Darwins theory of Evolution?

[AlexJ90]

Hey guys

Just came across this news today http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16065721.

It states that Scientists in South Africa believe a two million-year-old creature could be the "missing link" between apes and humans.

What are your opinions on this? Does this disprove Darwins theories?

Regards.

[AlexJ90]

I also came across this great video by Abdur Raheem Green. Great response to the theory of evolution by him -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g66o9Pkyq08

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you AlexIslam;

I also came across this great video by Abdur Raheem Green. Great response to the theory of evolution by him -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g66o9Pkyq08

Thanks for the link, and I agree that God created Adam in a miraculous and complete way, with no mother or father, I believe that Jesus was born from a virgin. As to the theory of evolution it has little meaning for me, if it happened that way, then God set all things in motion in that way.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[MustafaMc]

I agree with you Eric H.

Evolution is presented as a scientific theory, but it calls for a tremendous leap of faith. The foundation of naturalistic evolution is survival of the fittest through natural selection that exploits genetic variability. The main problem is that this genetic variation is primarily derived from mutations which is a destructive force.

Imagine there are 3 bricks lying on the beach like
_ _ _

Then imagine that you have a high powered rifle and your job is to precisely aim at the first brick and shoot a bullet that strikes the brick and makes it stand up like
|

Next you have to hit the second and third brick just right so that each stacks up on top of the first one like
|
|
|

Assuming that you have an infinite supply of bullets, bricks and time, can you ever make the 3 bricks stack on top of each other. If you came upon 3 bricks stacked on top of each other like this on the beach, would you wonder who it was that came by and placed them so or would you try to come up with a scientific theory for how it might have happened naturally?

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

[Abz2000]

it's obvious silliness, yes a certain evolution does exist, but not breeding totally different species, otherwise we'd have humans with 3 fingers and 4 legs, and 6 fingers and 1 leg etc, since according to that theory, all beings came out of one micro-organism (not explaining the origin),
if different species came out of each product, there would certainly be different types of humans as some would have found use in more fingers, arms legs etc, and eyes, ears etc, and those would have continued to diversify. we would have humans - not apes - with all sorts of differences since the family continued to split and change slightly.
even so called evolutionists agree that humans came from one common ancestor,
then that ancestor would have had siblings or cousins, uncles, aunts which were slightly different and split into very similar species
- which apes build planes and satellites?

20. Do ye not see that Allah has subjected to your (use) all things in the heavens and on earth,
and has made his bounties flow to you in exceeding measure, (both) seen and unseen?
Yet there are among men those who dispute about Allah, without knowledge and without guidance, and without a Book to enlighten them!
21. When they are told to follow the (Revelation) that Allah has sent down, they say: "Nay, we shall follow the ways that we found our fathers (following).
"What! even if it is Satan beckoning them to the Penalty of the (Blazing) Fire?
Quran 31:20-21


we find that all have certain characteristics and any considerable difference is a deformity.
illnesses, strengths, weaknesses etc can be hereditary, but the main anatomy is constant as a rule.

think about it like this - where did the organism come from, and where did that come from?
you would go on for eternity - and that is impossible - since one would have to be first. chicken or egg? carry on counting - you know that one can't come out of nothing as everything has a law. and unconscious beings don't make laws.

the big bang - where did the particles come from?
we all know that without a law already set for it or without self consciousness, or without an external factor effecting it, anything would continue as it is as there is nothing to make it change it's course.
study newton's law of motion - it provokes a lot of thought.

In linguistics, a causative (abbreviated caus) is a form that indicates that a subject causes someone or something else to do or be something, or causes a change in state of a non-volitional event.

Newton's First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.

if the particles somehow came into existence and exploded, it would be a constant outward movement, they wouldn't start orbiting each other and working together as the sun, moon and earth do, and unconscious matter wouldn't give rise to conscious matter (humans etc) as that consciousness would have had to come from somewhere.

in Islam - we have an answer - it is all from an All Powerful and Fully Conscious Being who is Eternal, Who gave to each component of creation creation a Law.
our minds cannot comprehend eternity as much as we may try, since everything we can see and touch has a beginning and an end. but we know that unconscious beings don't think to be able to will, and therefore are governed by a Law.
it is almost unanimously accepted by all scientists that this world will end - that even the sun will run out of gas - unless something else sustains it.
yet - if you divide 10 by 3 - you can go on for eternity with the .333333333

now this .3333333 ad infinitum would have no meaning if it is accepted that it ends somewhere, the equation itself would have no meaning.
so it definitely makes it easier to accept that eternity exists somewhere out there - even if the earth doesn't, and even if we can't make sense out of it.

then we come to the prophecies of the Prophets of Almighty God, how would they prophecy future events that would take place thousands of years later with stunning accuracy if the process is random selection?
prophecies are different from predictions in that predictions are based on trends and probability.
prophecies are otherwise unexplainable - which is why the deniers attempt to hide it under the carpet (purposefully) - since they can't explain it. that in itself is unscientific and deceptive.

so the question is - who's theory makes sense?
that of the one who can't explain where the chain begins, and how it decides to change - without consciousness, and without a causative factor?
or that of the one who accepts that there is an Eternal Fully Conscious All Powerful Force out there which is able to give Laws of governance?
your choice.


189. To Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth; and Allah hath power over all things.
190. Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,
- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding,-
191. Those who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (With the thought): "Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire.
192. "Our Lord! any whom Thou dost admit to the Fire, Truly Thou coverest with shame, and never will wrong-doers Find any helpers!
193. "Our Lord! we have heard the call of one calling (Us) to Faith, 'Believe ye in the Lord,' and we have believed. Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, blot out from us our iniquities, and take to Thyself our souls in the company of the righteous.
194. "Our Lord! Grant us what Thou didst promise unto us through Thine apostles, and save us from shame on the Day of Judgment: For Thou never breakest Thy promise."
195. And their Lord hath accepted of them, and answered them: "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: Ye are members, one of another: Those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain,- verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath;- A reward from the presence of Allah, and from His presence is the best of rewards."
Quran 3:189-195

[SFatima]

Evolution within the species may occur, like adaptation to the environments, that is micro evolution.

[MustafaMc]

Another thing is that so-called evolution has taken place by leaps and bounds with the sudden appearance and disappearance of species as opposed to the gradual transition from one to the other suggested by natural selection and change over an extended period of time.

[Abz2000]

the ones who make it up know it to be false, yet seem to cling on to it for dear life, think about it like this, if you stood in front of an international audience and claimed that you could throw a handful of dust and there was a probability of the particles beginning to orbit each other and grow suns and moons and precipitation and life, and planes and ships and submarines, they'd laugh you out of the audience with guffaws, they'd even call you mad, any betting company wouldn't need to do a probability calculation - knowing it's zero and would offer you the world and everything in it, they'd even sign mars over to you just to get your dime.
yet in essence, that's what these so called "scientists" claim happened.

let's look into the background a little:
erasmus darwin was the one who actually developed the "theory" which his grandson charles darwin was to later receive immense political support for expounding.
if you look into erasmus, you find that he was a freemason at "the lodge of time immemorial" (ironic).

ERASMUS DARWIN
December 12, 1731 - April 18, 1802
Best known as the grandfather of the biologist Charles Darwin, Erasmus Darwin was a philosopher, poet, scientist and physician. Well informed on all aspects of late 18th-century science and medicine, he had advanced ideas on cosmology and evolution which he recorded in verse of a high quality.
"Before coming to Derby in 1788, Dr. [Erasmus] Darwin had been made a Mason in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland.
"Sir Francis Darwin, one of the Doctor’s sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason."
As author of Zoonomia; or the Laws of Organic Life in 1794, he proposed the gradual evolution of animals and plants

Initiated: 1754
St. David’s Lodge No. 36, Edinburgh

Charles Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist" and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

(and he obviously would have denied the creation of Adam).

let's look into it in a little more detail to understand if there could be an agenda here.

if you look into the history of the freemasons, you find that they have had a deep intertwining relationship with satanism and the occult.

The first Freemasonic Grand Lodge,
the Grand Lodge of England (GLE), was founded on 24 June 1717,

The Hellfire Club was a name for several exclusive clubs for high society rakes established in Britain and Ireland in the 18th century, and was more formally or cautiously known as the "Order of the Friars of St. Francis of Wycombe".These clubs were rumoured to be the meeting places of "persons of quality" who wished to take part in immoral acts, and the members were often very involved in politics. Neither the activities nor membership of the club are easy to ascertain.
The very first Hellfire Club was founded in London in 1719,
by Philip, Duke of Wharton and a handful of other high society friends.
The club motto was Fais ce que tu voudras (Do what thou wilt),
a philosophy of life associated with François Rabelais' fictional abbey at Thélème and later used by Aleister Crowley the famous freemason and satanist.

Lord Wharton, made a Duke by George I, was a prominent politician with two separate lives: the first, "a...man of letters"
and the second, "...a drunkard, a rioter, an infidel and a rake".The members of Wharton's club are largely unknown. Blackett-Ordassumes that members included Wharton's immediate friends:
Earl of Hillsborough, cousin - the Earl of Lichfield and Sir Ed. O'Brien. Aside from these names, other members are not revealed.
At the time of the "London's gentlemen's club", where there was a meeting place for every interest, including poetry, philosophy and politics,
Philip, Duke of Wharton's Hell-Fire Club was, according to Blackett-Ord,
the satirical "gentlemans club" which was known to ridicule religion and morality. The supposed president of this club was the Devil, although the members themselves did not apparently worship demons or the Devil, but called themselves devils. (Members of the church of Satan in California don't claim to worship Satan either, the believe themselves to be "gods").

Wharton's club came to an end in 1721 when George I put forward a Bill "against 'horrid impieties'" (or immorality), aimed at the Hellfire Club. and removing him from parliament.
After his Club was disbanded, Wharton became a Freemason,
and in 1722 he became the Grandmaster of England.
Sir Francis's club was never originally known as a Hellfire Club; it was given this name much later. His club in fact used a number of other names, such as
the Brotherhood of St. Francis of Wycombe,
Order of Knights of West Wycombe,
The Order of the Friars of St Francis of Wycombe.

one thing which points to either a great coincidence - or an intertwining group is the fact that the mi5 and great seal of the united states and the one dollar bill use the logo associated with freemasonry ie, the left eye floating above an unfinished pyramid:

• Ali was reported to have said:

His right eye will be punctured, and his (dajjal's) left eye would be raised to his forehead and will be sparkling like a star.
Only the believers will be able to read the word ‘Kufr’ [disbelief], inscribed in bold letters, on his forehead.

Secularism is the separation of a government, organization or institution from religion and/or religious beliefs.

kafir is one who rejects the authority of God

The Latin phrase in saecula saeculorum expresses the idea of eternity. It is biblical, taken from the Vulgate translation of the New Testament, rendering Greek εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. The usual English translation is "for ever and ever",

The phrase Novus ordo seclorum (Latin for "New Order of the Ages") appears on the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States, first designed in 1782 and printed on the back of the United States one-dollar bill since 1935.

Annuit Cœptis (the lettering which forms a semi-circle around an illuminated left eye) is translated by the U.S. State Department, The U.S. Mint,^[7] and the U.S. Treasury^[8] as "He (God) has favored our undertakings." (brackets in original).

Narrated Ibn Umar:
Once Allah's Apostle stood amongst the people, glorified and praised Allah as He deserved.
Then, mentioning Dajjal, he said, "I warn you against him (i.e. the Dajjal)
and there was no prophet but warned his nation against him. No doubt, Noah warned his nation against him
but I tell you about him something of which no prophet told his nation before me.
You should know that he is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed."

Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Messenger said: There is never a prophet who has not warned the Ummah of that one-eyed liar; behold he is one-eyed and your Lord is not one-eyed. On his forehead are the letters KA FA RA (Kafir). OR HE REJECTED/HE DENIED.

MY REASON FOR DELVING INTO ALL THIS INFO IS TO SHOW THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST A VESTED INTEREST IN THE DENIAL OF THE CREATION "THEORY".

[Who Am I?]

Evolution within the species may occur, like adaptation to the environments, that is micro evolution.

:sl:

This was Darwin's original theory, that living things can and do adapt to their environment, either by changing their behavior, or in extreme cases modifying themselves genetically.

The whole "man from ape" thing came later I believe, and is more a product of Social Darwinism. It was first used to justify the attitudes of racism toward minorities in English society.

I read something somewhere that close to 99% of all species that have ever existed in earth's history have become extinct, many of them because of changes in their environment that they could not adapt to. This is why I believe that evolution does exist in some context, because this is incredibly wasteful if these species were all created, and Allah does not waste.

But man was created by God and not from apes. Now that being said, there may have been some lesser species of ape-man that evolved naturally and then died out. But those are not us and we are not them.

[Abz2000]

i agree that darwin did not break the nut in one go with this human animal thing, but it was seized, supported, and pushed by very influential people at the very top to destroy the barrier that was holding them back from becoming "gods" in the eyes of the people,
once that was broken - they were able to change opinions like the wind.
the term "fundamentalist" is not used as a derogatory form of expression without cause, they are fully aware that those who hold onto well grounded never changing principles (fundamentals) are the hardest to sway and lead around and buffet like sheep,
a doctor who is well versed in the fundamentals in his field is more difficult to deceive than one who only knows the outer things.
a clear example is sodomy - they couldn't easily have pushed it as commendable if people held onto their "fundamental" understanding of right and wrong.
the same could be said for incest - what is to say they can't manufacture a majority opinion in future and make it "bigoted" to say it's wrong?
it's about shaking the foundations of faith.
since the Quran clearly specifies the people you can't marry, the type of commerce which is usury, the type of behaviour which is deplorable, it gives people a foundation to work from.
i believe the financial issue is the main reason why it is so bitterly opposed in the corridors of the "elite" - since the devil uses wealth and power to control it's servants.
so if they can't shake the foundations, they try to work it with allurements and base instincts,
"you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals........."
but again - that feeling of dignity which comes from knowing you are the species which is chosen to be the vicegerent of God, given power over all creation, able to make decisions for all species, tends to make you sit up and reflect.

i sincerely believe that it is due to that "certain eternal principles which never change" acknowledgement people have in their very nature (fitrah), that they attempt to subjugate people by making them feel like helpless animals, and that darwin's theory and survival of the fittest was pushed so heavily for that reason, the "top of the chain" awe does not have the same effect on people well grounded in Islam, since there's not even a priesthood and even the previously worst can become the leader if his actions become the best. wealth power and influence cannot faze these people so easily - any child can lead the prayer if he has more knowledge.

consider this - the creation theory has (for argument's sake) the same validity and debatable nature as the evolution from a single micro-organism theory - (extensive scientific debates are available in the open source field).
why is it that these arguments are not to be found in schools, and the pros and cons are never discussed, but rather the evolution of monkeys theory is taught as "unanimously accepted" fact and heavily drilled into children from an early age?

[Abz2000]

they've also begun to attack the u.s constitution which they themselves put above the laws of God:

The rise of constitutional fundamentalism
star tribune

A number of Minnesota Republicans, following Gov. Tim Pawlenty's lead, have taken to calling themselves “constitutional conservatives.” A more fitting label may be “constitutional fundamentalists.” Like the religious kind, these fundamentalists are highly suspicious of latter-day interpretations and adaptations of an ancient text.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/92550314.html


“To Destroy a People You Must First Sever Their Roots.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn a well-known and respected Russian dissident, who served time in the Gulag,
wrote this to warn people everywhere of the dangers of powerful people in leadership positions.
It is a strong and sobering warning that all free men should think about. What do we mean by that?

Well let’s examine just one statement made in 1997 by then President Clinton .
"We are redefining in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning."


Just what does that mean redefining the immutable ideals? Well in general terms that which can't be changed, they are! Evidently they are proud of this and they are proud of making that change. They seem to forget pride always comes before the fall.

So, were not these the immutable ideals those that this nation was founded on ? Rhetorically, why do "they" when he says "we" seem to think they need to be changed ? Have they not served us and the world as the model to have since our revolution and one people long to live in?

Well I do think it behooves us to examine just where we are as a nation now since they are saying and doing exactly what they said they will do. Based on the signs and symbols of this day I do not feel it is wrong to question just what they, whoever they are or we are doing?


the parables:


24. Seest thou not how Allah sets forth a parable?
- A goodly word like a goodly tree, whose root is firmly fixed, and its branches (reach) to the heavens,
25. It brings forth its fruit at all times, by the leave of its Lord.
So Allah sets forth parables for men, in order that they may receive admonition.
26. And the parable of an evil Word is that of an evil tree: It is torn up by the root from the surface of the earth: it has no stability.
27. Allah will establish in strength those who believe, with the word that stands firm, in this world and in the Hereafter;
but Allah will leave, to stray, those who do wrong: Allah doeth what He willeth.
Quran 14:24-27


24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not:
for it was founded upon a rock.
26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,
shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell:
and great was the fall of it.
Matthew

[Trumble]

consider this - the creation theory has (for argument's sake) the same validity and debatable nature as the evolution from a single micro-organism theory - (extensive scientific debates are available in the open source field).
why is it that these arguments are not to be found in schools, and the pros and cons are never discussed, but rather the evolution of monkeys theory is taught as "unanimously accepted" fact and heavily drilled into children from an early age?

Because adding 'for arguments sake' to a claim doesn't make it true. Flaws and all, evolution by natural selection is the scientific theory best supported by empirical evidence, to the extent it is the only one considered seriously. There is no empirical evidence for creationism WHATSOEVER, and it has ZERO scientific credibility. It is not science, and therefore is not discussed as science.

[Ramadhan]

Flaws and all, evolution by natural selection is the scientific theory best supported by empirical evidence,

Sure.
However, evolution from fish to human is not supported by empirical evidence.

[Abz2000]

empirical evidence is not suppressing the facts staring you in the face with threats of prison terms.

5 days no post and a post after it turns up on google news front page?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ionism-schools

maybe you can now admit that democracy is dumb after all huh?

In 2009, an Ipsos Mori survey found that more than half of British adults
think that intelligent design and creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school science lessons – a proportion higher than in the US.

it's their own children, if a certain religion says snakes are gods and parents teach it to their children, the government claims it's freedom of belief,
if more than half of parents say that creationism should be taught side by side for the child to have an open mind - just who is the government? do you know what a public servant is? a servant does what he's told.

i can see many people are in a 1984 and brave new world trance.

btw - i said "for the sake of argument" just to give evolution from non-existence some flesh to stand on in order to allow a balanced debate, otherwise i would have just said it's nonsense because i know from personal experience that it's nonsense - so do bush, blair, cameron and obama. (let's not go down that road - you may need to find a cause for implausible denial).

if a fully explained prophecy which has no statistical probability of happening and no data to base predictions on - is described down to the minutest detail to the extent that you can almost envision it and hear the exact words to be said at an accidental future meeting, takes place exactly as told - would you not as a scientist stop to think why and how it's possible? what if it keeps happening? would a scientist then start calling it "magic"? or would he say that this is an anomaly which can't be explained via random selection, and therefore it's supportive arguments should also be mentioned?
or would he say let's threaten them with prison if they talk about it?

if he did - i wouldn't call it science...........i'd call it a pseudo-scientific dictatorship.


A teacher at one of the schools said it intended to use the DVDs to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at Bluecoat school, in Liverpool, said: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."
But the government has made it clear that "neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories". The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology select committee, the Lib Dem MP Phil Willis, said he was horrified that the packs were being used in schools.

So much for them standing up and singing "God save the queen"!

[Abdul-Raouf]

For the question in the title....

Darwins Theory of Evolution?
He has Good Imagination.. Would have been better If he had proved it with few Practical live examples.
OR may be he was clever that since he need not give anything practical to prove it.. he came-up with this theory ??

After-all we humans dont beleive unless there are sufficient proofs... witness... do we ?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

To think that Darwin probably killed (did kill) perfectly live species of finches for his personal studies, si enough to disgust me beyond reason. In some way or another it makes sense, when it comes to the adaptation of animals etc but this human and ape thing is just ridiculous.

Why call it the theory of evolution if people want to pass it off as facts?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Trumble;

evolution by natural selection is the scientific theory best supported by empirical evidence,

That troubles me a little for a number of reasons, ten billion years ago there was no life at all, according to the theory of evolution. It appears that life started out in the water, but I am wondering what tools the TOE has to create complex life.

There were currents in the seas to move chemicals around, there was sun light and darkness, heat coming up through the seabed to alter chemicals a little. And of course there was time, up to four billion years as I understand.
What other tools did the TOE have to create life with 200 hundred bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments, and a thousand tendons.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[جوري]

'natural selections' by the same token also enables tandem repeats to opt detrimental & anomalous genetic patterns in, made worse with each successive generation. I don't know why these 'naturalists' don't account for the other side of what they preach? Shouldn't every religion not based on factual science share all its tenets?

[MustafaMc]

'natural selections' by the same token also enables tandem repeats to opt detrimental & anomalous genetic patterns in, made worse with each successive generation. I don't know why these 'naturalists' don't account for the other side of what they preach? Shouldn't every religion not based on factual science share all its tenets?

You make a good point that genetic mutations and changes are rarely advantageous to the point they give one an enhanced chance for survival and the carriers of these mutations a selective advantage in subsequent generations. If I remember correctly, Charles Darwin's TOE (Theory of Evolution, thanks EricH) didn't really take hold until after the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's laws of genetic inheritance. They used genetics to contribute a mechanism for genetic variability for natural selection to act upon for species evolution over time. The problem is that naturalistic evolutionists don't really understand genetics, particularly on the molecular level, and they make gigantic leaps of faith in their theory that they subsequently present as scientific fact. I wholehearedly agree with you that TOE is an atheistic religion with the basic assumption that there is No God and they try to use their twisted science to explain what I believe is unexplainable without the existence of a Creator. I am a scientist and I admit there are limits to what science and the human mind can explain and understand.

[Zafran]

salaam

to even question evolution today is like heresy.

peace

[جوري]

salaam

to even question evolution today is like heresy.

peace

To question has always been heresy akin to Galileo's times.. history repeats itself but people think they're so advanced.. I'd venture to say I'd take a medieval bard who could memorize a thousand page poem and recite it in one setting over these gargantuan bodied bird brained masses of this century..

[جوري]

You make a good point that genetic mutations and changes are rarely advantageous to the point they give one an enhanced chance for survival and the carriers of these mutations a selective advantage in subsequent generations. If I remember correctly, Charles Darwin's TOE (Theory of Evolution, thanks EricH) didn't really take hold until after the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's laws of genetic inheritance. They used genetics to contribute a mechanism for genetic variability for natural selection to act upon for species evolution over time. The problem is that naturalistic evolutionists don't really understand genetics, particularly on the molecular level, and they make gigantic leaps of faith in their theory that they subsequently present as scientific fact. I wholehearedly agree with you that TOE is an atheistic religion with the basic assumption that there is No God and they try to use their twisted science to explain what I believe is unexplainable without the existence of a Creator. I am a scientist and I admit there are limits to what science and the human mind can explain and understand.

That's the problem isn't it? a couple of vocal atheists with a bachelors in some science feel it important to impose their religious beliefs as factual under all sorts of intellectual bullying..
I have always marveled at their mockery of the Adam & Eve 'fable' when following their brand of nonsense would not only set us back but disable us from accounting for it on any level let alone molecular. They still need to work out how a single celled organism became a complex conscious being and make it into two genders then multiply that positive pattern forward times the number of species in existence ..
I truly pity atheists not just for their short lives and inevitable miserable fate but for their lack of imagination, awe and wonderment ..

I recall the poem:
William Blake - Auguries of Innocence

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

[MustafaMc]

That's the problem isn't it? a couple of vocal atheists with a bachelors in some science feel it important to impose their religious beliefs as factual under all sorts of intellectual bullying..

What is most amazing to me is that they don't really know if they are dazzling or baffling as in, "Dazzle them with brilliance, or baffle them with BS".

I truly pity atheists not just for their short lives and inevitable miserable fate but for their lack of imagination, awe and wonderment ..

Pity is a good word for them while they think the same of us. You know that I am amazed at the complexity of life, particularly how half of one's genetic constitution is found in a microscopic sperm and the other half in an egg that unite to define a persons predispostion and potentials. This is an illustration to me of the Majesty of Allah to create a seemingly, self-sustaining system of life. Have you ever thought about the infertility of offspring between similar species like a horse and a donkey > infertile mule? This is an evidence against evolution instead of for it.

I recall the poem:
William Blake - Auguries of Innocence


To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

Ever the poet. This reminds me of Buzz Lightyear, "To infinity ... and beyond!" as he attempts to fly and falls on his face.

... but seriously, have you thought about how our bodies are composed of atoms and atoms of subatomic particles with very little actual mass. If we are merely a complicated assemblage of electrical charges, why is it so difficult to fathom our resurrection from the grave? Which reminds me of a line from a song, "all we are is dust in the wind".

[جوري]

^^ God is in the details.. and details they never account for like you stated before they skip by bounds and leaps and expect that we should take their word for it because they've reasoned it out in that 'milatonic mind' of theirs..

:w:

[MustafaMc]

^^ God is in the details..

I like that. Rather than science explaining away, I find that it is evidence for Allah as the Creator. Yet in their arrogance they presume to 'know better' than us religious folks.

[جوري]

They presume to know better than God,
36:78] And he makes comparisons for Us, and forgets his own (origin and) Creation

[MustafaMc]

They presume to know better than God,
36:78] And he makes comparisons for Us, and forgets his own (origin and) Creation

In reading this passage, I wonder if what is behind their insistence upon undirected, naturalistic evolution as the origin for the species is their unconscience denial of resurrection and trying to salve their conscience with a phisophy that excludes Allah and the ressurrection of the dead.

36:77-79 "Has not man seen that We have created him from a drop of seed? Yet lo! he is an open opponent. And he has coined for Us a similitude, and has forgotten the fact of his creation, saying: Who will revive these bones when they have rotted away? Say: He will revive them Who produced them at the first, for He is Knower of every creation"

[Abz2000]

these "scientists" decide what conclusion they want and dismiss even the strongest of discrepancies.

some of their motivations are laid out here at 1 hr 30 mins:

[جوري]

^^ I find those verses far more profound in Arabic sob7an Allah, a book so transcendent on every level and ever revealing the psychology of mankind ..

[MustafaMc]

Sorry, but I am linguistically handicapped :-(

[Abz2000]

the agenda comes before the truth - their type have had these miracles come to them before
- when Jesus (pbuh) raised the dead before their very eyes by God's leave - they plotted on how to kill the man who was raised because "the people would believe in him".

They (also) said: "Allah took our promise not to believe in an messenger unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven)."
Say: "There came to you messengers before me, with clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?"
Quran 3:183

[Tornado]

Greetings and peace be with you Trumble;
And of course there was time, up to four billion years as I understand.
What other tools did the TOE have to create life with 200 hundred bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments, and a thousand tendons.

Eric

Time as you indicated is exactly why you have everything you mentioned.
When cells divide and divide, you see an exponential growth

2^2 = 4
2^10 = 1024
2^100 = 1267650600228229401496703205376

Things get out of hand quite quickly so you can think of life like bruteforcing from something small to what it is today over a massive amount of time.

[Ramadhan]

Time as you indicated is exactly why you have everything you mentioned.
When cells divide and divide, you see an exponential growth

2^2 = 4
2^10 = 1024
2^100 = 1267650600228229401496703205376

Things get out of hand quite quickly so you can think of life like bruteforcing from something small to what it is today over a massive amount of time.

Nice-sounding theory.

Got any proof?

[جوري]

Nice-sounding theory.

Got any proof?

apoptosis is 'programmed cell death' God put in us to prevent that sort of thing from happening.. unconditional division of cells leads to cancer amongst other things.. I always enjoy the nonsense atheists spew :D

[Tornado]

Nice-sounding theory.

Got any proof?

Calculator, crunch those numbers in :shade:

[جوري]

How does a 'calculator' figure into this? ;D
you're nothing if not entertaining.. Thanks

[Abz2000]

as soon as the soul leaves us - we begin to rot,
why didn't the cells rot?
or did they form a heart to keep them fresh while inanimate?

[Tornado]

Proof to what? That when a cell divides, that it becomes two?

[Abz2000]

no, that it starts thinking, and flying to the moon,
and the species that we are told is specially chosen to lead since ancient times is now the only species which can corrupt land, sea and air,
the only species which utilises all the accessories we use simply to survive


We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof: but man undertook it;- He was indeed unjust and foolish;- (With the result) that Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Unbelievers, men and women, and Allah turns in Mercy to the Believers, men and women: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Quran 33:72-73

[Ramadhan]

Proof to what? That when a cell divides, that it becomes two?

no, proof for lifeless compounds ---> you typing on the computer

[جوري]

Proof to what? That when a cell divides, that it becomes two?

in your version of events they became '1267650600228229401496703205376' would that give us this in the end?

you should call it a night while you still can

[Tornado]

no, proof for lifeless compounds ---> you typing on the computer

I'm assuming you have a living compound :p. Are you referring to abiogenesis?

[Ramadhan]

I'm assuming you have a living compound . Are you referring to abiogenesis?

You were responding to br. Mustafamc's post about the absurdity of ToE, so I assumed that's what you were trying to prove.
My mistake then, you were just trying to show that cells divided over organism's life, and not to show that humans "evolutionized" from unicellular organism years ago.

[Tornado]

You were responding to br. Mustafamc's post about the absurdity of ToE, so I assumed that's what you were trying to prove.
My mistake then, you were just trying to show that cells divided over organism's life, and not to show that humans "evolutionized" from unicellular organism years ago.

I was replying to Eric about when something grows exponentially (of course environment stops this growth) and if you have significant time (100s of millions of years), it's not absurd to think you'd see something complex.

Also, when talking about ToE, assume you have a multi-cellular organism/species that is capable of reproducing.

[Abz2000]

With that much time and that type of multiplication, you'd certainly have millions of species almost exactly the same, why is it then that humans don't have different species cousins, not as different as monkeys, it was you who stated that over such an amount of time you don't see sudden jumps

[Abz2000]

So with 6 billion humans, you'd need to have 6000 trillion almost humans right now, with your type of multiplication,
And if the ape survived, something closer to home should definitely survive

[Tornado]

So with 6 billion humans, you'd need to have 6000 trillion almost humans right now, with your type of multiplication

If human reproduction took seconds which it doesn't :p. Exponential growth happens through generations ( your parents, gradparents). For us the generations occur slowly.

[Abz2000]

What I meant is that there should be multiple times the human race from the cousins of the common ancestor, and they would be nothing like apes. The diversity of species shows that it can't have been that long ago.

[Tornado]

And if the ape survived, something closer to home should definitely survive

Aren't apes living?

What I meant is that there should be multiple times the human race from the cousins of the common ancestor, and they would be nothing like apes. The diversity of species shows that it can't have been that long ago.

Sorry I don't understand imsad

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Tornado;

Time as you indicated is exactly why you have everything you mentioned.
When cells divide and divide, you see an exponential growth

2^2 = 4
2^10 = 1024
2^100 = 1267650600228229401496703205376

Things get out of hand quite quickly so you can think of life like bruteforcing from something small to what it is today over a massive amount of time.

Sorry I forgot about division as a tool used by ToE, and I can understand the theory of exponential growth over a long period of time, as being fairly sound scientific reasoning .

But how does division make a muscle cell, a ligament, a tendon, and another one a bone cell, and what tools bring all these components together to create a simple moving skeleton?

In the spirit of searching for a working big toe.

Eric

[Ramadhan]

I was replying to Eric about when something grows exponentially (of course environment stops this growth) and if you have significant time (100s of millions of years), it's not absurd to think you'd see something complex.

Also, when talking about ToE, assume you have a multi-cellular organism/species that is capable of reproducing.

So you DID try to prove ToE using cells growth division.

But there's a fallacy in your logic:
Cells stop growing when the organisms die.

And when a new organism is born, it starts from 1 cell, not from 12345678 cells.

[Ramadhan]

Exponential growth happens through generations ( your parents, gradparents). For us the generations occur slowly.

your grandparents and parents have exponential growth?

[Tornado]

Greetings and peace be with you Tornado;



Sorry I forgot about division as a tool used by ToE, and I can understand the theory of exponential growth over a long period of time, as being fairly sound scientific reasoning .

But how does division make a muscle cell, a ligament, a tendon, and another one a bone cell, and what tools bring all these components together to create a simple moving skeleton?

In the spirit of searching for a working big toe.

Eric

What do you mean, are you referring to how organisms developed muscle/bones etc in the historical past or how we individually go from a cell to having all those components.
For ToE you have to assume you already have a species.

I'm not a scientist but this is how I'd envision it
Say an organism has a mutation where some of it cells became what we call muscle, and lets say it helped the organism survive and it happened to reproduce as well, then if that mutation was passed on, now you have more organisms with that muscle and perhaps overtime those organisms have more with mutations that increases the numbers of these muscle cells.

Now just because a mutation happens doesn't mean it works with the rest of the body, but on a rare occasion say ti does work with the rest of the body, again if this happens over a long time then you could think of a plausible scenario where you could have a moving skeleton.

We're working backwards here, if we and other apes have a common ancestor, and suppose we find every incremental intermediary(missing link) skeleton from that ancestor to us, and in somewhere between we see a branch off were another line goes off to one of our ape cousins, then would you not say ToE is accurate?

What proof are you expecting from ToE. It's clear that we can not go back in time and there's only so much that we can use (skeleton and dna) to piece everything together. What would it require in your mind to prove evolution and not brush it off by saying how did such a complex system arise in organisms and that I refuse to believe it happened by itself. Genetics almost confirmed that evolution is exactly right because genetics is such a powerful tool, evolution came before genetics, and that it evolution only grew stronger because of genetics.

Anyways at the end of the day it doesn't matter who's right or not but I gotta defend the facts as how I see them :D
Cheers Eric

[MustafaMc]

What do you mean, are you referring to how organisms developed muscle/bones etc in the historical past or how we individually go from a cell to having all those components.
For ToE you have to assume you already have a species.

For TOE to be scientific, it must provide a logical means for it to lead to new reproductively isolated species. My understanding is that TOE starts with a unicellular organism and does not address the presence of that seminal living creature. Given even that miraculous starting point TOE does not provide an intellectually satisfying process for the development of more complex species derived from more simple ones.

I'm not a scientist but this is how I'd envision it

Well, I am a scientist as I have a PhD in plant breeding and genetics with a minor in molecular biology. My scientific knowledge is not compatible with TOE. It is illogical and not backed by science, but rather is based on speculation that is taken for fact.

Say an organism has a mutation where some of it cells became what we call muscle, and lets say it helped the organism survive and it happened to reproduce as well, then if that mutation was passed on, now you have more organisms with that muscle and perhaps overtime those organisms have more with mutations that increases the numbers of these muscle cells.

Now just because a mutation happens doesn't mean it works with the rest of the body, but on a rare occasion say ti does work with the rest of the body, again if this happens over a long time then you could think of a plausible scenario where you could have a moving skeleton.

Do you not know that nearly all mutations are deleterious and expressed only when received from both parents who do not express the trait? Aren't you aware that incest often leads to genetic birth defects for this reason? When was the last time that a brother mated with his sister and their child was stronger, healthier and more intelligent than they were?

We're working backwards here, if we and other apes have a common ancestor, and suppose we find every incremental intermediary(missing link) skeleton from that ancestor to us, and in somewhere between we see a branch off were another line goes off to one of our ape cousins, then would you not say ToE is accurate?

No, the fossil record does not support your premise, but rather the sudden and abrupt appearance of new species without intermediary types.

What proof are you expecting from ToE. It's clear that we can not go back in time and there's only so much that we can use (skeleton and dna) to piece everything together. What would it require in your mind to prove evolution and not brush it off by saying how did such a complex system arise in organisms and that I refuse to believe it happened by itself. Genetics almost confirmed that evolution is exactly right because genetics is such a powerful tool, evolution came before genetics, and that it evolution only grew stronger because of genetics.

No, you are confusing your facts. The hereditary unit for all living organisms is the chromosome which is comprised of DNA. Even unicellular organisms have DNA. Haven't you heard of bacterial genetics?

What you are saying is that Darwin's 'Origin of the Species', which is the cornerstone of TOE, was written before Mendel's genetic principles were rediscovered and before Watson and Crick presented the model for DNA. This would be correct, but genetics definitely existed before evolution could act upon it. Muscle and bone don't just magically appear, but rather through the expression of genetic information that exists in DNA.

Anyways at the end of the day it doesn't matter who's right or not but I gotta defend the facts as how I see them :D
Cheers Eric

Your denial of your Creator is of primary importance. You have your religion with 'No God' at the pinnacle and I have mine with 'One God' as the most fundamental and basic belief. In the end we are left with surah Al-Kafiroon, 'deen ukum wa liya deen' or 'to you your religion and to me mine'.

[Abz2000]

I just woke up,
Didnt run away!
What I meant earlier is youd said that the process is gradual and doesn't jump from species to species in one go,
So if we multiply according to your method, 6 billion humans would mean that all other species would be similar, if we count the number of species on the planet and their diversity, (snake rat giraffe, fish elephant bird) we would not have enough space for such a diversity since the process is gradual and the different types of "cousins of humans" would have totalled above the count of other species,
So with such diversity in such a small space, it would indicate that the different species have been placed here at around the same time.
I find it difficult to elaborate while typing on a phone

[Trumble]

Greetings and peace be with you Trumble;

And to you.

I tried to stay away from yet another for/against evolution debate as a) we've done them to death already and, b) the total twaddle some people seem to regurgitate in that context (not yourself, I hasten to add) just winds me up.:hmm:

I am certainly not claiming evolution by natural selection doesn't have questions remaining; it does. I don't deny the possibility it might even be totally wrong, any scientific theory by its very nature may suffer that fate. I don't even deny that creationism should be taught in schools - as long as that is in religious studies class where it belongs. But, painful as it is for some to hear, evolution is one if not the best evidenced scientific theories in history which is why it is the predominant one; there simply is no scientific alternative. There is nothing 'heretical' about questioning evolution, but in scientific terms it is futile to propose it's complete failure in the absence of any evidence that seriously supports that claim, or any sort of credible replacement theory that explains the evidence. In scientific terms, creationism is a total irrelevance because it is nothing but an 'anti-' position with no alternative to offer other than an obvious creation myth that is no different ontologically from any other creation myth, of which there are more than a few.

As I recall, and this pretty much sums it up, even Michael Behe of 'intelligent design' fame was forced to admit in Court that if ID, let alone creationism, were admitted to science class exactly the same logic would require astrology to be taught as science as well. Evolution by natural selection, right or wrong, is a product of the scientific method. Neither creationism nor astrology are or ever look likely to be, hence neither has any place in scientific debate unless that should change.

[جوري]

As I recall, and this pretty much sums it up, even Michael Behe if 'intelligent design' fame was forced to admit in Court that if ID, let alone creationism were to be taught as science, exactly the same logic would require astrology also be taught as science. Evolution by natural selection, right or wrong, is a product of the scientific method. Neither creationism nor astrology are or ever look likely to be, hence neither has any place in scientific debate.

This is where you're wrong and I'd venture to say you haven't a clue as to how the scientific method actually works! But there is no room for 'possibly totally wrong' or even 'partially wrong' in science. You don't want to make room for God in science then don't be teaching nonsense about the origin of life all together.. Substituting one fairy tale for an alleged fairy tale doesn't a scientific method satisfy!

best

[Trumble]

This is where you're wrong and I'd venture to say you haven't a clue as to how the scientific method actually works! But there is no room for 'possibly totally wrong' or even 'partially wrong' in science. You don't want to make room for God in science then don't be teaching nonsense about the origin of life all together.. Substituting one fairy tale for an alleged fairy tale doesn't a scientific method satisfy!

I've seen less froth on a pint of beer. :rolleyes:

Back to serious debate; a timely reminder of how no scientific theory is beyond question.. particularly from contradictory experimental evidence.

The results will soon be online to draw closer scrutiny to a result that, if true, would upend a century of physics.

[جوري]

I've seen less froth on a pint of beer. :rolleyes:

I imagine most of the froth hangs around your mouth?

Back to serious debate; a timely reminder of how no scientific theory is beyond question.. particularly from contradictory experimental evidence.

The results will soon be online to draw closer scrutiny to a result that, if true, would upend a century of physics.

This is irrelevant to the topic we're discussing!

best,

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Tornado;

For ToE you have to assume you already have a species.

I'm not a scientist but this is how I'd envision it
Say an organism has a mutation where some of it cells became what we call muscle, and lets say it helped the organism survive and it happened to reproduce as well, then if that mutation was passed on, now you have more organisms with that muscle and perhaps overtime those organisms have more with mutations that increases the numbers of these muscle cells.

I often see this kind of talk with regards to ToE, so please do not think I am picking on you but- your short paragraph depends on the 5 ‘ifs’ highlighted above.

All the chemicals are available on Earth to make sharks, elephants, oak trees and a chest of draws, you just have to bring them together in some way. My problem with evolution is the tools available in the seas to create this change. There are currents to swish the chemicals around, light and dark, varying tempretures, and the ability to divide.

This is the way I see tools, with stoneage tools you could chop a tree down and do some crude carving. If you walked into a carpenters workshop in the last couple of centuries the tools available can build some wonderful furniture, the difference is in the tools.

Evolutions tools listed above might achieve something like a multi cell sponge the size of a mountain, but what other tools does evoltion have to fine tune all the body components, starting off in the seas? How else can it bring chemicals together starting off with single cell life four billion years ago.

Sorry I know that these types of conversations are fairly futile on both sides but….

Take care

Eric

[MustafaMc]

I am certainly not claiming evolution by natural selection doesn't have questions remaining; it does. I don't deny the possibility it might even be totally wrong, any scientific theory by its very nature may suffer that fate. I don't even deny that creationism should be taught in schools - as long as that is in religious studies class where it belongs. But, painful as it is for some to hear, evolution is one if not the best evidenced scientific theories in history which is why it is the predominant one; there simply is no scientific alternative. There is nothing 'heretical' about questioning evolution, but in scientific terms it is futile to propose it's complete failure in the absence of any evidence that seriously supports that claim, or any sort of credible replacement theory that explains the evidence. In scientific terms, creationism is a total irrelevance because it is nothing but an 'anti-' position with no alternative to offer other than an obvious creation myth that is no different ontologically from any other creation myth, of which there are more than a few.

I can agree with you that creation is not science, but rather a belief that is based on religious books, primarily Genesis and the Quran. However, I challenge you on your claim that evolution is a 'scientific theory'.

I will grant you a most basic single unicellular, prokaryotic organism such as an amoeba. Now outline for me the basic steps that TOE claims happened over time to evolve an amoeba into a cockroach. If TOE is scientific, then one should be able to outline the evolution of progressively higher and more complex organisms. I counted 9 uses of science/scientific in your post which indicates you have scientific knowledge of the process by which TOE operates. I contend that you will be unable to present a logical sequence of events because TOE itself is a belief system that also is based on a book, 'The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection', by Charles Darwin.

Now evolutionists have used Gregor Mendel's laws of inheritance as the basis for heritable means for natural selection to act upon, but they have not advanced beyond Mendelian genetics into the molecular level that was detailed in Watson and Crick's model of DNA to show how these genetic improvements happened. It seems to me if one uses scientific words or even the word 'science' enough in his argument then that means he has applied the scientific method to arrive at his theory or conclusions.

Evolution by natural selection, right or wrong, is a product of the scientific method.

Perhaps you can tell me how the scientific method was used to come up with TOE.

Scientific Method Steps:
1: Ask a Question
2: Make Observations and Conduct Background Research
3: Propose a Hypothesis
4: Design an Experiment to Test the Hypothesis
5: Test the Hypothesis
6: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis

As far as I can tell, they didn't make it past step #3. Perhaps, TOE should also be taught in religion class as an alternative belief to creationism!

[SFatima]

I can agree with you that creation is not science, but rather a belief that is based on religious books, primarily Genesis and the Quran. However, I challenge you on your claim that evolution is a 'scientific theory'.

I will grant you a most basic single unicellular, prokaryotic organism such as an amoeba. Now outline for me the basic steps that TOE claims happened over time to evolve an amoeba into a cockroach. If TOE is scientific, then one should be able to outline the evolution of progressively higher and more complex organisms. I counted 9 uses of science/scientific in your post which indicates you have scientific knowledge of the process by which TOE operates. I contend that you will be unable to present a logical sequence of events because TOE itself is a belief system that also is based on a book, 'The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection', by Charles Darwin.

Now evolutionists have used Gregor Mendel's laws of inheritance as the basis for heritable means for natural selection to act upon, but they have not advanced beyond Mendelian genetics into the molecular level that was detailed in Watson and Crick's model of DNA to show how these genetic improvements happened. It seems to me if one uses scientific words or even the word 'science' enough in his argument then that means he has applied the scientific method to arrive at his theory or conclusions.Perhaps you can tell me how the scientific method was used to come up with TOE.

Scientific Method Steps:
1: Ask a Question
2: Make Observations and Conduct Background Research
3: Propose a Hypothesis
4: Design an Experiment to Test the Hypothesis
5: Test the Hypothesis
6: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis

As far as I can tell, they didn't make it past step #3. Perhaps, TOE should also be taught in religion class as an alternative belief to creationism!

:awesome: Post, couldn't add to your rep, so here goes.

[Tornado]

I will grant you a most basic single unicellular, prokaryotic organism such as an amoeba. Now outline for me the basic steps that TOE claims happened over time to evolve an amoeba into a cockroach. If TOE is scientific, then one should be able to outline the evolution of progressively higher and more complex organisms.

Fossils? So if we have every intermediate step from humans back to small organisms, you will concede and say evolution is true?

As far as I can tell, they didn't make it past step #3. Perhaps, TOE should also be taught in religion class as an alternative belief to creationism!

If I asked you to explain the details of special theory of relativity, would I expect a detailed answer from you?
How can you expect an answer from someone who relies on real expert about what the current model is. I assure you those questions you pose are no problem and can be answered by experts yet you ask us here. (Referring to previous post about when you answer my very basic statements)

Because I can't answer questions doesn't mean I am not allowed to assert a theory is true because it's not my job to figure it out, I trust that every scientist has explored and continues to ask as many questions as possible in order to make sure what we have is as correct as possible, then the layman can say pass on what is believed to be true yet know only the basic.

Why do you ask us, because you know we can't answer them? Do you honestly expect me to go with what you say on a forum like this or actual experts?


Eric, I suspect that the only tool answer you will be satisfied with is god.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Tornado;

For ToE you have to assume you already have a species.

I agree with you.

Eric, I suspect that the only tool answer you will be satisfied with is god.

I am trying to understand the tools that nature has without God, and they seem to be time, tempreture, sunlight, sea currents to move chemicals around, and the ability to divide exponentially.

Scientists have studied the sea for many years, have they come up with any other tools that could aid the evoltion of life?

Take care

Eric

[MustafaMc]

Fossils? So if we have every intermediate step from humans back to small organisms, you will concede and say evolution is true?

No, even if fossil records exist for every intermediate stage, I would not accept naturalistic evolution as the reason unless there was an accompanying explanation on the molecular, biological level to show how these heritable differences were passed down without the aid of an intelligent being directing the process.

If I asked you to explain the details of special theory of relativity, would I expect a detailed answer from you?

I spend absolutely zero time thinking about the theory of relativity or the big-bang theory. However, if I chose to be a proponent of relativity as opposed to a competing alternative theory of say 'absolutivity', then I would at least have some basic understanding of the differences and be able to outline why relativity was a stronger, more logical theory.

How can you expect an answer from someone who relies on real expert about what the current model is. I assure you those questions you pose are no problem and can be answered by experts yet you ask us here. (Referring to previous post about when you answer my very basic statements)

Because I can't answer questions doesn't mean I am not allowed to assert a theory is true because it's not my job to figure it out, I trust that every scientist has explored and continues to ask as many questions as possible in order to make sure what we have is as correct as possible, then the layman can say pass on what is believed to be true yet know only the basic.

Why do you ask us, because you know we can't answer them? Do you honestly expect me to go with what you say on a forum like this or actual experts?

Back to my example of the theory of relativity, I neither assert that it is true onr claim that it is false because I don't think about it nor does it conflict with my belief system. I expect for someone who is a proponent of evolution to be able to provide a basic outline for how it was supposed to lead to the emergence of new, reproductively isolated species. How is believing in evolution and trusting the experts to know the details any different from creationism and trusting that God created the species in the manner that suited Him?

My basic contention is that TOE is junk-science that is not supported by the scientific method. Granted, there are cases for micro-evolution with changes within species, but there is no example or molecular model to show how horses/donkey/zebra, lion/tiger/cat, wolf/fox/dog, or human/chimpanzee/monkey each evolved from their respective common ancestors nor how these common ancestors evolved from a single common, unicellular organism such as an amoeba. Evolutionists claim that TOE is based on science, but I contend there is as much blind faith in undirected, naturalistic evolution as there is in belief that Allah (swt) created all past, present, and future life forms.

If TOE is to be taught in school then it should be put on equal footing with creationism. I have no problem with TOE being taught as a theory if it is balanced with pointing out the logical, scientific defects that are not explainable by chance. I have a major problem with teaching TOE as a natural, self-perpetuating fact without providing a logical means to proceed from a common ancestor down to separate species. It is exceedingly disingenuous to present TOE as fact without also pointing out the impossibility of being able to explain how these changes actually occurred over time. Coming back with discounting creationism as relying upon a 'God of the Gaps' is a means to discredit the opposing view in the same manner that one who questions the official 9/11 story is labelled a crazy 'Conspiracy Theorist'.

[MustafaMc]

I am trying to understand the tools that nature has without God, and they seem to be time, tempreture, sunlight, sea currents to move chemicals around, and the ability to divide exponentially.

Scientists have studied the sea for many years, have they come up with any other tools that could aid the evoltion of life?

Peace EricH, TOE does not attempt to explain the origin of the seminal unicellular organism believed to be the equivalent of 'Adam' for all bacterial, plant and animal life. This Common Ancestor is a given without trying to explain how it came to be. TOE claims that genetic mutations and abnormalities over eons of time were the primary means by which differences in survival fitness arose initially in this seminal organism that subsequently branched out into other common ancestors that gave rise to related species. Combined with the genetic changes, reproductive isolation led to the emergence of new species that were able to fit a particular environmental niche. Evolutionists don't present scientific means by which these changes occurred molecularly with how they were passed down biologically.

[Muhaba]

what has darwin got tosay about the solar system. why is everything in its place? where did the sun come from and why? why is there water on earth? why is it that when water evaporates it never leaves the earth's atmosphere and fly into space? why does it fall back to earth as rain? what gave things the qualities that make sthem evolve, if you say they evolve, etc?

there are many things darwin's theory or scientists have no answers for but ppl close their eyes to those things and just try to show that darwin's theory is corrct. that things evolved from each other and there is no God. but for things to evolve, there has to be a start. where did the first particle come from? what made the universe come into being? what caused the big bang that made the universe? why is everything the way it is? if there were no sun, we'd all freeze to death and there would no adaptation/evolution to begin wiht. if there were no water, there would be no life. where did water come from. if some fool says it came from oxygen and hydrogen gases, where did those gases come from? and why did they combine to make water? what caused the chemical change? and what caused that thing which caused the chemical change?

evolution, even if it is there, cannot happen without someone Wise and Powerful making it happen. without God, nothing is possible.

[Ramadhan]

If I asked you to explain the details of special theory of relativity, would I expect a detailed answer from you?

If you have complete faith in the special relativity, you may want to change your belief, as it might be obsolete already in the near future.

Read here: http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...han-light.html

If the measurements that those neutrinos indeed go faster than light are proven to be correct, Einstein's special relativity totally goes out the window

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MustafaMc;

Peace EricH, TOE does not attempt to explain the origin of the seminal unicellular organism believed to be the equivalent of 'Adam' for all bacterial, plant and animal life. This Common Ancestor is a given without trying to explain how it came to be. TOE claims that genetic mutations and abnormalities over eons of time were the primary means by which differences in survival fitness arose initially in this seminal organism that subsequently branched out into other common ancestors that gave rise to related species. Combined with the genetic changes, reproductive isolation led to the emergence of new species that were able to fit a particular environmental niche. Evolutionists don't present scientific means by which these changes occurred molecularly with how they were passed down biologically

Thanks for your explanation, and appologies that I did not make myself very clear, as I understand from ToE, single cell life came about some four billion years ago. But what tools does nature have to create all the intricate and boring details of life, like bones, muscles, cartilage, and tendons and bring them together to make movement.
I can only think of time, currents to move chemicals around, tempreture change, light and dark, and cell division. But on their own, these tools do not seem adequate to affect change, unless there is more that I am missing.

Peace

Eric

[m2p]

if evolution was the truth then why arnt monkeys still evolving you dont see monkeys in the zoo becoming humans so thats the first floor for me however i would like to also point out that theirs a misconception that the big bang isnt true when the quran talks about it

Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly." Quran 41:11


Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? Quran 21:30

[Abz2000]

I don't think many people contend that it (the big bang) wasn't true, since we have nothing in the Quran or Hadith to say it wasn't, and we do have the above verse to show it may be true.
it's how it happened without intelligence or without being influenced by an Intelligent Being. You need a law for something to change it's course, either it had the intelligence to make the laws up, or Someone gave it laws.

[MustafaMc]

No, evolution doesn't discuss the origin of the universe, but rather attempts to explain speciation of life.

So, E=mc^2 wouldn't be correct either?

Theories are fine for discussion and understanding, but I have difficulty with presenting theories as fact without providing logical means to connect the dots. I don't have a problem with change over time, but I have a major problem with undirected evolution of higher, more complex organisms from very simple organisms using a basically destructive process - genetic mutations.

Let me provide an illustration of creation by man. The point of the detailed paragraph below is that man CREATED something new that did not exist before by transforming a cotton plant with an engineered cassette derived from DNA taken from 3 different bacterial species, a non-living virus and another plant species. Futhermore, it is an absolute impossibility for cotton to ever EVOLVE to where it will likewise express the bacterial Cry1Ac toxin, even though it confers a great selection advantage. A creator, in this case man, was needed to develop something complex from separate individual components and it can never 'just happen'. Likewise, speciation required a Creator to design and direct the development or creation of all living species. It is absolutely, impossible for undirected, naturalistic evolution from a unicellular organism to be the cause for the origin of more complex species with man at the apex.

A biotechnology company, Monsanto, has genetically engineered cotton plants to express a bacterial gene to produce a protein that kills specific insect pests. It is hard to believe, but man has genetically modified a plant species (Gossypium hirsutum, cotton) to express a DNA sequence from a bacterial species (Bacillus thuringiensis, Bt) using a transfer DNA plasmid from another bacterial species (Agrobacterium tumefaciens) to insert the desired Bt gene into the genome of cotton so that it is heritable over generations. This engineered section of DNA also contained a gene from a third bacterial species (Escherichia coli) that confers resistance to an antibiotic used in selecting for transformed cells by killing cells without this gene. The 'Bt' gene, Cry1Ac, is expressed to produce a protein that is toxic specifically to the larval form of several lepidopteran insect species (Heliothis virescens, Helicoverpa zea). The Cry1Ac gene is engineered to be turned on by the 35S promoter isolated from a virus - Cauliflower Mosaic Virus - and to be turned off by a terminator sequence isolated from another plant species (Glycine max, soybean). Cotton cells were treated with the transforming DNA cassette and then cultured in the lab on specific media to select for the few cells that were transformed. The resulting callous of undifferentiated cells was treated with specific hormones to regenerate a transformed plant that was then used to breed with normal biological processes to develop new cotton varieties that kill insects who eat part of the plant expressing the Cry1Ac gene.

The details of this process can be found starting on page 4 of http://www.cenargen.embrapa.br/labor...grossidesa.pdf

[Crystal]

I don't know the details of Darwins theory - I did learn it at school but I didn't really like Biology! But as far as I remember reading Darwin only had a very basic microscope so he really didn't understand the complexity of a cell.

[MustafaMc]

Thanks for your explanation, and appologies that I did not make myself very clear, as I understand from ToE, single cell life came about some four billion years ago. But what tools does nature have to create all the intricate and boring details of life, like bones, muscles, cartilage, and tendons and bring them together to make movement.
I can only think of time, currents to move chemicals around, tempreture change, light and dark, and cell division. But on their own, these tools do not seem adequate to affect change, unless there is more that I am missing.

You make a good point and ToE does not provide the details for how those changes came to be on their own by random chance and a whole lot of time. One of the basic tools of ToE is genetic mutation and other heritable alterations that confer selective advantage.

Evolutionists present ToE as fact because there is no better competing theory. My opinion is that there are certain things that are impossible for us to know such as the details of how we came to be and what happens to us when we die. Science does not address any possibility of a soul that continues to exist after a person dies because it can't be measured and subjected to experimentation. Religion touches upon and addresses the super-natural and the unseen world that can't be reduced to elements that fit within our puny little brains.

[Ramadhan]

So, E=mc^2 wouldn't be correct either?

If those experiments at CERN held true, E=mc^2 would be, at best, as correct as Newtonian laws, that is, only applicable under very special circumstances with many assumptions made and accuracy only within certain limits.

Theories are fine for discussion and understanding, but I have difficulty with presenting theories as fact without providing logical means to connect the dots. I don't have a problem with change over time, but I have a major problem with undirected evolution of higher, more complex organisms from very simple organisms using a basically destructive process - genetic mutations.

Exactly.
We know that entropy laws is among the basic laws of our universe, that is, disorder is more probable than order. And if nature is left as it is with no outside input, the opposite is actually more probable, that is, "evolution" from man to microbes is more probable than evolution from microbes to man.

[m2p]

www youtube com/watch?v=q_uOwT-H8w4

someone post the above vid make sure to include the dots i cant post it cos im new

[Abz2000]

^ here you go brother:

[Tyrion]

^ I wouldn't recommend listening to Yusuf Estes for anything science related. A lot of what he says is good, but I don't think he knows much about the actual theory of evolution... (Can't believe he's still using the, "Aha! Then why are there still monkeys?!" argument...)

[Abz2000]

You don't need anyone with a BS in biology to tell you the theory is a joke,
You need someone who uses their common sense

[Tyrion]

That's fine, but try not to arm young/naive Muslims with this stuff so that they won't get destroyed when they try to bring it up in a discussion.

[Abz2000]

They don't get destroyed in a discussion with intelligent people when they say a 47 storey concrete and steel building doesn't collapse in 6.5 seconds due to fire - no matter how many government shills with banana leaf degrees say it,

In the story of the emperor's new clothes - it took just one little boy to point out that he was naked,
Despite the "educated" people trying to pretend they were wise

Basically it's become a religion with priests at the head who tell people they have to come to them for interpretations and can't think for themselves, and they use all sorts of colourful theology to explain something that doesn't add up, then say: have faith.
In my book it's called blind faith.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MustafaMc;

One of the basic tools of ToE is genetic mutation and other heritable alterations that confer selective advantage.

Thanks for sharing, and I guess we look to evolutionists for their explanation of how it all works. I am not a scientist, but I guess my perception of a tool is different to the evolutionists idea of a tool, I would call genetic mutation the end result of other tools.

Nature just seems to have very basic tools to work with, the movement of chemicals, tempreture, and sun light. These tools would have to make the first single cell, and these same tools would have to cause genetic mutation.
As I understand chemicals always work in the same way, so once you have the first replicating cell, tools would be needed to cause mutaion.

In the spirit of needing to be convinced

Eric

[MustafaMc]

Greetings and peace be with you MustafaMc;

And to you as well, EricH

I am not a scientist, but I guess my perception of a tool is different to the evolutionists idea of a tool, I would call genetic mutation the end result of other tools.

Nature just seems to have very basic tools to work with, the movement of chemicals, tempreture, and sun light. These tools would have to make the first single cell, and these same tools would have to cause genetic mutation.

I think I see what you are saying now, that there should be elements in the environment to cause mutations to confer a selective advantage.

Wikipedia - "In genetics, a mutagen is a physical or chemical agent that changes the genetic material, usually DNA, of an organism and thus increases the frequency of mutations above the natural background level. As many mutations cause cancer, mutagens are typically also carcinogens. Not all mutations are caused by mutagens: so-called "spontaneous mutations" occur due to errors in DNA replication, repair and recombination." Notice how mutagens are also carcinogens that lead to cancer and presumed early death and lack of fitness.

My opinion is that evolutionists presume that natural processes such as this and others are capable of creating new, more complex organisms from simpler ones without the need for an external, intelligent being directing and controlling the process. I also see that creationists mostly believe that an external, intelligent Being created the various species as they exist today with only relatively minor changes over time. I am a creationists, but I don't get particularly hung-up on the means by which or how long it took for God to create the various existent and extinct species of life. I just know from my intellectual perspective that humans could not have ever evolved from a single-cellular, common ancestor without a supreme, all-powerful, Creator directing the process.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MustafaMc;

I am a creationists, but I don't get particularly hung-up on the means by which or how long it took for God to create the various existent and extinct species of life. I just know from my intellectual perspective that humans could not have ever evolved from a single-cellular, common ancestor without a supreme, all-powerful, Creator directing the process.

Likewise, and there is probably not much more I can add to this thread.

Blessings

Eric

[MustafaMc]

Likewise, and there is probably not much more I can add to this thread.

You are probably right, but I would still like to write on a philosophical level.

The central, critical issue in the debate between evolutionists and creationists is the existence of God and His involvement in the origin of the various species of life. There are certain things that are outside of the realm of science such as God, Satan, angels, demons, the human soul, life after death, Heaven, and Hell. Since these things can't be observed, sensed, perceived, or measured then naturally they can't be used in scientific arguments. In this sense, I don't believe that Creation should be taught in a secular school as an alternative to Evolution.

Conversely, I see that evolution is so far removed from the scientific method that it doesn't even qualify as a science. My perspective is that evolution is based at least as much on faith and speculation as it is on scientific observations and analyses. There are too many inadequacies in the Theory of Evolution for it to stand as a legitimate, holistic theory for the emergence of new, reproductively isolated species derived ultimately from a single, unicellular Common Ancestor. I have no problem with teaching of fossils of extinct species, genetics or natural selection to show changes within a species over time, but I don't see that it is reasonable to teach an inadequate theory with the hope that science will one day be able to provide reasonable, logical answers to questions that naturally come to ones mind in discussions about evolution.

Bottom line is don't teach creation (religion) or evolution (not real science) in public schools.

[MustafaMc]

Has anyone here considered human embryology and development as an analogy to evolution? Who among us can remember being a unicellular zygote (fertilized egg) inside his mother's uterus? Who can remember his first step or the first word he spoke? Has anyone likewise considered the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly or a tadpole into a bullfrog?

We have some understanding of these processes, but they don't negate the existence of God and we don't naively believe that they just happen by random chance through the effects of the environment such as "the movement of chemicals, temperature, and sun light". Our knowledge of science and our faith in God gives us a sense of wonder and awe at the majesty and glory of our Creator. Do others have the same sense of awe for 'genetic mutation', 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest'?

[جوري]

Has anyone here considered human embryology and development as an analogy to evolution? Who among us can remember being a unicellular zygote (fertilized egg) inside his mother's uterus? Who can remember his first step or the first word he spoke? Has anyone likewise considered the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly or a tadpole into a bullfrog?

We have some understanding of these processes, but they don't negate the existence of God and we don't naively believe that they just happen by random chance through the effects of the environment such as "the movement of chemicals, temperature, and sun light". Our knowledge of science and our faith in God gives us a sense of wonder and awe at the majesty and glory of our Creator. Do others have the same sense of awe for 'genetic mutation', 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest'?

Well they certainly can't happen without a host which begs the question of what came first..

[Scimitar]

Chicken or egg??? lol

Evolutionists are some of the stupidest people on the planet. Seriously?

[Scimitar]

Do others have the same sense of awe for 'genetic mutation', 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest'?

Yes, I do... I also thought about that for a long time and felt there's an amendment in my thinking. I changed "survival of the fittest" to "survival of the favoured"...

...Make sense?

[MustafaMc]

Yes, I do... I also thought about that for a long time and felt there's an amendment in my thinking. I changed "survival of the fittest" to "survival of the favoured"...

...Make sense?

Yes, survival of the favored implies that a Higher Power directs the process. My intention was asking if the evolutionists have the same sense of awe for the process of evolution as we have for our Creator. Evolutionists can't even put together a complete outline for the Theory of Evolution that is scientifically sound and reasonable, but rather come up with lame logic like "even with an infinitesimally small chance for something happening, given enough time it is bound to happen and become a reality by mere probability of chance". How can one have a sense of wonder at "chance" and "given enough time"? I am a scientist and I have detailed knowledge of genetics. The process of meiosis, gamete development, sexual union, and embryology makes me say, "Subhana Allah, wa bihamdi, Rabbil 'Alameen."

[Ramadhan]

Yes, survival of the favored implies that a Higher Power directs the process. My intention was asking if the evolutionists have the same sense of awe for the process of evolution as we have for our Creator. Evolutionists can't even put together a complete outline for the Theory of Evolution that is scientifically sound and reasonable, but rather come up with lame logic like "even with an infinitesimally small chance for something happening, given enough time it is bound to happen and become a reality by mere probability of chance". How can one have a sense of wonder at "chance" and "given enough time"? I am a scientist and I have detailed knowledge of genetics. The process of meiosis, gamete development, sexual union, and embryology makes me say, "Subhana Allah, wa bihamdi, Rabbil 'Alameen."

I totally get what you mean and do share how you feel everytime I contemplate the natural processes.
I am an engineer by training and so I did not read much natural sciences academically but I am very much science-inclined kind of person, and everytime I read or watch documentaries on subjects ranging from super complex and intertwined and interdependable factors of climate system to quasars and black holes, I am in such a sense of awe and wonder of the power that regulate and make all those things possible. I always thought that astronomers and biologists are more likely to have believe in God more than any other professions because of this (they see direct evidence how complex and yet orderly and yet so simple and yet so beautiful etc the nature is that it is just impossible to have existed out of nothingness randomly).

In the Qur'an in many verses, Allah SWT repeatedly tells us to examine, study the nature, to ponder over them and to comprehend, to reach to the conclusion of the existence of The Creator, such these verses:

In the alternation of night and day and what Allah has created in the heavens and the earth there are Signs for people who fear Him. (QS. Yunus: 6)
The creation of the heavens and earth is greater than the creation of mankind, but most of the people do not know. (QS. Ghafir: 57)
Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding. Who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire. (QS. Ali Imran: 190-191)

[Scimitar]

Darwin himself, said in his book "The Origin of the Species" that his theory was improbable, but if it was true - then it would prove itself within 100years... that was waaay over 100 years ago now, and not a bone, nor a transitional fossil, nada... Time the evolutionists woke up.

I'll soon be uploading a documentary which proves Evolution false. For the meantime you can check out my page here: http://www.youtube.com/user/gangstrous

I'll let you know when the doc is up. I promise, you're gonna really like it.

[Jedi_Mindset]

For the atheists here. Explain this, the universe. How it started, atheists believe that universe is elternal while it's proved that the galaxies are all moving away from the core, which means that it was started out of ''nothing''. there must be a cause and who created it?

Why has every human a different psychical look? And animals like monkeys all look like the same (Depends on the breed). There is no way we are evoluated from monkeys, because look what the humans have achieved. No animal have could done that. This explains already that we aren't from animals.

[m2p]

Im still waiting for an answer at why their are still monkeys if we evolved from them surely every once in a while you would have some random guy (or girl) jumping out of the zoo's as tarzan.

[Tyrion]

For the atheists here. Explain this, the universe. How it started, atheists believe that universe is elternal while it's proved that the galaxies are all moving away from the core, which means that it was started out of ''nothing''. there must be a cause and who created it?

This question has very little to do with evolution...

Im still waiting for an answer at why their are still monkeys if we evolved from them surely every once in a while you would have some random guy (or girl) jumping out of the zoo's as tarzan.

An atheist would just claim that this question demonstrates a severe lack of understanding when it comes to the Theory of Evolution. I think the general idea is that of common descent... So we didn't actually come from monkeys according to the theory.. (someone please correct me if I'm wrong..)

I would recommend that all Muslims who want to question evolution go and actually learn what the theory says before they challenge others... I don't know a whole lot regarding the theory, so I tend to stay out of evolution debates. I would recommend that others who aren't familiar with its basics do the same...

(Also, before anyone assumes anything about my beliefs here... My reason for posting was only to point out that people need to educate themselves first before they start arguing... Know what the other side thinks, or else you'll just end up creating straw men and looking like a fool... Then Islam looks bad too.)

[جوري]

I would recommend that all Muslims who want to question evolution go and actually learn what the theory says before they challenge others... I don't know a whole lot regarding the theory, so I tend to stay out of evolution debates. I would suggest that others who aren't familiar with its basics did the same...

The problem is that most evolutionists themselves don't carve out what they mean by 'evolution' they use it as a catch all phrase for both macro and micro-evolution. If it works for one then it should work for another magically.. as if you're purchasing a luxury car & assume the leather seating should come standard.. Well it doesn't it will cost you extra.. So whereas adaptation is indeed demonstrable & provable, 'speciation' isn't .. using those same exact mechanisms..

:w:

[جوري]

By 'mechanism' here I mean DNA breaks, mutations (missense, nonsense, frame shift, silent' etc all covered here ad nauseam .. God is in the details and the details are elusive to our friends .. I am not personally vested in taking large leaps of faith in science just to appease a few vocal atheists ...

:w:

[Tyrion]

The problem is that most evolutionists themselves don't carve out what they mean by 'evolution' they use it as a catch all phrase for both macro and micro-evolution. If it works for one then it should work for another magically.. as if you're purchasing a luxury car & assume the leather seating should come standard.. Well it doesn't it will cost you extra.. So whereas adaptation is indeed demonstrable & provable, 'speciation' isn't .. using those same exact mechanisms..

By 'mechanism' here I mean DNA breaks, mutations (missense, nonsense, frame shift, silent' etc all covered here ad nauseam .. God is in the details and the details are elusive to our friends .. I am not personally vested in taking large leaps of faith in science just to appease a few vocal atheists ...

I agree completely, but it's kind of hard to make those points if you've already demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge regarding the topic... I feel terrible when I see an overly enthusiastic member engage an Atheist (who's usually participating in the discussion to mock, or to improve his/her already impressive debate skills) and then proceed to be destroyed because they had no idea what they were talking about... It also doesn't help when you've got members such as yourself who are making good, educated arguments, only to have the discussion interrupted by somebody asking why we still have monkeys in the world... I know there's usually no hope in convincing the other side, but it'd be nice if we didn't supply them with more ammunition... I hope I'm making sense. :p:

[جوري]

I agree completely, but it's kind of hard to make those points if you've already demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge regarding the topic... I feel terrible when I see an overly enthusiastic member engage an Atheist (who's usually participating in the discussion to mock, or to improve his/her already impressive debate skills) and then proceed to be destroyed because they had no idea what they were talking about... It also doesn't help when you've got members such as yourself who are making good, educated arguments, only to have the discussion interrupted by somebody asking why we still have monkeys in the world... I know there's usually no hope in convincing the other side, but it'd be nice if we didn't supply them with more ammunition... I hope I'm making sense. :p:

we all learn that way believe me, I can understand the zeal, you've the conviction but not the ability to back it up, wisdom comes with age & in making errors along the way we become seasoned .. When I started with the net probably about ten yrs ago, I was part of a community 'cafe liban' before all those forums came about. I didn't even know how to use the 'cut & paste' feature let alone argue with any semblance of logic, so you can imagine the first time, I was stumped by someone attacking Islam with stories of banu Quryzah or the made up stories of asma bint marwan or the allegations of pedophilia.. Oh my God, I'd get literally sick in the stomach, hurl worlds out, copy them all by hands (btw the whole cut & past thing I felt was the greatest invention once I learned of it lol) but I digress.. It took me a really long time to be comfortable with my knowledge (& I don't think I am there yet) but I am certainly not where I started from...

So what if a few unseasoned members learn the hard way? I do cringe sometimes when I see a debate between a 13 year old & a seasoned old fart like our dearly departed 'zoro' but how else will we learn? I am sure a great many people cringe when they see a post from me but you know how the adage goes..
When you're 10 you care what everyone thinks of you, when you're 30 you don't give a fig who thinks what of you and when you're 60 you realize no one thought of you at all lolol..

:w:

[MustafaMc]

I always thought that astronomers and biologists are more likely to have believe in God more than any other professions

Perhaps you are right. It makes me wonder how much scientific knowledge is really understood by naturalistic evolutionists and how they can be comfortable with the randomness and the zero chance for what they rely upon ever happening by itself. They magically pull a very low probability out of the air and say, "With enough time this low probability will become an actuality."

In the Qur'an in many verses, Allah SWT repeatedly tells us to examine, study the nature, to ponder over them and to comprehend, to reach to the conclusion of the existence of The Creator, such these verses:

In the alternation of night and day and what Allah has created in the heavens and the earth there are Signs for people who fear Him.(QS. Yunus: 6)

Could it be that some people arrogantly deny the existence of God despite the many evidences of a Creator. I think that they deny the Hereafter and do not fear the punishment of their Lord.

[Tyrion]

we all learn that way believe me, I can understand the zeal, you've the conviction but not the ability to back it up, wisdom comes with age & in making errors along the way we become seasoned ..

So what if a few unseasoned members learn the hard way?

but you know how the adage goes..
When you're 10 you care what everyone thinks of you, when you're 30 you don't give a fig who thinks what of you and when you're 60 you realize no one thought of you at all

*Sigh* I suppose you're right..

Still, I don't think it'd do any harm if some of us touched up on our knowledge a bit before engaging with others. It might also save one or two of our younger members from having their faith rocked because of this stuff. I know it was an issue for me a while back, and I'd hate to see it happen to others.

I didn't even know how to use the 'cut & paste' feature let alone argue with any semblance of logic, so you can imagine the first time, I was stumped by someone attacking Islam with stories of banu Quryzah or the made up stories of asma bint marwan or the allegations of pedophilia.. Oh my God, I'd get literally sick in the stomach, hurl worlds out, copy them all by hands (btw the whole cut & past thing I felt was the greatest invention once I learned of it lol)

Haha, wow. :p:

[جوري]

Still, I don't think it'd do any harm if some of us touched up on our knowledge a bit before engaging with others. It might also save one or two of our younger members from having their faith rocked because of this stuff. I know it was an issue for me a while back, and I'd hate to see it happen to others.

My dad I think spent his life trying to avoid us all his mistakes, always pushing for this or that, but life & fate & most importantly God's will unravel in such a way that we can't be avoided many mistakes or from making a whole new set of them.. We all need to renew our covenant with God, Islam isn't bequeathed us, we need to find it.. Some of us will find it some of us will turn away & that's just the way it is.. I sympathize I also like to give the distillate of a painful experience or experiences to others.. but it is meaningless to them for it was my road, I lived it I felt it.. as others live & carve their own way ... Don't worry about it too much.. Yes I know you think it gives us 'collectively' a bad image but truth is people inevitably only represent themselves ...

:w:

[Tyrion]

Don't worry about it too much.. Yes I know you think it gives us 'collectively' a bad image but truth is people inevitably only represent themselves ...

Ah, if only I could worry less. :p: I'd give you rep points for the above post if I could, but I guess another "like" will have to suffice.

:wa: (I hope you'll forgive me for never responding to your salaam... I never got used to doing it online)

[جوري]

if only I could worry less.

Try shopping, it helps me tremendously! except of course on the credit card bills arrive :hmm:

[Scimitar]

It also doesn't help when you've got members such as yourself who are making good, educated arguments, only to have the discussion interrupted by somebody asking why we still have monkeys in the world... I know there's usually no hope in convincing the other side, but it'd be nice if we didn't supply them with more ammunition... I hope I'm making sense. :p:

You are bro... Just a quick heads up though. Bro Jedi_Mindset and bro m2p are 16 and 17 yrs of age. Insha-Allah, the finer points raised here will help them to form a better opinion.

[MustafaMc]

we all learn that way believe me

You may find it strange, but sometimes it seems as though I learn as much from writing as I do from reading. Maybe others can also learn from composing their own replies to what they read others have written.

[جوري]

You may find it strange, but sometimes it seems as though I learn as much from writing as I do from reading. Maybe others can also learn from composing their own replies to what they read others have written.

Indeed akhi, I often find that what I write after three or four edits sounds much more logical & stripped of emotions so I save it for work not play lol..

:w:

[Jedi_Mindset]

U guys are right, sorry for ruining the debate.

[Scimitar]

U guys are right, sorry for ruining the debate.

You didn't ruin it bro. Subhan-Allah, this is a learning experience. Alhamdulillah. I'm very proud of you and bro m2p. You will learn a lot here insha-Allah. I'm very happy you brothers are here.

Darwin himself, said in his book "The Origin of the Species" that his theory was improbable, but if it was true - then it would prove itself within 100years... that was waaay over 100 years ago now, and not a bone, nor a transitional fossil, nada... Time the evolutionists woke up.

I'll soon be uploading a documentary which proves Evolution false. For the meantime you can check out my page here: http://www.youtube.com/user/gangstrous

I'll let you know when the doc is up. I promise, you're gonna really like it.

As promised, here you go:



Prepare to be amazed. Allahu Akbar.

[جوري]

U guys are right, sorry for ruining the debate.

you didn't everyone is allowed to write.. unless it's someone I dislike ;D j/k even those I dislike if you can believe that!

[MustafaMc]

U guys are right, sorry for ruining the debate.

What debate? It seems lately to have been a discussion among Muslims who believe that Allah (swt) created each species or living organisms and that the evolutionists jumped ship. None of us have all of the answers although some have more knowledge than others. Participation on threads like this is a good way to learn - sometimes even learning that we were wrong previously.

[Gator]

Hey guys

Just came across this news today http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16065721.

It states that Scientists in South Africa believe a two million-year-old creature could be the "missing link" between apes and humans.

What are your opinions on this? Does this disprove Darwins theories?

Regards.

Hello, Trying to find the "missing link" is tough with all the variations and transitional forms of so many genetic lines. Also the fact that its really hard to make a fossil, there may not be A to B evidence for the direct line. So to say its a direct descendent, though it could well be, I'll withhold judgment.

Actually, I would think it would be another evidence of proof that evolution is correct.

Thanks.

[Scimitar]

Proof? that's taking it a bit far don't you think? Unless you are the type that is easily convinced... There is nothing conclusive about the fossil - and the article itself was hardly conclusive. What it did do, was provide a very weak hypothesis. Here, let me quote it:

Scientists in South Africa believe a two million-year-old creature could be the "missing link" between apes and humans.

Researchers discovered a mix of modern and primitive features

The fossilised skeletons of a female and child, known as Australopithecus sediba, were discovered in the Malapa caves near Johannesburg in 2009.
Until now it was believed Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis, which post-dated Au. sediba by several hundred thousand years, were the most likely ancestors of Homo erectus.
Professor Lee Berger who led the team that found Au. sediba, said: "The fossils demonstrate a surprisingly advanced small brain, a very evolved hand with a long thumb like humans."
They also show "a very modern pelvis, but a foot and ankle shape never seen in any hominin species that combines features of both apes and humans in one anatomical package."
X-ray analysis of the skull showed that although only slightly larger than a chimpanzee's brain, it was human-like in appearance.

The tiny human-like hand of Australopithecus sediba

The hands and feet of the adult female displayed a unique mix of modern and primitive features.
Anthropologist Professor Darryl de Ruiter, from Texas said: "We examined the remains and found several distinct individuals - possibly representing a family group.
"They all seemed to have died suddenly in the same event about 1.9 million years ago, but the remains are in surprisingly good shape."
The professor added: "It's a great find, because it provides strong confirmation for Darwin's theories about evolution.


__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Any professor who is trying to find a link will call this kind of thing conclusive. The fact remains that this is an isloated case and can be a result of inter species breeding. Now, if you call that evolution? Then I'd beg you to determine your yardlines. If evolution did occur, then we should have plenty of these fossils in existence. All ver the world... I mean, there are plenty of dinosaur fossils aren't there? Come on... let's use some common sense here.


...Have you not watched the video I posted above?

[Gator]

Good point about the word "proof"...I'll paraphrase the professor at the end of the article. I'll leave the original comment unedited so that people can understand what prompted your comment.

Please replace with: "Actually, I would think it is another piece of evidence that indicates evolution is correct."

Thanks.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator;

Please replace with: "Actually, I would think it is another piece of evidence that indicates evolution is correct."

But how can evolution happen without God, what tools does nature have to make evolution work?

In the spirit of searching

Eric.

[Gator]

Well I would say nature has organic chemistry and biology.

Thanks.

[Scimitar]

Gator. If you can stomach a two hr documentary, then I advise you watch The Signs (already linked). Everything you have said has been rebuttled with scientific enquiry and proven (yes PROVEN) to be inaccurate.

Any serious scientist will tell you that evolution is laughable... don't believe me? Then it's simple. Just watch the signs and in the latter half of the video, we come to the subject of evolution. You will see the greatest scientific minds, philosophical ones too - bring you the sum research by way of either hypothesis, or conclusion - proving evolution false.

Your choice. Are you prepared to actually know the truth of the matter?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator;

Well I would say nature has organic chemistry and biology.

Thanks.

I could imagine that something like sponges, could evolve with these tools. But we know that species exist with 200 bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons. This seems to mean that nature not only does organic chemistry and biology, it creates moving objects that need a couple of thousand components to conect and work together in a mechanical way.

There are tides to move chemicals about in the water, tempreture variation, sunlight, what other tools does organic chemistry and biology have. Even with four billion years; these tools seem insufficient to evolve two thousand mechanical components.

Take care

Eric

[Gator]

Gator. If you can stomach a two hr documentary, then I advise you watch The Signs (already linked). Everything you have said has been rebuttled with scientific enquiry and proven (yes PROVEN) to be inaccurate.

Any serious scientist will tell you that evolution is laughable... don't believe me? Then it's simple. Just watch the signs and in the latter half of the video, we come to the subject of evolution. You will see the greatest scientific minds, philosophical ones too - bring you the sum research by way of either hypothesis, or conclusion - proving evolution false.

Your choice. Are you prepared to actually know the truth of the matter?

Hi there, I have actually seen this. I found the arguments presented are not really compelling. Thanks.

[Gator]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator;



I could imagine that something like sponges, could evolve with these tools. But we know that species exist with 200 bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons. This seems to mean that nature not only does organic chemistry and biology, it creates moving objects that need a couple of thousand components to conect and work together in a mechanical way.

There are tides to move chemicals about in the water, tempreture variation, sunlight, what other tools does organic chemistry and biology have. Even with four billion years; these tools seem insufficient to evolve two thousand mechanical components.

Take care

Eric

Hello, I believe they are sufficient, though I know it can be really complex and therefore hard to comprehend. Thanks.

[MustafaMc]

Hello, I believe they are sufficient, though I know it can be really complex and therefore hard to comprehend. Thanks.

On what basis do you believe that "tides to move chemicals about in the water, tempreture variation, sunlight" can create benefical gentic variation to go from a more primitive pre-human to a modern human such as Albert Einstein? It seems to me that you most likely have no better answer than vague speculation that has no more scientific basis than me saying, "God did it!" I would like for you to present in your own words a logical sequence of events on a molecular level to make a single change from a prehumanoid to a human. Let's say we want to go from a super hairy norm like the a presumed prehistoric woman (like wolfman of modern carnival shows) to modern woman with very little body hair.

[Scimitar]

Hi there, I have actually seen this. I found the arguments presented are not really compelling. Thanks.

I was expecting a typically close minded response, so really - I'm not surprised. Funny how you don't find the top tier scientists in the field "compelling". And it's interesting how you negated other possibilities in lieu of something which is faithless and unfounded.

I read Charles Darwins "The Origin of the Species". It's fiction. Not fact. And the hypothesis he presented is so weak, even he says near the end of the book that it's unlikely that humans evolved. The reason why the book became famous is because it gives the masonic agneda something to work with - in order to indoctrinate people so they lose faith in a creator. Know what I find "compelling"? How kids in school are being taught evolution as fact when it's clearly a weak theory, and how religion is taught as a fairytale... not to be taken seriously. And that is compelling enough to actually study these subjects with no bias, study them comparatively and with a critical outset - to further gain a well rounded opinion on the matter.

The fact that you don't do this is evident when you say "I found the arguments presented are not really compelling" - Science and philosophy is not compelling? Your attachment to ideas which belong in the realm of fantasy are not compelliing. They're biased. Simple. It's clear to me that you did not see the documentary. If you had, you would have stayed quiet - just like all the real life people I know who have seen the documentary and are post graduates in subjects like Physics etc... Keen brains know when to avoid looking foolish.

[Gator]

Ok, let's go.

Is there a fossil record?

[Scimitar]

Your evolutionists haven't maanged to find one that stands up to the international community...

And yes, with regards to God creating man in his present form, there is - human fossils have been found that are millions of years old, and not in any transitional state. The one example that seems to be convincing you is a deformity. This still happens today. You can hardly call it evolution, more like de-evolution. Prove me false?

Before you start ranting off about neanderthalls and stuff - let me just tell you that in the Quran, Allah mentions that HE created men into tribes. Ever care to wonder why? We all have our distinct features.

Compare the skeleton of a typical large headed african to that of a south asian and you will think this is evolution at work? No, it is not. It is genetic variation. Not evolution. Evolution is such a gray area, some even say that mixing races can create a new race... lol. Yet it doesn;t stop the same people from calling dogs from different genetic variances mongrels does it? You need to think...

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator,

Ok, let's go.

Is there a fossil record?

The fosil record shows many species, with many similarites, but how does this prove evolution?

According to the fosil record, about 600 million years ago there were no vertabra, within the next 400 million years nature brings together 200 bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments and a 1,000 tendons.

If evolution is to be proved as a fact, then science needs to find convincing evidence, as to how the tools of nature made this so. I found thid brief explanation about different types of mutation, and they do not seem very helpful to ToE.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/mutations_03

print

Types of mutations
There are many different ways that DNA can be changed, resulting in different types of mutation. Here is a quick summary of a few of these:


Substitution
A substitution is a mutation that exchanges one base for another (i.e., a change in a single "chemical letter" such as switching an A to a G). Such a substitution could:
1. change a codon to one that encodes a different amino acid and cause a small change in the protein produced. For example, sickle cell anemia is caused by a substitution in the beta-hemoglobin gene, which alters a single amino acid in the protein produced.
2. change a codon to one that encodes the same amino acid and causes no change in the protein produced. These are called silent mutations.
3. change an amino-acid-coding codon to a single "stop" codon and cause an incomplete protein. This can have serious effects since the incomplete protein probably won't function.




Insertion
Insertions are mutations in which extra base pairs are inserted into a new place in the DNA.




Deletion
Deletions are mutations in which a section of DNA is lost, or deleted.




Frameshift
Since protein-coding DNA is divided into codons three bases long, insertions and deletions can alter a gene so that its message is no longer correctly parsed. These changes are called frameshifts.
For example, consider the sentence, "The fat cat sat." Each word represents a codon. If we delete the first letter and parse the sentence in the same way, it doesn't make sense.
In frameshifts, a similar error occurs at the DNA level, causing the codons to be parsed incorrectly. This usually generates truncated proteins that are as useless as "hef atc ats at" is uninformative.
There are other types of mutations as well, but this short list should give you an idea of the possibilities.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Gator]

Is there a fossil record?

Ok yes, it appears there are fossilised remains of previously living creatures.

Are there fossils of different plants and animals, some of which appear not to be around anymore?

[Gator]

Are there fossils of different plants and animals, some of which appear not to be around anymore?

There appears to be not only plants and animals that don't exist anymore, but fossiled single-celled creatures as well. There's also other indirect evidence of life such as footprints, waste and imprints.

Can we determine a timeline, or the order in which these creatures appeared, from the fossil record?

[Scimitar]

Nope, not conclusively. It's all very hypothetical. Carbon14 dating is a guessing game, and scientists always differ on dates - so no.

So, let's take a better, more accurate modus of study here shall we?

With regard to transitional forms - "If" they had existed - there should be many many many examples of these transitional forms, in multitudes, and not the handful we have found. Agree? This indicates that they were not "transitional" but rather, isolated deformities. Grasping at these isolated deformities and painting them as proof of evolution makes science look very weak. Sure you can agree with that mate.

[Gator]

Can we determine a timeline, or the order in which these creatures appeared, from the fossil record?

Yes, we can figure a general order first from where we find the fossils in the different rock layers and then using multiple radio isotopic measures to refine accuracy.

To one of the replies, radio isotope dating is quite accurate and well supported by multiple methods.

Are there some animals that appear the same generally, but have some differences?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator;

Yes, we can figure a general order first from where we find the fossils in the different rock layers and then using multiple radio isotopic measures to refine accuracy.

Agreed, but this just means that different species lived, died and became extinct during different periods of time, and in different places. If you wish to draw any other conclusions from this fosil evidence, then we would require some scientific proof as to how this happens.

Are there some animals that appear the same generally, but have some differences?

You could do a fossil audit for all the species that died in the last hundred years, and come to this conclusion.
About six hundred million years ago there were no vertebrate, three hundred million years later, there was a huge array of species with complete skeletons. What tools does nature have to make this happen in three hundred million years?

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Gator]

Are there some animals that appear the same generally, but have some differences?

There are many different kind of animals in the fossil record, but some appear to be quite similar except for some minor differences.

Are there instances of animals that are generally similar that appear at different times, where there are differences in them so that the last in the order can be traced back to the first by a series of changes?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator;

Are there instances of animals that are generally similar that appear at different times, where there are differences in them so that the last in the order can be traced back to the first by a series of changes?

I could accept this explanation, if there was a credible and scientific answer to the 'How it happened'

Specifically the bones, muscles, ligaments anf tendons, about two thousand in total, over a period of about three hundred million years.

In the spirit of searching.

Eric

[Gator]

Are there instances of animals that are generally similar that appear at different times, where there are differences in them so that the last in the order can be traced back to the first by a series of changes?

There are examples where animals in different time periods exhibit ordered changes.

Does the fossil record show a general increase in complexity (simple to complex) or a decline in complexity (complex to simple)?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator;

There are examples where animals in different time periods exhibit ordered changes.

Does the fossil record show a general increase in complexity (simple to complex) or a decline in complexity (complex to simple

Fosil evidence is not science, it seems similar to saying God did it.

Life can exist happily without the need for movement, trees and plants are a good example of this. If plants, sponges, worms and jelly fish were the highest pinical of evolution, then I could kind of understand the theory.
But when you put two thousand components together, bones, ligaments, tendons, muscles, it stops being a biological mass, it becomes a highly sophisticated mechanical object. Where is the science that explains this?

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator,

There are examples where animals in different time periods exhibit ordered changes.

I have read about the evolution of the horse over the past fifty five million years, it started off dog size, and its teeth and toes changed. I can understand how natural selection could make this change happen, but 55 million years is a vast amount of timer for such small changes.

But horse evolution is meaningless on its own, because the starting point is already a perfectly good horse, just smaller with variations in teeth and feet.

Coming back to my concerns about the failings of ToE, I need to be convinced by science, that the tools of nature can create and assemble two thousand plus mechanical parts in 400 m years. I would like this explanation to start from around 600m years ago, when there were no verebrate. What tools did nature use, to make this mechanical change happen?

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Abz2000]

Dunno if this is off topic but do ToE advocates then like bestiality?

and isn't grabbing an unconsenting monkey a bit like rape?

[Gator]

Does the fossil record show a general increase in complexity (simple to complex) or a decline in complexity (complex to simple)?

From evidence of single-celled bacteria to multi-celled animals to plants and animals we have today, it appears to me that it has gone from the simple to the complex.

This has been an abbreviated version of my thought process about pieces of evidence for evolution from the fossil record. My view is, it appears that prior to man being around, there was line of creatures that started simply and slowly changed over time to the creatures we have today. This to me is reasonable evidence that life started simply, based on the earlier fossil record of simple single-celled animals, changed over time, evidenced by increased complexity in the fossil record and the ordered steps, and were selected into the animals we have today, based on the multitude of creatures no longer present.

For me this is consistent evidence of an evolutionary process and not equivalent to saying god did it.

But this is only part of the story. There is still abiogenesis (prior to the fossil record) and mechanisms of change and selection. That will hopefully answer some of the questions asked as I go through my thought process.

Thanks.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator;

There are examples where animals in different time periods exhibit ordered changes.

Does the fossil record show a general increase in complexity (simple to complex) or a decline in complexity (complex to simple)?

I often read it can take a thousand years, or twenty thosand years for a mutation to spread throughout a population and be accepted. Working on the theory of a beneficial mutaion spreading through a population every thousand years. That gives about four hundred thousand chances for various mutations to spread throughout a population over a period of 400m years.

What are the odds of each of the two thousand components, the bones, ligaments, tendon, and muscles being about the right size, shape and be in proportion to each other. Suppose the odds are only two to one against for each component.
What are the odds that each of these separate components will attatch to each other, in a way that enables movement, suppose it is only two to one against for each joining of all components.
When you compound all these odds together, evolution is just not able to work without help from a creator. The only way evolution might work, is if every mutation was beneficial.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Abz2000]

and six fingers may have also been beneficial, and how about some wings too? and some 360 view rotating eyes and sharp protruding knuckles, and the speed of a puma - and why on earth would natural selection give up the ability to live in water since it's a useful trait?
where are those offshoot human species?

the only evolution i know about is those people God turned into apes and swine for breaking the sabbath, maybe darwin came across one and decided it was the other way round

And you know well the story of those among you who broke Sabbath. We said to them: "Be apes—despised and hated by all."
Thus We made their end a warning to the people of their time and succeeding generation, and an admonition for God-fearing people.
Quran 2:65-66

But when even after this they disdainfully persisted in that from which they were forbidden, We said to them, "Become apes—despised and disgraced!"
Quran 7:166

that's possibly where the skeletons came from aswell

[Predator]

Just saw this in the news, Muslims have started skipping classes about Darwin's theory

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/why-muslim-students-are-skipping-these-lectures-153516?pfrom=home-otherstories

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Read this -

http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/20...evolution.html

Exposing the flaws in the Theory of Evolution


This article will describe and explore the Theory of Evolution. It will attempt to describe the theory, defining its main elements, and also take a brief look at the historical changes to the Theory – a kind of evolution of the Theory of Evolution! In addition, the article will seek to discuss the evidences used by the proponents of this theory and then provide a synopsis of the counter arguments.

Introduction

The Theory of Evolution has become the de facto standard used in the West, and indeed beyond, to explain the existence of creation and life. It is described as rational and scientific; many statements are made to demonstrate the strength of the Theory – such as the number of scientists who have given it their blessings and its widespread acceptance beyond the scientific community. Nonetheless, there is a strong perception existing in our day and age of the credibility of the Theory of Evolution. To some extent, it is discussed and taught in schools and educational establishments and promoted in the mainstream media. In stark contrast, other arguments that explain the existence of life are considered to be irrational, backward and steeped in ignorance borne out of belief in religion. In other words, there are essentially two clear camps: the ‘scientific’ and progressive camp which espouses the virtues of the Theory, and the apparently ‘unscientific’ contingent which clings to outmoded explanations such as the existence of a Creator. In recent times, thanks in no small part to various Christian elements in the U.S., the clashes between these two sides have become more visible and the tempo seems to have been raised. There have been calls for a restructuring to the way in which the Theory is taught to children, or at the very least provision for a balanced approach, so that the young are taught about other explanations as well. Many establishments have insisted on giving religious teaching the priority, leading to conflict with those who believe religion should have no such role in schools.

The Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is sometimes described using complex and convoluted language, which can be a significant source of confusion. What adds to the confusion is the fact that aspects of the theory do undergo change and revision. In this article I will try to explain the main points that constitute the theory, on which those who propose this theory are agreed, without getting bogged down in the finer details or indeed the many arguments and assumptions in relation to areas where there may be some difference of opinion and divergence of views. I have also tried to simplify the description so it can be understood without recourse to a dictionary and constant definition of scientific terminology.

To understand the thrust of the theory, it is useful to have an idea of some of the concepts that are used and an appreciation of the context.

Firstly, the definition: biological evolution is defined as descent with modification from a common ancestor. In this context, descent means going down from one generation through to the following generations. Modification alludes to alterations in genetic make-up and changes in gene frequencies. This definition encompasses what is known as small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

Of course biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

Secondly, a key central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as our cousins and we share a common grandmother. It is argued that through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we are all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

The process of evolution produces a pattern of relationships between species. As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships. These relationships can be reconstructed and represented on a "family tree," called a phylogeny.

As a consequence of this ‘family tree’ understanding, it is important to remember that:

1. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.

2. Humans are not "higher" or "more evolved" than other living lineages. Since these lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each evolved traits unique to their own lineages.

Thirdly, another important aspect of evolution is the linking of speciation events to time i.e. trying to understand when different species evolved. Using various methods, such as radiometric dating, scientists are able to conclude that life began 3.8 billion years ago, and insects diversified 290 million years ago, but the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged only five million years ago.

To give an analogy for this, imagine squeezing the billions of years of the history of life on Earth into a single minute. Then it would take about 50 seconds for multi-cellular life to evolve, another four seconds for vertebrates to invade the land, and another four seconds for flowers to evolve — and only in the last 0.002 seconds would "modern" humans arise.

So, the claim is made that evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Evolution is apparently responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life — but exactly how does it work?

Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. Evolution only occurs when there is a change in gene frequency within a population over time. These genetic differences are heritable and can be passed on to the next generation — which is what really matters in evolution: long term change. Therefore, we need to examine the actual mechanisms of evolution.

In essence there are four basic processes, which constitute the mechanisms of evolution. These are mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection.

Mutation refers to the actual changes in the DNA within cells. The DNA affects how an organism looks, behaves and so on. Thus a change in the DNA can alter all aspects of its life.

When cells divide the DNA is copied exactly as it is. However, on occasion, it is possible for they’re to be a discrepancy in the copying of the DNA. This difference is considered a mutation. It must be kept in mind that mutations are random – and so do not normally depend on external factors. That said, it is possible for there to be mutation as a result of exposure to radiation or chemicals, causing the DNA to break down. In this case, when the cells repair the DNA, the result is not a perfect repair – and so the resultant DNA is a mutation.

Whether a particular mutation occurs is not related to how useful that mutation would be. The mutation in the genes can yield a beneficial, neutral or harmful change for the organism.

Although mutation can occur with any gene, it is the mutation that affects genes, which can be transmitted from one generation to the next that is of interest, since this is a form of evolution. If genes mutate and cannot be passed to future generations, then these mutations cannot be considered as having any relation to evolution. These are called Somatic Mutations and occur in non-reproductive cells. Hence the genes that are affected by mutation related to biological evolution are the reproductive cells, like eggs and sperm. Any mutations in the sex cells mean that potentially the change (the mutation) can be passed onto following generations. These mutations are labelled Germ Line Mutations.

Migration is the flow of genes from one population to another. This Gene Flow can include various different events, such as pollen being blown to a new destination or people moving to new cities or countries. In a situation where genes are carried to a population where those genes previously did not exist, gene flow becomes a very important source of genetic variation.

Thus, as well as being mechanisms of evolution, Mutation and Migration also constitute sources of genetic variation. Another source of genetic variation is sex, which can introduce new gene combinations into a population.

Genetic drift refers to the situation where, just ‘by chance’, some individuals leave behind a few more descendents and thus genes than other individuals. This happens to all populations since there can be no avoidance of chance. So for example, every time somebody steps on an insect with a certain characteristic, this reduces the number within that particular population and hence means there is one less insect remaining to pass on its genes to a new generation. Conversely, this also means that there are now more insects with different characteristics within the same population, who are able to pass on their genes. Clearly, this shows that genetic drift affects the genetic makeup of a population through entirely random means.

Natural Selection is the fourth cog in the wheel of evolution. This in itself requires three components: variation in traits, differential reproduction and heredity. To understand this, consider a population of beetles. Some beetles are brown and others are green – this is a variation in a trait or a characteristic.

The environment is not able to support unlimited growth of the population and so not all individuals are able to reproduce to their full potential. For example, we could say that green beetles are easily visible on the ground and so tend to get eaten more by birds – so less survive to reproduce compared to brown beetles. In other words, we have differential reproduction.

Finally, the brown beetles have brown baby beetles since this trait has a genetic basis i.e. they pass on a gene that determines the colour to be brown. This is what is meant by heredity. Putting these components together, evolution by natural selection is seen at work. The more advantageous trait of brown colour becomes more common in the population with time and if this process continues, then eventually all the beetles will be brown.

It is claimed that natural selection is also able to shape behaviour. The mating rituals that many birds have, the wiggle dance that bee’s do or the human capacity to learn language, have genetic components.

In some cases, natural selection can be observed directly. Data shows that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands is related to weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger beaks that let them eat tougher seeds.

In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented.

‘Fitness’ is a concept used to describe how good a particular organism is at leaving its set of genes in the next generation compared with others with a different set of genes. Going back to the example of beetles, if brown beetles were to consistently leave more off spring than green beetles, then they would be considered to have a higher fitness. Fitness however does depend on the environment in which an organism lives. Also, from this perspective, the fittest individual is not necessarily the strongest, fastest or biggest. What matters is leaving it’s genes in the next generation and so survival ability, finding a mate and producing off spring is more important. This sub-category of natural selection in relation to finding a mate and reproductive behaviour is labelled sexual selection.

Another category of natural selection is artificial selection. This is where, instead of nature, humans consciously select for or against particular features in organisms. For example, the human may allow only organisms with the desired feature to reproduce or may provide more resources to the organisms with the desired feature. Historically, farmers and breeders have used this idea of selection to cause major changes in the features of their plants and animals.

One key aspect of natural selection is known as adaptation. An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it seems to provide an improved function. Adaptations can take many forms: a behaviour that allows better evasion of predators, a protein that functions better at body temperature, or an anatomical feature that allows the organism to access a valuable new resource — all of these might be adaptations. For example, mimicry of leaves by insects is an adaptation for evading predators or the use of echolocation by bats to help them catch insects. Similarly, the creosote bush is a desert-dwelling plant that produces toxins that prevent other plants from growing nearby, thus reducing competition for nutrients and water.

To summarise, all of the mechanisms discussed above (mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection) can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, it is worth keeping in mind that natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variation — that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others.

A historical perspective

Although Charles Darwin is synonymous with the Theory of Evolution, he was not the first naturalist to propose that species changed over time into new species i.e. that life evolves. In the eighteenth century, a naturalist called Buffon along with others began to introduce the idea that life might not have been fixed since creation. By the end of the 1700s, palaeontologists had swelled the fossil collections of Europe, offering a picture of the past at odds with an unchanging natural world. And in 1801, a French naturalist named Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet; Chevalier de Lamarck took a great conceptual step and proposed a full-blown theory of evolution.

Lamarck was struck by the similarities of many of the animals he studied, and was impressed too by the burgeoning fossil record. It led him to argue that life was not fixed. When environments changed, organisms had to change their behaviour to survive. If they began to use an organ more than they had in the past, it would increase in its lifetime. If a giraffe stretched its neck for leaves, for example, a "nervous fluid" would flow into its neck and make it longer. Its offspring would inherit the longer neck, and continued stretching would make it longer still over several generations. Meanwhile organs that organisms stopped using would shrink (called vestigial structures).

Lamarck was mocked and attacked by many of his contemporary naturalists such as Cuvier. While they questioned him on scientific grounds, many of them were also disturbed by the theological implications of his work. Lamarck was proposing that life took on its current form through natural processes, not through miraculous interventions. For British naturalists in particular, steeped as they were in natural theology, this was appalling. They believed that nature was a reflection of God's benevolent design. To them, it seemed Lamarck was claiming that it was the result of blind primal forces. Shunned by the scientific community, Lamarck died in 1829 in poverty and obscurity.

In many ways, Darwin's central argument was very different from Lamarck's. He argued that complexity evolved simply as a result of life adapting to its local conditions from one generation to the next. He also argued that species could go extinct rather than change into new forms. But Darwin relied on much the same evidence for evolution that Lamarck did and Darwin wrongly accepted that changes acquired during an organism's lifetime could be passed on to its offspring.

Lamarckian inheritance remained popular throughout the 1800s, in large part because scientists did not yet understand how heredity works. With the discovery of genes, it was finally abandoned for the most part. But Lamarck, whom Darwin described as "this justly celebrated naturalist," remains a major figure in the history of biology for envisioning evolutionary change for the first time.

Throughout the nineteenth century, heredity remained a puzzle to scientists. How was it that children ended up looking similar to, but not exactly like, their parents? These questions fascinated and frustrated Charles Darwin deeply. After all, heredity lies at the heart of evolution.

Ironically, it was just as Darwin was publishing the Origin of Species in 1859 that someone got the first real glimpse of the biological machinery behind heredity. In a secluded monastery in what is now the Czech Republic, a monk named Gregor Mendel was studying heredity in a garden of peas. Through his experiments, Mendel discovered what later scientists called "dominant" and "recessive" alleles i.e. part of genetics.

Darwin and a British biologist called Alfred Russel Wallace had independently conceived of a natural, even observable, way for life to change: a process Darwin called natural selection. Within a few decades, most scientists accepted that evolution and the descent of species from common ancestors were real. But natural selection had a harder time finding acceptance.

Even in 1900, whilst many scientists were rediscovering Mendel's insights, they continued to remain opposed to natural selection. After all, Darwin had talked of natural selection gradually altering a species by working on tiny variations. But the Mendelist’s found major differences between traits encoded by alleles. In order to jump from one allele to another, evolution must make giant jumps—an idea that seemed to clash with Darwin.

But in the 1920s geneticists began to recognize that natural selection could indeed act on genes. For one thing, it became clear that any given trait was usually the product of many genes rather than a single one. A mutation to any one of the genes involved could create small changes to the trait rather than some drastic transformation. Just as importantly, several scientists — foremost among them Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane and Sewall Wright — showed how natural selection could operate in a Mendelian world. They carried out breeding experiments like previous geneticists, but they also did something new: they built sophisticated mathematical models of evolution.

Known as "population genetics," their approach revealed how mutations arise and, if they are favoured by natural selection, can spread through a population. Even a slight advantage can let genes spread rapidly through a group of animals or plants and drive other forms extinct. Evolution, these population geneticists argued, is carried out mainly by small mutations, since drastic mutations would almost always be harmful rather than helpful.

Thus, population genetics became one of the key elements of what would be called the Modern Synthesis.

In 1937, a Soviet-born geneticist named Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote a landmark book called Genetics and the Origin of Species. Dobzhansky's ability to combine genetics and natural history attracted many other biologists to join him in the effort to find a unified explanation of how evolution happens. Their combined work known as "The Modern Synthesis" brought together genetics, palaeontology and many other sciences into one powerful explanation of evolution, showing how mutations and natural selection could produce large-scale evolutionary change.

While evolutionary biologists were fashioning the Modern Synthesis, geneticists around the world searched furiously for the molecules that carried genetic information. They knew that cells contained several different types of molecules, such as proteins and nucleic acids. But which had the capacity to bear information and be copied into new cells?

The answer came through the discovery of DNA by Francis Crick and James Watson, which revolutionized evolutionary biology. Mutations, researchers realized, change the structure of the DNA. A single base pair may change, or a set of genes may be duplicated. Hence, those mutations that confer a selective advantage to an individual become more common over time, and ultimately these mutant genes could drive the older versions out of existence.

Evidences used by the proponents of the Theory

The mechanisms covered thus far are the basic building blocks of the theory of evolution. The next logical step is to look at the evidence that is given to claim these processes are responsible for both micro and macroevolution. In other words, what evidence is there that evolution has occurred and is responsible for the variety of life around us, and also is there evidence that demonstrates the mechanisms discussed in this article are indeed behind all these changes?

Those who support the theory of evolution present proofs that can loosely be gathered into a number of categories. We will examine these in turn.
The primary source of proof for the theory comes from Fossil Evidence. The argument is that fossil records provide excellent snapshots of the past and when assembled they illustrate evolutionary change over many millions of years.

As well as being actual remains of organisms, and thus giving an understanding as to the shape, appearance and skeletal structure, fossils can give additional clues. For example, they can indicate interactions that took place many years previously. A fossil may contain punctures or holes that could be teeth records of various animals, allowing scientists to extrapolate about what kind of organism may have been responsible, the shape of its jaws, and so on.

Fossils can tell us about the growth patterns in ancient animals. For example, examining a cross section of a bone that has been found, it is possible to see the number of blood vessels; this in turn would indicate the speed of growth and so on.

An important section of fossil records are transitional forms. These are fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between ancient organisms and their descendents. Since scientists have found so many transitional forms, it is claimed there is an abundance of evidence for evolution. An example of this is the case of the beluga whale. The beluga whale has its nostrils at the top of its skull. A fossil record of an animal that is considered to be related to today’s whales and dolphins, called Pakicetus, had its nostrils at the front of its skull. This animal lived about 50 million years ago. So scientists would expect that there might be a transitional form i.e. an animal that had some variation in the position of its nostrils compared to Pakicetus and the beluga whale. In fact, fossil records have been discovered of a skull, about 25 million years old, where the nostrils are in the middle of the skull. This animal has been labelled Aetiocetus.

So Aetiocetus could plausibly be the transitional form, linking Pakicetus to the beluga whale and demonstrating a steady evolution.

The second source of evidence is garnered from studying homologies. Evolutionary theory predicts that organisms that come from the same ancestor will share similarities. These similar characteristics are known as homologies. As mentioned earlier, the logic is essentially that historically every species shares a common ancestor. As we move forward in time, new species evolve, but since they share a number of common ancestors, so we would expect them to share some characteristics that exist or existed in those ancestors. A crude example would be that of humans and apes. At some stage, going back in time, there was a common ancestor from which both species evolved. So humans and chimpanzees would have similar characteristics, based on the fact that they share common ancestors. Another example of homology is that of leaves. If we were to examine the leaves of say the pitcher plant (which has leaves shaped to capture insects), the Venus Flytrap, the Poinsettia (which has bright red leaves) and the cactus plant (where its leaves are essentially spines) then we would see that each type of leave has a different shape and function. Yet they are all derived from a common ancestral form.

Yet another example of homology is the forelimb of tetrapods (vertebrates with legs). Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.

Comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences and studying embryological development can reveal homologies.

Studying the embryological development of living things (i.e. prior to birth) provides clues to the evolution of present-day organisms. During some stages of development, organisms exhibit ancestral features in whole or incomplete form. For example, some species of living snakes have hind limb-buds as early embryos but rapidly lose the buds and develop into legless adults. The study of developmental stages of snakes, combined with fossil evidence of snakes with hind limbs, supports the hypothesis that snakes evolved from a limbed ancestor.

Similarly, toothed whales have full sets of teeth throughout their lives. Baleen whales, however, only possess teeth in the early foetal stage and lose them before birth. The possession of teeth in foetal baleen whales provides evidence of common ancestry with toothed whales and other mammals. In addition, fossil evidence indicates that the late Oligocene whale Aetiocetus (the same Aetiocetus - our transitional friend with the nostrils in the middle of its skull), which is considered to be the earliest example of baleen whales, also bore a full set of teeth.

From a cellular and molecular level we find fundamental similarities between the cells of living things, which can be explained by the theory of evolution. All organisms are made of cells, which consist of membranes filled with water containing genetic material, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, salts and other substances. The cells of most living things use sugar for fuel while producing proteins as building blocks and messengers. Comparing a typical animal cell with that of a plant, there are only three structures unique to one or the other (these are the cell wall, the centriole and the chloroplast). All other aspects are similar, such as the nucleus, cytoplasm and the vacuole.

Comparison of genes between species also reveals striking similarities – for example, even roundworms share 25% of their genes with humans. In many ways, DNA is itself a homology for all living things – i.e. everything has DNA and so this is a common trait that must have come from a common ancestor.

In a nutshell, homologies are used as proof for the theory, since the existence of similarities between groups of organisms is an indication of common ancestors and thus evolution.

A third source of evidence for evolution is the fact that there has been sufficient time for this process to have produced the diversity we see. The age of the earth has been determined through both relative dating (i.e. examining the different layers of rocks on the surface of the earth) and numerical dating which relies on the decay of radioactive elements such as uranium and potassium. The conclusion made is that the timescales involved are adequate for evolution to take its course.

Artificial selection, mentioned earlier, is also an evidence for evolution. This is because people have been using selective breeding with plants and animals for many hundreds of years, and this breeding has shown how species can change dramatically. It can be argued that artificial selection has the ability to modify the forms and behaviours of populations to the point they are seemingly very different to their ancestors. So artificial selection is a model that helps with understanding natural selection.

The variation in the environment and ecology is also a proof of sorts. As predicted by evolutionary theory, populations evolve in response to their surroundings. In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not.

For example, house sparrows arrived in North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the population and selection in various habitats, have allowed them to inhabit most of the continent. House sparrows in the north are larger and darker coloured than those in the south. Darker colours absorb sunlight better than light colours and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss — both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon a population, producing microevolution on a continental scale.

Finally, experiments also show that populations can evolve. As an example, John Endler of the University of California has conducted experiments with guppies (a type of fish) of Trinidad that clearly show selection at work. The scenario is as follows: female guppies prefer colourful males for mating purposes. Predatory fish also "prefer" colourful males, but for a less complimentary purpose — a source of food that is easy to spot. Some portions of the streams where guppies live have fewer predators than others and in these locations the males are more colourful. Not surprisingly, males in locations where there are more predators tend to be less colourful.

When Dr. Endler transferred predatory fish to the regions with brightly coloured male guppies, selection acted rapidly to produce a population of duller males. So this demonstrates that persistent variation within a population provides the raw material for rapid evolution when environmental conditions change.

Arguments against the Theory of Evolution

The previous section outlined some of the proofs that are presented for the theory of evolution. We will now consider briefly a few of the arguments against the theory.

1. The theory of evolution is usually described as fact, and many people see it like this due to a moulding of public opinion. Yet the trouble is that it is simply a theory. And like many theories it is wont to constantly chop and change. Indeed we can see on numerous occasions how it has changed over time and undergone revisions. For example, according to Darwin himself, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.

Another example is the proposition of a slightly different model in recent times. Called "punctuated equilibrium", this model rejects the Darwinist idea of a cumulative, step-by-step evolution and holds that evolution took place instead in big, discontinuous "jumps". This is because those who ascribe to it believe the fossil record does not support gradual evolution. Sadly for the proponents, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould (American palaeontologists) their own theory is bankrupt – since for one thing, it conflicts with the understanding that genes cannot undergo radical mutations.

2. The sources of proof given for the theory essentially rely on retro-fitting the supposed evidence to the theory i.e. the theory states evolution occurred from a common ancestor, and then study of fossils and homologies is used to indicate that indeed the theory is correct and evolution does occur. But equally we could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species – in fact this is more plausible. Thus fossils and homologies would just as much, if not more, support this ‘theory’ of a Creator.

3. Fossils are a record of what may have existed. They do not indicate anything more than this. By examining a fossil we could equally state that the organism was created as opposed to evolving from an ancestor. The fossil record is also very much incomplete – there are massive, gaping holes. This presents a staggering problem for proponents of the Theory. The somewhat weak argument is that the bulk of the fossil record may have been destroyed or is yet to be discovered. According to Neville George, a professor of Palaeontology at Glasgow University:

“There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration…” Yet he goes on to say, “The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps”.

Contrary to what evolutionists claim, there are only limited (if any) transitional forms. Importantly, for example, we don’t see transitional forms that show the alleged evolution of apes to humans [and to try and explain the many loopholes regarding this, there is a current debate among evolutionists themselves about whether it occurred in steps or smoothly which we alluded to earlier i.e. punctuated equilibrium]. The fossil record back then (and still today) is nearly totally void of transitional species. If species are continually mutating, never constant, why do we find several of the same, certain prehistoric creatures, but never any that appear to be in transition? Why do palaeontologists find lots of dinosaurs but never where dinosaurs come from, nor what they turned into?

In Darwin's own words, 'Why, if species have descended by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?' It is an excellent question, which he answers himself, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.'

Indeed British evolutionist Derek Ager admits, “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find - over and over again - not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another”.

Yet another problem in using the fossil record as evidence for evolution is that under closer examination, it appears to be a proof for exactly the opposite argument – i.e. creation. For example, one of the oldest strata of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years. The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period seemed to emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record – there appeared to be no ancestors, although in relatively recent times palaeontologists believe fossils have been found dating from the preceding Vendian (or Ediacaran) period. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.

“A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today”.

And one of the most vociferous advocates for atheism and evolution in today’s age, Richard Dawkins, comments “the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists”.

4. The basic mechanism for gene variation is mutation. And it is known that mutations are random and limited in their scope. We should note that what is not a point of debate here is the fact that genes undergo mutation; neither is there a point of conflict with the various biological processes within organisms. For example, we know that insects can build up resistance against forms of pesticide over time – in fact, in the same manner humans have long believed that taking poison in small quantities can help survive what would normally be a fatal dose. These observations do not really constitute evolution. However, even if we agreed to define these particular cases as examples of microevolution, the fact is that they can be explained by what we have come to know through scientific study and resulting conclusions. The argument for a Creator also accepts scientific facts and conclusions – it no more denies the laws of biology being created, than it denies the laws of physics being put in place by the Creator. Hence, change within the framework of the laws of biology is possible – and there is sufficient evidence for this. The main problem however is with macroevolution. To even begin to consider macroevolution, mutations would need to be dramatic – trying to get round this, it is claimed that there has been sufficient time for many small scale mutations to eventually yield the different species we see. But frankly this isn’t plausible – we have seen no evidence to support such a claim - and so this is again nothing more than a pure hypothesis.

In addition, there are many other problems with the mutation argument. If mutations occur, they actually cause harmful effects and not beneficial ones. We can witness the effects of mutations caused in humans following radiation poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl – that is, a litany of death, disability and illness.

According to the evolutionist scientist Warren Weavers commenting in the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
“Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are necessary parts of the process of evolution. How can good effects - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?”

Similarly, another scientist B.G. Ranganathan states in his book ‘Origins?’ that “Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction”.

Finally, mutations do not actually add any new information to an organisms DNA. During a mutation, the genetic information is either destroyed or rearranged, but since there is no new information, it is impossible for mutations to cause a new trait or organ within a living organism.

5. Artificial selection (breeding) and sexual selection do produce new combinations but these are limited in their scope. They are restricted to a finite set of possible gene combinations. So breeding cannot introduce a radically new species – it simply gives a result based on the limited pool of combined genes. It cannot give a result outside of this. E.g. Horse plus donkey gives a mule. Or an African married to a Caucasian can result in off spring described as half-cast. The latter cannot produce a human whose skin colour is red or purple, etc.

6. The odds are heavily stacked against evolution. Evolution cannot answer where the first cell came from. The best guess is that came about through a random coincidence. Fred Hoyle, a well-known English mathematician and astronomer, and someone who believes in evolution, made the analogy that the chances of the first cell forming in this manner were comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials present. And according to Professor of Applied Mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe:

“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence”. In other words the random formation of such a first cell is an impossibility.

But still let’s assume we suddenly have a cell. The first cell would then have to self-reproduce otherwise there would only ever be one cell. This becomes problematic for evolutionists so they suggest self-replication – i.e. the first cell has the ability to clone itself. However, organic matter can only self reproduces if it exists as a fully developed cell with existing support structures such as the particular environment and energy. This then requires more leaps of faith – so let’s make another assumption, this time that the cell does have a complex structure and the ability to reproduce. But, for evolution, mutation needs to happen. So firstly, since mutation is random, even given an absolute age, mutation might not occur. And secondly, mutation can only take place if the cell is forced to repair itself or if it makes a copy of itself. Thus, for a handful of cells, to copy and mutate successfully and form different cells and for this process to continue onwards to produce the complexity of life we see is something, which cannot happen. Leaving aside time, and the random nature of mutation, just the series of mutations necessary to produce even the simplest of species are impossible.

7. There is no actual hard evidence for the process of evolution itself. We don’t witness evolution. All that experiments (such as the one involving guppies) or observations in the field (such as the house sparrows example) demonstrate is a form of selection. But this is not real evolution – the fact that a population may change due to various factors (such as environment, predators, etc) or that it may become extinct is not a change from one species to another. So even if we can see natural selection of sorts, this is based on rational factors, and is not evolution.

8. Evolution cannot answer why only the human species has the clear faculty of intelligence, thought and reasoning that has allowed it to progress. It cannot explain the existence of emotions, except through an undefined notion such as chemicals within the body. And it is unable to offer any satisfactory explanation for issues such as the existence of the soul – indeed according to evolutionary theory, there cannot be a soul, rather life itself must be caused by the functioning of cells since after all everything has evolved from a single cell.

9. Adaptation is mentioned as a feature of evolution. That is, the manner in which organisms have evolved beneficial characteristics adapted to their environment, which help them survive. So one example we gave earlier was that of stick insects, where their body itself is a form of camouflage protecting them against predators. However, evolutionists themselves state that mutation is random and can lead to beneficial as well as harmful results. The environment cannot influence the occurrence or form of any mutation. So in this case, the evolutionary argument would have to be that today’s stick insects evolved from ancestors, which did randomly mutate to have this beneficial characteristic of camouflage. Those within the population that didn’t inherit this mutation would have died out due to their inability to survive. But once again, claiming that a series of mutations occurred, that lead to stick insects possessing characteristics that are suited to their environment, is nothing but conjecture. As before, we could equally state that a Creator has created various species and organisms of life with these inherent varying characteristics. So, organisms were in fact created with characteristics that we interpret as beneficial to them, instead of these traits evolving through time. Thus, the fact that many organisms seem well matched to their environments cannot be cited as any kind of proof or indication of evolution.

10. Let’s take a look at another argument that shows the fallacy of evolution. Many organisms and parts of organisms do not appear to have evolved from lesser things because they are 'irreducibly complex' life forms. Irreducible complexity is a concept that has been developed to describe something that is made of interacting parts that all work together. To understand this, take the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap cannot be assembled through gradual improvement. You cannot start with a wooden base, catching a few mice, then add a hammer, and catch more, then add a spring, improving it further. To even begin catching mice one must assemble all the components completely with design and intent. Furthermore, if one of these parts changes or evolves independently, the entire thing will stop working. The mousetrap, for instance, will become useless if even one part malfunctions.

Likewise, many biological structures are irreducibly complex. Bats are a well-known example. They are said to have evolved from a small rodent whose front toes became wings. This presents a multitude of problems. As the front toes grow skin between them, the creature has limbs that are too long to run, or even walk well, yet too short to help it fly. There is no plausible way that a bat wing can evolve from a rodent's front toes. In fact, the fossil record supports this, because the first time bats are seen in the fossil record, they have completely developed wings and are virtually identical to modern bats.

Consider another example, that of the eye. Suppose that before animals had sight, one species decided it would be advantageous to be able to decrypt light rays. So, what is evolved first? The retina? The iris? The eye is made of many tiny parts, each totally useless without the others. The probability that a genetic mutation that would create each of these at the same time, in the same organism, is zero. If, however, one organism evolved just a retina, then the logic of Darwin suggests that the only solution is to rid oneself of useless traits replacing them with beneficial ones, so the idea of the eye evolving one segment at a time is also bogus.

Conclusion

In a time where the theory of evolution has been catapulted to the level of fact, it is useful for us to have a firm grasp of what this theory is, and with the emerging discussion gaining more and more profile (that between creationism on the one side and evolutionary thought on the other) it is vital that we are able to show the strength of the correct argument.

One big problem of presenting the topic of evolution is finding a reasonable balance: on the one hand, simplifying and leaving out some of the terminology risks not being able to convey the subject matter accurately; on the other, by not revising and simplifying at all, there is a distinct possibility that only those with a solid understanding of biology and science will grasp what is being presented. This article has attempted to run through the basic mechanics of the theory, proofs that are presented for it and some of the arguments against evolution. Many points are too elaborate and wide ranging to touch upon in this discussion. In any event, there is an abundance of material available regarding the theory and surrounding issues that discuss these aspects in much more detail and is worth exploring for those that are interested in doing so. The theory is often cloaked in scientific language and complex terminology, and presented as a solid and viable explanation for the existence of life. Although the focus and objective of the article was not to prove the fallacy of the theory, but rather to be informative with respect to the whole discussion regarding evolution as a concept, nevertheless it has hopefully been shown that evolutionary understanding, far from being fact, is nothing more than speculation and hypothesis.

[Scimitar]

The complexity of the DNA molecule:

It is impossible that complex molecules such as proteins or nucleic acids such as DNA or RNA can emerge by chance. I quote what Stephen C. Meyer about the probability was 1 in 10 ^ 164, this is what says Dr. Leslie Orgel, Francis Crick and colleague Stanley Miller at the University of San Diego, California:
"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, which are structurally complex, have sprung up of themselves in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to get one without the other. And so, at first glance, one must conclude that life can in no case was initiated by chemical means. "
(The Origin of Life on Earth ", Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78)

What makes this even more unlikely is the fact that DNA and proteins should emerge at the same time because the DNA can not function without the protein just as we confirm the scientist John Horgan in the magazine "Scientific American":
"DNA can not function and can not form other DNA molecules without the help of catalytic proteins or enzymes. In summary, the DNA can not be formed without protein and vice versa "
("In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119)

Why two years after the discovery of DNA, Homer Jacobson, a chemistry professor, commented:
"The instructions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and mining parts of the current environment for the growth sequence and the mechanism that translates instructions director growing, everything had to be simultaneously present at that time [when life began]. This combination of events seems to be incredibly unlikely coincidence. "
("Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life", American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121)

Despite all this, evolutionists would have us believe in what they call the thesis of RNA, meaning that RNA (ribonucleic acid, which is a copy of a region of one of the strands of DNA) was found by chance and then began to make proteins and then came DNA etc ... The irony in all this is that RNA can not produce proteins without these exist first.

While evolutionists desperate to give an answer, some scientists, meanwhile, are reasonable and do not prefer to give the example of biochemist Douglas R. Hofstadter, who said:
"" How the Genetic Code, and the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules) have emerged? "At the moment, we must content ourselves with wonder and admiration, rather than an answer. "
(Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Vintage Books, New York, 1980, p. 548)

Finally, Francis Crick (one of the biologists who discovered the structure of DNA) was admitted, following the discovery of the DNA molecule, that it could not be by chance. Well, here's exactly what he said:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge that is available to us now, could assert that in a sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle"
(Life Itself: It's Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88)

We thus understand better why the famous painter Salvador Dali said:
"The announcement of the discovery of the DNA molecule by Watson & Francis Crick represents for me the real proof of the existence of God"
-Salvador Dali (University of Washington Press, Seattle 1966)
And Allah knows best ...


Evolution: a theory more racist than scientific

It is not uncommon to hear today from the evolutionist theory of evolution is sound science. While it is enough to have seen the first part of the film to realize the contrary, there are a few things that evolutionists will say never. For example, the mere fact that Charles Darwin himself did not consider his theory as science. Indeed, in a letter to the biologist Asa Gray, Darwin admits the following:
"I'm quite conscious that my speculations are well outside the bounds of true science" (quoted in NC Gillespie "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation", 1979, p.2)

In addition, what many evolutionists will say is certainly not the fact that many influential intellectuals (scientists, philosophers ... and even some evolutionists!) Have themselves admitted that the theory of evolution was ultimately a theory not very scientific.

Let's start with that quote says Dr. Philip S. Skell, a great American chemist (Member of the "National Academy Of Sciences" that being elected is one of the highest honors for an American scientist) in a famous article in the scientific magazine "The Scientist" in August 2005 :
"The modern form of the theory of evolution has been elevated to a status so high because they say it is the foundation of modern biology. But is it correct? The reality is that the theory of evolution, although it has some virtues, does not provide a heuristic (the science of analyzing the discovery of facts or something that is useful in the discovery of facts and theories) for the compelling modern biology "(Skell Phill, The Scientist Vol. 19 (16): 10 (August 29, 2005).)

Let us now think what Karl Popper, who is considered one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century science. He states in his autobiography:
"I have come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program" (Autobiography of K.Popper.Fontana Books, 1976)

Now here is the opinion of the biologist Morris Goldman, Bionetics Corporation to the scientific. After reviewing the best evidence for the theory of evolution presented in biology book, "Biological Sciences Curriculum Study," Goldman Morris concludes his article: "a critical analysis of evolution":
"The theory of evolution is not based on sufficient scientific evidence, as we often assume. Rather it is a doctrine based on faith that satisfies the desires of atheists of our time "(M. Goldman," a critical analysis of evolution, p.50)

It could also include anthropologists, zoologists, specialists in genetics and many other scientists in various branches of science which hold about similar ... But finally, include the declaration of Michael Denton, a famous molecular biologist who writes in his famous book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"
"Considering the impact on the history and the moral and social transformations in Western thought has led to the theory of evolution, one would rather expect that this theory, that literally change the world, much more than a metaphysical study, more than just a myth ... "(Mr. Denton," Evolution: A Theory in Crisis ", p.358)

It is interesting to note that the molecular biologist Michael Denton reached the same conclusion as the great philosopher of science Karl Popper (see above). Indeed, both believe that the theory of evolution is simply something metaphysical, nothing more. As a reminder, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that studies the causes. Generally referred to as "metaphysical thing" or "metaphysical study" in the case of an abstract theory.

You just have to look at the cover of the book "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin to notice. it is clearly stated in the subtitle below "the origin of species by means of natural selection" the following sentence: "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for existence "

This should be enough for anyone to realize that the theory of evolution is a racist theory. By promoting the idea that some races have evolved earlier than others and that some races are closer to their ancestors than others, the theory of evolution provides a clearly racist philosophy. Stephen Jay Gould, one of the greatest defenders of the theory of evolution does not hide it. In his first book published in 1977 entitled "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Stephen Jay Gould said:
"Biological arguments for racism had to be popular before 1859 (before the theory of evolution) but increased in mass after the acceptance of the theory"
(Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, p 27 - 28)

Many historians acknowledge and wrote about the obvious link between the theory of evolution and racism.Let us mention a few such as Robert N. Proctor, author and professor of History of Science at Stanford University who writes in his book "race hygiene: medicine under the Nazis"
"Before Darwin, it was hard to contradict the Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) that all men are equal, all being descendants of Adam & Eve. But now it is possible as Darwin suggested that some breeds have adapted differently than others (thus better than others) according to local conditions"

The same applies to the great historian James Joll, former professor of International History at the famous Oxford University in England, explains the relationship between Darwinism and racism in his book "Europe since 1870." After explaining how Darwin's ideas as the notion of survival of the fittest could lead to social and moral consequences very important, James Poll says on page 102 of his book:
"Natural selection could very well be associated with a new wave of thought developed by the French writer Joseph-Arthur Gobineau who wrote an essay on the inequality of human races in the late 19th century.Gobineau insisted that the most important factor in the development of the human race and was thought that the Aryan race was one that had best survived.Houston Stewart Chamberlain then took this theory a little further which fascinated Hitler who even visited on his deathbed in 1927"

It is not difficult to create a link between the theories of the Nazis and the fascist theory of evolution. Most historians confirm this as Hickman explains that the influence of evolutionary theory on Hitler:
"Hitler believed strongly in evolution. Despite the complexities of his psychology, it is certain that the concept of struggle for existence was important for him because his book "Mein Kampf" clearly a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those that focus on the fight the existence, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society "(Hickman, R., Biocreation, Worthington, OH, pp. 51-52, 1983)

Some historians such as Richard Weikart even wrote a book proving as the theory of evolution is responsible for the Holocaust. In his book "From Darwin to Hitler", historian Richard Weikart, who teaches in one of the best universities in the United States (Cal State Stanislaus, California) said:
"First, Darwinism undermines the moral values ​​and human life. Then the process of evolution is the moral imperative ... Some supporters of the leading theory of evolution think that the competition of the human races and wars are part of what Darwin called "the struggle for existence". Hitler was soaked in social Darwinist ideas, all with a virulent anti-Semitism which has resulted in: The Holocaust"

I finish by recalling that the Columbine High School shootings in 1999 (Two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students and a teacher inside the Columbine High School in Colorado in the United States), considered the worst high school shooting in the history of the United States was influenced by the theory of evolution.According to some sources ("New TV Special connects Darwin to Hitler," Impact, August 2006), one of the two murderers (Eric Harris) wrote on his Internet blog:
"You know what I like? Natural selection! This is the best thing that happened on earth, get rid of the weak and stupid "

Also look at what was written on the T-Shirt Eric Harris on the day of the shooting (confirmed by autopsy). Nothing but "Natural Selection" (natural selection).
To think so superior to others, both students had a goal to eliminate the weak (especially those who believed in God as reported by witnesses to the shooting and by surveillance cameras)
Here is a brief overview of some evidence showing the side of the non-scientific theory of evolution (at least less scientific than some have claimed) and the racist side of this theory.

Finally, remember that wonderful word of the last of the messengers sent by Allah to mankind, namely the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who said in his farewell sermon:
"All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve. An Arab is not superior to a non-Arab and non-Arab is not superior to an Arab, and whites are not superior to blacks, as blacks are not superior to whites. No one is superior to another except in piety and good deeds "(reported in Musnad Ahmad, # 22978)

And Allah knows best.

(link: http://www.wup-forum.com/viewtopic.p...256095#p256095)

Scimitar

[MustafaMc]

I agree with the first portion of this post and I liked the quote, "How the Genetic Code, and the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules) have emerged? At the moment, we must content ourselves with wonder and admiration, rather than an answer." This point touches on the fundamental issue which is that creationists are content with "God did it" while evolutionists try to come up with a scientific, logical answer for where we came from. Furthermore, they insist that the answer must exclude God as being beyond subjection to the scientific method.

The Theory of Evolution came about as a result of Charles Darwin's book, "On The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection: Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". ToE became more accepted when it was combined with the rediscovery in 1900 of Gregor Mendel's work on the principles of genetics. Evolutionists saw genetic variation as the key heritable means for natural selection to act upon to provide 'scientific evidence' for its validity. The critical point in history for the advancement of ToE in western society was the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, but it has not really advanced beyond that point in time with a very base level of knowledge.

It is ironic that evolutionists siezed upon Mendel's Law's of Inheritance, but they have basically ignored DNA (Watson and Crick, 1953) and recent advances in molecular biology. They have been completely stumped by how to reconcile ToE with some of the advanced scientific issues you raised. As a scientist I can appreciate the quote you provided from an article with Francis Crick (codiscoverer of DNA) as a coauthor. "It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, which are structurally complex, have sprung up of themselves in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to get one without the other. And so, at first glance, one must conclude that life can in no case was initiated by chemical means."

[AlexJ90]

Wow.. Just checked up on this thread i made a while ago. Sooo many replies lol.

Thanks for the input brothers and sisters.

[MustafaMc]

Assalamu alaikum, brother. Did any new thoughts come to your mind on this subject?

[Scimitar]

In the past, science was seen as a means to better understand God's thoughts and understand how His creation. This was to obtain knowledge on how the universe and the world that God created. For example one of the founders of modern astronomy, Johannes Kepler said: "Science is thinking God's thoughts after him".Most of the founders of scientific disciplines today believed that nature could be studied because it is regulated by laws established by God.

However today, if you ask a member of the scientific community that is honest, he will tell you that science is a way to get knowledge about the universe assuming only natural causes and materialistic. Thus says Dr. Todd Scott of the University of Kansas in Nature magazine in 1999:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not natural. "(Dr. Scott Todd, Nature magazine, 30 September 1999)

We see here that God is automatically excluded even if it is the best explanation. To be justified, they argue that the supernatural can not be tested or affirmed. He considers everything that can not be observed, tested, repeatable and falsifiable as unscientific. So they have redefined science to support their materialistic agenda/criteria.

Two problems arise with this definition of science. First, it limits the depth of understanding of science and secondly it does not make it neutral, as some would have us believe, because it is inclined towards an explanation of excuses rather than reasons. Professor Richard Lewontin, one of the biggest supporters of evolutionary theory acknowledges this fact when he says:

"We take this side of science because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. This is not the methods and institutions of science that compel us to accept a material explanation of the world, but it is because we are forced by our adherence to material causes to advance. "(Richard Lewontin," Millions and millions of demons, "The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997)

This illustrates the philosophical inclination from the start that is against intelligent design, no matter whether the data supports it or not.
The mathematics professor John Lennox, who appears in the first part, was right when he said:

"What is presented to the public today is:" First comes the science and then the point of view. "Well I think in reality it is completely the opposite. This is the view which usually comes first and that they influence the interpretation of science. "(John Lennox in the documentary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed "by Ben Stein)

Now those who say that the scientific evidence for intelligent design have only recently been discovered and that the interpretation made by believers, scientific data, is false.

If this were the case then you would hear only scientific believers say that the evidence points to an intelligence while this is not the case. Moreover, if this were true, then why change the perspective of Anthony Flew, whose motto quotes from Socrates who said: "Follow the evidence wherever it takes you" It is precisely because he remained committed to this motto and put aside his pride that he ended up rejecting his atheism.

I hope that following this, some will better understand why, despite overwhelming scientific evidence for the existence of God, some scientists still refuse to accept this hypothesis and are forced to bypass the evidence in inventing other theories in order to satisfy their materialistic point of view.




Some atheists are trying to believe that Albert Einstein did not believe in God. They try to rally to their cause but unfortunately for them, Albert Einstein himself was aware of this during his lifetime why he said this sentence quite interesting:

"Taking account of such harmony in the cosmos, that I can recognize with my limited human brain, however, there are people who say there is no God. But what really irritates me is that they quote me to support their views. "(Albert Einstein, From the book by Alice Calaprice" The Expanded Quotable Einstein ", 2000, p.214)

Scimi

[Tyrion]

Some atheists are trying to believe that Albert Einstein did not believe in God.

Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, and that's what a lot of atheists nowadays like to point out. But yeah, he was no atheist.