leaders I cited who wrote and then supported what I quoted above were brainwashed?????
Reply

Zafran
09-21-2010, 12:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argamemnon
The overwhelming majority of Muslims don't know anything about the theory of evolution. Some believe in this pagan religion (except with regard to human beings) because they are brainwashed into believing that it's science like most people.
Salaam

I agree you with on this one.

peace
Reply

Karl
09-21-2010, 01:04 AM
The Quran dosn't say anything about the evolution of anything. Allah just says "be" and it is there, complete created by divine power. Whatever Allah wills happens, there is no mention of evolution in any religion I have heard of. Even the most fantastic of pagan stories have no evolution in them.
The Christians had a fit when Darwin wrote the book "The origin of the speices" and his theory of evolution. He was considered a blasphemer a pawn of the devil.
So a religious person could not believe in such a radical concept as evolution, which cannot be scientifically validated, so remains a theory or hypothesis.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-21-2010, 06:54 AM
So, why did Imam Yahiha Emerick write "Muslim scholars have unanimously agreed that the universe developed over a long period of time and that life arose on Earth through natural processes." Is he just wrong about there being agreement among Muslim scholars? Does he not understand Islam? Is what he teaches not actually Islam? Is there more disagreement among Islam than the unanimity he suggests? Do Muslims who are not scholars not share in the opinions of the scholars on this issue? Is there lack of knowledge as to what Muslims scholars have agreed on with regard to the development of life on Earth through natural processes?

Why does Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, an American Muslim and specialist in Islamic law argues in Islam and Evolution that a belief in macroevolution is NOT incompatible with Islam, as long as it is accepted that Allah is the Creator of everything and that Allah specifically created humanity in the person of Adam?
Of what significance is this to Muslims? In point of religion, if we put our scientific scruples aside for a moment and grant that evolution is applicable to something in the real world; namely, the mollusks of Lake Turkana, does this constitute unbelief (kufr) by the standards of Islam? I don't think so.
(source-- Nuh Ha Mim Keller in a letter to Suleman Ali, 14 July 1995)
Reply

Amoeba
09-21-2010, 07:00 AM
Exactly, wholehearted belief in evolution is not only very unislamic but also unscientific. However I have seen some very interesting suggestions in the Qur'an... but I won't go into it because alas I can't find the exact sources... :(

As for now it's just best to look at it from an objective standpoint. Even if it's not mentioned in the Qur'an doesn't mean it's not possible. I am just not really surprised at how defensive people can get over it. After studying evolution for a while I have been able to understand why people see it as an unbelievable theory and at the same time understand how it can be believable too. There is a lot of evidence to support something happened, there were various ages where certain animals were dominant and others not or non-existent, only to be replaced later by new species. Whether or not it was evolution only Allah knows what processes He used (if any), and going by the quality of fossils and the minute percentage of them that were actually preserved for us to find, it seems likely only Allah will ever know.

Remember that we are going through a process of evolution ourselves, the evolution (or in some people de-evolution) of consciousness of the individual human being, we could have been made ready without ever experiencing life, but we weren't. So just because Allah can create something complete, doesn't mean He always has.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-21-2010, 07:18 AM
Well, you have spurred me on to more research on my own. And the more I do, the more different answers I get. For instance, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America states the following:

There are many theories of evolution. Some of them are acceptable according to Islam, while there are others that are not acceptable. If by evolution one means the development and growth that Allah Almighty has placed in the nature of His creation, then this is acceptable and the Qur'an itself talks about it.

Allah has power to say "Be" and everything will become. But He created the heaven and earth in six days, as mentioned in the Qur'an (Al-A'raf 7:54; Yunus 10:3; Hud 11:7; Al-Furqan 25:59; As-Sajdah 32:4; Qaf 50:38; Al-Hadid 57:4; Al-Mujadilah 58:4).

The word "six days" does not necessarily mean six days of twenty-four hours duration each. It could also mean six periods whose duration is known to Allah alone. The word "day" is used in the Qur'an for various lengths or periods of time. It could mean 24 hours, or one thousand years (Al-Hajj 22:47) or fifty thousand years (Al-Ma`arij 70:4) or even more. However, this process of time does indicate some kind of evolution that was created by Allah and directed by Him.

(source -- IslamOnline.net)
What I see then is that Islam maintains Allah's sovereignty. It isn't by accident that natural selection occurs, but God's design. Given that the world is under Allah's control the development of life can be as long and involved as any atheistic evolutionary scientist might imagine, the flaw in their thinking only being that they don't see Allah behind and directing the entire process, and that mankind is uniquely created because mankind is different from other life in being created for Jannah and therefore, according to Isalm, must have a unique creation separate from the rest of life.



Now my problem is that after all that research, which consistently produced the sorts of answers presented above, why have those on this board who have thus far responded to my queries seemingly present contrary opinions that evolution of species and Islam do not mix? Is my research turning up only flakes who don't really speak for Islam: an Imam, a founder of the Islamic Society of North America, one of that same society's presidents, and a specialist in Islam law. Or is there something unique about this particular forum community I don't understand, that perhaps it is not as representative of Islam as I once thought it was?
Reply

Argamemnon
09-23-2010, 09:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, you are suggesting that the Islamic leaders I cited who wrote and then supported what I quoted above were brainwashed?????
Are you suggesting that "scholars" can't be ignorant (or brainwashed)?
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-23-2010, 10:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argamemnon
Are you suggesting that "scholars" can't be ignorant (or brainwashed)?

No. I am not. But I would be surprised if you were to say that they are.
Reply

Muezzin
09-23-2010, 10:41 PM
The funny thing is, if the common ancestor of apes and humans is clay, there wouldn't be much of an issue. Could we just agree on carbon?
Reply

Ramadhan
09-24-2010, 03:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
The funny thing is, if the common ancestor of apes and humans is clay, there wouldn't be much of an issue. Could we just agree on carbon?

or water.


(the 12 characters rule can be a *@#! sometimes)
Reply

Amoeba
09-24-2010, 06:35 PM
Haha, yeah. Water would be more accurate... where is it in the Qur'an (I think it's nearer the start?) that it says all life originates or is made of or is created from water?

Maybe someone can correct me on that if I'm wrong because I can't find it now. >.< Just goes to show I don't read enough of the meaning of the Qur'an and I need to learn some Arabic.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-24-2010, 08:12 PM
So, I'm still curious. Why does the prevailing view of these "scholars" differ so remarkably from the prevailing view of the Muslims on this board with regard to evolution?
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!