Evolution

[Abu Jamal]

Many people Christians today believe in Evolution. What are your views on it? is it true, or complete rubbish???

[FS123]

This question keeps coming up again and again, we had a whole discussion here http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...cts-quran.html

[Hulk]

I believe in in minor evolution like if u keep breeding muscular lions together then their offsprings in the future will be pretty muscular. But I don't believe in us coming from fish (you know what i mean). And no evolution does not disprove the existence of God, another ignorant statement often made by atheists and entertained by theists.

[ardianto]

I chose to put question about human evolution in the box of unsolved mystery.

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

[GodIsAll]

I chose to put question about human evolution in the box of unsolved mystery

I would imagine that box will never be empty during our experience on Earth.

I sometimes still hate not knowing the answers to such things, but I have learned to shrug, smile and say: "I don't know". Some things are just not that important.

[ardianto]

I would imagine that box will never be empty during our experience on Earth.

The "unsolved mystery" box is only for human evolution. For other mysteries like universe, human behavior, etc, there is "should be solved mysteries" box.

But I also have a trash bin, special for silly questions like "how to get rich without work". :D

[GuestFellow]

Salaam,

No idea. I hate science lol.

[GuestFellow]

The "unsolved mystery" box is only for human evolution. For other mysteries like universe, human behavior, etc, there is "should be solved mysteries" box. [

What is certain is people that support and are against evolution will wage a war against each other. There will be a lot of scratching, poking, punchies, kickies, pinches and slapping. As a result, there will be a big explosion, everyone will die and then we will never know how the Earth and humans were created. What a lovely ending to this debate. Humans are such adorable little psychos.

On a serious note, this video below is very interesting.

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

But I also have a trash bin, special for silly questions like "how to get rich without work". :D

I think I'll be using the trash bin to vomit because I feel sick from reading too much. +o(

[Muhammad]

:sl:

According to Islam, this much is clear that the theory of human evolution cannot be accepted because we know that Allaah (swt) created Adam with His own Hands, and what all the Qur'anic verses and Hadith say regarding this. As for other evolutionary processes, Allaah (swt) knows best.

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Useful articles -

http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/20...evolution.html
Theory of Evolution- Fact or Fiction? « History of Islam
Evolution « Categories « Understand Islam
Evolution and Islam
iDawah.com | Evolution
Science Islam - Evolution Creation or BOTH?
http://www.jawziyyah.com/2009/11/evo...-telescopes-2/
http://www.islam21c.com/theology/212...uman-evolution
Does Islam Refute Evolution? [4989] -Overview of Islam - Understanding Islam
The Fossil Record Refutes Evolution - The Religion of Islam
Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective | IslamToday - English
Areas where Darwin’s theory contradicts the Quran - Islamweb.net -English
Thermodynamics falsifies evolution - Islamweb.net -English
The fossil record refutes evolution - Hajj 1431 - Islamweb.net
The imaginary mechanism of evolution - Hajj 1431 - Islamweb.net
The Theory of Evolution
Darwinism Refuted.com

[MustafaMc]

The Theory of Evolution

I thought that this was a very informative article. I believe that ToE is hogwash and is a feeble, pseudo-scientific attempt to explain the origin of man without the need for a Creator. I believe those who believe in naturalistic evolution without any Intelligent Design or involvement of the Creator are disingenuous or they lack an understanding of biology and probabilities.

[GuestFellow]

I believe those who believe in naturalistic evolution without any Intelligent Design or involvement of the Creator are disingenuous or they lack an understanding of biology and probabilities.

Salaam,

How come they lack understanding of biology and probability? Just curious because this is an area that I'm not familiar with.

[CosmicPathos]

Salaam,

How come they lack understanding of biology and probability? Just curious because this is an area that I'm not familiar with.

because they have not seen those minute probabilities work it out and create a human being. it is all retrospective knowledge. and then tell us that the probability of God existing is miniscule?

[GuestFellow]

^ Salaam,

I think I got it. Thanks.

[MustafaMc]

Salaam,

How come they lack understanding of biology and probability? Just curious because this is an area that I'm not familiar with.

Consider the fact that a protein is the result of DNA being translated, but DNA replication requires enzymes (proteins). I am sure that seems like a puzzle and a play on words, but the point is that both are simultaneously required for the other to exist. Now evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life as that is a related theory called abiogenesis, but if you go further back than a seminal 'Common Ancestor' then one must ultimately solve where it came from and that would be by chance occurances of inorganic molecules coming together that, however miniscule those probabilities are, over enough time they would become a reality. The development of a single amino acid can be generated in the lab and sequential addition of amino acids in a highly controlled manner could produce a simple polypeptide chain (protien), but my contention is that this set of circumstances would never occur in nature by random chance particularly not to the point of producing a living organism.

Getting back to evolution, it claims that organisms adapted to variation in the environment through natural selection acting upon chance mutations that conferred a selective advantage. The basic premise is that these changes were gradual and occured over extensive periods of time. However, there are many organs that are non-functional with any element missing. Examples of this are the eye and the ear. I have very poor eyesight, but I can still see a little without glasses. Now I have all of the elements for my eyes and my vision can be corrected with thick glasses, but what do you think my chances of seeing would be if I lacked an iris, a lens, a cornea or an optic nerve? In that case my eyes would be completely non-functional.

[MustafaMc]

The point about abiogenesis is that although it is not an element of evolution, if one is to explain the origin of species from a common unicellular ancestor such as an amoeba, then the logical extension is to explain the origin of this Common Ancestor. To get the seminal Common Ancestor then one must start with elements that exist apart from previously existing organisms such as carbon, hydogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc as they exist in common simple compounds such as carbon dioxide, water, ammonia, etc. Organic compounds found in living organisms such as DNA, proteins, lipids, etc don't occur naturally in the environment. If someone purified an enormous number of a simple living organism such as an amoeba and then fractionated this isolate into the various organic compounds that make up the amoebas composition, no conglomeration of scientists can reassemble in a priomordial-type environment even the most basic living organism and cause it to come alive again.

Likewise with life and life systems rarely are they even partially functional without all of the elements already existing together in the most intricate arrangement. If one disassembled a car and randomly recombined the thousands of pieces, then the chance that they would become reassembled exactly in a functional car is not infinitely small, but rather the probability is zero as it is an impossibility to do so. The point again is that life systems and the various species of life are infinitely more complex than a modern car.

Naturalistic evolution is the most widely believed lie that exists today.

[Science101]

Many people Christians today believe in Evolution. What are your views on it? is it true, or complete rubbish???

What now goes by the name of "evolutionary theory" includes an ancient observation described by Al-Jahiz almost 1200 years ago, which was later rediscovered by Charles Darwin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jahiz

The word "Evolution" really only describes any change over time, even automobiles. The word is not a "scientific theory" even though there is a theory named "Evolutionary Synthesis" that covers what Charles Darwin explained about mutation and selection.

Scientifically speaking, the observation that something "unfit" to survive will not survive as well as something that is "more fit" is a concept that even a child can understand, common sense, not a theory that requires modern science to discover or explain.

There are many who exaggerate its scientific importance. The theory was not needed to discover DNA and other things that came after Charles Darwin. So yes "Evolution" is no doubt true, we would have to be a clone of either our mother and father and all males/females on this planet look exactly the same for it to be false. The "complete rubbish" comes from not understanding its limitations because of being led to believe that there are none, when there most certainly are limits to its usefulness that they are unaware of.

[Scimitar]

I don't believe in evolution for one reason - and it's the best reason ever:

For Allah says "Kun faya Kun" - "Be, and it becomes"

Simple...

Scimi

[Science101]

I don't believe in evolution for one reason - and it's the best reason ever:

For Allah says "Kun faya Kun" - "Be, and it becomes"

Simple...

Scimi

That gave me an idea for an interesting question for you. If we assume (as I also do) that there was a first human couple (Adam and Eve) then why are there now regional differences in the way we look (Asian, European, African, etc.) when no "evolutionary change" like this is possible?

[Scimitar]

Because Allah had ordained that the offspring of Adam and Eve (may Allah be pleased with my ancestral mother and father) offspring be sorted into tribes...

... Adam and Eve had much longer lifespans than we do today, some say 1000 yrs or so. They gave birth to many children, and Allah made it a miracle that Eve's pregnancy would only last one day, the very next she'd give birth to a pair of twins (always a boy and a girl) who shared very different DNA and they were forbidden from marrying eachother because they were twins.

Instead, it was ordained by divine decree that that the first son be married to the second daughter and vice versa... because they were racially compatible.

They filled the land with tribes that could recognised eachothers racial features... this is how it happened. I can find you a link if you like.

The book, Qisas al Anbiya by Ibn Kathir explains this somewhat. So do others.

I liked your question, it was a good one.

I'm guessing you're a man of science - since your handle is science 101... as a scientologist, would you agree that science, cannot explain everything? And where logic and science fail, you have to recognise an innate quality that resides within your own self called faith?

Sure you do... you have faith in your science, right? I have faith in my Allah. And Allah showed me science, but science can never show you Allah... because Allah exists outside of the space time continuum... I guess Islam wins this one, hands down.

peace.

Scimi

EDIT: sorry, I thought you was a scientologist - you're an agnostic. my apologies.

[CosmicPathos]

scimi: where did you get this 1 day pregnancy of Eve (as) from? Quran or sahih hadeeth?

it is almost impossible to believe that a Homo sapien can be pregnant for 1 day only and then get pregnant again next day. I dont doubt Allah swt can do it, but I do not see this phenomenon occurring in Homo sapiens all over the world at all. If Allah swt can (of course He can) do this, then why cannot He evolve us from lower animals? It does not go against our dignity even if I accept that we humans are not created from lowly animals then can you still deny we are created from fluid despised? If Allah swt considers our origins despised, then who are we to think that we cant evolve from lower animals?

*I do not believe we evolved, but that is based on scientific reasons, not religious, as I believe Islam is silent on this.* The only hint Islam gives against human evolution is that Adam and Eve were in Heaven before coming to Earth. So it means they could not have evolved on Earth.

[Scimitar]

Evolution is NOT mentioned in the Quran... name me one ayah bro.

One ayah that even hints at evolution being a possibility... Why would Allah want to make something go thru a process like evolution - when all HE has to do is say "BE"... and it becomes...

Evolution is shaytaan hype, and in these days of deception, even Muslims are questioning their beliefs in regard to this... These debates are nonsense.

All we need to do is keep hold to the rope of Allah (Quran) and keep our obligations and follow the Sunnah of the Prophet pbuh, that is it!

But we prefer to get into pedantic debates with people who don't come here to genuinely learn Islam, but to try and disrepute it... and we fall for it everytime. Me included.

I'm done playing their game... they can think what they like, they can send themselves an express ticket into the hellfire, with their kuffar beliefs - I care not... I wash my hands with them.

Scimi

[CosmicPathos]

Evolution is NOT mentioned in the Quran... name me one ayah bro.

but so is the one day pregnancy of Eve (as) also not mentioned in Quran. Is it? Is it also mentioned in Quran that Adam (as) was 40 cubits tall? I still believe that though but I do not have any evidence to claim that humans once used to be that tall. I wish I did have evidence to silence atheists.

[Scimitar]

This is why I stick to strictly Islamic texts nowadays.. I try to learn from those who came before us. Those men of knowledge and wisdom like Ibn kathir, Ibn Taymiyyah, etc etc etc ... all this evolution debate stuff is just ridiculous to me now. I used to be on this subject like a bad rash - honestly, on other forums I have made some ridiculously long posts refuting neo darwinist claims based of science that just doesn't add up...

...Brother MustafaMC is in the field of DNA and stuff (not sure exaclty what - but he's got the real scientific knowledge to refute things about DNA and RNA sequencing etc) and I even feel that bro MustafaMC is tired of this game...

... Allah, Quran, Sunnah, and the command to IQRA - to read from reputable sources, the examples of which we can take from Islamic history. Is All I Need.

Nothing else akhi.

(oh, maybe a wife - it's in the works)

Scimi

[CosmicPathos]

... Allah, Quran, Sunnah, and the command to IQRA - to read from reputable sources, the examples of which we can take from Islamic history. Is All I Need.

That is your choice bro. But that is the reason we wont be having any more golden ages in Islam. Quran tells us to look at the world, look into the universe and discover. Sure, we only need Quran for salvation in hereafter, but we need science in dunya.

Lets say you had cancer, God forbid, when would you want to be born? In 21st century or in 15th century? Even if we cant cure cancer today (some we can), we can decrease patients pain while they are dying. Was it possible in 15th century?

[Scimitar]

Uhm, there is one more Golden Age to come yet akhi... When Mahdi and Isa AS come and lead us from this second class world citizen existence we have found ourselves in as an Ummah...

... 15th century, no doubt. I don't fear death. I only fear my actions in life...

if you'd asked me ten yrs ago, I would have said the opposite. But nearing 40 makes me wonder about life and the bigger implications of our existence here on earth... and how that will reflect in the Akhira.

It's not easy being a Muslim in modern day... holding onto that rope of Allah's was easier in ages past. Where a stronger sense of community and better men were around. Heck, we even had real role models then... where are they now?

Disappearing into the prison cells is where... so we can never know what they could have achieved had they not been in remand.

Scimi

[CosmicPathos]

... 15th century, no doubt. I don't fear death. I only fear my actions in life...

if you'd asked me ten yrs ago, I would have said the opposite. But nearing 40 makes me wonder about life and the bigger implications of our existence here on earth... and how that will reflect in the Akhira.

I thought you are in mid 20s :p. oh wow.
why dont you fear death? I am afraid of worms eating my body, my identity.

[Scimitar]

This body is only a vessel for my soul. It is temporary...

... that is why. If Allah grants me Heaven, I will be in a body much better than this one, eternally youthful, and I will never want for anything. Never feel hunger, pain, loss - any of this hurt we feel here on earth - will be absent in heaven. This world is worth less to Allah than the wing of a mosquito - as Allah mentions in the Quran.

This life is only a test. I cannot allow myself to get too attached to it. Becuase if I do, when it comes time ti leave this dunya - it will be very difficult. Very painful. And I don't like Pain.

As for the thought of critters eating my body in the grave? Well, when Allah commands all his creation to re-assemble, I will be reassembled - so why worry about it?

I do not want to be punished in the grave - this is why I am trying my utmost best to be a good Muslim... so instead of my body rotting away in the grave - it will keep, and I will see paradise from there.

Allah is the Most Merciful, the Oft Forgiving. Ameen.

Scimi

[Rhubarb Tart]

In the book Qisas al Anbiya by Ibn kathir, does he use quran and hadith to support his statement including eve one day pregnancy and tribes?

[Scimitar]

Here you go, this is the PDF version which doesn't contain any Arabic, and is full English - I have the Arabic / English version in hardback so I can't say if it is any different.

I thought you could gain some beneficial knowledge from this book - it's one of my favourites. Anyway, here you go - free download:

http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/Stories%20Of%20The%20Prophets%20By%20Ibn%20Kathir. pdf

I just checked the PDF version and it doesn't mention the birthing process... maybe I didn't read it in this book then. Sorry. But I have also heard some Ulema recount this story to me in lectures when I go to merkez in Dewsbury. Yorks. UK.

Scimi

[dqsunday]

What I view it, Allah said 'be' and we had the big bang...there we go, universe ;) Besides the 'Big Bang Theory' is just that, a theory.

As for evolution...things do evolve but the spark of life came from Allah. Besides, who do you think created the 'egg' the chicken came from anyway? Allah also gave us brains and wants us to use it and develop knowledge and discover things on our own. It doesn't mean it disproves anything. It just means we are starting to develop our own theories on why things that he created are there. He made all the laws of the universe, just because man only recently discovered them, doesn't mean they just existed because we explained in a way our minds could understand. There are many things in this world that still defy reason, but they are 'there' nonetheless.

[Scimitar]

rubbish, i used to think like you once upon a time... not anymore. There is no evidence for evolution... full stop.

Scimi

[Science101]

Because Allah had ordained that the offspring of Adam and Eve (may Allah be pleased with my ancestral mother and father) offspring be sorted into tribes...

You are here saying that this change over time did happen, by a sorting process from an entity named Allah. We are therefore in agreement, that such a change over time did happen. The question is then: How does Allah sort offspring into tribes?

Adam and Eve had much longer lifespans than we do today, some say 1000 yrs or so.

An interesting thing happens when the ages that are given in scripture are converted from lunar age, to seasonal age, by dividing by 13. Their ages are then a good number of years long, lived to be over 80, but not impossible today.

I personally think that early translators were unaware of the way their age was being determined, which may have required counting moons because of the now common yearly/seasonal calendar not having been invented yet.

They gave birth to many children, and Allah made it a miracle that Eve's pregnancy would only last one day, the very next she'd give birth to a pair of twins (always a boy and a girl) who shared very different DNA and they were forbidden from marrying eachother because they were twins.

Scriptures describe many children and that is easily possible. A pregnancy that lasts only one day, is a problem reconciling with science, but is not common in scripture so is not a problem for religion if it were the usual 9 months.

Instead, it was ordained by divine decree that that the first son be married to the second daughter and vice versa... because they were racially compatible.

They filled the land with tribes that could recognised eachothers racial features... this is how it happened. I can find you a link if you like.

The book, Qisas al Anbiya by Ibn Kathir explains this somewhat. So do others.

I am interested in reading more on it, and noticed you already have something else to study.

I liked your question, it was a good one.

I'm guessing you're a man of science

Yes, you can say I was born this way. But then again, even you search for answers to how things work and are here in this “science” forum too. We are much the same, just grew up in different religious cultures saying much the same but in different words.

I adhere to the (in science called) “scientific method” that Prophet Muhammad explained, where discovering how living things work can only bring all of us closer to our Creator. Science may at times seem like it is against religion but that’s where one needs faith that it is not really that way. We then have to hurry up and discover what puts that all behind us, by reconciling the two without either suffering. So yes I am a man of science, but I have a religious side that makes my otherwise still doing the best I can to walk in the shoes of the prophet something that gets me called names in other science forums and other places they think that’s nuts. You can be sure I’m glad this is not one of them! I’m much more at home here describing my exact scientific method, to someone like you.

- since your handle is science 101... as a scientologist, would you agree that science, cannot explain everything?

Yes I agree that there are many things that science cannot (at least yet) explain. But this is one of those times where advancing science is necessary to get us through this faith-unfriendly period in time, by for-real having a way to bring us closer to (no matter what regional/tribal name is used) our Creator. In especially Western culture the controversial “Theory of Intelligent Design” has become useful because of its premise describing something real, that became science included with my Intelligence Design Lab that is now available for download at Planet Source Code:

http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb...74175&lngWId=1

A version of the software with compiled .exe to run with Windows is with the newest text of theory (being compiled for a book) is here in Microsoft Word format:
https://sites.google.com/site/intell...gentDesign.doc

Or Google Viewer:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...A2NzZmN2NiNTEx

Over the years I have been keeping the forum updated on how that science project is going, but is the sort of thing that just comes up in normal discussion like now because of you asking so many good questions for me to answer!

And where logic and science fail, you have to recognise an innate quality that resides within your own self called faith?

I believe that science and religion are the same thing, the search for what created us and how the universe works. Religion is from scripture, and is handed down to us over generations of time. Science is knowledge of how things work, that can be experimented with, to answer questions in more detail. When properly used, both compliment each other. But when limitations of scientific theories are gone beyond there is a problem.

With all said “Evolution” is not even a single theory it’s just a word many like to use to say that somehow something led to regional differences, like you explained too. You are then not inherently in conflict with science you just summed it up and with great faith in what makes this “Evolution” possible. But I am sure you know how others will right away ridicule you for being an “Evolution Denier” and worse. That is not “science” it is an opinion being made to appear scientific by going beyond the limitations of a theory and not properly explaining things. I certainly cannot blame you for thinking that science itself is bad for religion.

Sure you do... you have faith in your science, right?

Yes, when properly used it provides answers that ancient scriptures and religion do not give exact details of, just say happened. For example we both know we were somehow created, but no religion has the information required to find Adam and Eve in our genetic code. For that we need to know about “Human Chromosome Speciation” to find the DNA evidence needed to show that they existed, which is one of the things I use science for.

I have faith in my Allah. And Allah showed me science, but science can never show you Allah... because Allah exists outside of the space time continuum... I guess Islam wins this one, hands down.

Prayers are still said to reach that far, in a sense brings some of what Allah is made of to Mecca. If there were no connection to our Creator possible that way then it would make no sense for you to pray. Therefore being outside this space time continuum is not being totally disconnected. What is scientifically important was already explained in words by Prophet Muhammad who later inspired the Golden Age of Islamic Science (and Math) because of them. I think you will know you made it that far trying to walk in his shoes, after the next Golden Age of Islamic Science peacefully begins. There is still plenty left to discover, so what once made places like Iraq the world’s scientific leader can again happen. Have to see science as Prophet Muhammad did, as part of the healthy and somewhat sacred search for our Creator that goes on way after him, and did for a few hundred or so years then for some reason fizzled out. Historians are not sure why and in threads from way back in years in this forum we had some discussion on that, which indicated that East/West conflict shifted priorities away from developing math and science. But that alone that does not explain the loss of vision that once resolved such conflicts too. At least it is certain that his message has a way of inspiring a Golden Age of Science. It might be hard to fully understand it in a way that makes sense our times, but it’s still there to be read, in hope that it works as well for you as it did for the early Arab scientists that helped make our modern science what it is today.

peace.

Scimi

EDIT: sorry, I thought you was a scientologist - you're an agnostic. my apologies.

No apology needed, but I’m glad you mentioned that! I had to choose my religion from a list but there was no “A Little of Everything” or something more descriptive. Agnosticism is often redefined like it’s a form of Atheism, when it includes ones like me who grew up in a Christian community and want to make those who took the time to train me to be a religious leader proud of what I accomplish. But these days, finding such an inspiration in Prophet Muhammad can be seen like it’s collaborating with “terrorists” and my scientific way of having to explain things is not exactly what all have in mind as “teaching the truth” according to the Bible. I see all religions that were on the list as the search for our Creator with the only difference for Atheists is they say it was “natural causes” but otherwise they also have to agree that we were somehow created or they could not exist.

I picked the closest there was, even though you would have to know me to understand my religion. Not even I know how to precisely name it. When young and the cartoon new on television I was fascinated by Hadji in the Jonny Quest science cartoon, who would explain things in a more historical/cultural context that the scientists would then find important for better understanding of what they are seeing. Some said the cartoon was somehow showing a negative image of Muslim culture by having him aboard too. But I did not see that, that’s what you would get where he was written out of the script for being much like you and have to explain things another way that when explored is saying much the same thing as the scientists are. That’s something from Christian culture that at an early age helped me think more worldly about culture and religion and how that relates to science that makes it possible for us to all be here at the same time, which is a good thing. But of course there are limits and science can be dangerous, yet so is living off whatever can be scavenged in a primitive savage world where there is no science to build a dwelling or even a campfire to keep the insects and animals away while we sleep. We have to take the good with the bad and hope that this scientific and also religious search that ultimately leads to our Creator also leads to peace when the different paths we are on become one much larger one that leaves none out. And even Atheists have a purpose, by at least being annoying enough to others to motivate them to beat whatever science they think they have, so you can say Allah knows best there too and made us different, for a good reason that keeps us heading in the right direction. ;D

[Hulk]

I was going to make a Lady Gaga joke but nevermind.

[Scimitar]

Bro, I'd love to respond but I've just found out something very bad and can't think straight...

...Infact i'm only on this thread because I want to be distracted.

Scimi

[Hulk]

Bro, I'd love to respond but I've just found out something very bad and can't think straight...

SubhanAllah.. we are here if you need to talk about it akhi.

edit: now I know what is troubling you

[True-blue]

Allah does whatever he wants. Human Beings are special. According to Qur'an The first Human was Adam. But Qur'an does not rule out the possibility that human-like vicegerents with blood existed in this earth before Adam (A). So, I can't see any reason why we should only believe that humans must have come from ape-like ancestors.

[Periwinkle18]

Thought this mite help... Its Allah's will he can give what ever colour He wants to His creations. We just hav to accept it (which is hard if ur living in my country)

Sahih bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 830:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

A bedouin came to Allah's Apostle and said, "My wife has delivered a black child." The Prophet said to him, "Have you camels?" He replied, "Yes." The Prophet said, "What color are they?" He replied, "They are red." The Prophet further asked, "Are any of them gray in color?" He replied, "Yes." The Prophet asked him, "Whence did that grayness come?" He said, "I thing it descended from the camel's ancestors." Then the Prophet said (to him), "Therefore, this child of yours has most probably inherited the color from his ancestors."

[Science101]

Thought this mite help... Its Allah's will he can give what ever colour He wants to His creations. We just hav to accept it (which is hard if ur living in my country)

Sahih bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 830:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

A bedouin came to Allah's Apostle and said, "My wife has delivered a black child." The Prophet said to him, "Have you camels?" He replied, "Yes." The Prophet said, "What color are they?" He replied, "They are red." The Prophet further asked, "Are any of them gray in color?" He replied, "Yes." The Prophet asked him, "Whence did that grayness come?" He said, "I thing it descended from the camel's ancestors." Then the Prophet said (to him), "Therefore, this child of yours has most probably inherited the color from his ancestors."

Wow Periwinkle18! That is wonderful evidence Prophet Muhammad qualifies as a scientist. Here he logically explains ancestral recessive traits that occasionally show up in offspring.

Later, just before Charles Darwin, a Christian monk/friar Gregor Mendel experimentally found a way to show this on paper using a simple example from pea plants. Because of the “scientific community” often being the last to take interest in historic scientific theories that come from monks and prophets it took decades before his almost lost work became mainstream science, but it still did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

Even eye color that neither parent has, suddenly expressing itself, can make it seem like the offspring had a different father. It is here good to know about our having the same basic ancestral DNA in us, with some of it only occasionally expressing itself. Especially their dad needs the science of it, or would have reason to wonder whether another man expressing that eye color is to blame for messing with his wife when the unfortunate guy was also just expressing that occasional trait, and his father maybe wondered where he came from. And perhaps the offspring then wondered whether they had the right parents. Skin color can be surprising this way too, so I see the same thoughts going through the mind of the man here asking why his offspring is not as they expected. The answer that they received is scientifically excellent.

With all considered, it’s no wonder others found the knowledge you quoted important enough to pass it on to future generations. Another example of what’s in Islam that is way more scientific than it may at first appear, but in this example understanding every word of it might require someone in the shoes of a man who had a child that looks like they came from a guy down the street. Can resolve conflicts that start small then get violent that the father may not want to talk about going through their mind. Then when they finally do let it out they’re likely to have to cook their own supper, have another guy wondering whether they are crazy or not, and maybe even worse.

Science being bad for religion is a myth that Atheists like to keep going, and universities like to think of themselves as being free of the teachings from religion when in fact they too like worship Gregor Mendal and even Father Charles Darwin who only had a divinity degree. It’s easy to say that back then everyone was religious but there were Atheists around all along too and compared to Greek and Roman Mythology and savage amphitheater gladiator culture that the Prophet of Peace Jesus helped civilize after it fell from its own bloody weight. Feeding his followers to lions and such, only made followers of all the spectators who were shocked by their having to die, and did so bravely while protesting ruthless rulers and religion Prophet Muhammad later had to warned about not getting mixed up in that was lingering from ancient Rome. It took hundreds of years to fully happen but that culture is now long gone. And modern science also verified things like there is no God pulling the Sun across the sky with a rope tied to a chariot, so their nutty planetary science fell apart as well.

It is now easy for both of us to conceptualize our creation being from a single entity, not dozens of Gods and mortal humans pretending to be one who will tell us they control all knowledge of that and tell their tall-tales that only sound scientific. Prophet Muhammad knew they were like cheap magic act with plenty of sorcery designed to make your money and your mind vanish. And I would much rather have been with him, than with who he warned of. It is not a religious choice it’s based on his ability to reason out a problem, a scientific method that revealed things about how our Creator works that because of their value to us became sacred. That is one of the reasons why I see science and religion as the same thing, where science is conducted with experiments and religion is for what cannot at this time be scientifically experimented with. We have a need to answer the big-questions with at least the best answer possible or one that at least works to get us through a sometimes rough lifetime, where being such a consciously aware being can become a painful experience.

Because of science only adding more detail to what has been handed down to us from early prophets we are now in the right time and place to add clarity to their message, without distracting from or trying to replace it. And since this is something that Prophet Jesus started that Prophet Muhammad made work for the Arab world it is not a single religion winning over another, but sure shows Islam in a good light. Path towards where all are ultimately searching towards there widens and Catholic “creationist” board of education member Kathy Martin from Kansas is walking with us without minding all we’re learning from the journey together, that travels through this very forum.

Thanks to science we no longer have to all meet in some barren land none else wanted and search for knowledge and mostly by foot. It is still the same ongoing search for our Creator that keeps a religion that can survive reason going. Kathy explained this to me as, on our own having to make sense of religion, for our own generation, which has its own unique culture. For your generation too this now includes light-speed communication between like-minds from around the world.

We are now the pioneers of a new technology, the experts on what’s getting around the forums of cyberspace. It’s not the sort of thing that clergy that has many other things to do besides be everywhere we are is even expected to be able to manage for us, therefore we end up having to make sense of religion for our generation so it stays going into the next.

It’s here not increasing number of adherents by conversion from another religion, it’s finding the kind of reason that even impresses Kathy Martin who already knows about Prophet Muhammad having been surprisingly scientific. I am sure she will only be even more impressed when I link her to this thread to read what you found. Even though neither of us will change our religion to Islam, or expect you would want to do the same and change to one of ours, but we are still sharing a common path towards our Creator. We have something in common that connects to science that comes from just knowing and understanding it.

The way things end up it’s just as well we all remain who we are. Kathy converting to Islam would become so distracting from her educational mission it would not even help any of us for her to do so. It’s in all our best interest she remain connected to her unique Western culture in creationism country of Kansas to in her unique way influence “Western Science” from “Western Culture” that she lived her life in and none of us would know much about. And there is an Islamic community in Kansas, where I have to say she does a good job representing what you would find most important, in the process of representing all she was elected to serve in her district. From earlier discussions she was in on she is not one to worry about what goes on in this forum, and knows more than the average person about Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

It is here best to just provide what can be found to work with to help their unique local culture make sense of science and religion for the generations after them. Making progress then comes from simple things like right on time posting the Genetics101 from the Prophet that began this long reply I am now writing needed to even begin to respond to all that leads to. And I expect there is more to read that gets into the 48-ape ancestry but that path must be for another time.

You at least know more about what I was saying about science sometimes looking like it is the end of religion but ultimately things go the other way. In times like ours it is best to hurry up and get through it by developing the scientific theory needed to change the more dreadful paradigm to one that does not say Genesis and related scriptures you know are wrong. That is where we find Adam and Eve and thus have no problem giving them proper colloquial names in theory that requires explaining the final product of a Human Chromosome Speciation event in our ancestry. New discoveries are eliminating the thinking of humans suddenly branching off from furry apes. Human skin and unique cooling system would not even work properly, which has us down to plenty of bare skin to even begin to qualify as a “human” design.

The science leads to it being possible that this suddenly appearing in the population. So just imagine a father wondering who gave them that trait. Only good thing is there would be none in the other population expressing it, started right by chromosome fusion because that being how the molecular intelligence that is in our billions of years old system learns something new. In that case learned how to achieve human form. And to make sure it worked there was early rapid reproductive isolation to prevent any going back from there.

One thing we have to remember about any intelligence also possibly that of our Creator is intelligence does not start off with all knowledge in the universe it learns new things, and is only happy with success learning new thing. There must be way for an intelligent Creator to figure out how to achieve human form and although the consciousness part of the equation is currently beyond science to explain the rest that is based on how intelligence of any kind works is evidence of that existing in biology. It is just scratching the surface of something there so it’s expected it might sound like an over exciting way for our Creator to exist. But they are then literally then in us right now and all else that lives in the universe, all at the same time, and I certainly cannot imagine any better way than that to forever stay connected, across even a space time continuum…

[tayek1967]

May be happened it very quickly. It's true. thanks.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Science101;

That gave me an idea for an interesting question for you. If we assume (as I also do) that there was a first human couple (Adam and Eve) then why are there now regional differences in the way we look (Asian, European, African, etc.) when no "evolutionary change" like this is possible?

Like our bro Scimitar, I just accept that God created everything according to its kind, and this does not leave me any room to believe in TOE. If God can create the universe and all life, he can make these variations, but I guess this is where science and faith part company. Faith just accepts it is the will of God, and he knows best, faith might ask the ‘why’ questions, where science is more concerned with the how questions.

The lessons to be gleaned from evolution endorse the survival of the fittest, strongest, richest, greediest the selfish and the power hungry.

Faith in God should inspire love, forgiveness, mercy, kindness, families and community. Sadly the evolutionary traits seem stronger.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Science is the observation of man. I dont trust it over Quran and Hadith.

Quran says that the first of man was Adam created by Allah.


Lol i find it funny ( and quite worrying) that people go so indepth into studying what Allah has already denied (Evolution of man)

[Science101]

Science is the observation of man.

Yes, and in science is there is usually much disagreement before all of man can come to agreement on the same thing.

I dont trust it over Quran and Hadith.

Scientists usually get upset from reading things like that, but after my having seen what happens when scientific information is too much trusted I think it is good that you are well doubtful.

Quran says that the first of man was Adam created by Allah.

That is an excellent sentence for me to reword from the language of religion, to the language of science, for the two scientific theories we have for comparison. First I will show the theory I explain, so you can see that it supports what you said:

The Theory of Intelligent Design holds that the first of man was Adam created by an intelligence.

I first had to state which theory is being used, then end by being clear that the theory explains “intelligence”. The name “Adam” is allowed because the theory describes DNA evidence of a sudden genome rearrangement that would result in an Adam, and an Eve, a human couple at the very beginning of our lineage that science allows be given the “colloquial” name found in human culture/religion.

For the next below with Evolutionary Theory it is important to be specific to what is now common which is “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis” that includes more than Charles Darwin described but at its center is the same two part Mutation/Selection relationship that results in this:

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis indicates that there was no first of man (Adam could not exist) and humans were not created by an intelligence.

As you can see, both are scientific statements but they say something very different. And I could easily enough rephrase this one to include some of the insults that get added to statements like these but I am sure you already have a good idea what that ends up looking like.

This seems to highlight why I do not promote “evolution” or any of its similar but slightly different evolutionary theories, my purpose is to explain scientific theory that does not use generalizations which lead to science indicating something else entirely. Besides, if you already accept that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of the different tribes/regional-variations then you cannot be an “evolution denier” because that’s all that evolution is, Adam and Eve having more than a single tribe/variation inside of them. That’s really all “evolution” is but some make it seem like it’s much more than that, so they can say you are all wrong, when you are just saying the same thing but in different words.

I have to be happy that you think the last sentence is horrible and looks wrong, because I agree. In fact in the entire text from Introduction on the theory never once is the word “evolution” ever used to explain how something works or happened, that word is from another theory that cannot explain intelligence. The phrase “natural selection” becomes a problem because in a perfect world intelligent life is able to exist without it, becomes just a way of saying that it is not a perfect world with a limitless supply of everything, when the climate changes so do the animals living there. We do not need a scientific theory just to realize that is true, we can see what lives in a jungle compared to Antarctica and more or less figure that out on our own. It’s then not that “evolutionary theory” is wrong the problem is that it is based on a many hundreds of year old observation about environment and what lives there, does not explain all that some think it does, or can say how life was first created.

[MustafaMc]

So yes "Evolution" is no doubt true, we would have to be a clone of either our mother and father and all males/females on this planet look exactly the same for it to be false.

The Theory of Evolution as the means by which all extinct and extant species of life arose from a Common Ancestor (unicellar presumably) is not "no doubt true". There is no scientific evidence even that a donkey and a horse 'evolved' through naturalistic methods from a common ancestor. Despite significant commonality in the DNA structure of these two species, the translocations and other genetic changes would have rendered the individual in which it presumably occured sterile. One can presume that the mutation would have occured in either the sperm or the egg of one of the parents and this would render the resulting individual with a normal and a mutated chromosome. The lack of proper pairing of these chromosomes in meiosis would have occured in the same manner as in a mule today which is sterile. The claim that evolution is the source for variation within a species and that this is evidence for macro evolution of diverse species at large is utterly false.

[Scimitar]

faith might ask the ‘why’ questions, where science is more concerned with the how questions.

This is a very important statement and I wholly agree with it.

Philosophically, the "WHY" question is a better one. The "HOW" question just seems too foolish without understanding the "WHY" question.

Scimi

[Science101]

Greetings and peace be with you Science101;

And Greetings to you Eric.

Like our bro Scimitar, I just accept that God created everything according to its kind, and this does not leave me any room to believe in TOE.

At least we share a similar disbelief in the TOE (and other names that it goes by) with the difference being that the scientific reasons alone are enough for me to not put my faith into that. It does not help explain how intelligence works, and that has always been one of favorite fields. A theory that does not explain what I need to know is of no help to me, have to use other theory that came from ones like David Heiserman which does pertain to intelligence and fits in with other theory to become a new one that covers more scientific territory.

If God can create the universe and all life, he can make these variations, but I guess this is where science and faith part company. Faith just accepts it is the will of God, and he knows best, faith might ask the ‘why’ questions, where science is more concerned with the how questions.

Yes, science explains “how” things work, using experiments which can include observation. Requires proper terminology and qualifying terms like “intelligence” or “Adam” before using in a sentence. Religion gives our Creator a name like “Allah” or simply “God” and faith is enough for it to be accepted as true, do not need experiments and observations. Each has a different method of wording statements, but when science and religion are properly working together they are each part of the same search for knowledge of how our Creator works, and why our creation was good.

Religion does not need science, but where science were taken out of religion some of the most useful and fascinating things the Prophet ever said would have to vanish from Islam. Where we qualify Adam and Eve as human ancestry (which it is) then all scripture mentioning them has to vanish also. In this way, science and religion cannot be so easily separated. You can here see the part I earlier mentioned where they ultimately explain the same thing, just in different ways, and in that respect are much the same thing but different writing methods and such.

The lessons to be gleaned from evolution endorse the survival of the fittest, strongest, richest, greediest the selfish and the power hungry.

I never much liked the “survival of the fittest” thinking either. It works with lions chasing their next meal but in the rest of biology there are complex cooperative social systems all over where even bacteria have an amazingly complex shared-information society where they exchange coded information to help each other survive something that they never experienced before. Ants, bees, wolves, humans, even lions work together. When greed takes control there is soon enough trouble from it so that does not give as much of an advantage as it seems either.

Faith in God should inspire love, forgiveness, mercy, kindness, families and community. Sadly the evolutionary traits seem stronger.

You listed the traits we usually most value that unfortunately do not get much credit in evolutionary biology. But thankfully for me I’m not an evolutionary biologist because I’m sure glad that’s not my problem to correct! I can say the word “traits” but all that the word “evolutionary” implies is something for them to work on, while I work on theory with no “evolutionary” in it either, needing to be operationally defined.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Thanks Eric for adding your very constructive thoughts that helped us get a little further down the path that leads to where we all want to go. In this case we reached a point where there are ToE’s and ET’s of all sorts blocking the pathway. From my experience it is here best just use ToID robotics to clear them all out of the way ahead of us while making sure the stumps are well ground out so none behind us will have to worry about tripping over them. Only needed to fully know what is actually in our way and the science that makes them vanish as a problem from where they do not scientifically belong.

[Science101]

The Theory of Evolution as the means by which all extinct and extant species of life arose from a Common Ancestor (unicellar presumably) is not "no doubt true". There is no scientific evidence even that a donkey and a horse 'evolved' through naturalistic methods from a common ancestor.

Even the best Evolutionary Synthesis has a problem with macroevolution, but where kept within limits it is impossible to argue that the animals of Brazilian jungle look like those in Antarctica. Environment does favor one kind over another, so that part is true.

Despite significant commonality in the DNA structure of these two species, the translocations and other genetic changes would have rendered the individual in which it presumably occured sterile. One can presume that the mutation would have occured in either the sperm or the egg of one of the parents and this would render the resulting individual with a normal and a mutated chromosome. The lack of proper pairing of these chromosomes in meiosis would have occured in the same manner as in a mule today which is sterile. The claim that evolution is the source for variation within a species and that this is evidence for macro evolution of diverse species at large is utterly false.

Although they are not nearly as much a rearrangement these fusions happen in even the human population. Unlike trying to cross two different kinds of animals with different genomes which is often (but not always) sterile the parents are here of the exact same kind and the chromosomes that are now stuck together still normally divide properly.

[Science101]

May be happened it very quickly. It's true. thanks.

It is funny how Charles Darwin predicted slow change, then later there was evidence of fast change, so scientists added the phrase “punctuated equilibrium” to use with the “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis” theory that corrected such mistakes. Now that epigenetics is changing things again some scientists think it’s time to rethink the theory all over again!

There is a good article on the problem here:

http://classic.the-scientist.com/article/display/56251/

[Scimitar]

Allah does whatever he wants. Human Beings are special. According to Qur'an The first Human was Adam. But Qur'an does not rule out the possibility that human-like vicegerents with blood existed in this earth before Adam (A). So, I can't see any reason why we should only believe that humans must have come from ape-like ancestors.

The viceregents of this earth before humans were Jinn...

...go read Qisas al Anbiyya by Ibn Kathir, instead posting David Icke-esque dribble me lad.

Scimi

[Science101]

The viceregents of this earth before humans were Jinn...

...go read Qisas al Anbiyya by Ibn Kathir, instead posting David Icke-esque dribble me lad.

Scimi

In science the proper word to use for Adam (that also works for Eve) is “progenitor” as defined here:

From: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/progenitor

progenitor (plural progenitors)
A forefather, any of a person's direct ancestors
An individual from whom one or more people (dyansty, tribe, nation...) are descended.
Abraham alias Ibrahim is the progenitor of both the Jewish and Arab peoples.
(biology) An ancestral form of a species
(figuratively) A predecessor of something, especially if also a precursor or model.
ARPANET was the progenitor of the Internet.
(figuratively) Someone who originates something.
A founder

I spent years looking for the best possible word to use in scientific theory, and have not found any better.

This word cannot explain where Adam and Eve came from, it establishes common English Language terminology that works in both science and religion to define their relationship to us without mucking them up with a loaded word or phrase evolutionary biologists might rather we used like “common evolutionary ancestor”. Using this evo-free word right away clears another stretch of the path of theoretical overgrowth meant to stop our progress. As you know, my tactic is to find simple ways like this to make all that go away ahead of us. Science allows it. And I’m relatively sure that is what The Prophet would do too!

[MustafaMc]

Even the best Evolutionary Synthesis has a problem with macroevolution,

I agree with you 100% that so-called macroevolution or the evolution of new, more complex species from more basic and simple ones is not adequate. I contend that ToE goes beyond the bounds of the scientific method and it is in this respect a faith-based religion as is Islam.

I do not disagree that the elements of ToE are at work within species to adapt to changes in their environment. For example, I work in agriculture and there are many examples of pesticides that were once highly effective in killing both weeds and insects, but are now ineffective. The extensive use of these pesticides exerted a very strong selection pressure on the existing genetic variation within those populations. The result was that those pests that survived could reproduce and spread throughout the areas previously populated by individuals of the same species that were susceptible to those pesticides. So, yes, microevolution, or changes within a species, has been documented and is an illustration of some of the principles of ToE.

My contention is that science has no business in trying to solve the mystery of how we came into existence and that efforts to put forth hypotheses and theories to explain it are woefully inadequate yet they are being taught as fact to children. I don't believe that Creation per se should be taught in schools and that if ToE is taught as a possible theory, then Intelligent Design should also be taught as a possible explanation for the inadequacies of ToE. However, this touches upon the existence of God which is outside the realm of the Scientific Method.

[Scimitar]

However, this touches upon the existence of God which is outside the realm of the Scientific Method.

It is also out of the realm of their agenda to preach a Godless doctrine.

Scimi

[MustafaMc]

It is also out of the realm of their agenda to preach a Godless doctrine.

Scimi

Assalamu alaikum, akhi. Somehow I believe that you captured the essence of ToE in a nutshell. It all boils down to either 1) God created life and all species of life or 2) life just randomly happened and the various higher life forms developed from simple ones merely by chance and naturalistic processes.

[Science101]

I agree with you 100% that so-called macroevolution or the evolution of new, more complex species from more basic and simple ones is not adequate. I contend that ToE goes beyond the bounds of the scientific method and it is in this respect a faith-based religion as is Islam.

Yes, the theory is regularly used to promote many religions like Theistic Evolutionism and Atheism.

I do not disagree that the elements of ToE are at work within species to adapt to changes in their environment. For example, I work in agriculture and there are many examples of pesticides that were once highly effective in killing both weeds and insects, but are now ineffective. The extensive use of these pesticides exerted a very strong selection pressure on the existing genetic variation within those populations. The result was that those pests that survived could reproduce and spread throughout the areas previously populated by individuals of the same species that were susceptible to those pesticides. So, yes, microevolution, or changes within a species, has been documented and is an illustration of some of the principles of ToE.

That is an excellent example of where the theory has some explanatory power. One limitation is that the theory does not predict how the mechanism producing this variation works, the theory just states that such a mechanism exists.

And on pests and insects, I hope you saw the new research showing resistance from bacteria that live in thegut of the insect, at least in these cases not the insect itself:

http://the-scientist.com/2012/04/23/...de-resistance/

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...31109.abstract

The ToE sure did not predict that happening, but the one I write explains complex social systems like this where one thing cannot be explained without considering all others living with them in the same environment.

Unfortunately, many describe the theory like it includes all in biology, and believe that a better explanation than that is impossible.

My contention is that science has no business in trying to solve the mystery of how we came into existence and that efforts to put forth hypotheses and theories to explain it are woefully inadequate yet they are being taught as fact to children.

The mystery of how we came into existence is certainly one of the biggest questions of them all, and is source of much conflict. But with science beginning to make more sense according to Islamic and Christian scriptures I have reason to be hopeful for future science classrooms.

It is good that students know its basics but they also need to know its limitations. Best way to precisely know what it is a model of is to know how a Genetic Algorithm works, which is actually rather simple and can randomly try many variations of fan blades to find one that works better than another, but it’s really no big deal. I personally think GA’s are totally boring. Avida is considered one of the best for biological cells, which is here in case anyone wants to see or maybe for some reason try it on their computer, like I years ago did, then again found a GA boring:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/natur...03_Complex.pdf

I don't believe that Creation per se should be taught in schools and that if ToE is taught as a possible theory, then Intelligent Design should also be taught as a possible explanation for the inadequacies of ToE. However, this touches upon the existence of God which is outside the realm of the Scientific Method.

You can be more much more optimistic than that MustafaMc because it is not the fault of science that some use scientific theory religiously. We all like to see evidence “go our way” and I’m a little guilty of being glad it did NOT go where the Atheism camp predicted. And I think you rather that too, even though that makes us both kinda guilty of the same thing, but we don’t need to apologize. Once a theory establishes itself in science the rules are the same for each side, therefore Atheists and all else who need the theory to remain in science need to stop complaining about another being used the same way, by us. As long as we do not exaggerate what a scientific theory is able to explain and are clear what is science and what is religion there is nothing unscientific about it at all. So yes Atheists can get away with it, but as a result all you have heard about Intelligent Design not being a scientific theory because of that is based upon information from before there was even a Theory of Intelligent Design in existence, being experimented with.

Not to brag or sound like a spammy sales pitch, but when the Intelligence Design Lab at Planet Source Code is objectively compared to the Avida paper there is no contest as to which is most awesome for making things that come alive on the screen. I’m still happy that the authors were able to get their hard work published in such a prestigious science journal, but it is another GA not something scientific minds of all ages recognize as vital to know about for virtual-life type experiments, as I did. The real test is how well Avida would do after a similar protest against it being brought to Planet Source Code, whether it would still become an award winner in peer review from ones who know how to code in that language and know what they are useful for. If it cannot show that then it is not the kind of computer model to find such a wide-acceptance. In this case it is something students who are entering universities would more likely already know, not something they first learn there. This is much better, for a scientific theory.