A Question which Atheists could not answer

[Samiun]

:sl:



Can you give me one observable evidence? Just million of years ago~

Glory be to Allah. May Allah guide this person doing the interview to Islam

[observer]

OK, I probably shouldn't bite, but I'm going to.

The guys asks "Can you point to something I can observe that proves evolution" the answer is yes, the fossil record - several million years ago we see... And he cuts them off and says "I can't observe that".

Did you see the prophet Mohammed? With your own eyes? Did your parents see him? Your grandparents? No? Well, then how can you believe he existed, let alone that his teachings are true?

I'm an atheist - but I believe Mohammed existed. Why? Historic record. It seems pretty indisputable that Mohammed existed. But I didn't see him. Did you? I don't think so.

Did I see him myself? No. But you have a record of his existence, which you can believe - like there is a fossil record.

I also believe in the battle of Hastings. And the existence of Neanderthals. And Dinosaurs. None of which I've seen first hand.

Why do you think this guy's argument is a good one? It's absolute nonsense. If I were religious, I would be embarrassed that people like this were fighting my corner.

[Muhaba]

I can see the Quran, the Word of God revealed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). If that isn't enough proof then I don't know what is. I can also see how the Islamic religion came about and how the Muslims conquered so many countries in a few centuries, this is historically confirmed. The Quran is the proof of Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم 's prophethood. It is the unchanged word of God.

As for evolution, the evidence is not complete or rather, not there. You have proof of dinosaur's existence from the many fossils that are found - even whole dinosaur fossils. But where are complete fossils of interspecies (transitional fossils) to prove that different species evolved into other species? There are none. Had evolution been true, like dinosaurs, there would be plenty of interspecies fossils. Can you accept that dinosaur fossils could exist but transitional fossils could not?

According to scientists, evolution didn't happen overnight. It took millions of years. As such, there should be plenty of transitional fossils to show interspecies organisms. But there are none. Not one. WHY?
The simple answer is that the whole theory of evolution is false. While organisms may adapt (if Allah wants) and there can be slight changes to their features (beak, etc), but it's not possible for organisms to evolve into other species. Although Allah could also make that happen. But the fact is (as proven by the lack of transitional fossils) that that isn't how it happened. Each species was created separately.

[observer]

there should be plenty of transitional fossils to show interspecies organisms. But there are none. Not one. WHY?

But there are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

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

[Independent]

There's always some interesting new discovery going on in this area. Right now, the most fascinating is with human evolution. In the last few years scientists have managed to extract dna from bones up to 50-60,000 years old, with the potential to push this back even further. At last we can answer some questions with certainty that would always have been in dispute otherwise.

We now have dna from two species of humans which have died out - Neanderthals (mostly Europe) and Denisovans (mostly Asia/Polynesia). In addition we have evidence of a third as yet unidentified species, which may be homo erectus (from which modern man is believed to have descended).

We also know that we were able to interbeed with these species and (depending on where you live) you may have a small percentage of Neanderthal or Denisovan dna in you. The interbreeding was small, either because of limited opportunity or limited fertility, we don't know.

This proves beyond all doubt that these other species are indeed human relations. The story of our relationship is complex and still being argued, but of the central fact there is no doubt. All of this is exactly as you would expect if TOE were correct.

(It remains the case that everything we have discovered in all fields of science is consistent with TOE, although there is much still to be done. It is perverse to focus on the incomplete parts and ignore the massive accumulation of evidence in the other direction. It would be like refusing to accept the logic of 1-100, just because 20 of the numbers hadn't been 'discovered' yet.)

For Creationists, these discoveries cause two problems. One, it provides further evidence of human evolution. Two, it makes some Creation stories hard to reconcile. For instance, I have seen some daft suggestions that one of the people who went on the Ark was a Denisovan and another a Neanderthal, the rest modern humans. This is clutching at straws.

Please note, TOE is not the same as a theory of origin of life. TOE describes how it changes, not how it starts. It's possible to accept TOE but still believe in divine creation of life. (And many Christians and Muslims do.) You are defending a position that doesn't need defending.

There's a report about one of the discoveries here but many more around the web:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25423498

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer;

OK, I probably shouldn't bite, but I'm going to.

My problem with evolution is not the biological progress, but the evolution of movement. Somehow mutations would have to produce bones, muscles, tendons and ligaments that give a biological and chemical advantage to the organism as a priority. Somehow these mutations coincidently would have to be a good shape size, and connect to other components to aid movement.
A billion years ago there were no species with bones, eight hundred million years later, there are species with complete working skeletons comprising around 500 muscles, 200 bones. 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.

If you take just a two to one chance that each one of these two thousand components is the right size and shape to fit in with its neighbours, and it connects to the right place, you end up with an astronomical number that is beyond impossible.
I reckon that the evolutionary process would not give you a billion successive chances of passing advantageous mutations forwards from one generation to the next. Every mutation has to be passed through a population. Then there is the matter of the brain and sensors, it is pointless for biological change to make all these bones, muscles, nerves etc. If you have no guiding system these things are just a heap of junk.

I believe evolution cannot happen without God to guide it, I just don’t believe that God created life through evolution.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[observer]

Hi Eric, there's a lot of work being done on that area at the minute. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512104212.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120628145626.htm

As Independent has said, every detail we have found in every area of science supports the theory of evolution. Too often, the religious response is basically "It seems impossible so I don't believe it". That's not a counter-argument.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer;

Hi Eric, there's a lot of work being done on that area at the minute. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512104212.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120628145626.htm

As Independent has said, every detail we have found in every area of science supports the theory of evolution. Too often, the religious response is basically "It seems impossible so I don't believe it". That's not a counter-argument

Thanks for your response, I took a look at those links, they suggest ways muscles could have formed, this is not a problem for me. If a muscle is to be formed in the first place, I would imagine its shape and size would be governed by the biological advantage it gave to the species, this biological shape and size might not be the best shape and size to aid movement. This problem facing evolution is how 500 muscles formed the right size and shape, and they coincidently just happen to be attached both ends, in a way that formed movement. An explanation is needed as to how 200 bones. 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons, also happen to be a good shape, size and they all connect together to aid movement.

I think evolution had less than a billion years to do this since the first bone formed, to the completion of a full working skeleton. If a beneficial mutation happens once a year, that gives a billion successive generations for evolution to do its work. This would be slowed down somewhat because each mutation has to pass through a population, that might only give a hundred million successive generations for a beneficial mutation to be passed forwards.

I don't know what odds could be applied, but they seem impossible without God.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Independent]

I believe evolution cannot happen without God to guide it, I just don’t believe that God created life through evolution.

Yet we can now say as a matter of fact that we have a proven ancestral relationship to Neanderthals, Denisovans and a third species (perhaps homo erectus). How would you explain this?

[observer]

This problem facing evolution is how 500 muscles formed the right size and shape, and they coincidently just happen to be attached both ends, in a way that formed movement.

Hi Eric - I think you're perhaps looking at this slightly askew. 500 muscles appearing suddenly, yes, that would be a surprise. But the evolution of muscle over vast timescales is very different. Anything which conveys an advantage will be passed on. We see muscular evolution all over our body. We see muscles in our feet which are the same as our primate cousins but which have changed over time as we don't use our feet in the same way. We see the remnants of our tails in our tail bone which we used to need for balance but which lost its purpose when we started to walk upright. Evolution is everywhere.

Now, do we know exactly how the evolutionary process happened, 100%? No, we don't. But we do know that every bit of evidence we find points to the theory of evolution being correct. If you are waiting for the theory to be 100% proven before accepting it then, well, you'll be waiting a long time! However, it seems unfair to expect a theory to be 100% certain (if such a thing can even be said to exist in science) before you accept it. I went for an MRI scan a while ago - the scanner uses principles outlined by quantum mechanics. Quantum theory is less well developed than the theory of evolution yet you never hear religious people attacking it in the same way. Is that because the theory has immediate practical uses? I don't know. But I do know that the theory of evolution explains our development in a logical, consistent way and that every piece of observational or experimental evidence that we uncover adds further weight to it. Is it perfect? No. Will it change somehow? Yes. But is it the only theory which is logically consistent with what we see? Yes.

[glo]

I am not a particularly scientifically minded person myself, but one thing I really appreciate about scientists (and many of the atheists I know, for that matter (although that is not to say that only atheists can be scientists, of course!)), is that they are never satisfied with the answers they have received and always looking out to find out more.
Also they have an awareness that what science might hold true TODAY, may be proven to be false TOMORROW.

There is a constant openess to travel towards the truth - even if it meant abandoning old truths and convictions.

[Muhaba]

I am not a particularly scientifically minded person myself, but one thing I really appreciate about scientists (and many of the atheists I know, for that matter (although that is not to say that only atheists can be scientists, of course!)), is that they are never satisfied with the answers they have received and always looking out to find out more.
Also they have an awareness that what science might hold true TODAY, may be proven to be false TOMORROW.

There is a constant openess to travel towards the truth - even if it meant abandoning old truths and convictions.

Actually those who promote evolution are blinded and closed minded. They are not at all open to the truth.

[observer]

Actually those who promote evolution are blinded and closed minded. They are not at all open to the truth.

So how do you account for all the evidence pointing to evolution being true?

[Muhaba]

But there are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I don't see anything proving evolution there.

[Independent]

I don't see anything proving evolution there.

So how would you account for our now-proven ancestral relationship to 3 extinct species, as in my post above?

[Muhaba]

So how would you account for our now-proven ancestral relationship to 3 extinct species, as in my post above?

Please describe how it is proven. I don't see any proof for what you are claiming.

[Independent]

Please describe how it is proven. I don't see any proof for what you are claiming.

As I described above, in the last few years scientists have managed to extract intact ancient dna from a number of bones, including Neanderthals and Denisovans, which are two of the most recent extinct human-like species. Dna from a third unidentified species is also present.

They can compare this dna with modern human dna. They can see that a small amount is shared, depending on where you are born.

This proves that there has been some interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals and Denisovans (which was always in dispute before). For this to be possible, we must be related further back in our ancestry. (it is believed Neanderthals and Denisovans are the descendants of earlier migrations out of Africa, which were then isolated from the continuing development of modern humans within Africa. This is a complex story of multiple migrations.)

So, we are beyond doubt related to at least 3 extinct human-like species,of which Neanderthals are the best known and understood. Neanderthals are one of those groups that used to be called 'ape men'. It turns out they are our relatives.

[greenhill]

Very hard line interview.

I can accept 'survival of the fittest' if we were animals, but as human beings, a totally different 'kind' from the rest, we had a duty pen-ultimately to take care of the weak, which would eradicate the animalistic nature of survival of the fittest. The ultimate duty, of course, is to please Allah and then to earn an honest living, to better our knowledge . . .

Evolution, there is. But within a species. But does not explain changes of specie.

I have never been a scientist but having to study it, I put my hours but that was along time ago. I came to this conclusion, - if it smells it's chemistry, if it's alive and kicking it's biology and if it does not work it's physics. Joke!

Science in the beginning was a general sporadic research and only recently separated into those distinct subjects. So if generally falls into an area it would would be assigned to a specific field. Man made classification to understand Allah's work. So they try to define parameters, groups, things that bind observations and processes, results, empirical findings and try to make sense of what they observe. They make laws that govern the findings. Then they find exceptions to those laws.

As I say, I ain't no scientist, but I believe Allah is the Creator and He has His rules. Kun fayakun - Be! And it is. We know very little of His knowledge. For Allah, there is no time limit. The creation can take its time, let everything have time to settle. Let the dinosaurs and whatever organisms and also minerals be arranged in such way that they become resources for us when it was time to for us to dwell here so we may reflect that our presence here on earth is indeed temporary.


Peace :shade:

[Muhaba]

How does that show or prove we came from apes or fish or whatever was between fish and apes???

[Independent]

I can accept 'survival of the fittest' if we were animals, but as human beings, a totally different 'kind' from the rest, we had a duty pen-ultimately to take care of the weak

'Survival of the fittest' is one of the most misunderstood phrases in evolution (and actually didn't come from Darwin).

It does not mean survival of the strongest'.

'Fittest' is used in its nineteenth century sense of 'most appropriate' or in this context 'best adapted'. 'Fit for purpose' would be a better phrase.

It has been demonstrated many times that altruistic behaviour (eg looking after the weak) can give the community an advantage, or at least not disadvantage it.

[Independent]

How does that show or prove we came from apes or fish or whatever was between fish and apes???

You are avoiding the question by making it too big. Obviously, this is specific evidence for a family relationship between a few human and near human species, not wider than that. However, once it is proven even in a single instance it's no longer relevant to argue that it is 'impossible', as has been said by Creationists.

According to anti-TOE followers, we are not supposed to be related to Neanderthals or any other extinct species. But now we know that we are.

How would you explain this?

[Muhaba]

^I couldn't care less who we are related to or not related to. It really makes no difference to me and doesn't prove anything. Descriptions of Neanderthals and others are just assumptions and don't show anything. A lot of it is far-fetching the observations. For example, it is stated that early humans (or Neanderthals, I am unsure which) had elongated skulls similar to this image

and that the earliest humans came from Africa (possibly the elongated skull is of African origin). Well I have seen many ALIVE Africans with elongated facial features (similar to those depicted by evolutionists)! So such a skull doesn't prove anything.

The fact is that no matter how many fossils you have, you still can't prove that one came from another and was not individually created. Also, you first need to find out how the first particle came about. If you don't have the answer to that, everything else falls apart because it's pointless. Even if one organism came from another, it doesn't mean it happened by itself without intervention by God. And when God comes into the picture, the study of evolution is useless.

You should stop wasting your time researching evolution and focus more on your fate in the Afterlife. The God Who created the first particle (and thereafter everything else) is going to question you.

[Muhaba]

The skull image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ferrassie_skull.jpg . Don't know why it didn't show up above.

[Independent]

The fact is that no matter how many fossils you have, you still can't prove that one came from another and was not individually created.

But that's exactly what this dna evidence does prove. We are related to at least 3 extinct species, which are otherwise known to us only by their fossilised remains. Right now I can't think of another possible explanation.

Of course, it could still be the case that God created each species individually and simply decided to give us all related dna just to make us think TOE was true. But why would He do that?

It makes more sense to me to assume that God, if He exists, has set the evolution mechanism is place, the same as other physical laws etc are in place. Why would He treat evolution differently? it's not logical.

Also, you first need to find out how the first particle came about.

As I said in my first post, a theory of origins is NOT part of TOE. TOE describes how organisms changed, not how life originated in the first place. It's possible to believe in TOE and a divine origin for life without contradiction (and many Muslims and Christians do).

I couldn't care less who we are related to or not related to.

Ok - then perhaps this thread is not for you....

[Muhaba]

But that's exactly what this dna evidence does prove. We are related to at least 3 extinct species, which are otherwise known to us only by their fossilised remains. Right now I can't think of another possible explanation.

First of all we don't know that those are different species of humans. Just because some scientist says so (or some webpage says so) doesn't mean it is true.

Second, we don't know whether we really are related to some other species through DNA.

Third, if you can prove from DNA that we're related to some other species of humans then why don't they show from DNA that we're related to apes and fish and all those transitional species that are supposed to be there between fish and apes (but whose fossils are for some reason not there).

Of course, it could still be the case that God created each species individually and simply decided to give us all related dna just to make us think TOE was true. But why would He do that?

It makes more sense to me to assume that God, if He exists, has set the evolution mechanism is place, the same as other physical laws etc are in place. Why would He treat evolution differently? it's not logical.


As I said in my first post, a theory of origins is NOT part of TOE. TOE describes how organisms changed, not how life originated in the first place. It's possible to believe in TOE and a divine origin for life without contradiction (and many Muslims and Christians do).


Ok - then perhaps this thread is not for you....

Studying evolution is all useless, especially with the current premise that it happened by itself. So much time is wasted on it for no reason. And what is the point? Who cares how it all happened! We Muslims believe in God and that God created everything whether He created it individually or through evolution. The knowledge of that is with Allah. We do know that human beings were NOT made from apes but were created separately by God. it is possible that the humans of centuries ago were not exactly like the humans of today and that there was adaptation and changes in human structure but that doesn't mean we evolved from a different species. God specifically tells us in the Quran that humans came from one man and one female and that the first human was made by God Himself. We also know from hadith that the first humans were very large in size (70 feet height I think - and that is what a scientist also stated). We also know from science that all humans came from one pair of male and female.


We accept what God tells us in the Quran. Who would know how humans were created more than the Creator? Scientific study is incomplete and can not be wholeheartedly trusted. Today it is telling you all these things in proof of evolution. tomorrow it will tell you something that altogether disproves evolution. why base your fate on such a study based on observations and assumptions? When you know that the first particle came from somewhere - before the big bang there was nothing, after the big bang there was the universe- showing that a GREAT CREATOR brought about its origin, then instead of researching something pointless like evolution, why not research religion islam and work to improve your fate in the afterlife?

[Muhaba]

You can't separate theory of origin from theory of evolution. Theory of evolution states that changes take place by themselves, without intervention by God ( a claim for which there is no proof). By making such a claim and then trying to prove it, TOE is saying that God doesn't exist. Why are so many people atheists? because of theory of evolution.

Everything in life is interrelated. TOE states that organisms adapt to their environment, those that are the fittest survive, etc. But why should the environment change? what brings those changes? It is proven that the earth today is not the same as the earth thousands / millions of years ago. What brought about those differences? Why did the atmosphere change? etc etc. All of it points to the existence of God. God created the first particle. He brought about changes in whatever He wanted however He wanted. Nothing happens without God's decree.

[greenhill]

'Survival of the fittest' is one of the most misunderstood phrases in evolution (and actually didn't come from Darwin).

Yup, I understand. Even the Evolution theory didn't come from Darwin, either. ^o)

Funny thing is that the title relates to Atheists. It almost defines 'scientists' as being non religious and that Darwinism is science? Yes he makes a point in the interview, but it is just a point. It is about 'faith'. But you must also research. I believe you can be a scientist and a muslim at the same time. There is no way that the scientific findings can ever contradict the Qur'an.

Again, that is my opinion.

Peace :shade:

[Independent]

First of all we don't know that those are different species of humans

We always knew they were different species. But now we know they are different species of humans.

Second, we don't know whether we really are related to some other species through DNA

That's exactly what dna can tell us. It was the absence of this evidence before that left doubt.

Third, if you can prove from DNA that we're related to some other species of humans then why don't they show from DNA that we're related to apes and fish and all those transitional species that are supposed to be there between fish and apes

Recovering dna from ancient remains is extremely difficult. It's only the last few years we've managed to get back as far as Neanderthals etc. We will certainly never be able to get it from millions of years ago.

You don't seem to be aware of how extremely unlikely it is that anything gets fossilised. Of all the species that have existed, perhaps just 1% have left any fossil trace (and that excludes most soft tissue species altogether). So it's like trying to read a book with only one in every hundred pages still surviving.

This means we can see broad developments, but tracing a single line of ancestry with certainty for an individual species is next to impossible. However, there are plenty of things we can see that are consistent with TOE but no other theory (eg the progressive appearance of key features such as bones, eyes etc over millions of years).

We do know that human beings were NOT made from apes

TOE does not say we are descended from apes. It says apes and man have a common ancestor.

We also know from hadith that the first humans were very large in size (70 feet height I think - and that is what a scientist also stated

There is no fossil evidence for anyone so tall. In fact it is impossible for a such a huge human to live on earth for other physical reasons (gravity etc). They wouldn't be able to move.

When you know that the first particle came from somewhere - before the big bang there was nothing

Why do you believe the astrophysicists but not the biologists? They're all scientists.

We also know from science that all humans came from one pair of male and female

Interestingly enough, we can trace a single common male and female ancestor for all non African peoples. However, they didn't live at the same time. (There were other males and females but their line did not survive to the present day.)

[Independent]

But you must also research. I believe you can be a scientist and a muslim at the same time. There is no way that the scientific findings can ever contradict the Qur'an.

Personally, I think that if you are to be a great scientist, you must discover what is there to be discovered no matter what it is. If it exists, how can it be wrong?

[Independent]

You can't separate theory of origin from theory of evolution.

Yes you can although many people treat them together. I repeat, TOE describes how one species evolves into another. It does not describe the origin of life.

Having said that, TOE is most certainly a starting point for anyone looking into origins.

[tearose]

We always knew they were different species. But now we know they are different species of humans.

What proof do you have that they are different species rather than (for example) different ethnicities?

If they did find some remains, all they are doing is speculating about them, giving them different names and so on. They don't know.

[Muhaba]

We always knew they were different species. But now we know they are different species of humans.

So now we know that they aren't different species but part of the human race. That's a blow to evolution theory which tries to prove that humans came from nonhumans. Eventually with all the study, it will be proven that humans didn't come from nonhumans just as it is now shown that Neanderthals and others are humans and not a different species!

That's exactly what dna can tell us. It was the absence of this evidence before that left doubt.


Recovering dna from ancient remains is extremely difficult. It's only the last few years we've managed to get back as far as Neanderthals etc. We will certainly never be able to get it from millions of years ago.

You don't seem to be aware of how extremely unlikely it is that anything gets fossilised. Of all the species that have existed, perhaps just 1% have left any fossil trace (and that excludes most soft tissue species altogether). So it's like trying to read a book with only one in every hundred pages still surviving.

When there is so little information that much is left to assumptions, then why entrust your faith to it?

This means we can see broad developments, but tracing a single line of ancestry with certainty for an individual species is next to impossible. However, there are plenty of things we can see that are consistent with TOE but no other theory (eg the progressive appearance of key features such as bones, eyes etc over millions of years).



TOE does not say we are descended from apes. It says apes and man have a common ancestor.


There is no fossil evidence for anyone so tall. In fact it is impossible for a such a huge human to live on earth for other physical reasons (gravity etc). They wouldn't be able to move.

Your reply is based on current conditions. In the past the conditions on earth were not the same as today.

Why do you believe the astrophysicists but not the biologists? They're all scientists.

I believe what is in line with the Quran. I don't believe what goes against it. The Quran says in 21:30 : Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? This verse points to the big bang theory. Had the Quran told us that organisms came from one another, I'd accept that too.

[Independent]

What proof do you have that they are different species rather than (for example) different ethnicities?

If they did find some remains, all they are doing is speculating about them, giving them different names and so on. They don't know.

As far as I know, not many people have previously disputed that they are different species. That includes Creationists. Some of them may have decided to dispute it now that it's inconvenient.

You can google more information about Neanderthals, about which we have quite good information.

Neanderthals were physically different from us many ways. Average 5ft 6in, much larger eyes and eyebrows, similar brain size but radically different skull shape. Heavy, stocky build.

In terms of behaviour....lived in small groups. Almost exclusively hunting/meat eating. Limited language but this is disputed. Some evidence of burial ceremony, but no clear religious indication.

They became extinct as modern man moved into Europe. It's disputed whether we killed them, or climate change.

[Independent]

So now we know that they aren't different species but part of the human race.

No, they are a related species. A side branch which is now extinct. See my reply to tearose - in physique and behaviour they are unlike us. They lived in Europe until modern man arrived, then disappeared.

Your reply is based on current conditions. In the past the conditions on earth were not the same as today.

Why on earth would you think this contradicts TOE?

I believe what is in line with the Quran. I don't believe what goes against it.

There is an Islamic teaching I can't remember exactly - but it's along the lines of not contradicting proven, observable reality?

[Independent]

So now we know that they aren't different species but part of the human race

Actually, let me answer that again in more detail.

This is not about mere tribal differences. If you looked at all the tribes of Africa from a dna point of view, you would barely be able to tell them apart (aside from the occasional defective gene in small populations).

Whereas, Neanderthals or Denisovans would be utterly and conclusively distinct.

They are different, but related, species.

[tearose]

As far as I know, not many people have previously disputed that they are different species. That includes Creationists. Some of them may have decided to dispute it now that it's inconvenient.

The fact that not many people disputed it doesn't count as proof.

You can google more information about Neanderthals, about which we have quite good information.

I looked it up on Wikipedia. I am surprised that you would class it as having information. These are clearly the speculative theories of scientists and researchers who are trying to reconstruct an idea of the environment where they found the bones and remains as it would have been at the time. It is not information.

Neanderthals were physically different from us many ways. Average 5ft 6in, much larger eyes and eyebrows, similar brain size but radically different skull shape. Heavy, stocky build.

These are all very superficial differences. Aborigines have different eyebrows from the rest of the human race. Many ethnic groups in Central Africa are significantly shorter than the rest of the human race. These people are still alive today but they are not a different species.

In terms of behaviour....lived in small groups. Almost exclusively hunting/meat eating. Limited language but this is disputed. Some evidence of burial ceremony, but no clear religious indication.

This is pure speculation and apparently one researcher found cooked vegetable remnants. Even if it was true how does it show they were not human? I saw a documentary recently about a mass grave that was found from a couple or few thousand years ago, and some scientists were trying to examine the bones to work out what happened to them, and even though it was more recent than what you are talking about and in a society whose history we know quite a bit about, they still couldn't conclusively say who the people were or what happened to them.

By the way, I'm not committing myself to any belief or theory about these so-called Neanderthals. Muslims should investigate scientific evidence and check possible theories in relation to the Qur'an and Sunnah. I can't do it as I am not a scientist. I'm just trying to point out some of the flaws in your theory and that you are dismissing some possibilities too hastily.

[Independent]

These are all very superficial differences. Aborigines have different eyebrows from the rest of the human race. Many ethnic groups in Central Africa are significantly shorter than the rest of the human race. These people are still alive today but they are not a different species.

All the people in the world today have minimal differences at the genetic level. Such things as skin colour, height etc are entirely superficial. We are an amazingly homogenous species.

Whereas, Neanderthals and Denisovans are unmistakably different and could never be confused. In the past, many people would have considered Neanderthals as the quintissential ape man. In the past, many Creationists would have boasted that that they were not human, we are not related, and it could never be proved otherwise. It is necessary to revise that view.

I looked it up on Wikipedia. I am surprised that you would class it as having information.

I said google it, I didn't say you had to confine yourself to wikipedia. Useful as it is as a starter.

By the way, I'm not committing myself to any belief or theory about these so-called Neanderthals. Muslims should investigate scientific evidence and check all theories in relation to the Qur'an and Sunnah

Very good attitude to have. As i repeatedly say, TOE does not have to be incompatible with belief in God. I strongly believe that evidence for TOE will accumulate to such a degree that ultimately it will be officially accepted by Islamic scholars.

[tearose]

Such things as skin colour, height etc are entirely superficial. We are an amazingly homogenous species.

Yet you have cited the average height, build etc of the Neanderthals as evidence that they were a different species

TOE does not have to be incompatible with belief in God. I strongly believe that evidence for TOE will accumulate to such a degree that ultimately it will be officially accepted by Islamic scholars

It cannot be, because we as Muslims know that the idea that humans evolved from a common ancestor is false. The way humans were created is mentioned in the Qur'an. This belief cannot change.

By considering scientific evidence I did not mean that we would ever consider the theory of human evolution. I edited my post as I didn't realise the wording was ambiguous.

[Independent]

Yet you have cited the average height, build etc of the Neanderthals as evidence that they were a different species

If you were looking at at the dna of any modern human, with no other clue, you couldn't tell one from another. Yet any Neanderthal would be distinct. If it were a modern rape case, and they were cheking the dna of the accused, it would be said that this person is not human.

We know they separated from the main human population in Africa about 350-400,000 years ago and afterwards developed in isolation until a later emmigration from Africa by modern man. The African population that remained did not interbreed with Neanderthals or Denisovans.

The suggestion is not that we evolved from Neanderthals or Denisovans. They are both evolutionary dead ends. However, some of their dna survives in us because of interbreeding.

By considering scientific evidence I did not mean that we would ever consider the theory of human evolution.

There are many things accepted today that were once denied. There's no rush.

[RedGuard]

I would like creationists to answer one question - if all creatres were designed just perfectly by a perfect being, how come they have flaws in their design? Human spine for example is no different from a spine of e.g. a horse but it withstands completely different kind of force - it is "squeezed", not twisted as in other animals. Engineering structures designed to withstand such forces are designed in a completely different way.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you RedGuard; and welcome to the forum;

I would like creationists to answer one question - if all creatres were designed just perfectly by a perfect being, how come they have flaws in their design? Human spine for example is no different from a spine of e.g. a horse but it withstands completely different kind of force - it is "squeezed", not twisted as in other animals. Engineering structures designed to withstand such forces are designed in a completely different way

This raises a few thoughts for me, if we were perfectly created, we would not die, death has to be the greatest imperfection. We were created by God, with the freedom to do good deeds, our freedom of choice takes us down the path of selfishness, putting our own needs first, so I can understand why God would not want us to live forever in our current state.

If you are claiming a human spine and a horse spine, are the same kind of design, it just shows how versatile this design is. Human engineers cannot come close to making such a versatile model.

Evolution has no real meaning for me either way, it does not inspire me to do anything, faith in God does inspire me to try and change myself, hopefully for the better.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

Quote Originally Posted by Eric H View Post

I believe evolution cannot happen without God to guide it, I just don’t believe that God created life through evolution.

Yet we can now say as a matter of fact that we have a proven ancestral relationship to Neanderthals, Denisovans and a third species (perhaps homo erectus). How would you explain this?

I might be a bit out, but I seem to remember reading that human DNA, is around 98 percent the same as most species, I am not sure how your reply might prove there is no God?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[RedGuard]

Human spine may fulfil its role well enough but it's not the best that could be achieved. As the spine evolved to withstand bending forces not compressing ones, the incidence of various diseases and deformations is greater in humans than in animals that walk on four legs.

Another example of flawed deign is human childbirth - human head is larger than in most animals and the birth canal passes through the pelvis so childbirth is more difficult. If the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.

Yet another example si the inability of human body to produce vitamin C - because of a faulty gene. Almost all animals are able to produce it, with the s exception off guinea pigs and... other primates:D.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer;

observer;
Hi Eric - I think you're perhaps looking at this slightly askew. 500 muscles appearing suddenly, yes, that would be a surprise. But the evolution of muscle over vast timescales is very different.

The timescale I am interested in, is from the time the first bone, muscle tendon and ligament appeared in a species, in my previous post I suggested this could have been a billion years ago. I thought I was being generous, as the fossil records seem to indicate a period of less than six hundred million years ago.

What would be your timescale for the first bone appearing in a species, going from the fossil evidence so far?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[Independent]

I might be a bit out, but I seem to remember reading that human DNA, is around 98 percent the same as most species,

A stretch of dna may be mostly identical but contain one or two changes which are afterwards carried forward. By comparing such differences and matches across populations, they can see that modern man first split from Neanderthals about 350,000 years ago, then developed separately for awhile, then interbred again. So yes, our dna is similar to chimpanzees, but that's consistent with this new information. There is no dna information or discovery that contradicts TOE - really hard to see how that could be, unless it's broadly correct.

I am not sure how your reply might prove there is no God?

Well, I keep stressing that it doesn't prove this. TOE is entirely compatible with faith in God. But it may conflict with some Creation narratives. The question I think you should ask yourself is: if TOE were indeed to be proven in every detail, would this make you abandon your faith? I'm guessing the answer is 'no'. Therefore, TOE is not a faith/no faith deal breaker.

Evolution is a fantastically exciting and interesting addition to our understanding. Personallly, it makes me feel better about the world.

[RedGuard]

Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution as true, same is true for Eastern Orthodox and more mainstream Protestant churches. Most Hindus and Buddhists don't have any problems with accepting it either, I don't know what about Jews.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

Well, I keep stressing that it doesn't prove this. TOE is entirely compatible with faith in God. But it may conflict with some Creation narratives.

Ah right, but it also seems to be a greater conflict with a large number of atheists; who use TOE, to prove there is no God. Either a God created the universe and life, or there is no God at all, no middle ground, no sitting on fences. irrespective of what any of us believe, it cannot change the history of creation, there is a truth.

Evolution is a fantastically exciting and interesting addition to our understanding. Personallly, it makes me feel better about the world

I am happy that you are at peace with the world.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[RedGuard]

Note that Christians and Jews do not need to interpret their scriptures literally. The Bible was written by humans who were inspired by God but still prone to making normal, human errors. So Jews/Christians may reject the biblical story of creation as either a metaphor or an error of the scribes. There is even a whole system of philosophy created by Thomas Aquinas and expanded by his successors saying that there can never be a conflict between science and revelation. If some revelation contradicts science, then it's a false revelation

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you RedGuard;

Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution as true,

Ok, Pope Benedict has his own personal opinions about evolution, that does not constitute church doctrine, he is a man with the freedom to be a free thinker, I am a Catholic who is not influenced by the Pope's thoughts. Having said that, the pope is very clear to say that God is in control of creation.

Pope Benedict has aired his views on evolution for the first time - and says he partially believes Darwin's theories.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2oJ7YjMF6
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

[Independent]

Ah right, but it also seems to be a greater conflict with a large number of atheists; who use TOE, to prove there is no God.

It's such a pity that TOE has become so politicised. Of course, some evolutionists like Dawkins are vociferously anti religion. But this is a two way war and it was not the evolutionists who threw the first stone.

I don't know if you know much about the real history of Charles Darwin? i hope you might come to agree that he was fundamentally a good man who was very concerned how TOE might worry some people. In fact he delayed publication for many years, partly because of concerns for his devout wife's views. No one could have been a more devoted family man than him. He was most certainly not on an anti Christian agenda. However, this was Victorian England, and he knew it would be a controversial issue.

If you can, pay a visit to Down House, Darwin's family residence, now a museum. I hope you will see him as a genuine, sincere and considerate man.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you RedGuard;

Note that Christians and Jews do not need to interpret their scriptures literally. The Bible was written by humans who were inspired by God but still prone to making normal, human errors

This puts humans in control, and not God, so I would suggest your reasoning starts from a wrong premise.

If God can create the universe and life, he has the power to edit a book, exactly as he wants. If an all powerful Roman emperor tried to corrupt the Bible he would fail, his power is nothing compared to God. I trust that the Bible I read today, is exactly as God intends me to read, I also believe that the Koran Muslims read today, is exactly the scripture that Allah intends them to be inspired by.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric.

I might just lurk on this thread for a while, too many responses.

[RedGuard]

Encyclical Humani generis:

35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

So tThe Church does not reject evolution, nor does it believe it is true, as there is not enough evidence This opinion certainly is more balanced and progressive than that of many protestant churches which openly reject evolution and instead believe in young earth creationism.

[Zafran]

Usually when there is a thread about evolution there's always atheists and agnostics pushing it forward. Furthermore the thread always becomes a science vs religion thread. One of the reasons why religious people are skeptical of the entire evolution movement.

Why do people bring up the creationism vs evolution debate when evolution doesn't even answer the origin of the universe question - whilst creationism at best is a philosophical point of view?

[RedGuard]

Evolution does answer the origin of man more than adequately. Maybe you have mistaken man with life - that is not evolution but abiogenesis.

[Zafran]

origin of the universe :statisfie

creationism vs evolution debates is a farce.

[جوري]

All these questions have been addressed amply and by actual geneticists and doctors en board here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1589683

amongst other threads. Why is it that the ignorant always see themselves most fit to gauge topics well beyond their sphere of expertise?

We've already told you 'independent' fellow that we have all the mutations listed and do not know them to cause anything but death or disease or nothing in case of silent mutations. we've already also discussed that even DNA breaks cause nothing but cancer.. and we've also discussed that trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders speak against 'natural selection' and that you share fifty percent of your genes with a banana and that putting a banana at the beginning of the case and ending up with human is a load of laughs and here you're again repeating the same crap the minute people are busy with their lives to expose your BS

[Eric H]

Greetings ad peace be with you Independent;

It's such a pity that TOE has become so politicised. Of course, some evolutionists like Dawkins are vociferously anti religion. But this is a two way war and it was not the evolutionists who threw the first stone.

Only a righteous man without sin, can cast the first stone :D

I don't know if you know much about the real history of Charles Darwin? i hope you might come to agree that he was fundamentally a good man who was very concerned how TOE might worry some people. In fact he delayed publication for many years, partly because of concerns for his devout wife's views. No one could have been a more devoted family man than him. He was most certainly not on an anti Christian agenda. However, this was Victorian England, and he knew it would be a controversial issue.

If you can, pay a visit to Down House, Darwin's family residence, now a museum. I hope you will see him as a genuine, sincere and considerate man.

I agree, I think Darwin was a good and sincere man, as well as a dedicated researcher, struggling to come to terms with the evidence he saw. I believe he was right to publish the evidence as he saw it, he opened up a lot of controversial questions about life, in a similar way to Galileo and the universe. Sadly, the church was not very kind to Galileo, possibly some unrighteous stone throwing went on.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

A stretch of dna may be mostly identical but contain one or two changes which are afterwards carried forward. By comparing such differences and matches across populations, they can see that modern man first split from Neanderthals about 350,000 years ago, then developed separately for awhile, then interbred again. So yes, our dna is similar to chimpanzees, but that's consistent with this new information. There is no dna information or discovery that contradicts TOE - really hard to see how that could be, unless it's broadly correct.

Darwin noticed differences in finches' beaks, he noticed different plants on an island, that would be better suited to different shapes of beaks. We know birds can fly thousands of miles, some birds might choose to settle on an Island with abundant food. Access to this food is better suited to a different shaped beak, over a period of generations, the birds with the better shaped beaks become the dominant species, fine so far, I can agree with this.

In a similar way, a white man might go and live in Africa, if he has children with an African woman, over many generations, the skin colour and features will change and adapt to African living.

You take a finch, or a human, change their environment, interbreed with the locals and over many generations, nature has the tools to make minor changes happen. So far I am fairly happy with the thoughts of Darwin and adaption, the problem comes when we extrapolate back, to see if this same force of nature is powerful enough to make major changes.

I keep going back six hundred million years, when fossil records suggest there were no species with bones. How the first bone came into existence is not the problem for evolution. within four hundred million years, there are species with around 200 bones of different shapes and sizes, complete with all the ligaments, tendons, muscles, nerves, sensors, and brain to guide them.

Supposedly all this happened in the sea, but what tools did nature have to make this happen? there are currents to move chemicals around, areas of intense heat, and cold, light and dark, lightning. These tools of nature seem very crude to make working skeletons.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Independent]

Sadly, the church was not very kind to Galileo, possibly some unrighteous stone throwing went on.

Have a read of "The Sleepwalkerss' by Arthur Koestler. It's a fascinating story of why Galileo may not be the hero of science he is cracked up to be and why the Pope was not so bad after all.

[Independent]

I keep going back six hundred million years, when fossil records suggest there were no species with bones. How the first bone came into existence is not the problem for evolution. within four hundred million years, there are species with around 200 bones of different shapes and sizes, complete with all the ligaments, tendons, muscles, nerves, sensors, and brain to guide them.

A long reply for Christmas Eve:

1.
Evolution is not a teleological, single direction journey toward 'higher' creatures. It is about filling every possible environmental niche. Which is why more 'primitive' organisms are not necessarily displaced by higher organisms. The higher organism occupies a different niche.

For this reason, I can see why certain key evolutionary steps would have a radical effect. For instance the eye. Even in its most primitive, early state, the eye is a game-changing breakthrough that confers huge competitive advantage. (In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king!) Creatures with sight are strongly advantaged to fill all available niches and you would expect to see a sudden apparent acceleration in evolution. This is exactly what we do see.

Similarly with bones. Once the ability to form bones has evolved, it's a far smaller step to multiply it.

There are many factors that could radically change the statistics on TOE. For instance, they are researching into dna 'switches'. It seems that along the string of genes there are some genes that act as triggers or switches for large groups of other genes. What's more, it seems that the timing of the switch is of massive importance. For example, if the switch activates early, the group may form fins. If it activates later, you may get legs and arms. In other words, the actual number of genetic changes or mutations required are vastly less than would be the case if each element had to mutate separately. it may be that fins and arms/legs are not two separate evolutions, they are one.

Another interesting area is the extent to which a limited number of forms and structures are predetermined in nature for underlying reasons of physics and chemistry. This can have astonishing consequences. Look at snowflakes - despite their diversity there are a few simple physical laws that restrict the number of possible forms.

At first glance Nature is overwhelmingly diverse and this is how men originally reacted to it. Gradually we have become aware that it's not correct that each species is an island. They have many things in common. We can categorise them into all kinds of biological sets and relationships. More fundamentally, certain structures such as locomotion systems are repeated again and again. The wheel is not being reinvented every time. It is being repurposed.

This is not what you would expect to find in a continuously created world. It is what you would expect with TOE.

There is research going on in all kinds of areas. But the point is, are there lines of enquiry that would drastically change the maths on TOE? The answer is 'yes'. The statistical objection to TOE is not a fundamental obstacle. It's highly unlikely those odds are going to stay the same.

2.
Although we don't understand the mechanism sufficiently, TOE fits all the evidence we have about the development of life and is not contradicted by any fact. other theories, including all Creationist theories, do not satisfactorily account for a wide range of observable evidence including:

a) The broad trend of simple organisms to more complex organisms over a long period of time.
b) The correct order of that trend - eg we never find homo sapiens in the Jurassic era.
c) The correct geographical and geological distribution of that evidence
c) The way Nature is structured into a huge network of related species, as opposed to individual unrelated creations
d) The evidence of adaptive structures which are not as good as specifically created structures (eg the human skull including its delayed fontanelle closure, altered jaw structure and elaborate birth canal gyrations that formerly led to 1in 5 death rate for mothers)
e) A host of detailed examples such as the Neanderthal/Denisovan evidence I quoted earlier
f) The extinction of approx 90% of creatures before human-like creatures ever set foot on the world and the immense period of time before there was any life at all.
g) The gradual discovery of possible mechanisms (eg Darwin knew nothing about dna)

That's just a list off the top of my head, there are plenty of other evidences. TOE gives a simple, logical and consistent explanation for all of these, whereas continuous divine creation does not.

It is not logical that God would set up mechanisms and laws for everything in the universe except this one area.

TOE is no more invalidated by the problems in its suggested mechanism that astrophysics is by the lack of agreed proof for dark matter.

[جوري]

alot of fluff and NO science as usual!

[جوري]

[RedGuard]

Welcome جوري
In one of your post you mentioned that all mutations cause cancer and there are no positive ones. I don't know if your knowledge is really that lacking or maybe you only pretend to not know that evolution does not occur via changes od DNA in already developed organisms (unless you are talking about bacterias) but via mutation in gametes - reproductive cells. Humans are still evolving too. An example would be a mutant gene that allowed milk digestion in adults developed in two places separately. There is more than enough evidence to back it, all published in respected scientific journals.

Have a nice read:
1. Coelho, M., Luiselli, D., Bertorelle, G., Lopes, A. I., Seixas, S., Destro-Bisol, G. and Rocha, J. 2002. Microsatellite variation and evolution of human lactase persistence. Human Genetics 117(4): 329–339.
2. Bersaglieri T., Sabeti P. C., Patterson N., Vanderploeg T., Schaffner S. F., Drake J. A., Rhodes M., Reich D. E. and Hirschhorn J. N. 2004. Genetic signatures of strong recent positive selection at the lactase gene. American Journal of Human Genetics 74(6): 1111–20.
3. Tishkoff et al. "Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe." Nature Genetics 39, 31-40 (2007).

[جوري]

Welcome جوري
In one of your post you mentioned that all mutations cause cancer and there are no positive ones. I don't know if your knowledge is really that lacking or maybe you only pretend to not know that evolution does not occur via changes od DNA in already developed organisms (unless you are talking about bacterias) but via mutation in gametes - reproductive cells. Humans are still evolving too. An example would be a mutant gene that allowed milk digestion in adults developed in two places separately. There is more than enough evidence to back it, all published in respected scientific journals.

Have a nice read:
1. Coelho, M., Luiselli, D., Bertorelle, G., Lopes, A. I., Seixas, S., Destro-Bisol, G. and Rocha, J. 2002. Microsatellite variation and evolution of human lactase persistence. Human Genetics 117(4): 329–339.
2. Bersaglieri T., Sabeti P. C., Patterson N., Vanderploeg T., Schaffner S. F., Drake J. A., Rhodes M., Reich D. E. and Hirschhorn J. N. 2004. Genetic signatures of strong recent positive selection at the lactase gene. American Journal of Human Genetics 74(6): 1111–20.
3. Tishkoff et al. "Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe." Nature Genetics 39, 31-40 (2007).

Adaptation differs from speciation why not familiarize yourself the difference between macro and micro evolution and then come engage this topic when you can address it on a level :)

best,

[جوري]

here are a few posts I have written earlier for someone whose knowledge is beyond fifth grade biology.

the proposed mechanism for evolution is as you mention indeed, or proposed to be through several mutations (frame shift, nonsense, missense, silent, acrocentric breaks in DNA or even jumping genes) the problem is in fact none of those mutations in documented science have conferred speciation-- in fact if you google any let's take any random example, say the translocation of the Philadelphia chromosome for instance t(9;22)(q34;q11). and you'll find that we end up with chronic myelogenous leukemia in lieu of mammoth to elephant.. just do that for each of the proposed mechanisms and see what you get..
also in terms of natural selection, research such things as trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders
Huntington Disease
Spinobulbar Muscular Atrophy
Spinocerebellar Ataxias (SCA types 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 17)
Dentatorubro-Pallidoluysian Atrophy
Non-polyglutamine Disorders
Fragile X Syndrome
Fragile XE Mental Retardation
Friedreich Ataxia (
Myotonic Dystrophy (DM, not MD)
Spinocerebellar Ataxias (
to name a few and you'll find that the least favorable traits are chosen and get successively worst with each generation.. thus, those of us who have a problem with some aspects of evolution theory, are skeptical from known science and observation rather than religious fervor!

We're not talking about squamous cells turning columnar with repeated insults for with whatever that is worth in many instances leads to development of cancer not a new species of human beings..

and btw if we're still evolving can we not 'devolve' I mean diamonds go back to carbon so why not we to unicellular organisms?
Atheists should familiarize themselves with the religion to which they subscribe so we're not laying out their tenets and having a good chuckle at their zeal!

best,

[RedGuard]

What the hell si the problem? Micro and macroevolution are fundamentally the same process, just at different scales. Evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature

[جوري]

What the hell si the problem? Micro and macroevolution are fundamentally the same process, just at different scales. Evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature

NO, they're not the same process and if you want to discuss the process then work out the details
like so:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

try for science not pseudo science and inane padding!

[RedGuard]

And you used totally wrong example (fallacy of false analogy). Diamonds are not result of evolution because diamonds are not alive. They do not have metabolism, they do not reproduce as living organisms do. They are just a particular arrangement of carbon atoms, created in specific conditions (sufficient pressure and temperature)

[جوري]

And you used totally wrong example (fallacy of false analogy). Diamonds are not result of evolution because diamonds are not alive. They do not have metabolism, they do not reproduce as living organisms do. They are just a particular arrangement of carbon atoms, created in specific conditions (sufficient pressure and temperature)

in fact that only thing that evolves in the way you'll have us believe are viruses and they're not considered living organisms and worse yet they need a host in order to evolve. Somehow you expect us to take a great leap of faith on something that is meant to be 'scientific' Why don't you describe the process as I have demonstrated in the PDF file I have shared above?

[RedGuard]

Your document seems to be an old, creationist argument that probabilities of complex molecules appearing are so low that it would be impossible for life to emerge spontaneously. This is of course well, bullshit I don't have will to write an extensive reply now as I prefer to enjoy beer and Christmas food, so now I'll reply just briefly.

In the very first sentence they already made a grave mistake (or an overt deception). They assumed that assembly of RNA (or any other organic compound) was completely random. In terms of chemistry it would mean that chances of e.g. one atom of oxygen binding with two atoms of hydrogen are exactly the same as chances of one atom of oxygen binding with, for example... two atoms of helium.;D I can't imagine how some people even dare to call this "science". Even a 7th grade chemistry student knows that some atoms don't bond with other atoms at all while others can be a ppart of a very diverse array of compounds. Using creationist logic I may say that chances of water forming randomly are so low that ir would need a creator.

More soon.

[جوري]

his is of course well, bullshit

Eloquent as we can only ever expect from an atheist :)

I prefer to enjoy beer and Christmas food

Whatever redeeming qualities you presume to have don't jive on the forum either!

was completely random

If not random then designed which rather renders this logorrhea moot.

as stated go learn science past fifth grade biology and don't resort to logical fallacies and attempts at 'cool and macho' if that it what you were going for and in fact to try to evolve a little..

best,

[Eric H]

Seasons greetings to you all,

I am taking a short break, and will return in a few days.

Every blessing to you all, and to your families,

Eric

[جوري]

enjoy your time off

[Karl]

I can't believe that the benevolent pond scum evolved into an obnoxious atheist. Satan must be behind it. Life is basically molecular codes. So can numbers evolve? Can the number 2 evolve into 7? Evolution is not scientifically valid because no one has witnessed it happening or more accurately taken data of it happening. If all the scientists loaded their raw data and their observations and ideas into a super computer to prove evolution, the computer would just compute a reply of "insufficient data". I think politics is behind this evolution mania. A kind of collective oneness, out of Africa syndrome. But I don't buy it. I wish they would stop pushing their Marxist agendas, "everybody is the same, we evolved from a monkey in Africa" rubbish.

[RedGuard]

Evolution as a Marxist agenda...:D:D:D Lenin and Stalin laugh in their graves. If they liked it so much, why did they ban it as a an imperialist-capitalist conspiracy against dialectic materialism and banned it from education altogether?

Besides that, are you sure that no one witnessed evolution happening? No one? Not even once? I think you're mistaken as evolution of unicellular organisms in very well documented. An example would be the evolution of antibiotic resistance - those bacteria that survive contact with antibiotics keep reproducing while those who weren't die out, making it a perfect example of natural selection. The reason why we don't readily observe evolution in humans and other animals is because their lifespan/breeding speed is incredibly slow. For bacteria 1000 generations is just a few weeks. For animals (including humans) it's thousands or tens of thousands of years.

Richard Lenski runs an experiment of keeping 12 initially identical populations of E. coli since February 1988. In 2010 the population reached a milestone of 50,000 generations. All populations show remarkable evolutioanry changes, some fo which occured in all populations, some in just a few or one. One strain evolved the ability to use citric acid as a source of carbon, as it was present in the growth medium. Differences in average cell size and shape have also appeared.

[جوري]

btw did the E.coli turn into klebsiella in this 'evolutionary process'?

[RedGuard]

Nah, of course there is evolutionary change - as there is change of gene pool of given population, proven to be caused by genetic mutations which were then selected for.

I don't even know how to reply to your post as it does not contain any criticism of the experiment. If you want, you can familiarize yourself with it on Richard Lenski's website (myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/index.html). It contains a detailed description together with genetic data and a list of publications. So maybe you can prove how errenously wrong he is? Just don't pull out Zionist conspiracies.

[جوري]

I don't even know how to reply to your post

you don't know how to reply because you can't take said mutations and I have them listed above and actually use them to 'speciate' and it is also the reason you psycho babble like a fool then beat extra hard on your chest to self congratulate and then reference us to sites because you can't synthesize what you've read to mean what you say!

best,

[RedGuard]

Inability to metabolize citrate under oxic conditions was considered to be a defining trait of E. coli bacteria. One strain eventually developed this abiltiy after circa 40,000 generations so it can eb considered a new species.

[جوري]

Inability to metabolize citrate under oxic conditions was considered to be a defining trait of E. coli bacteria. One strain eventually developed this abiltiy after circa 40,000 generations so it can eb considered a new species.

Truly unfortunate is your obstinacy and purposeful aversion to calling the terms what they're. If you don't understand the difference between adapting to changes and becoming something else all together then there is no point to this dialogue.
Taking 28 letters of the alphabet to make seemingly endless words doesn't equate to all words having the same meaning or common parent from which they evolved. simply means these are the building blocks of language.
Say I even accept that the E.Coli evolved into a new species of klebsiella or strep after direct manipulation, why don't you take the same means and apply it to humans? It is quite easy in fact to manipulate genes using vectors, so put the pedal to the metal and stop with the empiricism and give us something to sink our teeth into or simply buzz off!

best,

[RedGuard]

In organisms that reproduce sexually speciation isn't about becoming "something else". it occurs when two initially related populations become so genetically distinct that they are no longer able to interbreed with each other without their offspring losing biological fitness. Mules and horses for example can breed with each other but their offspring is infertile - a drastic loss of fitness. Phenotypical similarity isn't an indicator of speciation at all - wolves are more similar to coyotes than to shih tzu but neverthless, they are more closely related to shih tzu than to coyotes. There is also so called convergent evolution - some species may develop similar traits due to similar evolutionary pressures. Wolves are very similar to Tasmanian tigers but are only distantly related.

Ad 2 - I agree that not all words have a common "parent" (words do not arise due to sexual reproduction so they can't have parents). However, languages also evolve though via more or less different mechanisms than biological evolution and there are families of languages which are descended from a common ancestor. My native language belongs to a West Slavic branch of Slavic languages, itself belonging to Indo European family. All Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian etc.) are descended from Vulgar Latin which was a homogenous language around 500 AD but then began to differentate into separate languages because of geographic and political isolation of it's speakers. If you believe in creationism, do you believe in linguistic creationism as well? Do you think that e.g. lexical, grammatical and phonetical similarity of all Slavic languages is just an evidence of creation but not evolution?

[جوري]

Mules and horses for example can breed with each other but their offspring is infertile

Glad you are on to something there.
I have given you the names of known mutations and other proposed methods such as acrocentric breaks in DNA strands to cause 'speciation' use that and spare no details I think if you do minimal research you too will come to realize that genetic, metabolic and physical pathways are quite expansive and well the devil is in the details as they say. I am not interested in theorizing and accepting gaps in science as an exchange of beliefs to something more palatable to a group that considers themselves learned when they're far from it.
Until you can address those I am not interested in all that padding
You've already admitted as much in that first eloquent post of yours that the process isn't random and that actually causes a major shift in gear. Try to focus on key words you use or others use to explain your points of view.. Don't reference me to websites that appeal to your beliefs and don't fill the page with empty rhetoric!

best,

[Karl]

Evolution as a Marxist agenda...:D:D:D Lenin and Stalin laugh in their graves. If they liked it so much, why did they ban it as a an imperialist-capitalist conspiracy against dialectic materialism and banned it from education altogether?

Besides that, are you sure that no one witnessed evolution happening? No one? Not even once? I think you're mistaken as evolution of unicellular organisms in very well documented. An example would be the evolution of antibiotic resistance - those bacteria that survive contact with antibiotics keep reproducing while those who weren't die out, making it a perfect example of natural selection. The reason why we don't readily observe evolution in humans and other animals is because their lifespan/breeding speed is incredibly slow. For bacteria 1000 generations is just a few weeks. For animals (including humans) it's thousands or tens of thousands of years.

Richard Lenski runs an experiment of keeping 12 initially identical populations of E. coli since February 1988. In 2010 the population reached a milestone of 50,000 generations. All populations show remarkable evolutioanry changes, some fo which occured in all populations, some in just a few or one. One strain evolved the ability to use citric acid as a source of carbon, as it was present in the growth medium. Differences in average cell size and shape have also appeared.

Stalin was not exactly a Marxist, more of a psychopath and I don't think Lenin was either, that's why people that followed their doctrines were called Stalinists and Leninists. But the flavour of the day Marxism is capitalism for the rich and socialism for the poor under the one world government the UN under Rockefeller and co. The capitalist exploitation of poor nations (as well as starting wars for the arms trade) with crushing cultural Marxism and regulations in the rich nations.
These bacteria that you speak of, did they evolve at all beyond being bacteria? They seem to have just adapted to become super bugs. Another thing bacteria and algae and other single cell life forms are more or less perfect for survival, so why would they evolve beyond being single celled life and if being many celled is so much better why is there single celled ones around in such huge abundance? Why is there life around that has not evolved and is in a primordial state of simplicity? The trouble with fossil evidence is that the Earth recycles itself, so a lot of fossils would have been dragged down into the magma. So at the end of the day even if you could dig up every fossil you only get a small glimpse of history. There is too much unknown even about human history let alone other creatures. So to be truly scientific about it you would have to reason it as insufficient data. And since the data has been destroyed you will never know. That's why the wise will answer to the riddle of life the universe and everything as "God knows".

[wizra]

This is a really good video. Thanks for sharing it.

It brought these two verse to my mind:

28:50. But if they do not respond to you - then know that they only follow their [own] desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.

22:8. And of the people is he who disputes about Allah without knowledge or guidance or an enlightening book.

Of course the context of these verse aren't directed to atheists, but it does expose the same diseases they have deep in their hearts. They like to argue and come up with pretty much any random excuse to not get out of their comfort-zones. They also blatantly lie and say "I would worship God if I could see Him". When the soul is desperate to avoid worship so badly, it will inevitably make up more excuses even if the atheist saw God.

[Independent]

In the TOE argument, it's usually Creationists who choose the battleground. They attack detailed aspects of TOE (such as Skye attacking the rate of mutation mechanism). The idea is to focus attention on the least complete aspects of the theory, and draw attention away from other areas. (So for instance in this case we get this endless sterile statistical argument). Of course, mechanism is important - but the only reason we're interested in it is to explain the factual state of the world we can already see.

In response, scientists don't examine Creationism much in return because they simply assume that once you assume divine intervention, 'anything goes' so it's untestable.

This is not correct. Creationism (let's call it 'divine TOE) can be tested in many aspects - not least because it usually comes with a specific narrative that is not just 'anything goes'.

If we treat the notion of divine TOE seriously and apply similar tests, it does not make sense. Turning the argument I made earlier round the other way, speciation by continuous divine fiat does not fit a wide range of evidence such as:

a) The broad trend of simple organisms to more complex organisms over a long period of time.
b) The correct chronological order of that trend both at the level of individual species and individual characteristics (eg bipedalism)
c) The correct geographical and geological distribution of that evidence
d) The way Nature is structured into a huge network of related species, as opposed to individual unrelated creations by divine fiat
e) The evidence of adaptive structures which are not as good as specifically created structures (eg the human skull including its delayed fontanelle closure, altered jaw structure and elaborate birth canal gyrations that formerly led to 1in 5 death rate for mothers)
e) The presence of vestigial organs and structure
f) The existence, and extinction, of related species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans
g) The trackable history of mankind's multiple migrations out of Africa, which does not fit any scriptural description
h) The extinction of approx 90% of creatures before human-like creatures ever set foot on the world and the immense period of time before there was any life at all.


And some more specifically related to Islamic TOE:

j) The absence of any fossils, tools or other archaeological evidence for 90ft men - or any transitional fossils across succeeding generations
k) The absolute impossibility of scaling up a human to that size without other serious physical adjustments and difficulties with living in a 'normal' sized world
l) The absence of any genetic evidence for such creatures
m) The absence of any fossil or other evidence for humans living to extreme old age (ie hundreds of years)
n) The illogicality of creating natural laws for everything in the universe, except this one thing.

To paraphrase, these are some of the Questions that Creationists cannot answer. Divine TOE is not compatible with the evidence.

[observer]

These bacteria that you speak of, did they evolve at all beyond being bacteria?

Why would they? Evolution is not about "getting better" - it's about survival. Things that can survive perfectly well as a simple organism do so. These bacteria are surviving happily, so why would they change into something different?

There is no end goal to evolution, if changes in an organism don't give them an advantage, they don't remain.

[جوري]

Divine TOE is not compatible with the evidence.

neither is the alleged 'scientific' TOE..

and

That doesn't a 'logical' argument make.
Furthermore, and for the umpteenth time, Islam doesn't offer an explanation to creation or how we came to be and I have quoted multiple times that i am getting rather sick of your inability to read & processes information:

Al-Kahf [18:51]

مَا أَشْهَدتُّهُمْ خَلْقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمَا كُنتُ مُتَّخِذَ الْمُضِلِّينَ عَضُدًا

Ma ashhadtuhum khalqa alssamawati waalardi wala khalqa anfusihim wama kuntu muttakhitha almudilleena AAadudan

18:51 I called them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor (even) their own creation: nor is it for Me to take as helpers such as lead (men) astray!


Which part of that exactly was difficult for you to understand?

Please cut the crap, and cut the padding, and quit trying to pass yourself off as something you're clearly not. You're neither well versed in science nor are you in religion!

[Independent]

^^I guess if you can't cut and paste the answer, you have no answer.

TOE remains the only description on the table that fits the evidence.

[جوري]

I guess if you can't cut and paste the answer, you have no answer.

cutting & pasting seems your speciality - yes... If you have understanding you won't need cuts and pastes!
Not sure what it is you're psycho babbling about now as I have already stated, I am not big on substituting one belief for one that your ilk deems more appropriate for the time, firstly you're not of my peers and secondly you've NOT the slightest clue what you're talking about most of the time.

best,

[Independent]

cutting & pasting seems your speciality - yes... If you have understanding you won't need cuts and pastes

In fact as I look back through some past threads I see you've been cutting and pasting the same handful of articles for year after year, as this ever-popular topic comes up. Never really reading anyone's questions, just recycling the same not especially relevant reply. I should think you owe Mr Mullan a few royalties at this stage.

You have no answer for any of the main evidences - either for TOE, or against divine fiat.

[جوري]

In fact as I look back through some past threads I see you've been cutting and pasting the same handful of articles for year after year, as this ever-popular topic comes up. Never really reading anyone's questions, just recycling the same not especially relevant reply. I should think you owe Mr Mullan a few royalties at this stage.

actually he has a doctorate which you don't on the topic.. and whether or not I have referenced his article, I have also discussed at length the science and have tons of threads in the health & science section that testify to that.
The relevance is a matter of abstraction which you don't seem to possess, and linear folks who parrot the status quo generally don't tend to think in abstract forms or are able to use the science they've learned to synthesize new ideas or even discuss existing ones to any effect.

The last statement I'll attribute to your inner child throwing a tantrum as usual :)

best,

[Independent]

The relevance is a matter of abstraction

This article does not disprove TOE. But I enjoyed reading it and at least Mullan has something interesting to contribute, unlike yourself.

However, he doesn't touch on any of the principle evidences for TOE. Nor does this article contribute anything to an argument supporting a history of life by divine fiat.

This proposed Creationist history simply does not fit the evidence and so far, you've given nothing at all to suggest otherwise.

Why has life in fact progressed from the simple to the complex? Why is everything in the right geographical, geological, biological and chronological order? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

You appear to have no answer to any question that actually relates to TOE, or the problems which invalidate development by divine fiat.

[جوري]

This article does not disprove TOE. But I enjoyed reading it and at least Mullan has something interesting to contribute, unlike yourself.

The article doesn't prove TOE either, and I doubt very much you've read it!
two posts ago the fellow was a 'MR' to you and received the bite of your all too frequent sophomoric comments. All of a sudden you enjoy his work?

However, he doesn't touch on any of the principle evidences for TOE. Nor does this article contribute anything to an argument supporting a history of life by divine fiat.

I have touched on the proposed principles of TOE and they've come undone and so has Br. Mustafa MC whose bread and butter is genetics. What have you done expect string words together and attempt to decrease the value of actual scientists in favor of your silly beliefs?
Science should be concerned with science not philosophy it should be concerned with what it can produce in numbers and data not the machination in someone's wild imagination. Read a little something about P values, confidence intervals Types I and II error and you too will understand what the purpose of science is.

This proposed Creationist history simply does not fit the evidence and so far, you've given nothing at all to suggest otherwise.

What evidence is that exactly? Evidence denotes application not mere empiricism. We are not here to discuss 'creationism' we are here to discuss why evolution (as in speciation) is a farce, no more no less. I am not interested in how God created the universe.

Why has life in fact progressed from the simple to the complex? Why is everything in the right geographical, geological, biological and chronological order? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Good question, something that is directed and progresses in a particular fashion denotes intelligence and direction. Not a sprinkle of water and sunshine and a bit of time et voila, life higher reticular function and millions of species, if it were as simple as all that then discuss mechanism of action in details, You seem to be under the impression that the onus is on me to prove something right, the onus is to prove your beliefs wrong, no more no less.

You appear to have no answer to any question that actually relates to TOE, or the problems which invalidate development by divine fiat.

Again, an adequate assessment of the sum of your failures. If you had something substantive to discuss make the science shine not the stench of BS

best,

[Karl]

Why would they? Evolution is not about "getting better" - it's about survival. Things that can survive perfectly well as a simple organism do so. These bacteria are surviving happily, so why would they change into something different?

There is no end goal to evolution, if changes in an organism don't give them an advantage, they don't remain.

Ok so the evolutionists believe the world cooled and after the rains fell and filled the oceans etc. There was a great soup of microbes for ages and ages that thrived. So you said evolution wasn't about getting better so why or how did these microbes evolve. Using chaos theory this planet is too young for the complicated mathematical odds of organic molecular bonds to make the complex DNA of a microbe. Maybe the planet was seeded from outer space by inorganic iron pyrites struck with enough lightning energy and radiation to cause organic compounds synthesis to form a very simple life form. But here is the sticking point. The odds of a simple life form evolving into a complex one is astronomical. Our Sun would have gone out and our planet freeze before a poly cell life form would evolve let alone life forms of such complexity today. Of course evolutionary theories are no better than saying life was sneezed upon the Earth by Zeus who had them brewing up his nose for ages.

[جوري]

The odds of a simple life form evolving into a complex one is astronomical.

Which is what Dr. Mullan's research discusses precisely and in such depth withe the math and physics involved. As to why that is lost on the atheists who seems to 'enjoy' Mullan's work but can't seem to understand how that most basic concept fits into what he's peddling is beyond me.. and that's actually to say the miraculous compound that came together was functional to begin with, simply adding amino acids together doesn't guarantee functionality and that is also of course if I forgo the idea of the need of a host all together and then work your way up to a fully functional being of two separate genders across millions of species noting along the way that a single deleterious compound missing or added in the wrong place will render the process moot and in need to start all over.. for example adding a rate limiting step to the urea cycle... they don't realize these buffoons that the wrong ion even in the wrong place can spell insta death.. but are here to lecture on what they find 'enjoyable and sensical'.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

But this is a two way war and it was not the evolutionists who threw the first stone.

I have a great admiration for people, who have varying degrees of righteousness, power and authority; to throw the first stone; but give up their right. Nelson Mandela, Jesus, the prophet; pbuh, Mahatma Gandhi; all knew what would happen after the first stone is thrown.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

For this reason, I can see why certain key evolutionary steps would have a radical effect. For instance the eye. Even in its most primitive, early state, the eye is a game-changing breakthrough that confers huge competitive advantage. (In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king!) Creatures with sight are strongly advantaged to fill all available niches and you would expect to see a sudden apparent acceleration in evolution. This is exactly what we do see.

I cannot believe the eye could evolve without deliberate interventions from God. I have read numerous explanations, Dawkins suggests 400,000 generations, over a period of about half a million years. He then slipped in a side note saying the brain would also have to evolve alongside each mutation of the eye, but he seems to dismiss this little attention to detail. He also deliberately overlooks the need for the brain to pass on information to fins, and mouth; so the information could be useful.

On its own; the evolution of the eye; as Dawkins describes, amounts to a heap of junk; with no evolutionary advantage. If he described how a brain evolved alongside, how nerves evolved, connection the lens to the brain, and how more nerves evolved controlling movement, then he might be more truthful.

Similarly with bones. Once the ability to form bones has evolved, it's a far smaller step to multiply it.

We seem to be lacking detail here, if every bone was a similar shape and size, I could go along with your explanation, if they evolved before the eye, or brain, or muscles etc, they seem pretty much useless on their own.

When did the first bone appear in the evolutionary timeline?

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Independent]

Although evolution is one of the most frequent debates on this forum over the years (much to Muhammad's exasperation), some things never seem to get discussed.

The case against TOE is made all the time. Popular objections are the length of time required for the origin of life, the rate of beneficial mutation, suggested examples of irreducible complexity and (for the more spiritually inclined) a generalised refusal to accept that things that are so beautiful and so complex could have evolved by chance.

The 3 posts above are typical of such responses. None of them answer the 'a' to 'n' questions I posted earlier.

If Creationism is to be taken seriously as scientifically valid and capable of being taught in schools, then it must be capable of answering these questions and others I haven't thought of. Otherwise it will simply lead to a decline in faith as what you learn in one lesson is contradicted in another.

TOE is a satisfactory explanation for all of the phenomena I listed. Creationism is not. TOE's problems lie not with the theory itself, but with the suggested mechanisms. Whereas Creationism's problems lie not with the mechanism (which of course is untestable anyway) but with the failure to account for observable phenomena.

The problems with TOE mechanisms are not as yet fundamental. Just because a problem is not solved yet doesn't mean it is unsolvable. In astrophysics, we don't have an agreed proof for dark matter. Yet without dark matter the whole cosmological model does not add up. Does that invalidate the whole of astrophysics in the meantime? Of course not. We can infer the existence of dark matter, and its properties, in advance of a definitive proof. (For instance the Higgs Boson was predicted decades ago, but only proven this year. The situation with TOE is parallel).

As it stands, there is no proof against TOE (despite any number of ways in which it is falsfiable) and it remains the only inclusive descriptor of observable phenomena. New discoveries (such as the Neanderthal/Denisovan dna) without exception continue to support TOE while throwing yet more difficult questions for Creationism.

I would be very interested to see an attempt to resolve the 'a' to 'n' difficulties for Creationism I posted above. I accept that answers may vary according to different theologies.

(NB I repeat that TOE is not incompatible with belief in God, only to certain Creation narratives. It's also possible to believe in TOE and the divine origin of life as many Christians and Muslims do.)

[Independent]

I have touched on the proposed principles of TOE and they've come undone

No you haven't. You have attacked some of the possible mechanisms, not TOE itself, which in any case predated genetics altogether. TOE is designed to account for a vast range of observable phenomena which it does, so far, better than any other theory on the table.

The article doesn't prove TOE either

Of course it doesn't, it's not about TOE it's about abiogenesis. And even if you accept all his premises, and all his rationale, the article can only refute a particular suggested mechanism, not TOE itself. The observable phenomena that led Darwin and his successors to TOE still need to be accounted for. Creationism is a less complete, less efficient description.

two posts ago the fellow was a 'MR' to you

The vast majority of specialists in this field support TOE. They are far better qualified than you, but you don't accept their verdict. So don't waste time quoting your own or Dr Mullan's credentials.

[observer]

Ok so the evolutionists believe the world cooled and after the rains fell and filled the oceans etc. There was a great soup of microbes for ages and ages that thrived.

OK, now you're talking about the origin of life which is not evolution. They are two separate things. We really don't know how life started, we do know how it evolved.

So you said evolution wasn't about getting better so why or how did these microbes evolve.

Survival. At its basest level, life is about reproduction. If a change in an organism makes it more likely that it can reproduce, then it has an advantage. That advantage makes it more likely to reproduce and so pass on that advantageous change.

The odds of a simple life form evolving into a complex one is astronomical.

How are you calculating the odds? All creationist arguments based on probability have been shown to be flawed, usually due to a misunderstanding of how probability works (whether they accept the flaw is a different matter).

Of course evolutionary theories are no better than saying life was sneezed upon the Earth by Zeus who had them brewing up his nose for ages.

I would say the idea of a god "sneezing" life onto the Earth sounds much more like creationism.

[جوري]

No you haven't. You have attacked some of the possible mechanisms, not TOE itself, which in any case predated genetics altogether. TOE is designed to account for a vast range of observable phenomena which it does, so far, better than any other theory on the table.

You're simply unread and if you read you can't process given how many times we answer the same questions!
Can't compare genetics to TOE, Genetics is one of many precise sciences by which we disprove the farce that is TOE!

it's not about TOE it's about abiogenesis.

You've to start somewhere. If the starting point is a travesty then everything built on it falls apart- I don't need to build an argument based on a faulty assumption!

The vast majority of specialists in this field support TOE.

Use said sciences to work out the details then instead of resorting to fallacies of defective induction, or what are you afraid of?

best,

[جوري]

They are two separate things. We really don't know how life started, we do know how it evolved.

In fact you don't know either.. and I guarantee that adaptation which is observable and provable you couldn't discuss with any depth.. so I am not sure who the 'we' would be per your statement.
Do you get to be learned by proxy for joining a 'we'?

best,

[RedGuard]

Actually we DO have a clue on how the life got started. Teh first proto-life was probably just a self-replicating RNA molecule (scientists managed to make RNA self replicate in lab conditions) and such a structure probably formed spontaneously.

A few decades ago two scientists made an experiment to determine how long does it take for simple compounds (hydrogen, ammonia, water and methane) to turn into more complex, organic ones in conditions maximally similar to those of early Earth.. The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

If what creationists were saying was true, it would have taken billions upon billions s of years for amino acids to form. However, first amino acids were found after just two weeks of experiment, simpler organic compounds were found in larger quantities. Several similar experiments were conducted as well and they have all shown that formation of amino acids is not only possible but actually certain under specific conditions.

[جوري]

A few decades ago two scientists made an experiment

Indeed, and what came out of this very man manipulated experiment? It produced complex purposeful and directional pathways, organ systems, two sexes, species and higher reticular function?

such a structure probably formed spontaneously

and a few posts ago you dismissed an entire journal for dealing with the physics and probability of that very 'spontaneity'

at least try to be consistent - you know for your own credibility.
Guess if you can't apologize for foolishness you do the next best thing!

[RedGuard]

1. Do you know what does it mean "gradual evolution"? First unicellular organisms are dated at approx. 3.6 bln years ago, first multicellular ones at 1 bln years ago. Later we have an increasing diversity of life

2. I dismissed your journal because what it says does not make sense. It's a piece of scientific junk. Outcomes of chemistry are not random because atoms don't bond with each other randomly but according to their respective qualities - when you make hydrogen react with oxygen, you get only H2O, not H3O9, H6O1 or H7O60. Amino acids don't bond with each other randomly either.

[جوري]

1. Do you know what does it mean "gradual evolution"? First unicellular organisms are dated at approx. 3.6 bln years ago, first multicellular ones at 1 bln years ago. Later we have an increasing diversity of life

No, that is precisely why I am asking you to spare no details.. take us from unicellular and work your way up to any being fully formed and fully functional- do you think you can do that without wasting more time on nonsense?

I dismissed your journal because what it says does not make sense. It's a piece of scientific junk

I am afraid that doesn't a rebuttal make, your assertions are meaningless here considering that from the lowest common denominator you contradict yourself between one post and the next..
spontaneous & random both denote coming together without external cause.. try to stick with a story and explain it with science not rhetoric!

best,

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

In the TOE argument, it's usually Creationists who choose the battleground.

Faith is not science, we have the luxury of saying God did it, we don't have to say how, because the nitty gritty detail is not in scripture

but the only reason we're interested in it is to explain the factual state of the world we can already see.

Good, so now we talk science, not faith.

I feel that once a full skeletal system has been formed, TOE becomes boring. Apparently it took fifty million years for a perfectly good horse the size of a dog; to evolve into the horses we see today, but with just a few cosmetic additions.

This is not very challenging for TOE. Now if you want to find some interesting questions for TOE, then go back to the time the first bone came into being, and give us some explanations of how design happens.

Granted switches could probably create mirror image detail for left and right side, not a problem.

Now the more interesting aspect of design, is how does it create the huge differences in design between the front and back of a species. How does it create the huge differences in design between the top half, and the bottom half of a species. No mirrors, but we do need some fancy switches, it might help if they were already programmed.

Take perfectly good multi cell life, why does it need additional components. If you add bone, muscle, tendons and ligaments to a species, they must feed a biological need as a priority. It might just be a hundred ball shaped bones, serve the best biological need, but these shapes would not be the optimum shape for movement.

Like I said, we have the luxury of saying God did it, no other explanation is needed for us, science is about explanations.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Independent]

Like I said, we have the luxury of saying God did it, no other explanation is needed for us, science is about explanations

Yes, and that's why I say the mechanism is a problem for TOE, not divine creation. But on the other hand, where TOE does excel and divine creation fails is in accounting for a vast range of observable phenomena.

We could talk some more about bone formation (and I will if you want) but it won't solve anything one way or the other. That's because, in the end, it will come down to aspects of science which are either not complete or not universally agreed. Like I say, it's equivalent to rejecting all of astrophysics, until and unless we get a solution to dark matter.

But TOE wasn't conceived to answer questions of genetics and abiogenesis. It was developed as an explanation for a swathe of observable phenomena of the type I listed before. Since Darwin's day, that list has increased manifold. At any moment, a single misplaced fossil, a nonsensical dna result, or a million other possibilities, could have undermined the whole thing. That has not happened. What are the chances of that?

We are living in a TOE lookalike world. Everything about it is exactly what would be expected from TOE. It is beyond credulity that this came about by mere chance. It must have been by TOE itself.

So, anyone who wants to put forward divine creation as a serious challenger to TOE needs to answer problems such as the 'a' to 'n' I posted earlier.

(NB I am travelling currently so apologies if I don't reply for awhile.)

[Independent]

Use said sciences to work out the details

So tell us what you actually think. Please use the scientific abilities about which you boast about so frequently to give an account of the development of life, including all the geographical, geological, biological chronologies successfully described by TOE, but not by Creationism. Put up or shut up!

[جوري]

So tell us what you actually think. Please use the scientific abilities about which you boast about so frequently to give an account of the development of life, including all the geographical, geological, biological chronologies successfully described by TOE, but not by Creationism. Put up or shut up!

You are quite funny, a complete and utter pathetic failure and you expect me to do your homework for you? Our concern with life is what we see and what we can measure and that is what science is actually about, what we can experiment with and put into data which is either falsifiable or verifiable and that is all that is required of science. Eric H put it quite simply so that even you can understand, we're not concerned with how God did it, it doesn't add or subtract anything to life as we know it, If you want to bridge the science so that it become a substitute for religion then the onus is on you to prove your brand of faith accurate - indeed put up or shut up!

best,

[Karl]

You are quite funny, a complete and utter pathetic failure and you expect me to do your homework for you? Our concern with life is what we see and what we can measure and that is what science is actually about, what we can experiment with and put into data which is either falsifiable or verifiable and that is all that is required of science. Eric H put it quite simply so that even you can understand, we're not concerned with how God did it, it doesn't add or subtract anything to life as we know it, If you want to bridge the science so that it become a substitute for religion then the onus is on you to prove your brand of faith accurate - indeed put up or shut up!

best,

Yes the belief in evolution is based on faith not unquestionable evidence. So therefore it is a godless religion. Perfect for a godless society. "Everything just created itself, we don't know how or why or whatever but just believe it did". This is what the atheists push. So it is a stalemate, the argument for evolution over creationism cannot be won. But why is evolution pushed as absolute fact? And why the fervent anti God ideology? I think politics has a bigger part to play than science here. As most scientists are funded by totalitarian states.

[جوري]

But why is evolution pushed as absolute fact?

What is funnier when the dude finds himself at a dead end and wants me to work out the science of his beliefs for him.. you got to admire that my first response truly was, hello, how high are you?

[greenhill]

So tell us what you actually think. Please use the scientific abilities about which you boast about so frequently to give an account of the development of life, including all the geographical, geological, biological chronologies successfully described by TOE, but not by Creationism.

I am trying to understand this.. scientific account of development of life according to Creationism? I am wondering why? Personally I do not have an issue with 'Kun fayakun', - 'Be! And it is'.

If Jesus was able to 'blow' life into clay shaped like a bird by the Will of Allah (something never denied or doubted) how could that be explained by science however we look at it. No requirements for amino acids and intricate DNA recreation or culturing of parts in a petri dish etc.

TOE has to prove it but is at a dead end as it only has observable data of changes which it fills the gap by providing theory as to why it has happened.

Very much like the question "Can God create a rock bigger than He can carry?" either way it wants to prove via words that God is not All Powerful. The problem is that for those who believe in God, this is an irrelevant question (unless the faith in God is a shaky one in the first place).

Peace :shade:

[Independent]

I am trying to understand this.. scientific account of development of life according to Creationism? I am wondering why? Personally I do not have an issue with 'Kun fayakun', - 'Be! And it is'

No, I am not asking you to explain the 'how'. As I have already said, there's nothing to be explained, you either believe it or you don't.

What I am asking is for you or someone else to explain how Creationism fits with the observable evidence I have already listed. This should not be difficult although everyone seems to be finding it so.

I think that in order to answer questions 'a' to 'n' from my previous post, you will be obliged to take one of a few strategies, none of which are satisfactory. But so far it seems as if no one has even thought about the issue which i find amazing, after so many threads on evolution.

Don't get hung up on mechanisms for now. This looks like a TOE world in every detail. If you believe that, despite this, TOE is not the cause of that appearance, then you have to find another way to explain that appearance.

[Independent]

you expect me to do your homework for you?

I'm asking you to explain your beliefs, not mine. But I know from past experience that you are incapable of straying off your stock responses, like a student who has learned a few expected topics and knows nothing outside that.

Even your insults are repeats.

[Independent]

Yes the belief in evolution is based on faith not unquestionable evidence

TOE gives what is so far the only consistent account of a wide range of observable evidence. I've yet to see anything else offered here. If you believe in creation by divine fiat, you need to explain that evidence in this context - and then we can consider whether your explanation really does make sense.

I think it is extremely difficult to account for this evidence without creating a different sort of God from the one you believe in.

[greenhill]

In the TOE argument, it's usually Creationists who choose the battleground. They attack detailed aspects of TOE (such as Skye attacking the rate of mutation mechanism). The idea is to focus attention on the least complete aspects of the theory, and draw attention away from other areas. (So for instance in this case we get this endless sterile statistical argument). Of course, mechanism is important - but the only reason we're interested in it is to explain the factual state of the world we can already see.

In response, scientists don't examine Creationism much in return because they simply assume that once you assume divine intervention, 'anything goes' so it's untestable.

This is not correct. Creationism (let's call it 'divine TOE) can be tested in many aspects - not least because it usually comes with a specific narrative that is not just 'anything goes'.

If we treat the notion of divine TOE seriously and apply similar tests, it does not make sense. Turning the argument I made earlier round the other way, speciation by continuous divine fiat does not fit a wide range of evidence such as:

a) The broad trend of simple organisms to more complex organisms over a long period of time.
b) The correct chronological order of that trend both at the level of individual species and individual characteristics (eg bipedalism)
c) The correct geographical and geological distribution of that evidence
d) The way Nature is structured into a huge network of related species, as opposed to individual unrelated creations by divine fiat
e) The evidence of adaptive structures which are not as good as specifically created structures (eg the human skull including its delayed fontanelle closure, altered jaw structure and elaborate birth canal gyrations that formerly led to 1in 5 death rate for mothers)
e) The presence of vestigial organs and structure
f) The existence, and extinction, of related species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans
g) The trackable history of mankind's multiple migrations out of Africa, which does not fit any scriptural description
h) The extinction of approx 90% of creatures before human-like creatures ever set foot on the world and the immense period of time before there was any life at all.


And some more specifically related to Islamic TOE:

j) The absence of any fossils, tools or other archaeological evidence for 90ft men - or any transitional fossils across succeeding generations
k) The absolute impossibility of scaling up a human to that size without other serious physical adjustments and difficulties with living in a 'normal' sized world
l) The absence of any genetic evidence for such creatures
m) The absence of any fossil or other evidence for humans living to extreme old age (ie hundreds of years)
n) The illogicality of creating natural laws for everything in the universe, except this one thing.

To paraphrase, these are some of the Questions that Creationists cannot answer. Divine TOE is not compatible with the evidence.

I think (unless I missed it) we do need to be more definitive in what we are talking about here. TOE meaning that we evolve from one 'kind' into another or evolve to better suit our environment. I don't see anything wrong with the latter, to better suit our environment. Not in a way that if I were to live in the sea and make that it my descendants also do so that we will turn into dolphins somewhere in the distant future.

What Creationist believe (and this is not a term we call ourselves) is that every 'new' kind will need a Creator.

According to 'Creationism', the world was created in 7 periods and we are at the end so it is not surprising to find 90% of creatures are extinct.

When Adam was sent to Earth, he was alone. His descendants had to eventually migrate. Why not from Africa? Adam did not come down with a tribe. Whatever colour he was, his descendants have evolved into various races. But not into a different 'kind' altogether.

Item (d) Allah is nature, and He has stated that every living thing is made out of water and everything in pairs. It has to be related because it comes from Him (I don't see why it has to be different?)

On your second part of questions, all I can really say is that for the millions of dinosaurs that lived for hundreds of millions years, how many have we found, and what is the ratio. Considering how sparsely populated the world was back then, it will be highly unlikely that we will stumble upon the rare remains of 90 ft men.

In Malaysia we rarely find any archeological stuff because of the nature of our environment. Leave a building for a period of time, the jungle will reclaim it. So evidence like this will need to be stumbled upon and it will need to be in a place that is conducive to preservation too.

Peace :shade:

[Eric H]

Greetings ad peace be with you Independent;

a) The broad trend of simple organisms to more complex organisms over a long period of time.
b) The correct chronological order of that trend both at the level of individual species and individual characteristics (eg bipedalism)
c) The correct geographical and geological distribution of that evidence
d) The way Nature is structured into a huge network of related species, as opposed to individual unrelated creations by divine fiat
e) The evidence of adaptive structures which are not as good as specifically created structures (eg the human skull including its delayed fontanelle closure, altered jaw structure and elaborate birth canal gyrations that formerly led to 1in 5 death rate for mothers)
e) The presence of vestigial organs and structure
f) The existence, and extinction, of related species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans
g) The trackable history of mankind's multiple migrations out of Africa, which does not fit any scriptural description
h) The extinction of approx 90% of creatures before human-like creatures ever set foot on the world and the immense period of time before there was any life at all.


And some more specifically related to Islamic TOE:

j) The absence of any fossils, tools or other archaeological evidence for 90ft men - or any transitional fossils across succeeding generations
k) The absolute impossibility of scaling up a human to that size without other serious physical adjustments and difficulties with living in a 'normal' sized world
l) The absence of any genetic evidence for such creatures
m) The absence of any fossil or other evidence for humans living to extreme old age (ie hundreds of years)
n) The illogicality of creating natural laws for everything in the universe, except this one thing.

To paraphrase, these are some of the Questions that Creationists cannot answer. Divine TOE is not compatible with the evidence.

I fail to see how any of these points disprove God, you may use them for your own evidence, but it does not challenge my faith even in the slightest way.

This is not correct. Creationism (let's call it 'divine TOE) can be tested in many aspects - not least because it usually comes with a specific narrative that is not just 'anything goes'.

If we treat the notion of divine TOE seriously

I really struggle to believe how we can take Un - divine TOE seriously, the devil is always in the detail, and TOE lacks this attention to detail, I am very much in agreement with our friend greenhill.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Independent]

I fail to see how any of these points disprove God,

As i said before, I am not trying to disprove God and I don't see believe in TOE as being incompatible with belief in God. As you will know yourself, many people do believe both in God, and TOE.

In addition, I also think that we will at some point understand the mechanism for TOE, to fit the results we already see around us everywhere. At this point TOE really will become a challenge for faith - but only for those who have made it so.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

In addition, I also think that we will at some point understand the mechanism for TOE, to fit the results we already see around us everywhere. At this point TOE really will become a challenge for faith - but only for those who have made it so

I agree with you, those whose faith depends on TOE being correct, may well have to adjust their world view. The theory seems to depend on, TOE did it, as opposed to God did it, there seems to be a very high dependence hanging on the imaginary power of TOE.

I am away for a couple of days, see you guys soon

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[جوري]

I'm asking you to explain your beliefs, not mine

This is not a thread on my beliefs, hence the title, if you're confused then start another thread!

But I know from past experience that you are incapable of straying off your stock responses

Unfortunately you're often lost that any explanation is a waste of effort, you are not only linear but also condescending and your type of people are dogmatic and militant, renders everything a waste of effort.

Even your insults are repeats.

That's actually quite amusing coming from you. Do you read your own redundant queries and the responses given throughout? Even in the previous thread I linked to your writing here is a regurgitant of that - if you're not satisfied with what you receive try two things
1- Get new material
2- Try to actually read what folks have written so there will be no need for folks to repeat themselves.. btw on psychological exams repeated questions are posed (I imagine your writing here is a petty attempt at that) and only those who have wavering beliefs, those who are hypocrites and liars swerve on their responses and that is how they're caught in the act...
Try to stick with a principle and you won't find it very hard to understand why when you say TOE TOE TOE on multiple threads you get the same responses from the earth sciences that we've observed...

best,

[sugaray21]

OK, I probably shouldn't bite, but I'm going to.

The guys asks "Can you point to something I can observe that proves evolution" the answer is yes, the fossil record - several million years ago we see... And he cuts them off and says "I can't observe that".

Did you see the prophet Mohammed? With your own eyes? Did your parents see him? Your grandparents? No? Well, then how can you believe he existed, let alone that his teachings are true?

I'm an atheist - but I believe Mohammed existed. Why? Historic record. It seems pretty indisputable that Mohammed existed. But I didn't see him. Did you? I don't think so.

Did I see him myself? No. But you have a record of his existence, which you can believe - like there is a fossil record.

I also believe in the battle of Hastings. And the existence of Neanderthals. And Dinosaurs. None of which I've seen first hand.

Why do you think this guy's argument is a good one? It's absolute nonsense. If I were religious, I would be embarrassed that people like this were fighting my corner.

You should bite. That's what we're here for. To engage in healthy debate. I don't see why people have to get so heated though. When you mention the fossil record - that is absolute concrete evidence of evolution of various species. No one can deny that. But do those fossils prove, even a tiny bit, that us humans have directly come from monkeys or fish?

[sugaray21]

I mean, fossils are evidence of adaptation of species over time, to suit their environment. Is there evidence to say we are connected to monkeys or fish, I'm just curious. For example, we know Muhammed existed because the records prove it. There is untold evidence for this of which there are no contradictions and hundreds and hundreds of different men who have written about him since he came around, so unless these hundreds and hundreds of men conspired together over the last 1400 years to fabricate the story of muhammed and all the details of his life of which there are no major contradictions, and somehow they managed to get it right down to the tiniest detail, then it probably is true if you see what I mean. But fossils are not evidence of us coming from monkeys or fish, they don't prove that, they prove that different species adapted over time.

[RedGuard]

Back tot the common descent:
This is just a brief list of things that prove common descent of humans and apes:

1. Vitamic C production.
Almost all animals can syntethize their own Vitamin C, the only exception being some species of fruit bats, Guinea pigs and higher primates (old world monkeys and new world monkeys). One gene is simply faulty. However the mutation that caused it is different in Guinea pigs than in primates. The gene of anthropoid primates has lost seven of the twelve exons found in functional vertebrate gene, whereas the guinea pig has lost its first and fifth exon as well as part of its sixth exon.
More here ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/

More tomorrow as I am going to bed now, it's late. I would like mods to post images "Fig. (3)" and "Fig. (4)" of the mentioned paper as images in this post. I am unable to do this myself.

Fig. (3)
Phylogenetic distribution of the ability to synthesize vitamin C in mammals. Lineages able to synthesize vitamin C are in black, those incapable are in gray. The phylogenetic relationships are based on those in reference [63]. The complete species list, ...

Fig. (4)

Schematic representations (not to scale) of the GLO gene structure in anthropoid primates and in guinea pigs. Black boxes represent exons that are still found in the genome of these species whereas white boxes with an X represent deleted exons or exon ...

[Karl]

TOE gives what is so far the only consistent account of a wide range of observable evidence. I've yet to see anything else offered here. If you believe in creation by divine fiat, you need to explain that evidence in this context - and then we can consider whether your explanation really does make sense.

I think it is extremely difficult to account for this evidence without creating a different sort of God from the one you believe in.

Well that's very difficult as "God" is beyond my understanding and so is creation. Once in Chemistry the teacher said that "we can destroy things by heating them up until they burn but to reverse that process is beyond us". If you can create anything you like by manipulating matter at an atomic level then you would be a god. But you couldn't use a technological machine only will power.
There is a connecting feature in ancient pagan religions and the Abrahamic ones and this is The Chaos a time before creation a time before time an epoch of atomic mayhem. If you can go back to this epoch and observe and record what goes on, then you will have the knowledge and the proof to win your argument if your argument is correct. That would be the scientific way to do it, instead of using a jigsaw with lots of missing pieces and a lot of them look the same so you just bang them in where you think they should fit.

[جوري]

burn but to reverse that process is beyond us"

Indeed you can denature things but re-annealing them even if you managed won't give it form.. btw form in and of itself is a 'magical' thing simply putting the building blocks to a plant stalk (as an ex) together will not give it the shape that it has out in nature ...


:w:

[جوري]

This is just a brief list of things that prove common descent of humans and apes

As I said prior we share 50% of our genes with Bananas & 97~98% with drosophila - that doesn't denote common descent with fruits or bugs. there's very little genetic variance between any species in fact these are merely the building blocks of our universe!
Why do you people insist on repeating yourselves and yet can't do the science when requested of you? you'd rather 'sleep' or drink beer or become belligerent or accuse others of what actually ails you.. It is a conundrum why you continue to even post this nonsense and repeatedly!

[Independent]

Thanks for your responses Greenhill and Eric. I think the issue is a little harder than that. I'll try and put it briefly:


The total number of species today is estimated at about 8.7 billion. Perhaps 10 times as many are now extinct. Of those that have been discovered, 100% of them fit into the pattern predicted by TOE.

That means, they are in the right place geographically and the right layer geologically speaking. We never see, for instance, homo erectus remains in America, nor do we find them in a Jurassic layer.

Each individual feature (big evolutions like eyes and bones down to tiny details like Vitamin C deficiency as listed by Red Guard) also appear in the correct order 100% of the time.

This could not have happened by chance. The probability of this occurring vastly exceeds any statistics quoted against TOE by Dr Mullan or anyone else.

For that reason, I'm describing this world as a 'Lookalike TOE world'. It looks exactly as you would expect if TOE were correct, whether or not it is actually true.


For Creationists, this has a major consequence. If God created the species in this way, then He must have done so intentionally.

Why?

What kind of God would deliberately create evidence for TOE, knowing full well it would deceive millions, and then hold it against the very people who were taken in by it? Why bother? This isn't a trial, it's a trick or a trap.

Such a God is not compatible with either the Muslim or Christian God. Not believing in TOE leads Christians and Muslims in an internal contradiction with their own religion.

Therefore, it makes logical sense from observable reality that TOE is correct, and continuous creation by divine fiat wrong.

[Independent]

When you mention the fossil record - that is absolute concrete evidence of evolution of various species. No one can deny that. But do those fossils prove, even a tiny bit, that us humans have directly come from monkeys or fish?

It's thought that only about 1% of creatures have left any trace in the fossil record. That record would be skewed against soft flesh creatures and certain habitats. So, it's like reading an immensely long book with 99 pages missing in every 100.

Also, unlike in Darwin's day, we now know that there are many more confusing side branches which haven't necessarily survived (eg Neanderthals and Denisovans for humans). So although we can say, for instance, that a Neanderthal fossil is a human-like species, we couldn't be sure that we are descendants of Neanderthals specifically.

For this reason, although we can see very general changes (ie single cell creatures up to humans etc) we can't be sure if one individual species directly relates to the next.

[greenhill]

Independent,

There is another thread on islam and evolution just posted. Quite long. What would be your comments there? Really, I am not well researched on this subject as what you correctly say, it's a 'Lookalike TOE World whether or not it is actually true'.

But now I am getting a picture of what you are driving at and it is encapsulated by -

Why?

What kind of God would deliberately create evidence for TOE, knowing full well it would deceive millions, and then hold it against the very people who were taken in by it? Why bother? This isn't a trial, it's a trick or a trap.

The thing is TOE as you say seems very plausible in light of the 1 page in every 100 but a very long story indeed so that you are able to 'see' a story line. But could that be called evidence. The 'creation' aspects could happen anywhere in the missing 99 pages, though.

Peace :shade:

[جوري]

This could not have happened by chance

The probability of this occurring

Really? You are speaking of chance and probability now, when the 'Chance and probability' was already laid out on the line and you have already dismissed it?
pray do tell of the statistics. I'll be waiting and I expect it to be on a level not your usual mindless drivel!

It looks exactly as you would expect if TOE were correct

Again, in what way?
List the mechanisms (atomic, biochemical, physiological) processes and how they occurred to give TOE.
I don't think anyone here is interested in your assertions..
Even if I am to accept the 'Vit C deficiency' without any counfounders and there are always confounders the mere fact that the study is retrospective is already a confounder, then what does it mean? again, so what? I have already stated and repeatedly, there's not much genetic variance between us and any other species in the world...
As to why God creates, well God says it best,

Al-Nour [24:45]

وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَ كُلَّ دَابَّةٍ مِن مَّاء فَمِنْهُم مَّن يَمْشِي عَلَى بَطْنِهِ وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَمْشِي عَلَى رِجْلَيْنِ وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَمْشِي عَلَى أَرْبَعٍ يَخْلُقُ اللَّهُ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

WaAllahu khalaqa kulla dabbatin min main faminhum man yamshee AAala batnihi waminhum man yamshee AAala rijlayni waminhum man yamshee AAala arbaAAin yakhluqu Allahu ma yashao inna Allaha AAala kulli shayin qadeerun

24:45 And Allah has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for verily Allah has power over all things.


Quite simply God creates whatever God wants to create. You're not the most important creature and sometimes certain humans of their behavior are actually lesser beings than animals.. what is your point on a thread about questions atheists couldn't answer to constantly seek to bring theists in.. the answer is actually quite simple with us, it doesn't concern why or how God creates. We only deal with the physical and existing laws, we don't replicate them and we couldn't replicate them even with all the clunky machines and ego the size of yours!

best,

[tearose]

Independent, the problem with the points a to n that you want everyone to answer is that most are based on flawed assumptions about how you think the world and its creation ought to be. Some of the points actually contradict what you say elsewhere. For example you are complaining that there are no fossils of humans larger in stature or living to an old age, yet you say

It's thought that only about 1% of creatures have left any trace in the fossil record

The theory of evolution is just that: a man-made theory which is very much of our time and which has changed many times. There is no need to give it such a status that we have to define our beliefs and our understanding of the Creator according to it.

[Independent]

There is another thread on islam and evolution just posted. Quite long. What would be your comments there?

I'll have a look later, no time just now.

The thing is TOE as you say seems very plausible in light of the 1 page in every 100 but a very long story indeed so that you are able to 'see' a story line. But could that be called evidence. The 'creation' aspects could happen anywhere in the missing 99 pages, though.

If all species have been created by divine fiat, there is no reason for them to occur in the general order of simple to complex that we see. There is no reason for God to apparently 'invent' a particular characteristic, and then utilise it elsewhere. The world simply doesn't look like what would be expected, if it were all by divine fiat.

It does match what we would expect from TOE. In a sense, you could even argue that it doesn't mater if it was created by God or by TOE. The fact is, it looks and behaves as if it were a TOE world.

However, we might as well teach TOE as science if it fits all observable data anyway.

[Independent]

For example you are complaining that there are no fossils of humans larger in stature or living to an old age, yet you say

Creationists frequently criticise TOE for alleged gaps in the fossil record, so I'm just throwing it back. In the case of 90ft men and very long lived men, there isn't just a gap - there is nothing at all. Never mind transitional fossils - just nothing! Yet such huge creatures would have very large bones. Also, there is no archaeological record of tools, houses etc.

(Also, 90 ft men are impossible for reasons of physics. You can't just scale up human beings to that height, they wouldn't be able to move.)

flawed assumptions about how you think the world

Which assumptions do you think are flawed and why?

[observer]

The theory of evolution is just that: a man-made theory which is very much of our time and which has changed many times. There is no need to give it such a status that we have to define our beliefs and our understanding of the Creator according to it.

Everything in science is a theory. The theory of gravity is probably less well understood than that of evolution, but you don't question it - you accept what it says as fact. The theory governing the movement of the electrons which make your computer work is full of holes - yet that doesn't stop you using a computer. Only with evolution do we hear "It's just a theory". Every single "fact" in science is a theory. Every one.

If there is a god, he made the universe according to certain rules. Why, then, can we not uncover those rules?

Independent has said several times that evolution does not finish off god - yet it seems to scare the religious more than anything else.

[tearose]

Creationists frequently criticise TOE for alleged gaps in the fossil record, so I'm just throwing it back

Ok, so that point wasn't actually about any issue you have with direct creation, it was just an indirect way of criticizing the arguments used by others. That's a bit misleading to include it in your list like that.

Which assumptions do you think are flawed and why?

In sha Allah I will respond to the points individually later on.

[RedGuard]

Add into this that there is no other theory that can rivall TOE. TOE presents claims and backs them with evidence while creation "science" never presents any testable hypotheses about creation, not to mention backing them. Everything it does consists of either attacking TOE or inventing canards against evolutionists.

[جوري]

Add into this that there is no other theory that can rivall TOE.

Any theory that is reproducible rivals TOE..
I don't understand the lot of you acting like yes men to one another and yet can't explain the most basic of concepts nor have you a comprehensible account for the tough questions. What are you doing here exactly?

[جوري]

In sha Allah I will respond to the points individually later on.

We've already taken that on. We've listed the mutations and the breaks of DNA as their only proposed mechanisms of TOE to give us said 'Speciation' They've not been able to prove that said method brings anything outside of disease or death or again nothing in the case of silent mutations..
Then that fellow tells us we repeat ourselves.. well in fact what are they doing here but parroting assertions they can't prove or reproduce?
Then reference you to websites whose material they can't articulate and silly experiments that aren't seen through past phase I trials...

interesting truly when the ignorant speak to the masses as if authority figures!

[~Zaria~]

[tearose]

We've already taken that on

Not to worry sis, I already thought better of replying to this thread again anyway. Actually I don't know why these kind of debates are allowed on the forum. Just sorry I let myself get drawn into this one.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

As i said before, I am not trying to disprove God and I don't see believe in TOE as being incompatible with belief in God. As you will know yourself, many people do believe both in God, and TOE.

If evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of God, I am not sure what purpose this discussion serves. There are so many questions that atheists need to ask themselves - such as life supposedly originating from non-life, perhaps they should busy themselves with those. It is those dilemmas that defy logic, not belief in God.

[Karl]

Indeed you can denature things but re-annealing them even if you managed won't give it form.. btw form in and of itself is a 'magical' thing simply putting the building blocks to a plant stalk (as an ex) together will not give it the shape that it has out in nature ...


:w:

Yes and if life did evolve wouldn't humans get smarter? But people seem to be getting more stupid. They just can't grasp simple logic anymore, they just push their barrow with wishful thinking and pseudoscience. At least the necromancers in the medieval times trying to turn lead into gold had the wisdom to believe in creation. Personally I think it is all politics not science, part of the "win the hearts and minds" policy. Mind control is very Important in global imperialism, "believe the scientists, we are the way". Why do they badger creationists so much? The religion of evolution is trying to grind us down. And where do all the roads lead to on this belief war? The United Nations liberal leftist Zionists that's where.

[Independent]

If evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of God, I am not sure what purpose this discussion serves.

Because although most scientists don't see the connection, most Muslims do (so it would seem). i wish people could talk about evolution without getting so emotional yet since the first day Darwin published his book, it and he have been subject to massive attack. Now it's just a battleground with bad behaviour from both sides.

[Independent]

Yes and if life did evolve wouldn't humans get smarter?

They manifestly have been. Even recently (in evolutionary terms) if we look at Neanderthals and Denisovans (who I guess now have to be considered 'human' by creationists) have become extinct because they were not clever enough to change their behaviour to cope with new challenges, whether climactic or otherwise.

[Independent]

I already thought better of replying to this thread again anyway. Actually I don't know why these kind of debates are allowed on the forum. Just sorry I let myself get drawn into this one.

I think you would have found it a difficult task - most of the things I listed are not disputed by most Creationists (except Young Earthers).

It remains the case that no one has offered a rationale for Creationism in terms of: why does the world have all the appearances and characteristics of a TOE world, unless it is actually produced by TOE? How can this fit with the idea of a God who is just, fair and logical? I can't find an answer to this, even on Creationist sites. They're all to busy attacking TOE.

[wizra]

if we look at Neanderthals and Denisovans

We can't. That was millions years ago. Your problem is that you believe in the word of scientists more than the word of God, because you are addicted to doing what you want and you don't want to humble yourself to God.

Why do athiests even care about the origin of the universe and life? I mean since you're an advanced ape, you eat and sleep, live and die, and it's all over. Why waste your precious time memorizing what scientists you've never met are saying?! Seems like you aren't even comfortable with their shaky unstable nonsense theories.

You have some weird list of questions or challenges, all based on principles you and your scientists aren't even certain about. Even if they were answered, you'll find more issues and you'll continue to raise more doubt and be more skeptical. The problem is in your head, this so-called science hasn't availed you of anything except uncertainty and loss.

[M.I.A.]

the thing about toe is that to make any valid arguments against it, one would need a really thorough understanding of it.

and at that point most people stop biting the hand that feeds them.

or cover up its failings by misdirection.


the hardest thing to change about ourselves and others are our core beliefs.


its a cynical view and the opposite angle is that evolution is nearly always an imperfect journey.. no matter the topic.

(politics, science, religion, ethics, economics.. the list goes on)

without moving forward you just get better at what you do.

but who's to say thats a bad thing.



its very hard to deny the empirical evidence, but you would be a fool not to notice how complexity increases as you take into account other factors.. its always crude in hindsight..

although it may still have been the truth.

[جوري]

barrow with wishful thinking and pseudoscience

Yup and it is unfortunate that even the pseudo-science they subscribe to is so antiquated.. if you look around these ten pages, there's no more than two lines of science that can't be proven and 90% assertions of nonsense!
If they don't have this unfortunately their own belief system comes unraveled so they'll have to reexamine their position.

[RedGuard]

If something can't be proven, then it can't be disproven. The whole argument becomes nn scientific then.

Ok, back to the discussion.
In one of your [psts you stated that we share 97% of our DNA with fruit flies... The problem is that giving such arguments without proper explaination is worthless. There are genes whose only function is to trigger other genes, others may trigger more genes etc.. Second - there are various allelic variations of a given gene. So small differences in the genotype can cause huge differences in the phenotype. Dogs all have almost the same DNA but theiy come in different colors and sizes as we know.

Thrid - fruit flies have only about 15000 genes while humans have 20-25000 so if the similarity is 97% as yous ay, this accounts only for about 60% of common genes.

[جوري]

The problem is that giving such arguments without proper explaination is worthless

lol.. if we get down to the nitty gritty of genes then even mere organ donations will pose a dilemma on HLA matching and typing even from Allografts, this is a complete science of its own and utterly unrelated to the topic of speciation.
Do you think if you string words together from a google search that you can fool people here?
Again, stick with the main mechanism which you propose as means for speciation and you have already admitted that the same means for adaptation are the ones for speciation so use them to give us instead of adapted organ systems, new creatures all together!

best,

[RedGuard]

Define a "new creature". Do you mean an organism unable to cross with it's ancestors and other descendants of this ancestor? Chromosome fusion in humans is one example. There is a model (I forgot it's name but I know that it was named after three scientists) showed that changes in as little as two genes is required for them to no longer be recombinable with each other.

[جوري]

Define a "new creature".

Not a difficult concept so let's not descend down to word play. Start with abiogenesis or pan spermia and work your way up to fully functional noetic being with higher reticular function across millions of species. I have already discussed chromosomal fusion btw unless you consider things like cancer or down syndrome a new species.

best,

[sister herb]

Salam alaykum

Does anyone still thinks that kind of discussion will lead to any sensible solution? Or that it just continues forever with genes of what ever?

;D

I would ask to close this endless one.

[Independent]

We can't. That was millions years ago.

Yes we can - read back in the thread. Neanderthals and Denisovans died out relatively recently and we now have actual dna from their remains. Sufficient to know that they were closely enough related for us to interbreed, but different enough for them to become extinct where we survived.

[Independent]

You have some weird list of questions or challenges, all based on principles you and your scientists aren't even certain about.

The list of questions or principles I've given are mostly not disputed even by Creationists, except by Young Earthers. Most Creationists seem to be obsessed by attacking TOE and looking for flaws. They assume that creationism can't be tested and is therefore safe from any challenge, except in scriptural terms.

However, I believe that Creationism can in fact be tested against some sets of objective criteria in the same way as TOE, to see which gives the more complete account of the real world as we can see it.

The disputed areas of TOE lie mostly in the mechanism. Hence these endless sterile statistical debates with the same old articles getting posted. The most they can prove is that our current understanding of the mechanism is insufficient, which is not exactly controversial, and does not disprove TOE.

However, TOE did not develop out of statistics, but out of real world observations in biology, geology and paleontology. These need to be explained by Creationists. I think it's very hard to do that without ending up with the kind of God that would be better suited to a Terry Pratchett novel - an ironic God.

[جوري]

The list of questions or principles I've given are mostly not disputed even by Creationists

The disputed areas of TOE lie mostly in the mechanism.

statistical syllogism, appeals to authority, appeals to popularity and every fallacy in between, but when it comes down to the heart of the matter, especially a matter concerned with science, sadly the science is missing and we've to substitute large gaps for their beliefs!

[Independent]

Nope, God created and fashioned me in the best of forms

So, how do you explain our dna-proven relationship with Neanderthals, Denisovans and the third unidentified species (supposed to be homo erectus)?

[جوري]

So, how do you explain our dna-proven relationship with Neanderthals

I have already stated and multiple times to someone who complains of repeats you sure don't exert any effort reading, there is very little genetic variance between us and any species - simply these are the building blocks of our universe..
the alphabet from whence all words are made...
Reflect on these words as I truly have tired of repeating myself, 11 pages could have been summed up in two sentences. You can't prove what you say with actual science so you force your beliefs down our throats with every pathetic and weak ammo you've by way of logical fallacies.
Subscribe to your beliefs no one is holding a gun to your head and take a hike!

best,

[Independent]

I have already stated and multiple times to someone who complains of repeats you sure don't exert any effort reading, there is very little genetic variance between us and any species

You really don't get it, do you? I can scarcely believe that this is your answer. You plainly have no understanding of the significance of the recent recovery of ancient dna. I guess this must be because you haven't bothered to read about it.

What is the point of you contributing to these debates from a position of such profound ignorance?

It's impossible to have a proper debate with you unless you make at least a modicum of effort - especially in an area that is supposed to be your specialist subject, although at this stage, that's also very difficult to believe.

[جوري]

You really don't get it, do you?

Go ahead make me get it instead of expressing your outrage in a manifesto of hot air :)!

best,

[Independent]

Go ahead make me get it instead of expressing your outrage in a manifesto of hot air

Just google 'ancient dna' and check through a few articles for a balanced report. You can start here http://www.livescience.com/42218-201...scoveries.html but don't just look at one.

[جوري]

Just google 'ancient dna' and check through a few articles for a balanced report. You can start here http://www.livescience.com/42218-201...scoveries.html but don't just look at one.

What is the matter you can't discuss content to match your outrage of what I don't get? Oh you're calling the big guns now to fight on your behalf because you've no idea what you're talking about? :D

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

What kind of God would deliberately create evidence for TOE, knowing full well it would deceive millions, and then hold it against the very people who were taken in by it? Why bother? This isn't a trial, it's a trick or a trap.

None of us have the knowledge or power to create the universe and life, so I am not sure how that gives anyone the right to say it should have been created in a different way

Such a God is not compatible with either the Muslim or Christian God. Not believing in TOE leads Christians and Muslims in an internal contradiction with their own religion.

No

Therefore, it makes logical sense from observable reality that TOE is correct, and continuous creation by divine fiat wrong]

No, because we are talking faith and trust in our creator.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

It's thought that only about 1% of creatures have left any trace in the fossil record. That record would be skewed against soft flesh creatures and certain habitats. So, it's like reading an immensely long book with 99 pages missing in every 100.

Had you said its like reading a book, with only one page missing out of every hundred, then I could understand why you are so confident about TOE. But you suggest in the early days, only one percent of the evidence might be accounted for, this leaves ninety nine percent of Toe based on the unknown.

Also, unlike in Darwin's day, we now know that there are many more confusing side branches which haven't necessarily survived (eg Neanderthals and Denisovans for humans). So although we can say, for instance, that a Neanderthal fossil is a human-like species, ]we couldn't be sure that we are descendants of Neanderthals specifically.

Ok

For this reason, although we can see very general changes (ie single cell creatures up to humans etc) we can't be sure if one individual species directly relates to the next

Ok, but where does that leave us.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[M.I.A.]

If something can't be proven, then it can't be disproven. The whole argument becomes nn scientific then.

Ok, back to the discussion.
In one of your [psts you stated that we share 97% of our DNA with fruit flies... The problem is that giving such arguments without proper explaination is worthless. There are genes whose only function is to trigger other genes, others may trigger more genes etc.. Second - there are various allelic variations of a given gene. So small differences in the genotype can cause huge differences in the phenotype. Dogs all have almost the same DNA but theiy come in different colors and sizes as we know.

Thrid - fruit flies have only about 15000 genes while humans have 20-25000 so if the similarity is 97% as yous ay, this accounts only for about 60% of common genes.

i read recently that dna contains a second code below the most apparent code.. it is understood or implied that the second code is for development of proteins or for specificity of proteins.

its laymens terms and you should check it out if interested.

but id be surprised if it is still comparable to fruit fly's, maybe it might change that percentage.. or i could be completely wrong again..

either way i dont think they are that far with the research yet.. no connections made yet.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/...-genetic-code/

[Karl]

They manifestly have been. Even recently (in evolutionary terms) if we look at Neanderthals and Denisovans (who I guess now have to be considered 'human' by creationists) have become extinct because they were not clever enough to change their behaviour to cope with new challenges, whether climactic or otherwise.

Neanderthals did not go extinct, they hybridized with other human species. Studies have shown Neanderthal genes in some whites and some Arabs and other races near Europe but dies out further east and south. Scientists have also found fossils similar to the ones in Africa in Asia in the same time lines, so there goes the out of Africa theory. With gene map technology it is only at the beginning stages now. It will take time to analyse all the species of humans and hybrids on this planet. Conjecture can only be eradicated with total and complete data.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

(It remains the case that everything we have discovered in all fields of science is consistent with TOE, although there is much still to be done. It is perverse to focus on the incomplete parts and ignore the massive accumulation of evidence in the other direction. It would be like refusing to accept the logic of 1-100, just because 20 of the numbers hadn't been 'discovered' yet.)

Reading through this thread again, you seem to suggest here that TOE has eighty percent of the evidence in all fields of science, yet later you suggest we might only have one percent of fossil evidence, what are we to believe?

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

But that's exactly what this dna evidence does prove. We are related to at least 3 extinct species, which are otherwise known to us only by their fossilised remains. Right now I can't think of another possible explanation.

You are not God, so I am not sure how you can think of another possible explanation?

Of course, it could still be the case that God created each species individually and simply decided to give us all related dna just to make us think TOE was true. But why would He do that?

God created life, man created a theory, why would man do that?

It makes more sense to me to assume that God, if He exists, has set the evolution mechanism is place, the same as other physical laws etc are in place. Why would He treat evolution differently? it's not logical.

You don't seem to believe in God, it seems your logic; is trying to work out how a make believe god, might fit in with your logic, and create life in the way you suggest.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Independent]

Reading through this thread again, you seem to suggest here that TOE has eighty percent of the evidence in all fields of science, yet later you suggest we might only have one percent of fossil evidence, what are we to believe?

The fossil evidence, by which we can compare one species with another, is only one part of the evidence. It's the consistent order and distribution of the evidence that's arguably more important.

We have vastly more fossils than in Darwin's day and many of the so-called 'transitional' species have been filled. We also now understand that the story is complicated by many sub branches and dead ends, so there's no point in trying to trace a single definitive line. But that's not so important. We have more than enough to show the broad trend from simple to complex, in the correct places, in the correct chronology, to match TOE. That's why I call it a TOE lookalike world - which leaves aside the question of whether TOE is actually the cause, or a God.

You don't seem to believe in God, it seems your logic; is trying to work out how a make believe god, might fit in with your logic, and create life in the way you suggest.

Firstly, I am asked to believe that Creationism is a better explanation than TOE and one that is worthy of being taught in schools to replace it. That means I have every right to examine it and ask questions.

There are two obvious defences for Creationism against the observable evidence. One is to attack each part of that evidence (as Young Earthers too) but even guys like Dr Mullan have written in Christian publications denouncing that as 'fundamentalism'. The second defence is the one you choose here - that God is inscrutable and we can't ask or expect to understand why He does what He does.

I object to that defence, because Creationism is being put forward as a science, and a science you're not allowed to ask questions about is no science.

It is most certainly not unreasonable for me to ask to examine and understand a theory (Creationism) that is presented as science.

When I try to understand why God would create a TOE lookalike world, but make it almost a test of faith for me not to be taken into by it, that does not make sense, except by imagining a kind of God you would not agree with, Therefore, I believe that belief in TOE is more consistent with the kind of God we find in scripture.

[Independent]

Neanderthals did not go extinct, they hybridized with other human species

No, they went extinct. A little of their dna has survived in us with a few consequences (it's been suggested that red hair comes from them) but without significant impact.

Scientists have also found fossils similar to the ones in Africa in Asia in the same time lines, so there goes the out of Africa theory.

Don't know where you're getting that from. The only significant dissension I'm aware of against out of Africa is in China, where racist Chinese anthropologists have been trying for years to prove a separate evolution for Chinese people. No one else in the world gives it the time of day.

It seems there was not one but several migrations out of Africa. You might also google 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'y-chromosomal Adam' (by which all of us are descended from one man, and one woman, but not living at the same time - not because they were the first man and woman but because no other descendents from other men and women have survived to the present day) and consider how that fits with the scriptural account of early man.

[greenhill]

I am trying to get to the crux, and I believe it is in this paragraph. The unfair feeling that God is misleading people...

It remains the case that no one has offered a rationale for Creationism in terms of: why does the world have all the appearances and characteristics of a TOE world, unless it is actually produced by TOE? How can this fit with the idea of a God who is just, fair and logical? I can't find an answer to this

If this is to be it, then I am using your words (carefully chosen, I believe) to reflect on why you choose to be 'other' as opposed to being in with 'faith'. The word is 'appearance' ..... of a TOE world'. Appearance does not necessarily mean actual. It only means we can accept the distinct possibility. But as you said, there is still 99 pages of the 100 missing. So the 'appearance' is very thin. Another possible glaring fact is that the Creationists have not forwarded anything to counter. But absence does not necessarily mean non existence. It is just knowledge, as Allah has decreed, is His. We only get what He decides to give us.

The thing is, Allah is not out to fool anybody. It is the people that fool themselves (this is in no way directed at you. I am guilty of it myself often thinking that I can be excused for certain acts that I do). For me, TOE is not a real issue as it is man's inference from a possible flawed observation coming to a monumentally attractively wrong explanation. My issue was more to do with burn in hell for unbelievers. But that is another topic.

I have another point to make but I have to get the quote in order to address the matter. So I will continue this on another post.. :p

[greenhill]

This is the quote. Took me a while to find it.... buried somewhere in the beginning...:exhausted

But it relates with regard to the 'dissatisfaction' I detect with regard to Allah again 'fooling' us and messing with our heads.

Of course, it could still be the case that God created each species individually and simply decided to give us all related dna just to make us think TOE was true. But why would He do that?

There are many 'why's?' I could ask. But let us look, in layman's terms, as I am one :D

Allah created all living things out of water. Already there, all living things share something in common. A basic ingredient. It follows then every other building blocks would share many things in common however how diverse they are in shape or form as an end product - a living thing. And they all have a time and place to exist.

We invented 'science' and came up with all the terminology. Allah gave us a guide through the Books and in the Qur'an there are snippets of descriptions/ like formation of the fetus, orbits of the sun, moon, whether we want to classify them as science or what makes no real difference. With regard to living things, Allah has made some references, like in pairs, etc. He describes the smallest thing, some say the atom. But for when it was revealed, 1400 years ago, there were no words for these things He was stating.

If we can 'accept' the generalisation of the descriptions and say that none have been wrong, why is it when we progress in that knowledge, from accepting that YES! all life forms are made essentially with water, and the related DNA is the natural progression to things. It was hard already, I am sure, at that time to accept the fact that ALL living things were made of water. Let alone if Allah tried to explain the DNA.

The 'why' question can only be answered from faith at the end of the day, and I don't mean blind faith. It is in the story of Syaitan. How he misleads.

I'm still not fully satisfied with what I am saying but I'll post it anyway.


Peace :shade:

[Independent]

I am trying to get to the crux, and I believe it is in this paragraph. The unfair feeling that God is misleading people...

Yes, this is one of the key problems with Creationism. It does not make sense UNLESS you posit another kind of God than can be found in the scriptures (either Islamic or Christian).

The word is 'appearance' ..... of a TOE world'. Appearance does not necessarily mean actual.

I am using the phrase 'TOE lookalike world' - a world which appears to be consistent with what you would expect to see if TOE were correct - as a neutral phrase which neither assumes nor rejects TOE as an explanation.

What Creationists are doing is rejecting TOE based on some particular criteria. For Eric, bone formation seems to be particularly hard to stomach. More generally, people have difficulties with the suggested mechanism of mutation as a means of TOE.

TOE is not a random theory, it is an attempt to explain a wide variety of phenomena (especially the 100% consistent placing of all species in the appropriate order and place you would expect from TOE). If TOE isn't the explanation, then why is it in that order? This leads to the question: why has God chosen to create in exactly the same way you would expect from TOE?

Of course, it's not acceptable to assume that God/Allah is doing this to deceive.

For this reason I think another answer has to be given, which is that TOE really is the correct explanation. It's perfectly possible to believe that God created evolution as a universal law in the same way as other laws, such as in physics. And in fact it is more logical, for a logical God, to include evolution as part of His overall design.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

Firstly, I am asked to believe that Creationism is a better explanation than TOE and one that is worthy of being taught in schools to replace it. That means I have every right to examine it and ask questions.

I don’t believe that creationism should be taught as a science in schools, it is a subject of faith. I also struggle with much of the reasoning behind TOE, as a school science subject.

The evolution of the eye, is pretty much a done and dusted subject with TOE, but I believe it is dishonest in its claims. The necessity for nerves, brain, muscles, tendons, jaw, etc to react to what the eye perceives, is seemingly dismissed as of little consequence. Without all these things evolving alongside the eye, the eye becomes a heap of junk serving no purpose.

These issues are very much a sideline,

Going back a billion years, there might have been worms, sponges, with no bones. In a time span of less than seven hundred million years, there are complete skeletal systems.

The following video, is an attempt to ‘mechanize reason’ or possibly to mechanize a simple brain, truly remarkable feat of design and engineering, considering it was done 240 years ago with six thousand working parts.

http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[greenhill]

It's perfectly possible to believe that God created evolution as a universal law in the same way as other laws, such as in physics. And in fact it is more logical, for a logical God, to include evolution as part of His overall design.

And why not? "Be! And it is!"

The evolution of the eye, is pretty much a done and dusted subject with TOE, but I believe it is dishonest in its claims. The necessity for nerves, brain, muscles, tendons, jaw, etc to react to what the eye perceives, is seemingly dismissed as of little consequence. Without all these things evolving alongside the eye, the eye becomes a heap of junk serving no purpose.

Eric, this made me laugh out loud ;D

Peace :shade:

[جوري]

And why not? "Be! And it is!"

If they know how God did it, let em bring back the dead!


:w:

[CosmicPathos]

So, how do you explain our dna-proven relationship with Neanderthals, Denisovans and the third unidentified species (supposed to be homo erectus)?

Where is this proof that you so confidently speak of?

[Independent]

Where is this proof that you so confidently speak of?

This has been in the news very recently. The capacity to extract ancient DNA answers some questions which may otherwise have always remained unanswerable. Exactly how closely are Neanderthals and Denisovans related to us, or are they completely different species - non man, apes? The answer is 'close enough to breed successfully at least some of the time'. The dna evidence shows a small amount of interbreeding, mostly likely between a relatively small number of individuals at an early stage, when populations were smaller.

'Though Denisovans and Neanderthals eventually died out, they left behind bits of their genetic heritage because they occasionally interbred with modern humans. The research team estimates that between 1.5 and 2.1 percent of the genomes of modern non-Africans can be traced to Neanderthals.

Denisovans also left genetic traces in modern humans, though only in some Oceanic and Asian populations.
About 6% of the genomes of Aboriginal Australians, New Guineans and some Pacific Islanders can be traced to Denisovans, studies suggest.
The new analysis finds that the genomes of Han Chinese and other mainland Asian populations, as well as of Native Americans, contain about 0.2% Denisovan genes.'

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=an...icial&start=10

More here and on many other sites if you google:

http://www.livescience.com/42218-201...scoveries.html

This presents creationists with a dilemma. Most now choose to redefine Neanderthals, Denisovans and the third unknown species (possibily homo erectus) as 'human'. However, they diverge in dna more considerably than any human yet analysed. They don't look the same, and they don't seem to have behaved the same (which is why they are extinct and we are not). It makes creationism look very awkward, trying to explain them. And because this is human descent, it's far more significant than an animal.

[Independent]

The evolution of the eye, is pretty much a done and dusted subject with TOE, but I believe it is dishonest in its claims.

i understand your objections and I don't think the issue is done and dusted either. But for me, the evidence that TOE has happened is beyond doubt. How it happened still needs working on. What it does not need is the extraordinary hostility and aggression deployed against it.

To use an analogy: imagine we are looking for a thief who has robbed a million buildings. We have circumstantial evidence that connects him to the scene of the crime in every single case. But, we don't have definitive proof that shows him making the theft.

This is circumstantial evidence....but a million times over with no exceptions. Every discovery is another opportunity to prove the theory wrong. But always, there he is at the scene of the crime.

At some point you surely have to say, even circumstantial evidence can be overwhelming. (And that's not the only evidence.)

There are different types of evidence which are more or less complete. But in one respect it's 100% complete. Every single species we have discovered follows the consistent order explained by TOE in terms of location, chronology and attributes (development of individual characteristics). This cannot be chance.

If God is responsible for this, then He has created each species in the exact way to mimic TOE, which is a very odd thing to do.

And even if He did...so what? If it looks and behaves like TOE, what's the difference? It's like saying we know there is gravity, but having created it, God doesn't use gravity to hold the planets in place, He intervenes instead. How does that make sense?

[Independent]

And why not? "Be! And it is!"

Like i say, the idea that God created the mechanism of TOE, rather than mimicking the result by creating each species one by one, is far more logical and consistent with the idea of God as expressed generally in Islam and Christianity.

[greenhill]

The muslim belief is that nothing happens without the Will of Allah. Nothing I do is without the Will of Allah and there is a saying -

Laa haula wala quwata ilaa billah which roughly translates to 'there is no power or might except by the Will of Allah' that it happens. So when there is a 'need' for change He merely Wills it to happen and it does. Following from the basic fact that everything is made from water and the other basic building blocks, a minor change in the make up and 'Kun fayakun' - we have something else, which over a long period of time will show up in TOE.

In the meantime, Syaitan 'whispers' to to mislead people from the true path, very much like what he did to Adam and Eve and the rest of his descendants.

Peace :shade:

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

Originally Posted by Eric H
The evolution of the eye, is pretty much a done and dusted subject with TOE, but I believe it is dishonest in its claims.

i understand your objections and I don't think the issue is done and dusted either.

I have spent about the past hour, looking at the evolution of the eye, at sites that link Dawkins, schools and the BBC, this seems to Give Dawkins an overrated credibility. Dawkins talks confidently that the eye evolved ‘quickly and easily; he repeatedly uses words like imagine, perhaps and if; to explain how it happened.
He has not described how any of these stages contributed any biological benefit to the species, He does not mention the brain, or how anything else evolves alongside the eye, to make it a beneficial mutation, this seems dishonest, he is a scientist. What he has described is how an isolated piece of junk evolved over half a million years’

He might have explained how a Box Brownie Camera evolved, but if there is no one to pick up the camera, take photos and develop the pictures, the camera is a heap of junk, it might just as well be in a council land fill site, with a load more junk.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/schools/t...nd_the_eye.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/teacher..._and_eye.shtml

On the same website they describe how the compound eye works, it is like looking through a bundle of thirty thousand straws. Fine they have described how it works, but they do not dare to mention how it evolved, or how a brain evolved that would collate information from thirty thousand sources, these eyes are found on insects.

But for me, the evidence that TOE has happened is beyond doubt.

I believe much of Darwin’s work; has made a contribution to understanding our world today. The problem becomes apparent; when you take this theory; and extrapolate back to single cell life.

How it happened still needs working on.

I look at Dawkins thoughts, and wonder where his motives and intentions lay, does he want to promote evolution, or does he want to destroy religion. My own feelings lead me to think Dawkins motives are to destroy religion, more than he wants to promote evolution.

What it does not need is the extraordinary hostility and aggression deployed against it.

You are right, both sides fuel an argument, I think we need to sort this out in the old fashioned way with honour, pistols or swords :D

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Independent]

The muslim belief is that nothing happens without the Will of Allah.

Yes, but this could be in the sense that He made the laws that govern evolution, in the same way as the laws that govern gravity etc. Either way we can take TOE at face value as the best description of observable available.

[Independent]

I look at Dawkins thoughts, and wonder where his motives and intentions lay, does he want to promote evolution, or does he want to destroy religion. My own feelings lead me to think Dawkins motives are to destroy religion, more than he wants to promote evolution.

I read 'The Selfish Gene' when it came out and really enjoyed it. It's a brilliant and stimulating concept, whether it stands the test of time or not. At a stroke it transforms the way we look at evolution.

As far as i remember it made no mention of religion in any direction, but i could be wrong. That is a battle he has taken on later. i think the primary reason is in reaction to Christian fundamentalism in the US and the attempt to replace TOE with Creationism in schools. Today there's no doubt Dawkins is on a mission to combat Creationism and therefore religion. Because he has actually contributed some original thought along the way I still like to read him but I can see why you wouldn't.

[CosmicPathos]

This has been in the news very recently. The capacity to extract ancient DNA answers some questions which may otherwise have always remained unanswerable. Exactly how closely are Neanderthals and Denisovans related to us, or are they completely different species - non man, apes? The answer is 'close enough to breed successfully at least some of the time'. The dna evidence shows a small amount of interbreeding, mostly likely between a relatively small number of individuals at an early stage, when populations were smaller.

'Though Denisovans and Neanderthals eventually died out, they left behind bits of their genetic heritage because they occasionally interbred with modern humans. The research team estimates that between 1.5 and 2.1 percent of the genomes of modern non-Africans can be traced to Neanderthals.

Denisovans also left genetic traces in modern humans, though only in some Oceanic and Asian populations.
About 6% of the genomes of Aboriginal Australians, New Guineans and some Pacific Islanders can be traced to Denisovans, studies suggest.
The new analysis finds that the genomes of Han Chinese and other mainland Asian populations, as well as of Native Americans, contain about 0.2% Denisovan genes.'

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=an...icial&start=10

More here and on many other sites if you google:

http://www.livescience.com/42218-201...scoveries.html

This presents creationists with a dilemma. Most now choose to redefine Neanderthals, Denisovans and the third unknown species (possibily homo erectus) as 'human'. However, they diverge in dna more considerably than any human yet analysed. They don't look the same, and they don't seem to have behaved the same (which is why they are extinct and we are not). It makes creationism look very awkward, trying to explain them. And because this is human descent, it's far more significant than an animal.

What news? Which newspaper? Written by a journalist (haha!)? In which language? From which country? That is not scientific evidence.

All you have done is presented far-fetched claims and statements and conclusions from news websites with no actual substantiating evidence.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

I read 'The Selfish Gene' when it came out and really enjoyed it.

A worrying title for a book, Dawkins seems to have made a small fortune, promoting his selfish gene, no comments on the book, as I have not read it, but he is an interesting man.

As far as i remember it made no mention of religion in any direction, but i could be wrong. That is a battle he has taken on later. i think the primary reason is in reaction to Christian fundamentalism in the US

Dawkins seems to challenge Christian fundamentalism, with atheist fundamentalism, making even more fundamentalists. I am not sure how you can defeat fundamentalism, by increasing their numbers?

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Signor]

Surprising Number Of Americans Don't Believe In Evolution

One in three Americans doesn't believe in evolution, according to new survey results from the Pew Research Center.


The results, released Monday in report on views about human evolution, show that 33 percent of Americans think "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

Among Americans who said they believe in evolution, a quarter said “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.”

While six-in-ten Americans said they believed that “humans and other living things have evolved over time" and about half of them said processes such as natural selection -- not God -- that led to evolution, religion continues to play a significant role in how it's viewed.

White evangelical Protestants were most likely to not believe in evolution, with two-thirds saying humans have existed in their current form since the beginning of time. Half of black Protestants said the same. Only 15 percent of mainline Protestants agreed.


Views among the general population have remained roughly the same since Pew last surveyed on evolution in 2009, although the gap between Republicans and Democrats on the issue has grown. Currently, 43 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats believe in human evolution, while in 2009, 54 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Democrats held that view.

Monday's results were based upon a national survey Pew conducted between March 21 to April 8 with a representative sample of 1,983 adults. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.


A September HuffPost/YouGov survey also asked about views on evolution. That poll found that a quarter of Americans believe humans and other species evolved "without the guidance of God," while 14 percent didn't believe in evolution. About 46 percent of respondents said evolution happened "over time with the guidance of God."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...ef=mostpopular

[Independent]

A worrying title for a book, Dawkins seems to have made a small fortune, promoting his selfish gene

It's a provocative title but a good one - designed to make you think and encapsulating the core of the idea in three words. His contribution is to look at the issue of survival from the point of view of the gene, rather than the individual creature. Surprisingly, this gives new meaning to many behaviours. For instance it explains why many altruistic behaviours are positively reinforced by selection (eg close relatives helping with children). The individual may be disadvantaged, but the gene survives and it's the gene that lives on, not the indidividual.

[Independent]

What news? Which newspaper? Written by a journalist (haha!)? In which language? From which country? That is not scientific evidence.

All you have done is presented far-fetched claims and statements and conclusions from news websites with no actual substantiating evidence

A strange objection. The discoveries have been widely reported by many major organisations such as the BBC (as they should be, because they are very important). I would expect every country's major news source would have reported it but I'm not doing a survey to find out.

They are reporting on the release of scientific articles which have been published in special science journals. You can find these too if you want although some of them have to be paid for and they are not an easy read for the non specialist.

Why on earth would you dismiss such sources out of hand? The core of the story is dna evidence which is entirely factual. You don't have to agree with their comments if you find them inaccurate. But if you refuse to accept the report as a whole, even the factual core, I don't know how you can believe in anything at all.

What quality of information would you accept? What's left?

[Independent]

One in three Americans doesn't believe in evolution, according to new survey results from the Pew Research Center.

Yes, I've seen the survey (most but not all Islamic countries also have a low rate).

The US is a strange country. When people talk about 'the West' they primarily have the US in mind. Yet I would argue it's the least characteristic of all western countries. In particular it remains very influenced by the spirit of the various religious groups who left Europe for the New World who developed on a different path from those who remained behind.

Dawkins has taken on this battle primarily because of what's happened in the US rather than Europe or elsewhere. But of course, the issue itself knows no boundaries.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

i think the primary reason is in reaction to Christian fundamentalism in the US and the attempt to replace TOE with Creationism in schools. Today there's no doubt Dawkins is on a mission to combat Creationism and therefore religion.

I agree with Dawkins that creationism is not science, and it should not be taught in science classes in school. It should not be replaced by more dubious science, like the evolution of the eye. Dawkins is misleading people with his explanation that the eye could evolve quickly and easily. He is more misleading by omitting the need for the brain, etc to evolve with each beneficial mutation of the eye.

He might be convincing in the short term, but I believe this incomplete theory will crash

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[RedGuard]

What's wrong with the evolution of the eye? The mechanism of its evolution was already proposed by Darwin and later proven right.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you RedGuard;

What's wrong with the evolution of the eye? The mechanism of its evolution was already proposed by Darwin and later proven right

The evolution of the eye seems to stem from the 1994 Nilsson and Pelger paper.

In 1994 Nilsson and Pelger published what was to become an oft-referenced classic paper on the evolution of the complex camera-type eye starting from a simple light sensitive eyespot.22 In their paper they argued that a series of insensible gradations, 1829 steps in all separated by 1% changes in visual acuity, could be crossed by an evolving population in about 350,000 generations - - or around 500,000 years. The following figures illustrate their theory:

It took a mere 1,829 steps for the eye to evolve, but how does the brain evolve 1,829 times to understand each beneficial mutation, how is each new improved vision passed on to limbs, so it will respond to the eye?

Omitting this minor problem, does not seem very helpful to science.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[greenhill]

What's wrong with the evolution of the eye?

the need for the brain, etc to evolve with each beneficial mutation of the eye.

In other words, things need to evolve in conjunction with its surroundings and supporting network.

The mechanism of its evolution was already proposed by Darwin and later proven right.

Not sure if it can be said 'proven right' because it is merely stating observations and findings, articulating the process, not inventing the process. Like what Independent says, it has the 'appearance of TOE' based on observations and findings. But still, it does not mean that we, humans evolved from the sea, or even apes. Changes occur within a specie, yes. Not into another specie.

Peace :shade:

[Independent]

Like what Independent says, it has the 'appearance of TOE' based on observations and findings. But still, it does not mean that we, humans evolved from the sea, or even apes. Changes occur within a specie, yes. Not into another specie.

To clarify, I am using the term 'TOE lookalike world' (a world with the appearance you would expect if TOE were correct) in order to separate two areas of debate, not because I don't think TOE is real.

One area of debate is the mechanism. This is the least finished from a science point of view, yet it is almost the only area that gets talked about by Creationists (who attack the notion that beneficial mutations could happen fast enough by chance to account for complex organisms). Bear in mind that in Darwin's day, the study of genetics hadn't even begun so this was not the reason for TOE. Even if the suggested mechanism is proved wrong, it doesn't disprove TOE, only the suggested mechanism. However, TOE could be proved wrong by contrary evidence in the second area of debate.

The second area, which was the reason for TOE, is the vast set of observable data that tells us that 100% of all known species have occurred in the correct time, the correct place, and with the correct characteristics, to remain consistent with TOE. This evidence has increased vastly since Darwin's day (more fossils etc) and is mostly accepted even by many Creationists. Therefore they need to account for it if they are to claim that the cause of this was Creationism, not TOE.

The issue is not whether one fossil is the descendent of another (which is hard to prove) but whether each fossil fits with the overall trend and expectation of TOE - which is easy to prove.

This in turn leads to the dilemma of what kind of God could create a world with all the evidence for TOE, knowing it would deceive so many people? It makes more sense for God to create the mechanism of evolution, or TOE, than to imitate it step by step, creature by creature. For this reason I suggest that disbelief in TOE is incompatible with belief in a Christian or Muslim God. (Obviously this is a controversial thing to say and I'm not expecting people to agree to that easily. But I cannot see any other logical explanation for the information we have.)

I personally don't see religion as having anything to do with TOE, or vice versa. But regrettably it has become increasingly contentious in recent decades, just when you'd think the issue would be receding, having been largely accepted in the west a long time ago.

[Muhaba]

Our problem is not with evolution but with the belief that it all happened by itself without any intervention from God. If some species evolved, then God 'programmed' them to evolve, gave them the ability to evolve. Nothing happens without God's Will or permission. The problem is that when atheists speak about evolution, they make it seem like it happened from start to end all by itself (without God). They believe that God doesn't exist (which is why they claim to be atheists) and that matter/organism has the capability to evolve all by itself without involvement of God.
As for humankind, it is clear from the Quran that humans were created in their human form by God directly and they did not evolve from another organism.

[جوري]

I do have a problem with 'evolution' as in speciation - it's not observed adaptation is and not always for the better btw when squamous cells adapt in the esophagus to become more columnar from repeated insults it's an impending sign of cancer.
So don't be fooled by the BS atheists peddle, it's their religion and they preach problem is they can't fully describe its tenets so that it has a logical consistency and if they did it wouldn't require that many pages.
It would require one or two pieces of reproducible evidence not conjecture and fill in the blanks!

[RedGuard]

IF you think that speciation cannot take place then what's your methodology for distinguishing whether it took place or not? Are you sure that humans living today are the same species as the ones living e.g. in the times of Jesus? Maybe someone "transformed" them?

[جوري]

IF you think that speciation cannot take place then what's your methodology for distinguishing whether it took place or not? Are you sure that humans living today are the same species as the ones living e.g. in the times of Jesus? Maybe someone "transformed" them?

That's a non-question and a non-assertion. I don't know where you're going with this and don't care to humor delusions of your psyche.

[Hulk]

Allah has power over all things, so even if micro or macro evolution is possible, it would not be without His intervention. Is it possible for men to be transformed into apes? Yes. Is it possible for a wooden staff to transform into a snake? Yes. Something is only impossible if it is intrinsically impossible (like a 4 sided triangle) or if it is revealed by Allah that it will not occur (like Abu Lahab going to Jannah). Other than that, I believe that anything is possible if Allah wills it.

Does this mean that human beings evolved from a lower species? No. As revealed in the Quran, Adam (as) was the first human being and he was created by Allah.

"And when your Lord said to the angels, 'Truly, I will create a man from clay. So when I have completed him, and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down prostrate to him.' And the angels prostrated, one and all. Save for Satan, who was too proud to, and disbelieved. He said to him, 'O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating to what I have created with My two hands? Are you arrogant, or too exalted?' He said,'I am better than he; You created me from fire and created him from clay'" (Qur'an 38:71-76).

So what is this dilemma creationists are supposed to be having? Is it because you found remnants of "human-like apes"? SubhanAllah, it was revealed in the Quran that there were human beings who were turned into apes.

Let's not forget that evolution is based on abductive reasoning(which I think Independent admits to) and there is no definitive prove for it. Just because you find broken a broken mug on the floor next to a table doesn't necessarily mean that it dropped from the table. Meaning your theory does not preclude others.

It's also important to note that as many of the muslim posters have mentioned in the thread but seems yet to be understood is that nothing happens without the Will of Allah. "Cause" alone has no power of it's own to have any "effect" unless it is by Allah's will. Fire burns because Allah wills for it to burn, if Allah wills He can make fire cool which was the case for Prophet Ibrahim (as).

Allahu alam

[greenhill]

So what is this dilemma creationists are supposed to be having? Is it because you found remnants of "human-like apes"? SubhanAllah, it was revealed in the Quran that there were human beings who were turned into apes.

A good point to ponder. Never crossed my mind that way before this... I like:D

:peace:

[Science]

Why does their have to be a god in order for there to be evolution? Creationists have presented no scientific evidence that evolution is wrong or that a god guided evolution. Noticed how I said scientific evidence (religious evidence or evidence from religious text does not count). Creationists often have little understanding of evolution. Evolution is very logical. Don't you agree that animals with the best ability to survive and reproduce do survive and reproduce more often then animals with worse of those abilities? Or that during sexual reproduction, an animal can have a mix of traits from their parents that gives it better ability to survive and reproduce? And even the fact that animals can have genetic mutations? This is basically what is behind evolution. There is lots of evidence for evolution. For example, in the Galapagos islands, birds across the islands don't have the same traits, but have different traits based on the environment. Of course, there is a slim chance that evolution can be wrong, but there is no evidence against it. Maybe if creationists actually provide legitimate scientific evidence against evolution, we would believe them. And even if someone did prove there was a god, that would not disprove evolution, unless they had scientific evidence against evolution. My point is, evolution will stay correct until there is evidence against it.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Science; welcome to the forum, and I hope you enjoy your experience here.

Creationists often have little understanding of evolution.

And evolutionists often have little understanding of God. Evolution does not give any meaning or purpose to life, on the other hand, God does.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Science]

Weather or not there is a god does not have to do with evolution. I believe in a higher power, but I just don't think he created the world. If there is a higher power, it doesn't mean he had to have created the world. There are biologists who believe in god, it's just that the majority of them don't.

[greenhill]

I believe in a higher power, but I just don't think he created the world

What does this mean? That the 'higher power' just stepped in somewhere along the way to and decided to take charge of a portion of the created world? Does not make sense at all.There is no half way. He either created the world or He didn't.

Noticed how I said scientific evidence (religious evidence or evidence from religious text does not count).

How can religious evidence not count if we are talking about 'creationists'? Even science has not proven how ape turned into man. So we cannot use all the observed data because it has not been proven, only inferences and that it kind of 'fits' our finding.

:peace:

[جوري]

Weather or not

why don't you follow the thread in its entirety instead of coming in like a deux ex machina to save the day for your pals and reintroduce material that was already covered?
And that should be 'whether' btw. It is hard to take your 'science' seriously when your syntax and grammar is off!

best,

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

One area of debate is the mechanism. This is the least finished from a science point of view, yet it is almost the only area that gets talked about by Creationists

Whether science has the answer or not, is kind of not our problem, we just accept God is the mechanism for all things, but there does seem to be a determination to prove otherwise.

In 1994 Nilsson and Pelger published what was to become an oft-referenced classic paper on the evolution of the complex camera-type eye starting from a simple light sensitive eyespot.22 In their paper they argued that a series of insensible gradations, 1829 steps in all separated by 1% changes in visual acuity, could be crossed by an evolving population in about 350,000 generations - - or around 500,000 years. The following figures illustrate their theory:

Take the evolution of the eye, I believe the theory above may describe how about 20 percent of the working eye evolved in half a million years. But I do believe you need a mechanism for how the remaining eighty percent of the detail evolved alongside this.

The eye evolved in species that lived in the sea, so what tools does nature have to make this happen.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[~Zaria~]

Greetings,

Yes we can - read back in the thread. Neanderthals and Denisovans died out relatively recently and we now have actual dna from their remains. Sufficient to know that they were closely enough related for us to interbreed, but different enough for them to become extinct where we survived.

So, how do you explain our dna-proven relationship with Neanderthals, Denisovans and the third unidentified species (supposed to be homo erectus)?

I think enough time has been spent on the supposed 'sub-species' of humans - the Neanderthals.
I hope this article can lay this extremely poorly-substantiated claim to rest:



Neanderthals Are Still Human!

by Dave Phillips

Download Neanderthals Are Still Human! PDF



Since the first Neanderthal fossil was discovered in the middle of the last century, their remains have been highly controversial. By the mid 1950s, some scientists were beginning to argue convincingly that Neanderthals are a sub species of modern humans (Homo sapiens) (Lewin, 1998), citing a wealth of evidence to support the view that Neanderthals were human.

Language

Some evolutionists have claimed that Neanderthals were incapable of modern speech, lacking the ability to produce the full range of vowels (Lieberman and Crelin, 1971; Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992), with flat non-flexing at the base of the skull, and the larynx positioned higher in the throat than in modern humans or even chimpanzees. The result of this computer reconstruction was that the resonating chamber at the back of the mouth was all but eliminated.

Many of these arguments have now been thoroughly refuted. A new and updated reconstruction done in 1989 by paleoanthropologist Jean-Louis Heim showed an essentially modern human flexation of the base of the skull (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992; Shreeve, 1995).

More recently, the La Chapelle skull was compared to a sample of modern human specimens from the middle ages and found to be quite human (Frayer, 1993).

In 1983 one of the most complete Neanderthal skeletons ever found was discovered at Kebara in the Levant, which included the first fossil hyoid bone of a Neanderthal ever discovered. This bone is located in the throat and is directly related to the structure of the human vocal tract and is indistinguishable from that of modern humans (Arensburg et al., 1987).


Neanderthal Brains

A Neanderthal brain volume equals or exceeds modern human dimensions (Deacon, 1994), ranging from about 1200_1750 ml, and thus on the average about 100 ml larger than modern humans (Stringer and Gamble, 1993). Holloway (1985: 320) has stated

"I believe the Neanderthal brain was fully Homo, with no essential differences in its organization compared to our own."

Although there is no direct correlation between brain size and intelligence, Neanderthal brain volume certainly does not support views that argue for an evolutionary expansion of "Hominid" brains.


Neanderthal Anatomy

Neanderthal anatomy is essentially human in scope, with the same number of bones as humans, which function in the same manner (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992). However, there are minor differences in robusticity (thickness and strength).

These differences are trivial and can be found on an individual basis in modern living populations (Lewin, 1998). Although there is no formal agreement of which physical characteristics are diagnostic of Neanderthal morphology, a suite of traits have been used to distinguish Neanderthal morphology. Cranial traits are listed in the table below.

Still one may wonder why the entire suite of traits are not found in modern populations, but consider that Neanderthals typically lived in extremely cold climate areas, genetically isolated by a post-flood ice age. That would have directly affected their anatomy and physiology (Stringer and Gamble, 1993).

Two ecological rules describe the relationship between the size and the shape of the extremities (limbs) and trunk anatomy. Burgmann's rule regarding surface area postulates that body weight tends to be larger in cold climates. With two bodies of similar shape, the larger will have less surface area per unit of volume and will retain heat better in cold climates. Allen's rule suggests that body limbs will be shorter in cold climates, reducing surface area that results in less heat loss. This is seen in the short tails, ears, or beaks in many animals living in cold climates. Humans that live in cold climates, such as Eskimos, are typically larger with shorter arms and legs. Since Neanderthals lived in near arctic conditions in many cases, one would expect them to have a stocky body build and short extremities (arms and legs) (Holliday, 1997). In fact, the limbs of Neanderthals from the warmer climates of Southwest Asia are relatively longer than the limbs of those living in ice-age Europe. When Neanderthal limb proportions, based on a mean index of tibia/femur length, called Crural Index, are plotted against mean annual temperatures. Neanderthals appear to be even more cold-adapted in their limb proportions than modern Eskimos and Lapps (Stringer and Gamble 1993; Stringer and Mckie, 1996).

In addition, Neanderthals lived a life style that put rigorous demands on their bodies as seen from numerous skeletal lesions, many the result of traumatic bone breakage. (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992.) Further, it has recently been suggested, based on intense dental study, that Neanderthals may have had a greater longevity than modern populations. This may have also affected their anatomy (Cuozzo, 1998).

Neanderthal Culture

There are a large number of cultural habits that distance Homo sapiens from animals.

No other organisms, either living or fossil, made tools to make other complex tools, buried their dead, had controlled use of fire, practiced religious ceremonies, used complex syntax in their spoken grammar, and played musical instruments, yet we know from their fossils that Neanderthal engaged in all.

Deliberate burial of Neanderthal remains is well known from at least 36 sites with a geographical distribution over most of Eurasia (Gowlett, 1994), with at least 20 complete skeletons known (Lewin, 1998). Some graves have stone tools, animal bones, and flowers buried in the ground, along with the Neanderthal remains.

At the Uzbekistan Neanderthal site of Teshik-Tash, is a boy's grave surrounded by a ring of mountain goat bones, horns, and levallois tools indicating ritualism of some sort. Burial is known to have occurred in an unnatural posture, which demonstrates that a corpse was not simply dropped into a hole in the earth without preparation (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992). Burial implies an awareness of the after life and demonstrates the existence of formal ritual. Indication of strong social ties can be inferred from cases where Neanderthal individuals with severe crippling injuries were cared for (i.e., the Shanidar remains).

In 1996, pristine evidence of Neanderthal humanness came to light, when a cave in Slovenia produced a small flute made from the thigh bone of a cave bear. Four precisely aligned holes are punctured on one side of the four-inch-long bone (Folger and Menon, 1997).

Thus cultural evidence strongly supports Neanderthal humanness.


Neanderthal (mitochondrial) DNA

The recent recovery of mitochondrial DNA from the right humerus of the Neanderthal remains from Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, has been of great interest to evolutionists and creationists alike (Krings et al., 1997).
Based on the comparison of modern human mt DNA and that taken from the Neanderthal, evolutionists have argued that the "Neanderthal line" diverged from the line of "hominids" leading to modern humans about 600,000 years B.P. without contributing mt DNA to modern Homo sapiens populations. This strongly implies that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans.

However, the above noted interpretation is not scientifically justified. Lubenow (1998) has pointed out that the use of a statistical average of a large modern human sample (994 sequences from 1669 modern humans) compared with the mt DNA sequence from one Neanderthal is not appropriate. Furthermore, the mt DNA sequence differences among modern humans range from 1 to 24 substitutions, with an average of eight substitutions, whereas, the mt DNA sequence differences between modern man and the Neanderthal specimen range from 22 to 36 substitutions, placing Neanderthals, at worst, on the fringes of the modern range.

Conclusion

Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate.


References

• Arensburg, B. et al., 1989. A middle Paleolithic human hyoid bone. Nature, vol. 338:758-60.
• Cuozzo, J. 1998. Buried Alive: The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man. Master Books.
• Deacon, T. 1994. The Human Brain. In: Jones, S. R. Martin, D. Pilbeam, (ed.) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. Cambridge University Press.
• Folger, T., and S. Menon. 1997 . . . Or Much Like Us? Discover, The Top 100 Science Stories (1996).
• Frayer, D. 1993. On Neanderthal Crania and Speech: "Response to Lieberman." Current Anthropology 34:721.
• Gowlett, J. 1994. Early human mental abilities. In: Jones, S and R Martin, D Pilbeam, (ed.) Ancestors: The Hard Evidence. New York: Alan R Liss Inc.
• Holliday, T. 1997, Postcranial evidence of cold adaptation in European Neanderthals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 104:245-58.
• Krings, M et al. 1997. Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell 90:19-30.
• Lewin, R. 1998. The Origin of Modern Humans. Scientific American Library.
• Lieberman, P. 1984. The Biology and Evolution of Language. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
• Lieberman, P. 1989. The Origin of Some Aspects of Human Language and Cognition. In: P. Mellars and C. Stringer (eds.), The Human Revolution. pp. 391-414. Edinburgh University Press.
• Lieberman, P. and E. Crelin, 1971. On the Speech of Neanderthal. Linguistic Inquiry, 2:203-222. Mayfield Publishing Company.
• Lubenow, M. 1998. Recovery of Neanderthal mt DNA: An Evaluation. Creation Ex Nihilo, Technical Journal, vol. 12(1) pp. 87-97.
• Shreeve, J. 1995. The Neanderthal Enigma. Solving the Mystery of Modern Human Origins. William Morrow and Company, Inc.
• Stringer, C. and C. Gamble 1993. In Search of the Neanderthals. Thames and Hudson.
• Stringer, C. and R. Makie 1996. African Exodus: The Origin of Modern Humanity. Hold and Co. New York.
• Trinkaus, E., and P. Shipman 1992. The Neanderthals: Changing the Images of Mankind. Alfred A. Knophf, New York.
• Wolpoff, M. and R. Caspari. 1997. Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction. Westview Press.

* Dave Phillips earned the M.S. in physical anthropology from California State University, Northridge, in 1991 and is now working on his Ph.D. in paleontology.
Cite this article: Phillips, D. 2000. Neanderthals Are Still Human! Acts & Facts. 29 (5).


http://www.icr.org/article/neanderth...e-still-human/

[Science]

What does this mean? That the 'higher power' just stepped in somewhere along the way to and decided to take charge of a portion of the created world? Does not make sense at all.There is no half way. He either created the world or He didn't. How can religious evidence not count if we are talking about 'creationists'? Even science has not proven how ape turned into man. So we cannot use all the observed data because it has not been proven, only inferences and that it kind of 'fits' our finding. :peace:

He doesn't have to create the world. My definition of god might be different then yours. Religious evidence doesn't count since religion is not science. Scientists use real evidence to prove (and disprove) things, and religious evidence is not that. If you have actual, non-religious evidence against evolution, then it will count. Science has proven how ape evolved into man. 8 million years ago, we split into apes and humans. They both evolved through natural selection and genetic mutations, and they have evolved through many species.

[Science]

why don't you follow the thread in its entirety instead of coming in like a deux ex machina to save the day for your pals and reintroduce material that was already covered? And that should be 'whether' btw. It is hard to take your 'science' seriously when your syntax and grammar is off! best,

Is that really an argument?

[RedGuard]

That's a non-question and a non-assertion. I don't know where you're going with this and don't care to humor delusions of your psyche.

So you do admit that you don't have idea what speciation is? Then how would you tell whether it happened or not if it indeed took place?

[greenhill]

Science has proven how ape evolved into man. 8 million years ago

I beg to differ. Science has proven nothing. It merely connects the dots (with huge gaps missing still) and provides a 'best' and 'most plausible' conclusion to the partial data it has gathered. It is only what people want to believe.

:peace:

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

There are different types of evidence which are more or less complete. But in one respect it's 100% complete. Every single species we have discovered follows the consistent order explained by TOE in terms of location, chronology and attributes (development of individual characteristics). This cannot be chance.

If God is responsible for this, then He has created each species in the exact way to mimic TOE, which is a very odd thing to do.

A number of times you question God's wisdom in how He has chosen to create our world. However, there is much to account for when it comes to theories suggested by humans. With the current theory being discussed, one can find numerous articles and websites refuting it and providing counterexamples, some of which have already been posted. There may be supporting data (subject to speculation) as you have mentioned, but it doesn't equate to fact. In your own words, 99 pages out of every 100 are missing. How then can you question God before the theory has even been proven as a fact?

Moreover, there is ambiguity in the discussion. Evolution can refer to a number of different processes, occurring at the micro as well as macro level. Some creationists accept the concept of natural selection but they do not accept life evolving from lifeless matter or humans evolving from other species. So when you say we live in a 'lookalike TOE world', it is not clear whether your observations conflict with what some creationists have no problem in accepting in the first place.

You also say, 'this cannot be chance', referring to certain findings. Those who believe in religion can also use the same, if not stronger, arguments for their belief. It cannot be chance that every generation of humans has believed in a higher being that they call God. It cannot be chance that there exist evidences of historical incidents narrated in scripture. It cannot be chance that prophecies mentioned in scripture have been fulfilled. It cannot be chance that when God said He would preserve His final revelation, it would be preserved until this very day, word-for-word, memorised by millions. It cannot be chance that the Qur'an is inimitable and a miraculous book. The list can go on...

So, we cannot become blinded by particular findings without considering all other information. We certainly should not be making bold statements about what God should or should not have done. Is it any wonder why creationists may become disconcerted (not that I've seen many do in this thread) when the feeble attempts to deny His existence become increasingly obvious?

And even if He did...so what? If it looks and behaves like TOE, what's the difference? It's like saying we know there is gravity, but having created it, God doesn't use gravity to hold the planets in place, He intervenes instead. How does that make sense?

Indeed, at the end of the day, science can never truly contradict religion. Understanding to some degree the laws God has created within His universe does not detract in any way from the glory and magnificence of His power; rather it only serves to increase the faith of a believer.

By the way, here are two links which may be of interest:

http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...rspective.html

[جوري]

So you do admit that you don't have idea what speciation is? Then how would you tell whether it happened or not if it indeed took place?

If you enjoy drawing satisfaction out of overly simplistic conclusions, and posing non-questions in rhetoric and presuming to speak for the other person at the same time, then what is it that you're doing here? You seem happy with your soliloquy, and this is not the place for your catharsis to take place!

best,

[RedGuard]

So will we find out what speciation is? I already discussed it in this thread, to some degree. The rest isn't hard to learn about.

[observer]

I think enough time has been spent on the supposed 'sub-species' of humans - the Neanderthals.
I hope this article can lay this extremely poorly-substantiated claim to rest:


http://www.icr.org/article/neanderth...e-still-human/

Have you checked where that article is from? The Institute for Creation Research: a group aiming to prove the accuracy of the Bible via science.

The also dispute the age of the Earth and suggest that it is, in fact, 6000 years old.

I'm not sure they're the most reliable of folk.

[observer]

A lot of people here seem to think that atheists are desperate for evolution to be true, that it confirms our "agenda". That's just not true. If evolution is false, then that's incredible - whatever replaces it will be just as interesting. We push the case for evolution because, evidentially speaking, it is the only plausible case at the moment.

As someone previously said (can't find the post), the person who proves evolution incorrect will be known as one of the greatest scientists ever. But so far, there is no-one who can satisfactorily refute it.

[جوري]

I already discussed it in this thread, to some degree. The rest isn't hard to learn about.

Your discussions are sophomoric which is precisely why what you propose isn't hard to learn about, it is resolved in the same mindset that created it and unfortunately it is a sphere where you hover and expect that everyone either descend down to it or no expectations from your own person to look beyond your own concocted horizon!

best,

[Independent]

Wow, plenty added to this thread since I was last on.

A number of times you question God's wisdom in how He has chosen to create our world

No I don't. I'm suggesting that a God who is both logical and just would not have created a world that has the appearance of TOE, unless He actually used TOE to create it. It's the wisdom of humans I'm questioning, in their rejection of TOE. TOE is more internally consistent with islam and Christianity than non TOE.

In your own words, 99 pages out of every 100 are missing. How then can you question God before the theory has even been proven as a fact?

I gave that analogy as a specific reference to the number of species represented by the fossil record (an estimated 1%). This is one type of evidence, looked at from just one persepective (frequency). It's not a statistic for the evidence of TOE in general.

More importantly, it's not the number of fossils that is interesting, it's the pattern of development they show. We already have far more than we need to show this pattern.

Every single one of those identified species fits TOE according to chronological development, geographical distribution and orderly evolution of individual characteristics. Had any of them not done so, this potentially would have disproved TOE in one go. It is beyond chance that this pattern could have occurred except by TOE or by divine fiat.

If by divine fiat, that raises the question I posed above. Why trick us by making it look like TOE? God surely would not do this. If each species is being created by divine fiat, there is no logical reason to do it in such a pattern, and implying such family relationships and descents.

It makes far more sense to suggest that God created the laws of evolution as he did physics etc, and afterwards let them play out.

So when you say we live in a 'lookalike TOE world', it is not clear whether your observations conflict with what some creationists have no problem in accepting in the first place.

Arguments about evolution often get confused. Yet, when you look at the evidence, there are some parts that are completely non speculative and observable. As i described above, whereas the direct descent of one fossil to another is difficult to prove, the overall pattern is 100% clear, consistent and observable. And we can match it against a mountain of biological evidence that suggests a capacity for adaption over time.

To all intents and purposes, this proves that evolution has indeed taken place. The only argument remaining is 'how'?

In order not to pre-judge the issue I use the phrase 'TOE lookalike world'. This is the observable reality of the world. We then have a choice how to explain it.

Could there be another explanation for the world looking this way? There are no major scientific explanations besides TOE. But of course, it could be God's creation.

At this point I return to my first point - a just and logical God would not confuse us by making it look like TOE, unless it actually was.

Therefore, I believe that faith in TOE is as logical for Muslims and Christians as it is for atheists or anyone else for that matter.

[MohammedK]

I have debated with all religions and atheists are the top on the list due to many of them having serious bigotry and hatred for Islam. You ask for evidence that Islam is true : the miracle to prove it is from god: we have that. It is the Quraan. A book that has not been matched in over 1400 years.

You claim there is no god. So prove that. Any claim must be proven. Atheists claim Energy/ Atoms is the result of the universe and everything in it; because they claim it always existed. As some scientists claim. That has been proven false by other scientists see the links at the end.

Also Atheists claim people evolved from apes : over 1400 years ago Islam told us that is false and told us nothing always exists except Allah . The ape theory has also been proven false by scientists see links at the end.

So both of your "facts " have been debunked. So explain who created the universe your old lies have been debunked.

[Muhaba]

Why should TOE be more logical than God creating each specie individually? Also, how do we know that fossil record really prove theory of evolution? For one thing, the fossil record is so incomplete that it can't prove anything. Second, it's very much possible that only those fossils are being presented by the scientific community that show TOE. Those that go against it are ignored. Third, it's possible that wrong and exaggerated conclusions are being reached due to bias and to promote a certain theory. For example, how can a single finger or tooth fossil be used to show what kind of creature the fossil belonged to and what were that creature's living habits, intelligence, etc.? Was the creature human or nonhuman? That it wasn't an ape but a specie similar to humans but not human? That it used tools? That it had an underdeveloped language? etc. etc.

[greenhill]

A lot of people here seem to think that atheists are desperate for evolution to be true, that it confirms our "agenda". That's just not true. If evolution is false, then that's incredible - whatever replaces it will be just as interesting. We push the case for evolution because, evidentially speaking, it is the only plausible case at the moment.

I would not refute that there is 'some' degree of evolution and it occurs strictly within a specie. Not evolution that jumps from one specie to another. TOE does not prove there is a jump either, merely infers that it is a most likely scenario based on their findings. But it is not a fact, just a possibility which is treated like a fact.

:peace:

[observer]

You claim there is no god. So prove that.

A negative can't be proved in this way. If I say "prove there are no pink unicorns in the world" you can't do it.

Atheists claim people evolved from apes

Not true - evolution says that people and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Man did not come from monkeys. Man and monkeys came from the same place.

Atheists claim Energy/ Atoms is the result of the universe and everything in it; because they claim it always existed.

I'm not sure anyone says the universe has always existed - science more or less universally accepts the idea of a big bang, a creation moment.

As for the Quran being a proof of god, that's only true for muslims. Christians believe the Bible does the same, Jews the Torah etc. You saying that your holy book is proof of god is not proof by any "scientific" sense of the word. Faith - absolutely, if you see something in the Quran that makes you believe in god then great, but it is not proof of god to a non-believer.

[observer]

TOE does not prove there is a jump either, merely infers that it is a most likely scenario based on their findings. But it is not a fact, just a possibility which is treated like a fact.

But everything in science is a best guess. There are no "facts" like 1+1=2. The theory of gravity is not a fact - but you catch a plate to stop it falling. The theory of electromagnetism is not a fact but it powers your house and lets you use a computer. There are no 100% facts in science - only best theories.

Science starts by saying "We don't know how this works - let's find out" and then introduces theories and experiments to test those theories. If the experiments fit the theory then it becomes scientific "fact" (until a better theory comes along).

Religion says "We know how it all happened, let's prove it" and any evidence which doesn't fit the book in question is disregarded and often, as with TOE, attacked. For that reason, religious reasoning will never convince someone who wants proof - testable theories.

Science will never prove there is no god. Never. It's impossible. But it doesn't try to.

[Independent]

Also, how do we know that fossil record really prove theory of evolution? For one thing, the fossil record is so incomplete that it can't prove anything. Second, it's very much possible that only those fossils are being presented by the scientific community that show TOE. Those that go against it are ignored

You misunderstand. This would be a valid objection if I were trying to say that one fossil is the direct ancestor of another and prove a line of descent. But I'm not. And this claim is (generally) not made by modern evolutionists. Like many TOE critics, you are arguing against a version of TOE which is itself ancient history.

The tree of descent has far more branches and cross overs than we first realised. Although an individual species may be of the correct family and a relative of what comes next, we can't be sure that it was this particular line that continued, as opposed to one of the others with similar characteristics. Unless we can get more information (eg ancient dna from all remains) then we can't be so precise.

(By the way, the often quoted line from Darwin about the paucity of the fossil record no longer applies. We have vastly more fossils than in his day, including many of the famously misnamed 'missing links').

BUT the fossil record can tell us with certainty that there is a general trend from only simple creatures to a mix of simple and more complex. Every single fossil that we have found, as well as all species known today, fit into an order and pattern consistent with TOE. We don't find homo erectus remains in the Jurassic, nor do we find kangaroo ancestors in Europe. And each detailed evolutionary characteristic (eg changes in the spine connected with bipedalism) occur in the correct order in the correct species and never elsewhere.

100% of the time.

That's why many scientists say, evolution is a fact, the only issue is how it happened. In a way the criticism of TOE fits this idea because it's always about the mechanics.

Third, it's possible that wrong and exaggerated conclusions are being reached due to bias and to promote a certain theory. For example, how can a single finger or tooth fossil be used to show what kind of creature the fossil belonged to and what were that creature's living habits, intelligence, etc.?

There is room for debate here which is why I haven't made it part of the 100% claim for TOE. Individual fossils may indeed be re-classified. However, it is possible to extrapolate a great deal from a few bones, because some characteristics are very revealing (eg changes in lordosis verterbrae in women). All creatures are the way they are for a reason - whether that is because of adaption or any other reason.

I repeat, TOE does not disprove the existence of God. It's possible to believe in God and TOE and many people do. But, it means a change in the way we understand God's role - from continuous creation to creating a set of laws. This is exactly parallel with what you already believe in relation to the laws of physics. (ie God did the Big Bang and afterwards His laws did the rest.) Why accept it for physics but get angry when it's suggested for biology?

[greenhill]

But everything in science is a best guess. There are no "facts" like 1+1=2. The theory of gravity is not a fact - but you catch a plate to stop it falling. The theory of electromagnetism is not a fact but it powers your house and lets you use a computer. There are no 100% facts in science - only best theories.

But in most cases they are replicable, and can be used to extrapolate data and prediction of blackholes etc.. Even as you say theory of electromagnetism (as I say I'm not scientist) things can measure up in terms of power, output, and changes in 'a' will affect whatever in 'b' and be testable. Gravity too. But evolution is entirely a different thing altogether.

I have read somewhere about studies into wood. They know the molecular structure and how simple it is, but it cannot be replicated. Life is a force on its own, it cannot be re recreated at will. Just because a body can made (even if it could) does not mean it can be brought to life. So life is not about chance, hence there must be a Creator.

:peace:

[greenhill]

“. . .when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?. . .” 2:30

This refers to the creation of Adam (pbuh)

We as muslim know that the angels and jinns know nothing of the future, then how can they be saying that? The only thing I can reason is that there were similar creations in the past that 'resembles' human that behaved despicably. Perhaps what we are seeing now as potential evidence for TOE.

:peace:

[observer]

So life is not about chance, hence there must be a Creator.

But why do you say life is not about chance? How do you know?

The problem with all of this, is that we have only 1 example: Earth. It could be that, given the right conditions on a planet, life is inevitable. It could be that it's incredibly unlikely and that we are the result of a huge stroke of random fortune. We don't know. But that's what I love! It's looking for the answers which is the interesting part - not assuming that we already have them all.

I just can't accept the religious argument that "This is all so wonderful - only god could do this". That just seems like such a cop-out. At the end of the day, like I said, science can never disprove the existence of god. And whilst I don't believe in god, I like the idea (eternal life in paradise? Yes, please!) but what I see just does not tally with there being a god - at least, not with a god of any religion.

[RedGuard]

But why do you say life is not about chance? How do you know?

The problem with all of this, is that we have only 1 example: Earth. It could be that, given the right conditions on a planet, life is inevitable. It could be that it's incredibly unlikely and that we are the result of a huge stroke of random fortune. We don't know. But that's what I love! It's looking for the answers which is the interesting part - not assuming that we already have them all.

I just can't accept the religious argument that "This is all so wonderful - only god could do this". That just seems like such a cop-out. At the end of the day, like I said, science can never disprove the existence of god. And whilst I don't believe in god, I like the idea (eternal life in paradise? Yes, please!) but what I see just does not tally with there being a god - at least, not with a god of any religion.

Life is not entirely about chance. Randomness is involved but given right environmental conditions, life becomes certain or at least highly probable.

[wizra]

Life is not entirely about chance. Randomness is involved but given right environmental conditions, life becomes certain or at least highly probable.

Completely contradicting yourself. Randomness in right conditions is chance itself!

Atheists are excellent are spilling out pseudoscience day & night. But in the end, all they've got is uncertain theories & guesses.

Brother Karl wraps it up pretty nicely:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1603488

10:36. And most of them follow not except assumption. Indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of what they do.

[RedGuard]

I don't want to derail the topic so let's go back to life/evolution.

In our galaxy alone there are 100-400 billion stars and there are more than 150 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Even if we assume that only one in 1000000 stars has any planets and out of them 1 in 1000 have planets capable fo supporting life, that would give us between 100-400 planets with possible life in our galaxy alone. Multiply it by the total number of galaxies and you've got a mind-blowing number of possibly habitable places. And this is not the whole picture. Scientists from University of California, Berkeley, and University of Hawaii have determined that twenty percent of Sun-like stars in our galaxy have Earth-sized planets that could host life.

[greenhill]

That just seems like such a cop-out

To me it is futile.

In one of the documentaries I saw about the creation of the universe, about 2 hour long, it goes on about the Big Bang and all the stuff and it kind of concludes that all the permutations from the density of clusters (why not all uniformly spread etc) to whatever else, it correlates it to a combination that is like the number of sand of the beaches on earth, that if only 3 grains were taken out, we would not have the world as we know it today.

The absolute precision in the 'throw of dice' to have this chance happening is between absurd to ridiculous. It cannot be chance. People would not normally accept a million to one odds, let alone these kinds of figures. I don't know how they can come up with that analogy, but hey, they did their research and that was their conclusion. So there must be a 'force' to steer it. Couple that with another analogy where, if the earth was created 12 hours ago, human life counts for only about 3 seconds. We are really that insignificant in the overall scheme of things. For the Creator, time is relative(?) or perhaps even no time? Don't we want to consider the prospects of the larger space out there that is not restrained by the living body? Like what happens after humanity's 'few seconds' spell on earth?

It really is not a cop-out. It is a non issue. There is no need for a proof. We believe Allah created Adam. That we did not descend from apes. What we try to do is to increase our taqwa. When TOE suggested we came from apes, we objected. Does not mean TOE is about everything else is entirely wrong. Just that we did not come from apes. Just don't mix the two.

[observer]

The absolute precision in the 'throw of dice' to have this chance happening is between absurd to ridiculous. It cannot be chance.

It kind of depends how you look at it - it's easy to say that talk of chance like this is futile, because if the universe hadn't been this way, then we couldn't exist. Or there's the many worlds hypothesis, that there are actually many different universes, many of which would be "dead" as conditions were not right. I can totally see how the "fine-tuning" of the universe would lead people to conclude that god did it - but it's not a prerequisite.

This is a really good book on just that topic http://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Six-Num.../dp/0753810220 - I think that if you are religious and read it, it will actually probably increase your faith!

For the Creator, time is relative(?)

As Einstein showed - time is relative for everybody! :shade:

We believe Allah created Adam. That we did not descend from apes.

Just remember, TOE doesn't say that we came from apes - that's a common misrepresentation. It says that we and apes had a common ancestor.

The way the universe is, it seems to me completely normal to postulate a god as creator. But it also seems pretty clear that there are plenty of scenarios where there is no need of a creator. Again - we'll never know. But there are so many problems with religion that I can't believe any of them.

[~Zaria~]

Greetings,
@observer : In response to your previous query (I can no longer access the required page) -
The website is run by 'creationists' - the belief that GOD created mankind from naught, as evidenced from His untainted scriptures.
This is the belief held in Islam.

In addition, please note that the website itself has little to do with the contents of this particular article: Neanderthals are Still Human! - an author can chose to publish his work in any journal or website. What matters to the critical reader is whether or not the information is well-referenced (as it is) as well as the academic background of the author - in this case Dr Dave Phillips has a degree in Physical Anthropology and is working on his Ph.D. in paleontology.

(Please do not attempt to draw away from the contents of the article by means of diverting our attention onto a non-issue - as this seems to be a common pattern in your discussions.)

BUT the fossil record can tell us with certainty that there is a general trend from only simple creatures to a mix of simple and more complex.

^ Even if this were true, it is a long way away from linking fossils to evolution.

Every single fossil that we have found, as well as all species known today, fit into an order and pattern consistent with TOE.

No it does not.
Please can I request that you save these un-substantiated and false claims for another forum.

We don't find homo erectus remains in the Jurassic, nor do we find kangaroo ancestors in Europe. And each detailed evolutionary characteristic (eg changes in the spine connected with bipedalism) occur in the correct order in the correct species and never elsewhere.

100% of the time.

Lets get this clear:

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part.

The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation.

Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches.

Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.

What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.

Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.

But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance.

To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population."

Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations".

"In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps."

So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings".

Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.

An Excellent Read:

Debunking Evolution:problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution

That's why many scientists say, evolution is a fact, the only issue is how it happened. In a way the criticism of TOE fits this idea because it's always about the mechanics.

It is far from fact.

We are open to intelligent discussion - which would include proper research and evidence to back the far-fetched claims that have been made.

If this is not available, then not much can be achieved from this discussion.


Something to ponder over:

Peace

[observer]

(Please do not attempt to draw away from the contents of the article by means of diverting our attention onto a non-issue - as this seems to be a common pattern in your discussions.)

I'd suggest that that's a little unfair.

[Muhammad]

Arguments about evolution often get confused. Yet, when you look at the evidence, there are some parts that are completely non speculative and observable. As i described above, whereas the direct descent of one fossil to another is difficult to prove, the overall pattern is 100% clear, consistent and observable. And we can match it against a mountain of biological evidence that suggests a capacity for adaption over time.

To all intents and purposes, this proves that evolution has indeed taken place. The only argument remaining is 'how'?

As I mentioned earlier, many creationists already accept the general concept of adaption over time. To use this point to confirm everything under the umbrella of 'evolution' is misleading. It is only one aspect of what is termed evolution, and one which is redundant to the discussion if the atheist and creationist already agree on it. Likewise, it does not mean God has 'tricked' anyone because it has nothing to do with other issues like life originating from lifeless matter etc.

[Independent]

You make a series of comments without support.

Even if this were true, it is a long way away from linking fossils to evolution

In what way is it not true?

No it does not.

Examples?

The rest of your post concerns the difference between macro and micro evolution. This has nothing to do with the question of overall pattern and order which I'm describing, which remains unanswered by anyone in this thread.

[Independent]

As I mentioned earlier, many creationists already accept the general concept of adaption over time. To use this point to confirm everything under the umbrella of 'evolution' is misleading. It is only one aspect of what is termed evolution, and one which is redundant to the discussion if the atheist and creationist already agree on it

The pattern shows both separate species and new adaptions appearing over time. The species occur in the correct order as well as the adaptions. TOE is a good explanation for this. Creationism is not. Because if you are creating species from scratch every time, there is no reason for them to bear any relation to other creatures at all, let alone show a pattern of coherent development.

Likewise, it does not mean God has 'tricked' anyone because it has nothing to do with other issues like life originating from lifeless matter etc.

The pattern of species development does not fit what you would expect from Creationism. Of course, it could be true (because in creationism, anything at all can happen without explanation) but it is still not logical.

So, it is in conflict with the notion of a logical and just God.

[Science]

I beg to differ. Science has proven nothing. It merely connects the dots (with huge gaps missing still) and provides a 'best' and 'most plausible' conclusion to the partial data it has gathered. It is only what people want to believe.

:peace:

No, science has proven many things. There are still many things to discover in science, but what we do know in science is based on evidence. Science does not base things off of partial data, but on full data and all of the evidence. Do you have experimental evidence against evolution? If not, then don't just claim ev-olution is false. It is not just what people want to believe. That is religion. If science is so false, then how is it that it can be applied to technology in our everyday lives? Technology is the application of science. If science is wrong, technology would not work. And BTW: Religion does not count as science or scientific evidence. Don't try to use religion to disprove something in science, as that is unscientific.

[~Zaria~]

In what way is it not true?

Your statement: "BUT the fossil record can tell us with certainty that there is a general trend from only simple creatures to a mix of simple and more complex."

My reply: "Even if this were true, it is a long way away from linking fossils to evolution".

^ The point being made is that the observation that simpler creatures existed earlier than more complex creatures (and not simultaneously) - if this were to be true - does not have anything to do with evolution itself. This would be merely an observation.

As you may know, observational studies are the most weakest in trying to link associations and causation.

Examples?

Your statement: "Every single fossil that we have found, as well as all species known today, fit into an order and pattern consistent with TOE."

^ The examples with evidence for the above quote should be provided by the one who stated it.

The rest of your post concerns the difference between macro and micro evolution. This has nothing to do with the question of overall pattern and order which I'm describing, which remains unanswered by anyone in this thread.

^ "The question of overall pattern and order" is directly related to my previous post.
The point being is that its NOT possible to obtain such "pattern and order" in view of the fact that while variation is possible (and does exist), widespread and beneficial mutations are not - which essentially negates this entire concept completely.


Please refer to the previous post again as well as the provided link above.

The pattern shows both separate species and new adaptions appearing over time.

Please substantiate your statements with evidence.

TOE is a good explanation for this. Creationism is not. Because if you are creating species from scratch every time, there is no reason for them to bear any relation to other creatures at all, let alone show a pattern of coherent development.

The limited logic and rationale of man in trying to explain our existence, bears little weight in the face of the Creator himself, providing us these answers, via the revelations that He has sent.

I'd suggest that that's a little unfair.

Its just an observation that has been made from previous threads.


Peace

[Independent]

Your statement: "BUT the fossil record can tell us with certainty that there is a general trend from only simple creatures to a mix of simple and more complex."

My reply: "Even if this were true, it is a long way away from linking fossils to evolution".

^ The point being made is that the observation that simpler creatures existed earlier than more complex creatures (and not simultaneously) - if this were to be true - does not have anything to do with evolution itself. This would be merely an observation.

As you may know, observational studies are the most weakest in trying to link associations and causation.

You are still avoiding the question of whether the fossil record indicates a trend as stated, nor are you offering any evidence to contradict it. At this stage, this is getting exasperating but I'll continue anyway.

Let's imagine a world in which all species have indeed been created by divine fiat. Let's also try to imagine it as if we hadn't read the Bible or the Qur'an, so we have no preconceptions about how it should look. Let's imagine it taking just one preconception - that this God is just and logical. So what would we expect to find? Just like TOE, creationism is a hypothesis for the way the world looks. Does it fit what we see?

If no species has descended from another, then no species depends on previous generations for its development. Any feature - bones, wings, fins, limbs, thumbs - whatever you wish - is as likely to occur with the first species as with the last. We should see complex species from the beginning of life, not progressively revealed.

We would not expect to see massive extinctions (an estimated 90% of all species that have ever existed were extinct before Man came on the scene). We would not expect all species to built from a relatively narrow pattern (why would a God who can do anything be so constricted? - isn't that insulting his power?). We would not expect to find such an elaborate system of genes and inheritance or anything else that looks like a possible mechanism for evolutionary change, as this will not be required.

Moving into slightly more subjective areas, as the only creatures with souls, we would also expect to appear on the scene very early, not at the last minute in the age of the Earth.

And what do we actually see? This is a complex world. At first we couldn't see much relationship between the vast number of species. Each one looked like a one off creation in itself. But after a little time, with the help of people like Darwin, we began to see a pattern in the apparent profusion of species. Gradually, we have come to see that every species is not an island. It has a myriad of relationships and similarities with other species (sometimes very surprising ones). Although many creatures are stunning and sometimes bizarre, we can see that, for the most part, there are precedents going back in the fossil record. There is a pattern. It has a logic.

That logic is best described by TOE. So far, every species we know about fits into a pattern consistent with TOE.

When we go back and look at the world predicted by a theory of continuous divine creation, it looks completely different. This begs the question: why? For God to place species in an apparent order of development is a deliberate act that makes no sense. Why would God create the rules of evolution and not use them? It's not logical.

Please substantiate your statements with evidence.

In support of my case i present every single creature that has ever existed. So, it would be a great deal quicker for you to give proven examples of the ones you think don't fit. For instance, if you could find homo sapiens remains in a layer of Jurassic geology, that would do nicely.

The point being is that its NOT possible to obtain such "pattern and order" in view of the fact that while variation is possible (and does exist), widespread and beneficial mutations are not - which essentially negates this entire concept completely.

I repeat, I'm not talking at all about the mechanism, the 'how' for TOE at this point. And I'm not trying to prove that any one fossil is the direct ancestor of another, just the overall trend of development. I'm saying that what we see looks like the RESULT you would expect if TOE were correct, and not what you would expect from continuous divine creation. The HOW is an interesting but separate question.

[جوري]

nor are you offering any evidence to contradict it

And you have NOT offered any evidence to prove it!
Showcasing fossils next to each other in a case and saying this came first and this second doesn't an argument make.
Work on the mechanism of action that made one transition into another then make those demands to have them countered.
You really don't need that much makeweight and still write much ado about nothing.
You write so much crap and with it you still say absolutely nothing!

best,

[MohammedK]

Science says man has evolved from apes and that has been proven false: I have links but this forum doesn't let me post : give me your email and I will send it. If science was wrong about that ; and about energy always existing also proven false; then why should we believe other science lies?

[MohammedK]

I never said that Atheists say the universe always existed : I said they claim energy always existed and that is what caused everything all on its own. Energy didn't always exist; it has been proven false. 2 'facts' proven false; so who is to know what else science is wrong about.

As for Quraan as evidence : Our claim in not like Jews or Christians; they don't claim that's is their prophets miracle; we do. It is a book that can't be matched. Anything man made can be out done; Quraan has never; and will never. The people best in Arabic at the prophets time could not out do it. People today are not better in Arabic language then them. And feel free to try to out do it. If you do so, all of Islam forum will become Athiests as a reward lol.

As for pink unicorns; that's the same argument all you people use; try something else it'a getting old. It's logical to think a higher power created everything; and controls our lives and watches us. Thinking something unlogical as pink unicorns is not the same as believing in god.

[Muhaba]

Although many creatures are stunning and sometimes bizarre, we can see that, for the most part, there are precedents going back in the fossil record. There is a pattern. It has a logic.
That logic is best described by TOE. So far, every species we know about fits into a pattern consistent with TOE.

That's after the fact. The pattern was looked at by scientists and the theory was made accordingly. That doesn't make TOE true.

There may be another explanation why simpler life forms were created first and more complex later. It may be due to the conditions on earth at the time. Early earth probably couldn't sustain more complex life forms. For example, in the Precambrian era there was no oxygen on earth. The temperatures on earth also probably couldn't sustain life. There was no ozone layer, etc. Later the earth cooled, oxygen formed,, an ozone layer formed, etc. All of that made it possible for land dwelling organisms.

So the pattern of life on earth may be more related to the conditions on the planet than to evolution. God would only create those animals that could survive. It would be no use to create animals that can't survive. They would die out before getting a chance to grow and reproduce even if they were created.

The following is from national geographic:

The Cambrian period, part of the Paleozoic era, produced the most intense burst of evolution ever known. The Cambrian Explosion saw an incredible diversity of life emerge, including many major animal groups alive today. Among them were the chordates, to which vertebrates (animals with backbones) such as humans belong.

What sparked this biological bonanza isn't clear. It may be that oxygen in the atmosphere, thanks to emissions from photosynthesizing cyanobacteria and algae, were at levels needed to fuel the growth of more complex body structures and ways of living. The environment also became more hospitable, with a warming climate and rising sea levels flooding low-lying landmasses to create shallow, marine habitats ideal for spawning new life-forms.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

So, it is in conflict with the notion of a logical and just God

The truth seems to be coming out, you are trying to use TOE to challenge people's beliefs.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[Independent]

Showcasing fossils next to each other in a case and saying this came first and this second doesn't an argument make.

Did you miss geology at school?

Yes we do know what order they came in. Unless you're a Young Earther.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer;

But everything in science is a best guess. There are no "facts" like 1+1=2.

So why are you trying so hard to push 'best guess' on other people?

I have posted several times on this thread, the quick and simple 1829 steps of the evolution of the eye, it fails to say how the brain or anything else adapted to these simple 1829 steps. There have been no satisfactory explanations, this is not just a 'best guess' it is bordering on dishonesty

In the long run, if you are making claims like this and calling it science, then surely science will suffer.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[MohammedK]

Evolution theory has already been proven false. I have links if admin will allow me to post I will.