Evolution and Islam are mutually exclusive

[Lucozade]

Greetings.

There is over 150 years of research into evolution and it has long been proven that evolution is a fact. It's backed by thousands upon thousands of scientific evidences and there is absolutely no doubt that evolution happened over hundreds of millions of years and is still happening. So from my understanding of Islam, there was no evolution. God created humans as is, despite the very fact that we evolved, in fact all life evolved so how can this be? Clearly these two are mutually exclusive, the Quran says one thing, science says another.

For example we share 98% of the dna that chimpanzees have, is this just a coincidence? 69% of our dna is shared with a rat...! A rat?! This is why we test vaccines and medication etc on rats and mice because they're so similar to us.

So my question to Muslims is, do Muslims simply refuse to accept this scientific fact or do they have a different understanding of evolution somehow? Obviously Muslims don't reject science, after all we use it everyday, you're utilising about 20 different areas of science simply reading this message. So my question is, how do you reconcile the fact that evolution is not mentioned in the Quran at all and it goes so far as to say that humans were created "as is" and did not evolve?

And yes I know science cannot yet explain how the first life developed (single cell organisms) but one step at a time.

I'm not trying to start an argument or pull anyone from religion... I just want to know your reasoning for accepting some scientific facts and rejecting others.

Thanks for reading.

[Misbah0411]

https://islamqa.info/en/126913

[Lucozade]

Interesting. Thank you.

I am however a little discouraged with the lack of sources in this islamqa post.

"It has become clear to many rational people that the theory of the atheist Darwin has been consigned to the trash can of history" - Who are these people? What is their education?

"refuted by the disbelieving scientists of the West" - Who?

"Hence fair-minded scientists" - Who?

"Specialists have refuted the idea of evolution in animals and plants" - Who?

"It has been proven through research that many of the plants and animals of Egypt have not changed from the way they were many centuries ago" - Evolution takes thousands, if not millions of years. Centuries just isn't long enough.

"At no time throughout history has humanity ever observed any living being transformed into another being through evolution" - This is because it takes a very long time.

"Dr Muhammad Barbaab" - I am unable to verify this person? Who is he and what is his education? Where are his research papers? In fact searching for "Dr Muhammad Barbaab" in Google returns only 1 result. The Islamqa post that you linked, which suggests this person does not even exist.

[Cpt.America]

Allah can create any creation through whatever process He chooses.
If this is through the process of macroevolution/speciation, that is His wisdom and who are we to question it.
And if it is through any other processes, that is His wisdom and who are we to question it.

That being said,
microevolutions are a fact.
We see bacteria evolve resistances, and we can directly breed dogs and horses to suit our likings.
So no one is contesting microevolutionary changes being supported via data.

However although the concept of a gradual accumulation of microevolutions causing branching and eventual speciation of one species into an entirely new and different species (gradualism), sounds very logical,
in the fossil record we do not find this to be the case.
Instead of gradualism we find punctuated equilibrium,
which is why evolutionary biologists are always excited to find 'the missing link(s)' which would not be much of an issue at all if gradualism could be seen in its stead. (I do remember how excited everyone was when they discovered Tiktaalik in Nunavut, Canada)

Anyway, to say macroevolution (not microevolution) has a hundred years of evidence would be folly, as it has little evidence and is instead piggybacking off the fact that microevolution is proven.

I do not say that macroevolution is false, however I do not believe that it may necessarily be true either.
Saying a species which was originally gradually evolving through microevolutionary changes, had then suddenly accumulated 99% of their changes within the span of a few generations (decades or centuries), is not very different than saying that either an animal went extinct and God placed a new creation, or that God changed something into something else in a time frame that would not otherwise naturally occur.
However a species has come to be, whether it be from a pre-existing species, or if it be some entirely new creation, our belief is that The Designer has engineered it with whatever process was of His choosing.

Science is always liable to change and correct itself with the more we learn and the more evidence we collect over the years.
It would be a deep folly to stifle our scientific growth and accept any theory as fact (theories are are near facts but not absolute fact), otherwise we would still be using Dalton's atoms as our models.

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

[Lucozade]

Thanks for taking the time to answer Cpt.America.

[Cpt.America]

Also evolutionary theory in its modern form only really came to be in the 1940s.
Darwin proposed the concept of survival of the fittest,
but evolutionists for the longest time had no real idea of mechanisms of inheritance or mechanisms for creating variation for evolutionary forces (nature) to work upon.

for inheritance Darwin suggested a "blending theory" which was absolute bunk. And variation was not even touched.

After Gregor Mendel's work with genetics was rediscovered, it seemed to fly in the face of evolution as traits could skip generations, be coupled with other traits (through nondisjunction), and harmful traits could be carried across generations as recessive alleles (which would almost certainly be selected against)

In fact for the greater part of the history (as I recall, if I remember correctly) of evolutionary biology the Evolutionists and the geneticists were at odds with one another.

Only the brilliant work of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright (contributing from 1920s to the 1930s) lead up to ultimately a paper written by Juilian Huxley in 1942: The Modern Synthesis, (definitely one of the most important books in the history of evolutionary biology as a subject) that ultimately reconciled genetics with evolution as we know the subject to be in our modern day.

[Cpt.America]

Thanks for taking the time to answer Cpt.America.

Hope I could come to be of some assistance bruv. :)

[Serinity]

Everything is created by Allah SWT.

:) How Allah SWT created us? Allah SWT knows best. >.>

[Misbah0411]

I tell you what, lets put aside "research" and "scientific facts" of evolution and present this in the most elementary way so you can see the folly of your position. You say "evolution" brought all into existence. Well something had to be created for it to evolve. Who do you think created it or did it just happen out of nothing and then come into being? Finally, why don't you do a simple test and I will give you "hundreds of millions of years" to see if it will happen. Take a deck of playing cards and shuffle them up real good. Then I want you to throw them up in the air and see if they land in ascending numeric order according to the following suits in this order: hearts, diamonds, spades and then clubs. Keep throwing them up and see if they fall in that order. It would never happen. You would have to bend down and sort them accordingly to get that arrangement. That is the Intelligent Design. That is the Divine Order of things in this universe which you so foolishly ignore to your own peril as you are nothing but a tool of Iblis to believe otherwise.

[Cpt.America]

I tell you what, lets put aside "research" and "scientific facts" of evolution and present this in the most elementary way so you can see the folly of your position. You say "evolution" brought all into existence. Well something had to be created for it to evolve. Who do you think created it or did it just happen out of nothing and then come into being? Finally, why don't you do a simple test and I will give you "hundreds of millions of years" to see if it will happen. Take a deck of playing cards and shuffle them up real good. Then I want you to throw them up in the air and see if they land in ascending numeric order according to the following suits in this order: hearts, diamonds, spades and then clubs. Keep throwing them up and see if they fall in that order. It would never happen. You would have to bend down and sort them accordingly to get that arrangement. That is the Intelligent Design. That is the Divine Order of things in this universe which you so foolishly ignore to your own peril as you are nothing but a tool of Iblis to believe otherwise.

Brother, OP isn't muslim. He was asking an honest question in terms of what Muslims believe.

[Lucozade]

I tell you what, lets put aside "research" and "scientific facts" of evolution and present this in the most elementary way so you can see the folly of your position. You say "evolution" brought all into existence. Well something had to be created for it to evolve. Who do you think created it or did it just happen out of nothing and then come into being? Finally, why don't you do a simple test and I will give you "hundreds of millions of years" to see if it will happen. Take a deck of playing cards and shuffle them up real good. Then I want you to throw them up in the air and see if they land in ascending numeric order according to the following suits in this order: hearts, diamonds, spades and then clubs. Keep throwing them up and see if they fall in that order. It would never happen. You would have to bend down and sort them accordingly to get that arrangement. That is the Intelligent Design. That is the Divine Order of things in this universe which you so foolishly ignore to your own peril as you are nothing but a tool of Iblis to believe otherwise.

Actually it could happen lol but the chances are so low we cannot imagine. Nevertheless I'll try to answer your question.

500 years ago we didn't how the Earth orbited the sun, in fact everyone thought the sun orbited the Earth. Then a brilliant man by the name of Nicolaus Copernicus figured out that the Earth orbited the sun and it was the sun that was at the centre. Then we didn't know how how electricity or magnetism worked, then we didn't know how gravity worked etc etc. There is a never ending process of not knowing things.

Today we have absolutely no idea, not a single clue about how life on Earth came about. This does not mean we should attribute god to this because 400 years ago we had absolutely no idea, not a single clue about how the planets "hang in space". So we attributed the motion of the stars to god moving them. Now we know this is not the case and it's gravity that is responsible.

There is so much we don't know about the universe which is why we're trying to figure it out. So when you ask me how the universe came into existence or how the first life formed, of course I have no idea... because science has not figured it out yet, just like 400 years ago we didn't know the planets stayed in space.

I'm agnostic because I simply don't know if there might ultimately be some creator or designer that is responsible for it all, for all I know were some alien experiment, kinda like ants in an ant farm. I just have no idea. There will probably always be things we don't know but science has made tremendous advancements in discovery.

This wasn't even the point of my thread, as Cpt.America said, I just wanted to know what Muslims views are on evolution when science has confirmed that evolution is real, just like gravity. You believe gravity to be true right? Why? Why gravity and not evolution? Is it because it goes against the Quran?

I just want to know what Muslims think about evolution, that was all.

[Cpt.America]

TBH Gravity is one of the last great mysteries of the universe (jk our science is incredibly rudimentary and there are mysteries we have not even thought to ask yet) We have hypothesis on how it, Gravity, works, but none have ever been tested and there has never been any proof until recently this year when LIGO labs were able to observe gravitational waves and formally presented the paper in February.

Just saying, Gravity is a bad evidence to cite as proof.

Magnets however!

Lol

[Lucozade]

TBH Gravity is one of the last great mysteries of the universe (jk our science is incredibly rudimentary and there are mysteries we have not even thought to ask yet) We have hypothesis on how it, Gravity, works, but none have ever been tested and there has never been any proof until recently this year when LIGO labs were able to observe gravitational waves and formally presented the paper in February.

Just saying, Gravity is a bad evidence to cite as proof.

Magnets however!

Lol

Hardly a bad choice to go with. Gravity is curvature in space-time caused by mass, nothing more. The LIGO results were proof of gravitational waves... not gravity. There are still many unanswered questions about blackholes, dark matter, dark energy, quantum entanglement etc.

Ultimately my point was that throughout history there have been things we didn't have the slightest clue about how they worked and now we do know so at the moment we may not know how life came to form on Earth but in a few hundred years who knows, perhaps will figure out that mystery to. This is why scientists love their job because the universe to them is nothing more than a really cool puzzle book lol.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Lucozade; and welcome to the forum,

500 years ago we didn't how the Earth orbited the sun, in fact everyone thought the sun orbited the Earth.

The Earth and the sun can be observed, so it seems inevitable we would work this out eventually. Now we know the answer, what does this prove?

I'm agnostic because I simply don't know if there might ultimately be some creator or designer that is responsible for it all,

There is no absolute proof either way. Creation is history, either at least one God created the universe, or there is no god. Whatever you or I believe, we cannot change the truth of history.

for all I know were some alien experiment, kinda like ants in an ant farm. I just have no idea.

Did the aliens create the universe? Who created the aliens?

There will probably always be things we don't know but science has made tremendous advancements in discovery.

Of course, but here is the problem for me, Adam was created by God, he did not evolve from any other species. And just a question for you, how could life evolve without God?

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The Earth and the sun can be observed, so it seems inevitable we would work this out eventually. Now we know the answer, what does this prove?

Scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo were persecuted by the Inquisition of Rome for promoting heliocentrism, because of its contradiction of statements in the Bible, such as 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5, that we now know to be untrue. This is a classic example of religious ignorance opposing itself to rational inquiry. [The Catholic Church has since officially admitted that Galileo was right.] The current dispute over evolution is an ongoing example of the same basic opposition.

Of course, but here is the problem for me, Adam was created by God, he did not evolve from any other species.

You make two connected claims here. What is the evidence for either of them?

Peace

[drac16]

Yeah, there's no doubt that humans and other primates are very similar. Humans have something that no animal has, though, and that is the capacity to ascertain spiritual truths. The reason muslims believe in a spontaneous creation instead of man having evolved from lower primates is because of the Qur'an. No muslim that I've ever met believes in Adam and Eve because of the fossil record-- we believe it because it's in our scriptures.

The contrast between a muslim and an agnostic is present because they diverge on where that knowledge came from. The muslim believes in a spontaneous creation because that's what the Qur'an says, while the agnostic looks at the evolutionary theory and applies it to primates, thereby thinking that humans evolved from lower species of primate. If I go with the Qur'an, though, that doesn't mean that I shut my brain off. In my opinion, it would be silly to dismiss the evolutionary theory altogether. There is evidence that dogs share a common ancestor with wolves, for instance.

We don't deny that primates evolved over time; we deny that the first man and woman evolved from other, more primitive primates. It's a conclusion that comes from theology-- not from Science. The muslim puts Scripture on a higher level than Science, that is why we continue to believe in Adam and Eve [peace be upon them]. Adam was created from clay, the Qur'an says.

[Freedom]

I believe in evolution.

[Bhabha]

You know why I don't believe in some "evolutionary" theory? Because it has been used time and time again to dominate people who are drawn to be on the lower end of the evolutionary scale and because the "White" body has been drawn over and over again to the evolved form, so other bodies that are different are deemed undeveloped.

[Abz2000]

Greetings.

There is over 150 years of research into evolution and it has long been proven that evolution is a fact. It's backed by thousands upon thousands of scientific evidences and there is absolutely no doubt that evolution happened over hundreds of millions of years and is still happening.

So from my understanding of Islam, there was no evolution. God created humans as is, despite the very fact that we evolved, in fact all life evolved so how can this be? Clearly these two are mutually exclusive, the Quran says one thing, science says another.

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

Verily, the likeness of 'Iesa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was.
Quran 3:59

And mention, [O Muhammad], in the Book [the story of] Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east.
Quran 19:16


And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified." [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware."
Quran 7:172

For example we share 98% of the dna that chimpanzees have, is this just a coincidence? 69% of our dna is shared with a rat...! A rat?! This is why we test vaccines and medication etc on rats and mice because they're so similar to us.

Evolutionary differences

Parts of the genome that don't encode proteins tend to evolve rapidly, so you can have significant regions of the genome where there's no discernible similarity between species, says Moran. This means many sequences will not line up when you compare genomes between species.
And the further away two species are on the evolutionary tree, the greater the difference."

If we compare really closely related species, like a human and chimpanzee, we can still see the similarity between these rapidly changing sequences. If you move further away to the more distantly related pig, so many changes in the DNA will have occurred that it is no longer possible to recognise that the sequences were ever similar."Depending upon what it is that you are comparing you can say

'Yes, there's a very high degree of similarity, for example between a human and a pig protein coding sequence', but if you compare rapidly evolving non-coding sequences from a similar location in the genome, you may not be able to recognise any similarity at all. This means that blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/03/2887206.htm

Even so, we do see that both the apes and the pigs are mentioned in the Quran as items of transformation despite a myriad of other creatures available for presentation. Does that mean we came from apes and pigs? not necessarily at all. Could we have come along and branched off into different species therefore the huge similarities? God knows, maybe.

Say, "Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah?
[It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way."
Quran 5:60

We know that humans, reptiles, chickens, birds, and mammals look similar/identical at early stages of embryonic development (nutfah, mudgah, alaqah etc) until "another creature" develops out of it so i find no valid reason to reject evolution with certainty and believe that research in the field will prove more.

And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge.
Quran 30:22

So my question to Muslims is, do Muslims simply refuse to accept this scientific fact or do they have a different understanding of evolution somehow? Obviously Muslims don't reject science, after all we use it everyday, you're utilising about 20 different areas of science simply reading this message. So my question is, how do you reconcile the fact that evolution is not mentioned in the Quran at all and it goes so far as to say that humans were created "as is" and did not evolve?

And yes I know science cannot yet explain how the first life developed (single cell organisms) but one step at a time.

I'm not trying to start an argument or pull anyone from religion... I just want to know your reasoning for accepting some scientific facts and rejecting others.

Thanks for reading.

I seriously believe that many of the people who ditched the rejected the teachings of the roman church during the 1500 to 1900s were rational thinkers who could not reconcile between the differences they noticed in obvious scientific facts such as round earth etc and what the pope was saying.
However, when you look into the lives of scientists such as abbas ibn firnas, scholars such as ibn taymiyyah etc, you listwn to their arguments on such topics despite the bitter opposition from their friends and acquaintances, and you'll realise that the position Islam cannot be compared to such irrational argumentation seen from the crusaders' religious wing (while it was their secular wings that were putting a blanket over the western econo.ies and way of life).
Many would have rejected faith out of desire, lust, hypocrisy ignorance etc, but there were certainly some confused thinkers who made a solid choice to call out the glaring false assertions in the wholesale edited bible.
Newton was wiser, he was not only granted an inquisitive, imaginative and logical mind, he held to what he knew to be true of the faith and rejected concepts such as trinity etc.
Please bear that distinction between the Quran and the Roman church in mind as it will help in understanding the matter more clearly.

Verily, the likeness of 'Iesa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was.
Just as adam didn't come equipped with headsets and bluetooth at the beginning, i don't think jesus did either, he definitely evolved from fetus to baby to boy to man. And God describes that process vividly, and even though God created Adam and later made him appear on earth, He did the same with all of us but we came about very slowly the second time around.
God knows best.

[Serinity]

I tell you what, lets put aside "research" and "scientific facts" of evolution and present this in the most elementary way so you can see the folly of your position. You say "evolution" brought all into existence. Well something had to be created for it to evolve. Who do you think created it or did it just happen out of nothing and then come into being? Finally, why don't you do a simple test and I will give you "hundreds of millions of years" to see if it will happen. Take a deck of playing cards and shuffle them up real good. Then I want you to throw them up in the air and see if they land in ascending numeric order according to the following suits in this order: hearts, diamonds, spades and then clubs. Keep throwing them up and see if they fall in that order. It would never happen. You would have to bend down and sort them accordingly to get that arrangement. That is the Intelligent Design. That is the Divine Order of things in this universe which you so foolishly ignore to your own peril as you are nothing but a tool of Iblis to believe otherwise.

Brilliant reply. May Allah SWT bless you and all of us. Ameen.

It'd be impossible without a intelligent designer. They may say "But there is a chance" is like saying "jumping down this building without breaking anything is poosible" only someone without common sense would say that.

The ascending numeric order would NEVER happen. Just like me being created would never have happened if Allah SWT didn't create me. Common sense tells that. Only someone with a lot of faith on 'chance' would say otherwise.

Tell me, what I am writing now, could it be by chance?! Could an air plane flying in their air be random? Could a plane be formed if I threw items at the wall? Or if I threw a deck of cars, would it be able to be arranged in a numerical order? NO, never could it happen. Ever.

Why? Because our minds would never accept it, why? Because it is soo unlikely it is impossible. It can't happen, there is no chance it could. Actually it'd require more faith to believe that by chance it could happen, than to believe it can't happen. It'd require soo much faith, it'd be blind faith. But the rebellious ones earn Jahannam.

Because our minds tells us for something to ascend in numerical order, or a car to be made requires intelligence. For a plane to be built requires intelligence.

I see this whole "chance" thing as blind faith.

[Lucozade]

Thanks for the great reply abz2000

Brilliant reply. May Allah SWT bless you and all of us. Ameen.

It'd be impossible without a intelligent designer. They may say "But there is a chance" is like saying "jumping down this building without breaking anything is poosible" only someone without common sense would say that.

The ascending numeric order would NEVER happen. Just like me being created would never have happened if Allah SWT didn't create me. Common sense tells that. Only someone with a lot of faith on 'chance' would say otherwise.

Tell me, what I am writing now, could it be by chance?! Could an air plane flying in their air be random? Could a plane be formed if I threw items at the wall? Or if I threw a deck of cars, would it be able to be arranged in a numerical order? NO, never could it happen. Ever.

Why? Because our minds would never accept it, why? Because it is soo unlikely it is impossible. It can't happen, there is no chance it could. Actually it'd require more faith to believe that by chance it could happen, than to believe it can't happen. It'd require soo much faith, it'd be blind faith. But the rebellious ones earn Jahannam.

Because our minds tells us for something to ascend in numerical order, or a car to be made requires intelligence. For a plane to be built requires intelligence.

I see this whole "chance" thing as blind faith.

You're thinking about this very primitively. Imagine you have a box of 1million dice and you throw the box in the air, what are the chances that every single die will land on 1? It's incredibly low, but not impossible. I'll tell you why.

Because no matter what the dice will land... and they will land on a number. So the probability of the dice all landing on 1 is the exact same as them landing in any other configuration. Just because it's ordered, does not mean it's less likely lol. It's like playing the lottery, you may think the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 is less likely than say 5,9,13,23,26,27,37 but they're exactly the same. So your deck of cards analogy is flawed because as long as it's not impossible, there is always a chance, just a very very very low chance.

Also one thing I notice about humans is our ability to think is governed by what we know to be true. You're absolutely right that a chair cannot create itself or a glass of water cannot fill itself etc but this is because we live in a system where everything needs to be created. Can we really apply this thought process to the universe? If so then by extension god would also need to be created. Perhaps the answer is so complex we cannot even think of the correct question to ask.

Imagine showing the inner workings of a jet engine to a monkey, the monkey will have literally no idea whatsoever about how it works, the monkey probably cannot even begin to think about the correct questions to even ask. To the monkey, it's simply incomprehensible. I honestly believe humans and the universe is like monkeys are a jet engine. We simply cannot even fathom how it came to be. We just don't have the ability to process such questions.

[sister herb]

What all of this has to do with your the first question to us? You asked what is Muslims´opinion about evolution and now you are explaining here your own opinions about science and this and that like you would like to make us to think alike. What you at least try to prove with kind of posts? Propably that we Muslims shouldn´t believe as we do?

We have had here many atheists and agnostics before and with them kind of discussions usually goes far to the outer space. And definitely out of topic.

And by the way, we don´t play lottery. Islam forbids the gambling.

[Lucozade]

What all of this has to do with your the first question to us? You asked what is Muslims´opinion about evolution and now you are explaining here your own opinions about science and this and that like you would like to make us to think alike. What you at least try to prove with kind of posts? Propably that we Muslims shouldn´t believe as we do?

We have had here many atheists and agnostics before and with them kind of discussions usually goes far to the outer space. And definitely out of topic.

And by the way, we don´t play lottery. Islam forbids the gambling.

I said right from the start I'm only interested in the evolutionary argument but others insisted on talking about creation of the universe...

[Serinity]

Thanks for the great reply abz2000




You're thinking about this very primitively. Imagine you have a box of 1million dice and you throw the box in the air, what are the chances that every single die will land on 1? It's incredibly low, but not impossible. I'll tell you why.

Because no matter what the dice will land... and they will land on a number. So the probability of the dice all landing on 1 is the exact same as them landing in any other configuration. Just because it's ordered, does not mean it's less likely lol. It's like playing the lottery, you may think the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 is less likely than say 5,9,13,23,26,27,37 but they're exactly the same. So your deck of cards analogy is flawed because as long as it's not impossible, there is always a chance, just a very very very low chance.

Also one thing I notice about humans is our ability to think is governed by what we know to be true. You're absolutely right that a chair cannot create itself or a glass of water cannot fill itself etc but this is because we live in a system where everything needs to be created. Can we really apply this thought process to the universe? If so then by extension god would also need to be created. Perhaps the answer is so complex we cannot even think of the correct question to ask.

Imagine showing the inner workings of a jet engine to a monkey, the monkey will have literally no idea whatsoever about how it works, the monkey probably cannot even begin to think about the correct questions to even ask. To the monkey, it's simply incomprehensible. I honestly believe humans and the universe is like monkeys are a jet engine. We simply cannot even But the rebellious ones earn Jahannam.ng fathom how it came to be. We just don't have the ability to process such questions.

There is no such thing as chance. I don't believe in chance. Everything is determined by Allah SWT, everything is fixed.

IF I throw a dice, it is already determined before hand. I have a chance of getting an 1 1/6, but overall, everything is determined by Allah SWT, not chance. You may believe in chance, I do not.

If I throw a dice, there is the wind, the strength of throw, the landings the rotations, etc. Everything is governed by the Laws of Allah SWT. So nothing is random, it only appears to us like that. Rather, we are too incompetent to calculate whether it will be a 1 or a 5.

Everything that is exists is created and thus needs a Creator who is not created, as He SWT is the Creator. The laws and rules are created by Allah SWT. so the laws of creation itself only applies to the creation, not Allah SWT.

my mind can't accept that a PC could assemble itself, or by chance. It is virtually impossible.

[Misbah0411]

I said right from the start I'm only interested in the evolutionary argument but others insisted on talking about creation of the universe...

How's that deck of cards experiment working for you? Any "luck?"

[Serinity]

Fact is, the deck experiment will NEVER succeed, and it is stupid to rely on chance. It is blind faith, Wallah.

Anyways, I ain't going to in this debate.

[Lucozade]

There is no such thing as chance. I don't believe in chance. Everything is determined by Allah SWT, everything is fixed.

IF I throw a dice, it is already determined before hand. I have a chance of getting an 1 1/6, but overall, everything is determined by Allah SWT, not chance. You may believe in chance, I do not.

If I throw a dice, there is the wind, the strength of throw, the landings the rotations, etc. Everything is governed by the Laws of Allah SWT. So nothing is random, it only appears to us like that. Rather, we are too incompetent to calculate whether it will be a 1 or a 5.

Everything that is exists is created and thus needs a Creator who is not created, as He SWT is the Creator. The laws and rules are created by Allah SWT. so the laws of creation itself only applies to the creation, not Allah SWT.

So you're claiming that Allah will NEVER allow the deck of cards to land in order? Who are you to decide this? You're claiming to know what Allah will and will not allow.

[Serinity]

So you're claiming that Allah will NEVER allow the deck of cards to land in order? Who are you to decide this? You're claiming to know what Allah will and will not allow.

I won't play into your games, and no that was not what I said. It simply won't happen, unless Allah SWT wills it.

By Allah SWT, it could happen IF ALLAH SWT Willed it, but By Allah SWT, it will NEVER happen by Chance. Get the difference? Chance doesn't govern anything, it is Allah SWT that governs the Universe by His Laws.

Point is, it can never happen by chance.

[Misbah0411]

So you're claiming that Allah will NEVER allow the deck of cards to land in order? Who are you to decide this? You're claiming to know what Allah will and will not allow.

No you are foolishly claiming that by random "chance" that it will happen without Divine Order. You are the fool here. Not us.

[Serinity]

you gotta admit, belief in chance is the most superstitious belief on earth.

[Misbah0411]

I am going to post this story about the debate between Imam Abu Hanifah and the atheist. This sums it up without any further time wasted on such people...

Long ago in the city of Baghdad, there was a Muslim empire. On one side of the River Tigris were the royal palaces and on the other side was the city. The Muslims were gathered in the Royal Palace when an atheist approached them. He said to them, ‘I don’t believe in God, there cannot be a God, you cannot hear Him or see Him, you’re wasting your time! Bring me your best debater and I will debate this issue with him.’

The best debater at the time was Imam Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. A messenger from among the Muslims was sent over the River Tigris to the city, where Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was, in order to tell him about the atheist who was awaiting him. On crossing the River Tigris, the messenger conveyed the message to Abu Hanifah Rahimullah saying, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, an atheist is waiting for you, to debate you, please come!’ Abu Hanifah Rahimullah told the messenger that he would be on his way.
The messenger went over the River Tigris once again and to the Royal Palaces, where everyone including the atheist awaited the arrival of Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. It was sunset at the time and one hour had passed, but Abu Hanifah Rahimullah still hadn’t arrived. Another hour had passed, but still there was no sign of him. The Muslims started to become tense and worried about his late arrival. They did not want the atheist to think that they were too scared to debate him, yet they did not want to take up the challenge themselves as Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was the best of Debaters from among the Muslims. Another hour passed, and suddenly the atheist started laughing and said, ‘ Your best debater is too scared! He knows he’s wrong, he is too frightened to come and debate with me. I guarantee he will not turn up today.’

The Muslims increased in apprehension and eventually it had passed midnight, and the atheist had a smile on his face. The clock ticked on, and finally Abu Hanifah Rahimullah had arrived. The Muslims inquired about his lateness and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, a messenger sent for you hours ago, and you arrive now, explain your lateness to us.’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah apologizes for his lateness and begins to explain, while the atheist listens to his story.

‘Once the messenger delivered the message to me, I began to make my way to the River Tigris, and on reaching the river bank I realized there was no boat, in order to cross the river. It was getting dark, and I looked around, there was no boat anywhere nor was there a navigator or a sailor in order for me to cross the river to get to the Royal Palaces. I continued to look around for a boat, as I did not want the atheist to think I was running away and did not want to debate with him.

I was standing on the river bank looking for a navigator or a boat when something caught my attention in the middle of the river. I looked forward, and to my amazement I saw planks of wood rising to the surface from the sea bed. I was shocked, amazed, I couldn’t believe what I saw seeing. Ready made planks of wood were rising up to the surface and joining together. They were all the same width and length, I was astounded at what I saw.

I continued to look into the middle of the river, and then I saw nails coming up from the sea floor. They positioned themselves onto the boat and held the planks together, without them being banged. I stood in amazement and thought to myself, ‘Oh Allah, how can this happen, planks of wood rising to the surface by itself, and then nails positioning themselves onto the boat without being banged?’ I could not understand what was happening before my eyes.’

The atheist meanwhile was listening with a smile on his face. Abu Hanifah Rahimullah continued, ‘I was still standing on the river bank watching these planks of wood join together with nails. I could see water seeping through the gaps in the wood, and suddenly I saw a sealant appear from the river and it began sealing the gaps without someone having poured it, again I thought, ‘Ya Allah, how is this possible, how can sealant appear and seal the gaps without someone having poured it, and nails appear without someone having banged them.’ I looked closer and I could see a boat forming before my eyes, I stood in amazement and was filled with shock. All of a sudden a sail appeared and I thought to myself, ‘How is this happening, a boat has appeared before my eyes by itself, planks of wood, nails, sealant and now a sail, but how can I use this boat in order to cross the river to the Royal Palaces?’ I stood staring in wonderment and suddenly the boat began to move. It came towards me against the current. It stood floating beside me while I was on the river bank, as if telling me to embark onto it. I went on the boat and yet again it began to move. There was no navigator or sailor on the boat, and the boat began to travel towards the direction of the royal palaces, without anyone having programmed it as to where to go. I could not understand what was happening, and how this boat had formed and was taking me to my destination against the flow of water. The boat eventually reached the other side of the River Tigris and I disembarked. I turned around and the boat had disappeared, and that is why I am late.’

At this moment, the atheist burst out laughing and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, I heard that you were the best debater from among the Muslims, I heard that you were the wisest, the most knowledgeable from among your people. From seeing you today, I can say that you show none of these qualities. You speak of a boat appearing from nowhere, without someone having built it. Nails positioning themselves without someone having banged them, sealant being poured without someone having poured it, and the boat taking you to your destination without a navigator against the tide, your taking childish, your talking ridiculous, I swear I do not believe a word of it!’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah turned to the atheist and replied, ‘You don’t believe a word of it? You don't believe that nails can appear by themselves? You don't believe sealant can be poured by itself? You don't believe that a boat can move without a navigator, hence you don’t believe that a boat can appear without a boat maker?’

The atheist remarked defiantly, ‘Yes I don't believe a word of it!’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah replied, ‘If you cannot believe that a boat came into being without a boat maker, than this is only a boat, how can you believe that the whole world, the universe, the stars, the oceans, and the planets came into being without a creator?

The atheist astonished at his reply got up and fled.

[Lucozade]

I was hoping for a mature discussion about Islam, Muslims and evolution. Clearly this isn't going to happen so thanks for your time. Thanks to the few who did engage in this topic and provided a decent reply.

[Misbah0411]

I was hoping for a mature discussion about Islam, Muslims and evolution. Clearly this isn't going to happen so thanks for your time. Thanks to the few who did engage in this topic and provided a decent reply.

So you did exactly what the atheist did with Abu Hanifah: got up and fled. Don't let the door hit your backside on the way out...

[czgibson]

Greetings,

No you are foolishly claiming that by random "chance" that it will happen without Divine Order. You are the fool here. Not us.

Nobody is claiming that. By saying this, you indicate that you do not understand the evolutionist position. Serinity has had this explained to him many times and he still doesn't understand it either.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to evolution by natural selection; there is no debate in the scientific community about that. Your inability to understand it will not alter this fact.

Peace

[Misbah0411]

Greetings,



Nobody is claiming that. By saying this, you indicate that you do not understand the evolutionist position. Serinity has had this explained to him many times and he still doesn't understand it either.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to evolution by natural selection; there is no debate in the scientific community about that. Your inability to understand it will not alter this fact.

Peace

Now I challenge you to throw them deck of cards in the air and see if they fall down in the order that I requested. I too will give you millions of years to do it. Good luck....

[Scimitar]

Proteins Isomers and Peptide bonds... more milliseconds have passed since the big bang than the likelihood of these forming anything by chance... this unholy trinity of evolution theory is a fatal Achilles heel in their agenda.

Scimi

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Now I challenge you to throw them deck of cards in the air and see if they fall down in the order that I requested. I too will give you millions of years to do it. Good luck....

Why? This is a pointless challenge that has nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of evolution. Again, you show that you do not understand the position.

Peace

[Misbah0411]

Greetings,



Why? This is a pointless challenge that has nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of evolution. Again, you show that you do not understand the position.

Peace

It exposes the.......

[Serinity]

In the end only Allah SWT can guide. we are only a warner.

It is clear for the one who use reason that Allah SWT created this Universe, but the disbelievers refuse to reason, and insist on their falsehood, trying to destroy truth by their mouths.

The way every cell has been created, and how small it is, very small and compact yet contains soo much information.

we have not seen a single example of something forming by bombing a place or throwing cards at the wall, hoping for some intelligent being to form. Simply ridiculous. Our minds will never accept it - cause it is falsehood.
Everyone will be questioned on the day of judgment. None will be wronged.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It exposes the .........

Do you think this kind of talk is what Allah had in mind when he instructed you to "argue with them in a way that is best" (Qur'an 16:125)?

Peace

[Misbah0411]

You are not here to sincerely learn about Islam so giving dawah to you went out the window. You are here creating fitnah and confusion among the Muslims therefore it is enough to repel you by any means necessary. I take the stance of Imam Al-Ghazali when spending too much time on those who would rather distract and confuse the Muslim with nonsensical arguments:

“The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) needed to prove the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to the Jews and Christians, but they did not add anything to the evidence of the Qur’aan; they did not resort to arguments or lay down philosophical principles. That was because they knew that doing so would provoke trouble and cause confusion. Whoever is not convinced by the evidence of the Qur’aan will not be convinced by anything other than the sword, for there is no proof after the proof of Allaah.” (In his final book: "A Return of the Purity of the Creed" )

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You are not here to sincerely learn about Islam so giving dawah to you went out the window.

I have learned plenty about Islam during the eleven years I've been on the forum, and I'm very grateful to the members here who have helped me on this journey and made me feel welcome. Just because I don't believe Islam is true, and therefore haven't converted, this doesn't mean I am not sincere, or that I am evil, or deserving of any other aspersions you would like to fling at me.

I am also not here presenting "nonsensical arguments". I'm simply reporting the scientific consensus. As I say, your inability to understand evolution does not alter the fact that it is widely accepted by the scientific community.

Whoever is not convinced by the evidence of the Qur’aan will not be convinced by anything other than the sword, for there is no proof after the proof of Allaah.

Would you like to attack me with a sword?

Peace

[Misbah0411]

"And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you far away from Allah's Path. They follow nothing but conjectures, and they do nothing but lie." (6:116)

[soheil1]

Greetings.

There is over 150 years of research into evolution and it has long been proven that evolution is a fact. It's backed by thousands upon thousands of scientific evidences and there is absolutely no doubt that evolution happened over hundreds of millions of years and is still happening. So from my understanding of Islam, there was no evolution. God created humans as is, despite the very fact that we evolved, in fact all life evolved so how can this be? Clearly these two are mutually exclusive, the Quran says one thing, science says another.

For example we share 98% of the dna that chimpanzees have, is this just a coincidence? 69% of our dna is shared with a rat...! A rat?! This is why we test vaccines and medication etc on rats and mice because they're so similar to us.

So my question to Muslims is, do Muslims simply refuse to accept this scientific fact or do they have a different understanding of evolution somehow? Obviously Muslims don't reject science, after all we use it everyday, you're utilising about 20 different areas of science simply reading this message. So my question is, how do you reconcile the fact that evolution is not mentioned in the Quran at all and it goes so far as to say that humans were created "as is" and did not evolve?

And yes I know science cannot yet explain how the first life developed (single cell organisms) but one step at a time.

I'm not trying to start an argument or pull anyone from religion... I just want to know your reasoning for accepting some scientific facts and rejecting others.

Thanks for reading.

The holy Koran is a spiritual, holy book, not a scientific book.

Wyhen in says you are created from a smelly mud, it is more telling you to not be arrogant, that you are nothing. That "If you are there it is our work not your own work, so stop being so arrogant."

[Pygoscelis]

How's that deck of cards experiment working for you? Any "luck?"

I keep seeing this sort of comparison to evolution. Decks of cards throw into the air and landing randomly in an ordered set. Tornados in junkyards producing jet planes, etc. These are flawed comparisons that show the writer's misunderstanding of what evolution theory is. These comparisons omit all of the core requirements of evolution: reproduction, mutation, and natural selection.

Dog breeding is a much better analogy. From wolves we have selectively bred to create both the chihuahua and the great dane. If we keep going, is it so hard to see that we could eventually create two different "breeds" that can no longer mate with one another and produce offspring, and therefore two different species? Is it so hard to see that our guidance isn't needed to do so, and that specific environments would encourage some mating pairs over others due to survival, access, etc to "selectively breed" according to such environmental pressure? That would be natural selection and evolution at work.

It really isn't that hard to understand. It doesn't exclude the existence of Gods or any other supernatural beings. And it does not in any way address abiogenesis or how the universe initially came to be. So many creationists insist on confusing evolution with abiogenesis, and I can't tell if that is done knowingly, in an attempt to make it easier for them to reject evolution, or if it is merely the result of them refusing to educate themselves on what the two are, for fear that they may shake their faith. The former would be dishonest, and the latter would expose a very weak faith.

[Cpt.America]

I keep seeing this sort of comparison to evolution. Decks of cards throw into the air and landing randomly in an ordered set. Tornados in junkyards producing jet planes, etc. These are flawed comparisons that show the writer's misunderstanding of what evolution theory is. These comparisons omit all of the core requirements of evolution: reproduction, mutation, and natural selection.

Dog breeding is a much better analogy. From wolves we have selectively bred to create both the chihuahua and the great dane. If we keep going, is it so hard to see that we could eventually create two different "breeds" that can no longer mate with one another and produce offspring, and therefore two different species? Is it so hard to see that our guidance isn't needed to do so, and that specific environments would encourage some mating pairs over others due to survival, access, etc to "selectively breed" according to such environmental pressure? That would be natural selection and evolution at work.

It really isn't that hard to understand. It doesn't exclude the existence of Gods or any other supernatural beings. And it does not in any way address abiogenesis or how the universe initially came to be. So many creationists insist on confusing evolution with abiogenesis, and I can't tell if that is done knowingly, in an attempt to make it easier for them to reject evolution, or if it is merely the result of them refusing to educate themselves on what the two are, for fear that they may shake their faith. The former would be dishonest, and the latter would expose a very weak faith.

It's been covered in earlier posts.

but I'll take your dog breeding example plus the cards analogy, and I present you with this:
http://www.dogsplayingpoker.org/gall...nd_in_need.jpg

[Pygoscelis]

It's been covered in earlier posts.

It has been repeated numerous times, and I am glad to see that some such as yourself do seem to understand. But many persist in using these flawed analogies and seem to have no idea what evolution theory is other than to say that they find it ridiculous or wrong. These are the people I'm addressing above.

[Search]

:bism:

:sl:

Before I report you, and I will, by the way, I thought I'd remind you of a little golden advice: Treat others as you want to be treated.

Secondly, I'd read what you'd written while I had just finished eating oranges and as you can imagine, your words just left a very bad taste. I never want to read the word "turd" even remotely in or near or approximating the time that I've eaten or been eating.

Thirdly, I found your words extremely rude and offensive; I've said it before, I think, but it bears repeating that religionists do some of the worst PR job of representing their religion, and it is at least one of the reasons I'd stayed atheist as long as I'd had.

Fourthly, have a little faith in the mods here: If they see anybody promoting a religion or lack thereof, they will definitely take action; and so the idea that he could have, might have, would have been promoting atheism is the one that is misplaced.

Fifthly, I like having czgibson and other non-Muslims on IB and I feel many times sadly they are more "Muslim" in their behavior than new members like you who could quite bluntly learn a thing or two about what it is to be respectful and kind and what it is to be a Muslim representing Islam.

:wa:

It exposes the idiocy of your position and you would rather be in denial of it out of stubbornness. Again, I'm where I'm suppose to be: on a forum with fellow Muslims. You are misplaced to be here. You are farting into the wind trying to convince us of your atheistic nonsense. With over 2900 posts, your like a buoyant unflushable turd that this forum cannot flush down the toilet.

[EgyptPrincess]

I took chemistry and biology at A-Levels and I'm going to study biochemistry at uni and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that evolution is true and accurate. To put it simply, it's not because it "goes against the Quran" it's because it's such a crazy thing to accept for someone that has never studied it. I've not studied quantum mechanics but I know the behaviour of electrons and that the same electron can be in two different places at the same time, known as a quantum superposition. On the face of it this seems absolutely outrageous and impossible to comprehend. How can the same electron be "here" and "there" at the same time?! Well it can and it's been proven. It's also been proven that a photon is both a wave and a particle, when it's observed...

This just sounds like nonsense but it's because we have not studied it and therefore it sounds... stupid.

Anyway back to biology. There are fossils dating back millions of years which confirm evolution and you can go and see real skulls of Neanderthals in a museum. Every living thing alive today evolved, that is a fact whether you care to accept it or not but there is one key difference, we're the only living creature ever to have consciousness. Does consciousness arise naturally from the neural activity in our brains or is it something divine? I believe it's something divine. So with regards to the Quran and the creation of man, I believe that the creation of man from clay mentioned in the Quran is symbolic, to refer to us a "nothing special" and to describe the elements of which we're made. Water, carbon, hydrogen etc, as was already mentioned. If we we were made out of bismuth or some exotic element then it would be completely different.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we evolved from ancestors and the first to evolve with consciousness were Adam and Eve. It is then that Allah revealed himself to them. Don't forget there were billions of species existing before humans existed... we're not the first creature. Allah created many species of animal before humans and he didn't give any of them consciousness. The word creation is ambiguous, it implies it was instant but consider baking a cake. You mix the ingredients and then it goes in the oven and the cake "evolves" into an actual cake we can eat.

Take for example climbing trees, if your only source of food was located in high trees then after thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years you'd see the human body change, we'd have large hands and feet to make it easier to climb. Of course we have brains now so we don't need to climb but you get my point.

Evolution is a fact, deal with it. Denying evolution is on par with denying the Earth is round... that is how ridiculous it is in my opinion.

Lastly evolution is nothing like throwing a deck of cards and getting an ordered sequence... In the case of the deck of cards it's 1 in 52! as given by

So no, it's not impossible. Allah gave us the laws of physics for a reason. If something has a chance, then by definition it can't be impossible because Allah predefined it so. An example of something that is impossible is dropping a ball from 50ft and having the ball bounce back up to >=50ft. It's impossible! The laws of physics which Allah created says it's impossible. Throwing a deck of cards and having them land in a sorted order is not impossible because Allah has defined it so.

Go get an education, seriously...

[Misbah0411]

Report away. I am sure you like having the kuffar around causing fitnah. It probably appeals to your whims and desires. It is amazing that Muslims would not find an atheist words rude and offensive when it involves denying our Creator and His Lordship. I treat those people with the contempt deserving of their false beliefs and fitnah that they try to create with it on here. Perhaps you could learn what Wala and Bara is and understand that having loyalty to Allah and the Muslims is more deserving than to those who try to undermine Islam and Muslims. Secondly, the Moderators better fear Allah and understand that it is their obligation to command the right and forbid the wrong and repel those who come on this forum as a wolf in sheep's clothing and challenge the iman of Muslims by way of confusion and false ideologies.

[EgyptPrincess]

Report away. I am sure you like having the kuffar around causing fitnah. It probably appeals to your whims and desires. It is amazing that Muslims would not find an atheist words rude and offensive when it involves denying our Creator and His Lordship. I treat those people with the contempt deserving of their false beliefs and fitnah that they try to create with it on here. Perhaps you could learn what Wala and Bara is and understand that having loyalty to Allah and the Muslims is more deserving than to those who try to undermine Islam and Muslims. Secondly, the Moderators better fear Allah and understand that it is their obligation to command the right and forbid the wrong and repel those who come on this forum as a wolf in sheep's clothing and challenge the iman of Muslims by way of confusion and false ideologies.

I feel sorry for how uneducated your children will be. May Allah guide them.

[Search]

:bism:

:sl:

Thank you; I already did report you as I am not in the habit of writing idle words. I can't even apologize for what I did because I believe it was the right thing to do, but I am sorry if you don't understand or cannot accept that.

If anyone causes fitna, Muslims or non-Muslims, they will be handled by the mods here - so, I'm as you may imagine not concerned about that generally.

Well, you remind me of a lot of one of our members here Abz2000, and I have never gotten along well with him and I imagine you and I are going to be at odds too if your attitude doesn't change. But the thing is I stand up for what I feel is right, and since I stand up for that in which I believe, I don't have in mind to care two cents about anything else and never have and probably never will.

Yeah, I understand wala and bara but I don't think you really do or if you do, then probably you have taken it to some kind of extremist level which I can never appreciate.

Muslims' iman (faith) is challenged with a lot of things but hopefully not with simply the breathing of non-Muslims on this wide planet.

:wa:

Report away. I am sure you like having the kuffar around causing fitnah. It probably appeals to your whims and desires. It is amazing that Muslims would not find an atheist words rude and offensive when it involves denying our Creator and His Lordship. I treat those people with the contempt deserving of their false beliefs and fitnah that they try to create with it on here. Perhaps you could learn what Wala and Bara is and understand that having loyalty to Allah and the Muslims is more deserving than to those who try to undermine Islam and Muslims. Secondly, the Moderators better fear Allah and understand that it is their obligation to command the right and forbid the wrong and repel those who come on this forum as a wolf in sheep's clothing and challenge the iman of Muslims by way of confusion and false ideologies.

[Serinity]

I took chemistry and biology at A-Levels and I'm going to study biochemistry at uni and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that evolution is true and accurate. To put it simply, it's not because it "goes against the Quran" it's because it's such a crazy thing to accept for someone that has never studied it. I've not studied quantum mechanics but I know the behaviour of electrons and that the same electron can be in two different places at the same time, known as a quantum superposition. On the face of it this seems absolutely outrageous and impossible to comprehend. How can the same electron be "here" and "there" at the same time?! Well it can and it's been proven. It's also been proven that a photon is both a wave and a particle, when it's observed...

This just sounds like nonsense but it's because we have not studied it and therefore it sounds... stupid.

Anyway back to biology. There are fossils dating back millions of years which confirm evolution and you can go and see real skulls of Neanderthals in a museum. Every living thing alive today evolved, that is a fact whether you care to accept it or not but there is one key difference, we're the only living creature ever to have consciousness. Does consciousness arise naturally from the neural activity in our brains or is it something divine? I believe it's something divine. So with regards to the Quran and the creation of man, I believe that the creation of man from clay mentioned in the Quran is symbolic, to refer to us a "nothing special" and to describe the elements of which we're made. Water, carbon, hydrogen etc, as was already mentioned. If we we were made out of bismuth or some exotic element then it would be completely different.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we evolved from ancestors and the first to evolve with consciousness were Adam and Eve. It is then that Allah revealed himself to them. Don't forget there were billions of species existing before humans existed... we're not the first creature. Allah created many species of animal before humans and he didn't give any of them consciousness. The word creation is ambiguous, it implies it was instant but consider baking a cake. You mix the ingredients and then it goes in the oven and the cake "evolves" into an actual cake we can eat.

Take for example climbing trees, if your only source of food was located in high trees then after thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years you'd see the human body change, we'd have large hands and feet to make it easier to climb. Of course we have brains now so we don't need to climb but you get my point.

Evolution is a fact, deal with it. Denying evolution is on par with denying the Earth is round... that is how ridiculous it is in my opinion.

Lastly evolution is nothing like throwing a deck of cards and getting an ordered sequence... In the case of the deck of cards it's 1 in 52! as given by

So no, it's not impossible. Allah gave us the laws of physics for a reason. If something has a chance, then by definition it can't be impossible because Allah predefined it so. An example of something that is impossible is dropping a ball from 50ft and having the ball bounce back up to >=50ft. It's impossible! The laws of physics which Allah created says it's impossible. Throwing a deck of cards and having them land in a sorted order is not impossible because Allah has defined it so.

Go get an education, seriously...

We did not evolve from ape and pigs. Allah SWT created Adam AS, and we then descended from higher to lower forms, kinda thing.

But in the case of cards, it is impossible for it be arranged by chance. I.e. by chance itself. It is like saying bombing a building will automatically form a human being.

Everything that happens is by the Will of Allah SWT and His SWT decree. There is no such thing as chance. Allah SWT is in full control.
Everything in this universe is governed by Laws, created, set and regulated by Allah SWT.

[EgyptPrincess]

We did not evolve from ape and pigs. Allah SWT created Adam AS, and we then descended from higher to lower forms, kinda thing.

But in the case of cards, it is impossible for it be arranged by chance. I.e. by chance itself. It is like saying bombing a building will automatically form a human being.

Everything in this universe is governed by Laws, created, set and regulated by Allah SWT.

I just showed you it's not impossible for it to fall into an arranged deck. Do you not listen?!

Consider the following example.

Flipping a coin to land on heads once is possible correct? How about two times in a row? Three times in a row? Four times? At what point does it become "impossible"? Is it impossible to flip a coin 1million times and it lands on heads every time?

The word you're looking for is improbable, not impossible.

Coin flipping probability. (20 flips)

1) Heads = 1/2
2) Heads = 1/4
3) Heads = 1/8
4) Heads = 1/16
...
...
...
20) Heads = 1/1,048,576

So as long as the chance exists then it's not impossible, it just gets increasing more difficult due to ever lowering odds. You're 17 correct? did you study mathematics at school? It would seem like you just don't understand probability, like at all...


How about we try something more primitive for you. People win the euromillions, the probability of winning the euromillions is 1 in 116,531,800, yet people still win. If the probably was 1 in 7,000,000,000 (7billion) then it would still likely be won if each person in the world played a ticket. If the odds were 1 in 500quintillion, it would still be one.... eventually.

[Serinity]

I just showed you it's not impossible for it to fall into an arranged deck. Do you not listen?!

Consider the following example.

Flipping a coin to land on heads once is possible correct? How about two times in a row? Three times in a row? Four times? At what point does it become "impossible"? Is it impossible to flip a coin 1million times and it lands on heads every time?

The word you're looking for is improbable, not impossible.

Coin flipping probability. (20 flips)

1) Heads = 1/2
2) Heads = 1/4
3) Heads = 1/8
4) Heads = 1/16
...
...
...
20) Heads = 1/1,048,576

So as long as the chance exists then it's not impossible, it just gets increasing more difficult due to ever lowering odds. You're 17 correct? did you study mathematics at school? It would seem like you just don't understand probability, like at all...

To us it may be chance, to Allah SWT it isn't.

If I throw a coin, the probability of it being a head is 1/2. Why? because there is 2 sides and we don't know the unseen. But from Allah SWT, Allah SWT already knows the outcome, there is no chance, the amount of heads is already willed and decreed by Allah SWT.

So because we don't know the unseen, it is seen as 'chance'. But from Allah SWT's perspective, as He SWT is all - knowing, etc. Nothing is by chance. Everything is decreed and willed by Allah SWT. There is no chance or luck. It only appears to us like that cuz we don't know the unseen.
To say otherwise would imply a deficiency in Allah SWT's power, which could NEVER be.

Everything is governed by the Laws of Allah SWT, and how He SWT decrees and wills. Chance has no room in it, there is NO chance. IT only appears to us because we don't know the unseen. But in actual fact, there is no such thing as chance cause everything is decreed by Allah SWT in the first place.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

But in the case of cards, it is impossible for it be arranged by chance. I.e. by chance itself. It is like saying bombing a building will automatically form a human being.

Your continued misunderstanding of how chance plays a part in evolution is one thing, but in a separate matter, you should know that what you say here about the impossibility of a deck of cards being arranged in order by chance is straightforwardly wrong. The probability of it occurring is very low, but it is not impossible; this is a simple fact of mathematics. As Egypt Princess said above, the probability is 1/52 factorial.

Peace

[EgyptPrincess]

To us it may be chance, to Allah SWT it isn't.

If I throw a coin, the probability of it being a head is 1/2. Why? because there is 2 sides and we don't know the unseen. But from Allah SWT, Allah SWT already knows the outcome, there is no chance, the amount of heads is already willed and decreed by Allah SWT.

To say otherwise would imply a deficiency in Allah SWT's power, which could NEVER be.

Yes and I agree but what the OP said is that you, little old serinity, a mere mortal is trying to say that Allah won't allow the deck of cards to fall in an ordered sequence... How can you elude to know what Allah will or will not do? @Lucozade has a point. Who do you think you are to know what Allah will and will not allow?

Allah created the laws of physics and in those laws, it says something is possible, therefore it's possible. End of story. I honestly don't mean to be rude but you really are quite uneducated for a man of your age... No offence

[Serinity]

Yes and I agree but what the OP said is that you, little old serinity, a mere mortal is trying to say that Allah won't allow the deck of cards to fall in an ordered sequence... How can you elude to know what Allah or Allah will not do? @Lucozade has a point. Who do you think you are to know what Allah will and will not allow?

Allah created the laws of physics and in those laws, it says something is possible, therefore it's possible. End of story. I honestly don't mean to be rude but you really are quite uneducated for a man of your age... No offence

By Allah SWT's will yes, it could happen, but by Chance? No. It only appears to us cuz we don't know the unseen. So for us it is chance, but in fact it is not.

nothing can happen by chance, ever.

[EgyptPrincess]

By Allah SWT's will yes, it could happen, but by Chance? No.

Finally... we're making progress.

[Serinity]

Finally... we're making progress.

The problem here is that they say it could come from chance. Nothing can come from chance, ever. It is by the decree of Allah SWT.

I know math, and I get it. But chance ? There is no such thing as chance. It appears to us like that because we don't know the unseen. But in fact it is not by chance. Ever. It is by the Will and decree of Allah SWT.

The 6th article of faith is Qadr:

1. Allah SWT knows everything.
2. Everything is written in the book of Decrees.
3. Everything is willed and decreed by Allah.
4. Allah SWT created everything.

So there is no chance, there is only the Decree of Allah SWT. Allah SWT is the sole ruler.

[EgyptPrincess]

The problem here is that they say it could come from chance. Nothing can come from chance, ever. It is by the decree of Allah SWT.

I know math, and I get it. But chance ? There is no such thing as chance. It appears to us like that because we don't know the unseen. But in fact it is not by chance. Ever. It is by the Will and decree of Allah SWT.

Then what you should have said is "a deck of cards can fall into an ordered deck as long as Allah wills it" You flat out said it's impossible... One could interpret that as saying "Allah doesn't have the ability to make them fall into an ordered deck"

Do you now understand why I was getting so frustrated with you? Throwing a deck of cards across the room and having them land in an ordered deck is possible, just incredibly incredibly unlikely. You'd need many many attempts before it happened.

Try it yourself :) Take a coin and try to get heads 10 times in a row ;) it will happen, it just might take a few tries. Approximately 1024 tries ;D

[Serinity]

Then what you should have said is "a deck of cards can fall into an ordered deck as long as Allah wills it" You flat out said it's impossible... One could interpret that as saying "Allah doesn't have the ability to make them fall into an ordered deck"

Do you now understand why I was getting so frustrated with you? Throwing a deck of cards across the room and having them land in an ordered deck is possible, just incredibly incredibly unlikely. You'd need many many attempts before it happened.

Try it yourself :) Take a coin and try to get heads 10 times in a row ;) it will happen, it just might take a few tries. Approximately 1024 tries ;D

you are over intepretating and putting words in my mouth. I never said that it could not happen if Allah SWT willed it, audhu billah.

But it could never happen solely by chance, ever. So no, it is not possible, except by the will of Allah SWT. It'd require a conscious will to do so. I don't believe in chance. It only appears to us like that.

There is no such thing as chance. Ultimately it is Allah SWT that decrees. And Allah SWT is the sole decider of whether it'd be head or tail. There is no chance involved

So no, it is not possible for a deck of cards to arrange in numerical order by chance alone.

[EgyptPrincess]

you are over intepretating and putting words in my mouth. I never said that it could not happen if Allah SWT willed it, audhu billah.

Fact is, the deck experiment will NEVER succeed, and it is stupid to rely on chance. It is blind faith, Wallah.

Anyways, I ain't going to in this debate.

Please don't lie bro. You said it clearly that to throw a deck of cards and have them land in order is impossible. Also you keep saying things like "rely on chance" but then you later say you don't believe chance exists... so which is it?

Why would you say to "rely on chance" when chance does not exist? :facepalm:

[Serinity]

Please don't lie bro. You said it clearly that to throw a deck of cards and have them land in order is impossible. Also you keep saying things like "rely on chance" but then you later say you don't believe chance exists... so which is it?

Why would you say to "rely on chance" when chance does not exist? :facepalm:

Nothing is by chance, cause Allah SWT is the sole ruler, the One who decrees, and wills everything. Because we don't know the unseen, it appears to be chance for us, but it is not, cause everything is by the will of Allah SWT.st

Twisting my words huh? yes I said that it will never succeed by chance. It will never ever. Only by the will of Allah SWT. But here we are speaking of chance, in which case it will never.

Anyways, everything is decreed by Allah SWT. There is no such thing as chance, or luck. To believe in chance can be kufr. Cause everything is determined by Allah SWT. It appears to us to be chance, but it isn't.

Chance doesn't exist. Everything is decreed by Allah SWT. That is my stance.

[Serinity]

Please don't lie bro. You said it clearly that to throw a deck of cards and have them land in order is impossible. Also you keep saying things like "rely on chance" but then you later say you don't believe chance exists... so which is it?

Why would you say to "rely on chance" when chance does not exist? :facepalm:

What are you saying? I never said "rely on chance" and are you implying Allah SWT is chance? Audhu billah.

I said it could happen if Allah SWT willed it. Nothing to do with chance.

At the end of the day everything is decreed by Allah SWT. Not chance. To say so would be setting up a partner with Allah SWT. Audhu billah, far above is He SWT from that.

you are the one lying about me.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

Scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo were persecuted by the Inquisition of Rome for promoting heliocentrism, because of its contradiction of statements in the Bible, such as 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5, that we now know to be untrue.

I think the prophets of two - three thousand years ago had a dilemma, should they offer a spiritual message or a message of science? Imagine a prophet saying to a group of scholars at the time, what you see is an illusion, we are not stood still in this place, rather we are hurtling through space at 67,000 mph on a giant ball, that is spinning round like a top, at a 1,000 miles mph. Further more, there are people in Australia who think they are standing the right way up, when in fact they are stood upside down underneath this ball. Fortunately there is gravity says the prophet.

And the people would say, where is your evidence for this? From what we know of man's understanding 3,000 years ago, it would seem beyond their comprehension.

If the prophet then tried to follow this science with a spiritual message, he would probably be laughed out of town.

From my understanding of God, he came to give us a spiritual message, rather than one of science.

In the Spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

Hi Eric. I hope you are well.

I think the prophets of two - three thousand years ago had a dilemma, should they offer a spiritual message or a message of science? Imagine a prophet saying to a group of scholars at the time, what you see is an illusion, we are not stood still in this place, rather we are hurtling through space at 67,000 mph on a giant ball, that is spinning round like a top, at a 1,000 miles mph.

I think it would be extraordinary, and rather a convincing example of knowledge being transmitted by supernatural means if prophets had announced facts like these before the invention of the telescope. Instead, they just made things up and made false statements about the natural world, in amongst whatever moral or theological teachings they wanted to deliver.

And what service did they do humanity by making things up? For centuries, ordinary people could be persecuted and sometimes even executed for questioning some of the falsehoods contained in the Bible. It would have been better for everybody if the prophets hadn't bothered to include them.

And the people would say, where is your evidence for this? From what we know of man's understanding 3,000 years ago, it would seem beyond their comprehension.

If the prophet then tried to follow this science with a spiritual message, he would probably be laughed out of town.

Fear of being laughed out of town didn't stop St. John the Divine from producing the hallucinogenic nightmare of nonsense that is the book of Revelation, did it?

From my understanding of God, he came to give us a spiritual message, rather than one of science.

Wouldn't it have been amazing if the Bible contained more actual scientific knowledge, though, instead of obviously false statements that insult the intelligence of the reader?

Peace

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

Dog breeding is a much better analogy. From wolves we have selectively bred to create both the chihuahua and the great dane. If we keep going, is it so hard to see that we could eventually create two different "breeds" that can no longer mate with one another and produce offspring, and therefore two different species?

We understand what you are saying, this could produce cosmetically altered new breeds. But could this result in a breed called danchichuah, with two heads, four eyes, two mouths, four legs and four fins. The advantages would be all round vision, it can eat more in less time, and it would be better suited to hunt for fish as well.

Evolution does not appear to have the mechanisms for radical change.

In the spirit of searching for justice and God

Eric

[EgyptPrincess]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;



We understand what you are saying, this could produce cosmetically altered new breeds. But could this result in a breed called danchichuah, with two heads, four eyes, two mouths, four legs and four fins. The advantages would be all round vision, it can eat more in less time, and it would be better suited to hunt for fish as well.

Evolution does not appear to have the mechanisms for radical change.

In the spirit of searching for justice and God

Eric

Animals do not evolve more than they have to. A bird doesn't have any arms because it just doesn't require them to survive... If an animal requires a function to survive then it will develop said function or go extinct.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you EgyptPrincess;

Animals do not evolve more than they have to. A bird doesn't have any arms because it just doesn't require them to survive.

You could also say, that fish did not need legs to survive, however, fish seemed to have evolved legs anyway.

Blessings,

Eric

[Pygoscelis]

Evolution does not appear to have the mechanisms for radical change.

How do you define "radical change"? The difference between a chihuahua and a great dane seems pretty radical to me. Or how about tadpoles and frogs? One breathes under water with gills. The other needs air to breathe. One becomes the other in different stages of the life cycle.

[EgyptPrincess]

Greetings and peace be with you EgyptPrincess;



You could also say, that fish did not need legs to survive, however, fish seemed to have evolved legs anyway.

Blessings,

Eric

The word survive needs to be clearly defined. a fish that absolutely does not require the need to go on land will never develop feet because it simply has no need for them but some fish would have been present in and around reefs and shallow waters such that they may have often found themselves caught on rocks or islands when the tides went out.

Here is an example of a fish with "feet".

Also known as a Mudskipper :D

I quick look at the wiki says they inhabit mudflats of East Africa, Madagascar and a few other areas. Most likely their environment was lakes and rivers but as these lakes and rivers dried up over time, they're forced onto land to search for food and so their fins have evolved more into "arms" or "feet" which help them navigate their habitat.

I've not done any research into this of course so don't take my word for it. You'd have to spend some time and research this animal, something I'm not going to do at 1:15am ;)

[Misbah0411]

:bism:

:sl:

I could care less that you reported me. You really are full of yourself. Go eat another orange. It's good for you.

Thank you; I already did report you as I am not in the habit of writing idle words. I can't even apologize for what I did because I believe it was the right thing to do, but I am sorry if you don't understand or cannot accept that.

If anyone causes fitna, Muslims or non-Muslims, they will be handled by the mods here - so, I'm as you may imagine not concerned about that generally.

Well, you remind me of a lot of one of our members here Abz2000, and I have never gotten along well with him and I imagine you and I are going to be at odds too if your attitude doesn't change. But the thing is I stand up for what I feel is right, and since I stand up for that in which I believe, I don't have in mind to care two cents about anything else and never have and probably never will.

Yeah, I understand wala and bara but I don't think you really do or if you do, then probably you have taken it to some kind of extremist level which I can never appreciate.

Muslims' iman (faith) is challenged with a lot of things but hopefully not with simply the breathing of non-Muslims on this wide planet.

:wa:

I could care less that you reported me. You really are full of yourself. Go eat another orange. It's good for you.

[keiv]

Greetings.

There is over 150 years of research into evolution and it has long been proven that evolution is a fact. It's backed by thousands upon thousands of scientific evidences and there is absolutely no doubt that evolution happened over hundreds of millions of years and is still happening. So from my understanding of Islam, there was no evolution. God created humans as is, despite the very fact that we evolved, in fact all life evolved so how can this be? Clearly these two are mutually exclusive, the Quran says one thing, science says another.

For example we share 98% of the dna that chimpanzees have, is this just a coincidence? 69% of our dna is shared with a rat...! A rat?! This is why we test vaccines and medication etc on rats and mice because they're so similar to us.

So my question to Muslims is, do Muslims simply refuse to accept this scientific fact or do they have a different understanding of evolution somehow? Obviously Muslims don't reject science, after all we use it everyday, you're utilising about 20 different areas of science simply reading this message. So my question is, how do you reconcile the fact that evolution is not mentioned in the Quran at all and it goes so far as to say that humans were created "as is" and did not evolve?

And yes I know science cannot yet explain how the first life developed (single cell organisms) but one step at a time.

I'm not trying to start an argument or pull anyone from religion... I just want to know your reasoning for accepting some scientific facts and rejecting others.

Thanks for reading.

Problem, for you anyways, is that no matter how many times you say "fact", evolution in the sense of us changing from one species to another isnot a fact. Also, why should we put our faith in science when you even admit that it cannot explain how the first life developed but Islam can? Some of the things that science can't explain has already been explained in Islam. it seems like science is slow to catch up. Thanks but, you stick to your beliefs, I'll stick to mine.

[Serinity]

Relying on chance can be shirk. Afaik. Cause the only One who determines and decides is Allah SWT, not chance, ever. Allahu alam.

relying on chance is no difference from hoping fairy dust to appear by rubbing sand.. Blind faith.

[Pygoscelis]

^ Is this a muslim argument against free will? Allah determines all so we have no real free will?

[Search]

:bism:

:sl:

Thanks for the advice.

That said, I don't have much to add here except that for some reason the quoted post is incorrectly quoted as it shows your own words as mine and therefore I wanted to set the record straight that I did not author the first line that the quoted post shows.

That said, I don't know whether I am full of myself or not; if I am, then may Allah forgive me. Also, again, I emphasize I only tried to do what was right and my intent was not to insult you nor cause any injury to you. If I did either, then I apologize to you.

And while I admit I enjoy oranges, I'd enjoy and appreciate more a goodwill gesture from you that would hopefully from now onward include the act of refraining from being offensive or rude or insulting towards other members because I know you know better than to behave that way as a Muslim.

:wa:

I could care less that you reported me. You really are full of yourself. Go eat another orange. It's good for you.

[Cpt.America]

Well that escalated quickly.

Mods, can we please close this thread?

OP is a nonmuslim and he asked an honest question that I believe has received some honest replies.
But the thread is now falling into members personally quarreling with and insulting other members (and OP himself), none of which shows good akhlaq (good manners) or is constructive in any way.


plus I posted a picture of dogs playing poker which has nothing to do with anything but is still pretty awesome, so I'm pretty sure everyone here is off topic at this point.


To the OP: sorry for the mess. I hope your curiosity has been satiated (and also your love for novelty paintings depicting anthropomorphazised animals doing human things (because we all love that lol))

[Abz2000]

This thread appears to have started off educational and inspiring positive discussion, it somehow turned into a competition and in these situations it sometimes happens that people dig in and become stubborn on their opinions, the op's post seemed respectful and brought forth questions that provoke positive discussion, let's try looking at merits of the topic's discussion points instead of becoming the ones to put forth irrational arguments, let's leave that for those who make comparisons with flying spagetti monsters etc (wink wink buddy :) )



1.*He frowned and turned away,
2.*Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).
3.*But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow?
4.*Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?
5.*As to one who regards Himself as self-sufficient,
6.*To him dost thou attend;
7.*Though it is no blame to thee if he grow not.
8.*But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly,
9.*And with fear (in his heart),
10.*Of him wast thou unmindful.
11.*By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:
12.*Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance.
13.*(It is) in Books held (greatly) in honour,
14.*Exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy,
15.*(Written) by the hands of scribes-
16.*Honourable and Pious and Just.
17.*Woe to man! What hath made him reject Allah.
18.*From what stuff hath He created him?
19.*From a sperm-drop: He hath created him, and then mouldeth him in due proportions;
20.*Then doth He make His path smooth for him;
21.*Then He causeth him to die, and putteth him in his grave;
22.*Then, when it is His Will, He will raise him up (again).
23.*By no means hath he fulfilled what Allah hath commanded him.
24.*Then let man look at his food, (and how We provide it):
25.*For that We pour forth water in abundance,
26.*And We split the earth in fragments,
27.*And produce therein corn,
28.*And Grapes and nutritious plants,
29.*And Olives and Dates,
30.*And enclosed Gardens, dense with lofty trees,
31.*And fruits and fodder,
32.*For use and convenience to you and your cattle.
33.*At length, when there comes the Deafening Noise,
34.*That Day shall a man flee from his own brother,
35.*And from his mother and his father,
36.*And from his wife and his children.
37.*Each one of them, that Day, will have enough concern (of his own) to make him indifferent to the others.
38.*Some faces that Day will be beaming,
39.*Laughing, rejoicing.
40.*And other faces that Day will be dust-stained,
41.*Blackness will cover them:
42.*Such will be the Rejecters of Allah, the doers of iniquity.

[Serinity]

#Close Thread

#SpaghettiMonster

[Cpt.America]

^ Is this a muslim argument against free will? Allah determines all so we have no real free will?

Muslim belief is that Allah determines all, but we are allowed free will.

This means that if I choose to do something Allah allows me the power to go through with whatever actions I choose even if they may be actions that are contrary to what is pleasing to Him.
So if I choose to steal or murder, Allah allows me to do so. But if Allah had not allowed me to do so, then no, it would have been impossible for me to go through an action of my choosing.

It is the Muslims belief that this is the test that is life (after first recognizing the existence of a Perfect and Merciful Creator):

With the free will and power that Allah has allowed me, will I choose to align my will with that which is pleasing to Him, out of my own independent choice.
Or will I choose to follow my baser desires.

On the day of Judgement we will be made answerable for our crimes we committed on this earth, and how we used our power of free will, and how we handled the responsibilities we were given.

[Serinity]

Basically, everything is willed and decreed by Allah SWT, and Allah SWT willed whatever we will. Allah SWT gives us the choice to either accept or deny, etc.

we aren't compelled by Allah SWT to do anything.

[Pygoscelis]

Ok, but this..

Cause the only One who determines and decides is Allah SWT, not chance, ever.

does seem to conflict with this...

we aren't compelled by Allah SWT to do anything.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

As a believer Serenity's post made sense to me..

If I choose to walk down Market St or High St, I will still get to Tesco, my final destination. Whether I choose to do things my way for a few years on this Earth, or I strive to do as Allah commands, I will at some point stand before God, this destination is not left to chance.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[Serinity]

Ok, but this..does seem to conflict with this...

but it doesn't. Allah SWT granted you free will, He SWT willed before hand for you to have freewill. Your choice He SWT willed, etc. essentially everything is created by Allah SWT. Allah SWT even says in the Quran that whosoever wills a way to their Lord, let him have his way, whosoever wills disbelief, then that is what he chooses. Both The Qur'an and Real Life confirms this. Allah SWT is All-knowing, so He SWT already knows what you'll do, so He SWT wills, creates and decrees whatever you do. Where you find yourself when you die - that is where you'll find what Allah SWT has decreed for you. With Allah SWT's infinite knowledge and wisdom He SWT grants you free will, but whatever you will, Allah SWT willed. We are all subject to Allah SWT's will, we can not will unless Allah SWT wills. this does not contradict free will. Bear in mind Allah SWT is all-knowing. It isn't wise to dwelve too much into Destiny. Just know that whatever happens Allah SWT willed, and that you have free will. Allah SWT won't do the least of injustice.

Allah SWT lets stuff to happen, wills it, but He SWT never forces us to do stuff, that'd violate free will, but Allah SWT doesn't force us. He SWT simply willed what we will.

[~ Sabr ~]

With Allah SWT's infinite knowledge and wisdom He SWT grants you free will, but whatever you will, Allah SWT willed. We are all subject to Allah SWT's will, we can not will unless Allah SWT wills. this does not contradict free will

:ermm: Ouch....my head :hiding:

[Serinity]

:ermm: Ouch....my head :hiding:

Well, it makes sense to me. :)

We are all subject to Allah SWT's will, and Allah SWT Himself granted us free will. Yet we can not move a finger unless Allah SWT willed it.

Allah SWT willed us to have free will, get it? So whatever we will, Allah SWT willed, cuz He SWT willed us to have free will.

This is too complex and we can never understand the power of Allah SWT totally.

A) We have free will.
B) our will is subject to Allah SWT's will. Our free will is subject to Allah SWT's will, but He SWT never forces us.

[Serinity]

Muslim belief is that Allah determines all, but we are allowed free will.

This means that if I choose to do something Allah allows me the power to go through with whatever actions I choose even if they may be actions that are contrary to what is pleasing to Him.
So if I choose to steal or murder, Allah allows me to do so. But if Allah had not allowed me to do so, then no, it would have been impossible for me to go through an action of my choosing.

It is the Muslims belief that this is the test that is life (after first recognizing the existence of a Perfect and Merciful Creator):

With the free will and power that Allah has allowed me, will I choose to align my will with that which is pleasing to Him, out of my own independent choice.
Or will I choose to follow my baser desires.

On the day of Judgement we will be made answerable for our crimes we committed on this earth, and how we used our power of free will, and how we handled the responsibilities we were given.

This bro describes it nicely.

Allah SWT wills doesn't mean Allah SWT forces. Allah SWT lets it happen, and He SWT is in full control of it, but He SWT doesn't force. As that goes against free will.

May Allah SWT forgive me if I said wrong. Ameen. And Allah SWT knows best.

[Serinity]

I believe that the creation of man from clay mentioned in the Quran is symbolic, to refer to us a "nothing special" and to describe the elements of which we're made

Any daleel? Or are you speaking without knowledge? I've seen no evidence saying such. All you say is "in my opinion" "i think" etc. etc. Bring proof from scholars, otherwise I won't take your word for it.

Prophet Adam AS was created from altered mud, which mostly contain water, etc. And no it isn't symbolic. Bring proof if you are truthful.

I warn you not to speak of your own opinions regarding Islam. Gain knowledge and speak, don't speak of that which you've no knowledge about. you can ask questions, sure. But to speak without daleel from Quran, isn't going to get you far.

[Pygoscelis]

Curious side question: How does one recognize a legitimate Islamic Scholar, as opposed to somebody who just thinks they are one or are pretending to be one?

[Cpt.America]

Curious side question: How does one recognize a legitimate Islamic Scholar, as opposed to somebody who just thinks they are one or are pretending to be one?

First and foremost you look at their manners.
Even if the content of the knowledge is legitimate, if the scholar in question is not living a righteous lifestyle and not treating others with good manners, than that is a person (scholar or otherwise) who is distant from Allah. If a man is insulting, noninclusive, self centered, egotistic, and inflammatory, he may be in possession of a wealth of knowledge (as was Iblees (Satan)) but he is certainly not in the tradition of any of the Prophets (who were exemplary in their manners.)

Secondly you look to the content of their rhetoric.
If the speakers words go against some fundamental beliefs, like the Oneness of Allah, the finality of the message of and the finality of the prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad SAWS, whether the speakers statements contradict examples of clear cut indisputable halal and haram (such as if they are stating usury, homosexuality, premarital sex, etc.) are allowed, and whether they are inviting their listeners to turn to any intermediary (such as themselves, some deceased person, talismans and amulets, 'Saints') as a source of holy intercession instead of leading the follower to turn directly to God alone. Basically is the scholar compromising the religion to appease any person or gain popularity? And also is the speaker seeking to form a cult of personality?

And you you must look to the credentials that said scholar provides of course.
Where did they study and under whom did they study.
Islam has a strong scholarly tradition wherein a persons scholarship can be verified and traced through a lineage of scholars to provide the veracity of the speakers qualifications.

[Serinity]

First and foremost you look at their manners.
Even if the content of the knowledge is legitimate, if the scholar in question is not living a righteous lifestyle and not treating others with good manners, than that is a person (scholar or otherwise) who is distant from Allah. If a man is insulting, noninclusive, self centered, egotistic, and inflammatory, he may be in possession of a wealth of knowledge (as was Iblees (Satan)) but he is certainly not in the tradition of any of the Prophets (who were exemplary in their manners.)

Secondly you look to the content of their rhetoric.
If the speakers words go against some fundamental beliefs, like the Oneness of Allah, the finality of the message of and the finality of the prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad SAWS, whether the speakers statements contradict examples of clear cut indisputable halal and haram (such as if they are stating usury, homosexuality, premarital sex, etc.) are allowed, and whether they are inviting their listeners to turn to any intermediary (such as themselves, some deceased person, talismans and amulets, 'Saints') as a source of holy intercession instead of leading the follower to turn directly to God alone. Basically is the scholar compromising the religion to appease any person or gain popularity? And also is the speaker seeking to form a cult of personality?

And you you must look to the credentials that said scholar provides of course.
Where did they study and under whom did they study.
Islam has a strong scholarly tradition wherein a persons scholarship can be verified and traced through a lineage of scholars to provide the veracity of the speakers qualifications.

So basically those who have ill manners, and speak rudely, are to be avoided. And those who speak contrary to the Quran.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson; and I hope you are well,

Originally posted by Eric H
I think the prophets of two - three thousand years ago had a dilemma, should they offer a spiritual message or a message of science? Imagine a prophet saying to a group of scholars at the time, what you see is an illusion, we are not stood still in this place, rather we are hurtling through space at 67,000 mph on a giant ball, that is spinning round like a top, at a 1,000 miles mph.

Originally posted by czgibson
I think it would be extraordinary, and rather a convincing example of knowledge being transmitted by supernatural means if prophets had announced facts like these before the invention of the telescope.

Even if a prophet from 3,000 - 4,000 ago had said, we are hurtling through space at 67,000 mph on a giant ball, that is spinning round like a top, at a 1,000 miles mph. Why would people believe him? They had no telescopes, and they had a crude understanding of zero in mathematics. We had to wait until Isaac Newton and G.W. Leibniz to tackle division by zero.

I am not sure what benefit people might gain 3,000 years ago; knowing the Earth was round. Probably every advance in man's understanding; leaves us with a moral dilemma, we can generally adapt anything for both a good or evil use.

Instead, they just made things up and made false statements about the natural world, in amongst whatever moral or theological teachings they wanted to deliver.

And what service did they do humanity by making things up? For centuries, ordinary people could be persecuted and sometimes even executed for questioning some of the falsehoods contained in the Bible. It would have been better for everybody if the prophets hadn't bothered to include them.

All the law of God hangs and depends on loving God and our neighbour, we are asked to love and pray for our enemies too. So when Mr Bush said God Bless America, and he went off to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems he had his own agenda and not that of God. Clearly everyone in Afghanistan and Iraq is a part of God's creation, Mr Bush seems to have overlooked the greatest commandments.

Fear of being laughed out of town didn't stop St. John the Divine from producing the hallucinogenic nightmare of nonsense that is the book of Revelation, did it?

The fear of God is the start of wisdom, If Mr Bush truly feared God, he might have taken the greatest commandments more seriously.

Wouldn't it have been amazing if the Bible contained more actual scientific knowledge, though, instead of obviously false statements that insult the intelligence of the reader?

I would suggest that scientific knowledge is almost meaningless, unless we have the morality to use it for the good of mankind. We allow twenty thousand children to starve to death needlessly every day, there is enough food to go round. It seems many countries spend about twice as much on their military, as they do on medicine.

Peace

The elusive peace.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[Bhabha]

Another reason of why "evolution" is stupid.... because at the end of the evolutionary stick is always a WHITE MAN, it is never a black man, it is never an arab man, it is never a hispanic man, it is always a WHITE GUY and let's not forget.. it is always a man.

[Pygoscelis]

Another reason of why "evolution" is stupid.... because at the end of the evolutionary stick is always a WHITE MAN, it is never a black man, it is never an arab man, it is never a hispanic man, it is always a WHITE GUY and let's not forget.. it is always a man.

The end of evolution is a rabbit, a cheetah, a turtle, a whale, and yes, a man. The end of evolution is what we have today, and it isn't the final ending, as there isn't one until all life on earth is gone.

Oh and check out this ancient quirky fellow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

A fish with arms... interesting marker in evolution from fish to amphibian.

[Cpt.America]

The end of evolution is a rabbit, a cheetah, a turtle, a whale, and yes, a man. The end of evolution is what we have today, and it isn't the final ending, as there isn't one until all life on earth is gone.

Oh and check out this ancient quirky fellow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

A fish with arms... interesting marker in evolution from fish to amphibian.

Nah bruh.
The matter of note about Tiktaalik wasn't that it had 'arms' per se as other fish at the time and prior had similar systems to prop themselves up on land for some time.
Tiktaalik is given importance because of its rudimentary elbow joints and finger like projections. They figured the weight bearing elements showed it moved on land.

"Your Inner Fish" by Niel Shubins a good book on the subject.

All the same of gradualism were in reality a thing we wouldn't really have to hunt to find rare transitional fossils like this.

[EgyptPrincess]

Another reason of why "evolution" is stupid.... because at the end of the evolutionary stick is always a WHITE MAN, it is never a black man, it is never an arab man, it is never a hispanic man, it is always a WHITE GUY and let's not forget.. it is always a man.

What are you talking about? Black men are superior to white men in nearly every physical attribute. Generally speaking they're bigger, stronger, faster and are more suited to living in warm climates due to the melatonin in their skin so your statement could not be more wrong.

White people only came about because we travelled from the African plains to America and Europe and over time we did not need black skin any more because it was not as hot so our skin became lighter. There are of course other environmental factors at play such as dietary needs and vitamin D deficiency.

We're still evolving, even as we speak. Ever wondered what your wisdom teeth are for? Considering they just grow sideways in 95% of people and cause nothing but pain? Thousands of years ago when we ate roots and leaves we'd use these teeth to grind them up. Now we no longer use them so they no longer grow properly, eventually our bodies will just evolve to stop growing them all together.

What about your coccyx (tailbone)? Another completely useless non functioning body part, yet it would have certainly served us well when we were swinging around in trees, like a monkey. Since we no longer swing around in trees we've no need for a tail so the coccyx is the last remanence of our tails.

The appendix? I'll let you research this one. Hint hint, get it removed and nothing about your health or ability to digest food changes.

We evolved and are still evolving, stop being so ignorant.

P.S Adding to my point that beautifully illustrates evolution. The Barbary Macaque monkey has almost no tail, why? Because it lives in mountainous regions where, who would have guessed it, there are barely any more trees for it to swing around in and thus no longer needs a tail.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Even if a prophet from 3,000 - 4,000 ago had said, we are hurtling through space at 67,000 mph on a giant ball, that is spinning round like a top, at a 1,000 miles mph. Why would people believe him?

If a prophet had said these things two thousand years ago, it would make no difference whether people believed them or not - the important point is that it would have been true information acquired without a telescope, which would lend support to the view that prophets are able to obtain information through supernatural means.

I am not sure what benefit people might gain 3,000 years ago; knowing the Earth was round.

Greek astronomers established that the Earth is round in the 3rd century BC. It's an impressive advance in human knowledge. Do you not see this as a good thing?

I broadly agree with the sentiment of the remainder of your post, but I cannot see how it is relevant to anything I wrote.

Peace

[crimsontide06]

God created everything, including evolution and how it works....


/thread

[EgyptPrincess]

God created everything, including evolution and how it works....


/thread

Unfortunately due to the lack of education a lot of Muslims are receiving many have issues understanding this topic and Atheists use evolution as a tool to argue against god which is why Muslims tend to rule it out all together despite it being so rich with evidence. We must also remember that Allah swt did not reveal everything about the world and left us with things to work out by ourselves. For example there is absolutely no mention of electromagnetism in the Quran or the Hadiths but it exists...

The world would be incredibly boring if Allah swt gave us all the answers.

[Pygoscelis]

Atheists use evolution as a tool to argue against god

Evolution clearly doesn't rule out the existence of the supernatural. That would be a poor argument to claim that it did. What it does do is create problems for particular religious claims about "creation". If you are a deist with no solid falsifiable claims, evolution can't touch you. But if your theology says that the earth is only a few thousand years old or if your theology says that the animal species we now have are identical to those at the beginning with no new ones evolving and none going extinct, then you've got a real problem on your hands when looking at all the evidence for evolution.

[Pygoscelis]

God created everything, including evolution and how it works....

This is a solid impenetrable and unfalsifiable position. Evolution can't touch it. Nothing can. Of course, the more we learn through science, the less of an active and direct role is left for Gods to play.

People once believed that Gods made it rain with God magic, creating and dropping water down upon the earth. Now that we know how evaporation and condensation work and how weather patterns function, people believe that God created the materials and set up the system. As we learn how he planet formed through natural, and not supernatural processes, the claim will pull back further, to claiming that Gods created the materials that started it all and lit the spark (ie, at the big bang). Unless and until of course we actually figure the non-supernatural mechanics of how it really happened, in which case people will pull back even further and make some even more distant and hands off claim. Gods become less and less direct and perform less and less dramatic miracles the more we learn. Amazing, isn't it?

[keiv]

What are you talking about? Black men are superior to white men in nearly every physical attribute. Generally speaking they're bigger, stronger, faster and are more suited to living in warm climates due to the melatonin in their skin so your statement could not be more wrong.

White people only came about because we travelled from the African plains to America and Europe and over time we did not need black skin any more because it was not as hot so our skin became lighter. There are of course other environmental factors at play such as dietary needs and vitamin D deficiency.

I'm going out on a limb here but, I'm pretty sure Bhabha's was NOT trying to put the white man above anyone else. He wasn't trying to put the white man on a pedestal but rather, questioning why the white man is always viewed that way from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe he can correct me if I'm wrong.

We're still evolving, even as we speak. Ever wondered what your wisdom teeth are for? Considering they just grow sideways in 95% of people and cause nothing but pain? Thousands of years ago when we ate roots and leaves we'd use these teeth to grind them up. Now we no longer use them so they no longer grow properly, eventually our bodies will just evolve to stop growing them all together.

What about your coccyx (tailbone)? Another completely useless non functioning body part, yet it would have certainly served us well when we were swinging around in trees, like a monkey. Since we no longer swing around in trees we've no need for a tail so the coccyx is the last remanence of our tails.

The appendix? I'll let you research this one. Hint hint, get it removed and nothing about your health or ability to digest food changes.

We evolved and are still evolving, stop being so ignorant.

P.S Adding to my point that beautifully illustrates evolution. The Barbary Macaque monkey has almost no tail, why? Because it lives in mountainous regions where, who would have guessed it, there are barely any more trees for it to swing around in and thus no longer needs a tail.

We must also remember that Allah swt did not reveal everything about the world and left us with things to work out by ourselves. For example there is absolutely no mention of electromagnetism in the Quran or the Hadiths but it exists...

I haven't really spent any time on here since my last post in your other thread but, I'm going to assume you're still a Muslim based on the above, so having assumed that, in your opinion, where in the evolutionary time line does the Adam and Eve story come in? If we believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth and we are the offspring, then technically we were always humans right? I only ask because you seem to be pretty firm in your belief on evolution and I personally haven't met any other Muslims who did believe in that, so I had to ask :peace:


- Ignorant Muslim

[EgyptPrincess]

I'm going out on a limb here but, I'm pretty sure Bhabha's was NOT trying to put the white man above anyone else. He wasn't trying to put the white man on a pedestal but rather, questioning why the white man is always viewed that way from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe he can correct me if I'm wrong.


I haven't really spent any time on here since my last post in your other thread but, I'm going to assume you're still a Muslim based on the above, so having assumed that, in your opinion, where in the evolutionary time line does the Adam and Eve story come in? If we believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth and we are the offspring, then technically we were always humans right? I only ask because you seem to be pretty firm in your belief on evolution and I personally haven't met any other Muslims who did believe in that, so I had to ask :peace:

Yes I am still Muslim :)

Perhaps I misunderstood Bhabha's post but I thought she meant at the "end" of the evolutionary tree is a white man, which is of course wrong.

As for evolution, I simply don't know, as many scientists will mention. I think at some point, Allah swt decided to instil consciousness into our ancestors which were not chimps, as a lot of people mistake us for. Humans are our own species and always have been. Our ancestors who swung around in trees did not have consciousness but at some point Allah granted two of them consciousness and revealed himself to them. These two people were of course Adam and Eve.

I'm not sure if it's peoples misunderstanding or mockery but some people seem to think that two monkeys suddenly gave birth to a human... This clearly is not how it was and evolution is a natural selection process which takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. As I said previously humans were not the first of Allah swt's creation, there were many many species created before us. He did not give any of these animals consciousness as far as we know otherwise they would have developed intelligence and followed a similar path to us.

I believe the first two humans, Adam and Eve were given consciousness approximately 1 - 2 million years ago. From that moment on we went from the discovery of fire to the wheel to what we have today. The principle of evolution is ANY animal will naturally adapt to it's surroundings if it has enough time before going extinct. Polar bears for example will unfortunately go extinct before they have the chance to evolve to survive a warmer climate. If climate change was MUCH slower though, they'd eventually shed some of their fur, move onto land and become like grizzly bears or black bears but they'll most likely die due to starvation and lack of ice caps before they can evolve.

[Pygoscelis]

Death is how evolution works. The polar bears will die, except maybe for a select few that are born with mutations making them more suitable to the new environment. Then those few will breed and form the next generation and keep on doing that and they woukd become a new species. But it isn't like they would still the same bears alive today :-)

[EgyptPrincess]

Death is how evolution works. The polar bears will die, except maybe for a select few that are born with mutations making them more suitable to the new environment. Then those few will breed and form the next generation and keep on doing that and they woukd become a new species. But it isn't like they would still the same bears alive today :-)

They will almost certainly go extinct in my opinion. There just isn't enough time for them to evolve adequately and global warming is too rapid.

[noraina]

Just my two cents (as our American peeps say ;))

As a Muslim, I don't believe in evolution. When it comes to whether humans ever evolved from another species - that is a complete no full stop.

Do I believe in adaptation within a species? Yes I do. Allah swt created the Prophet Adam (as) from clay, maybe there were human-like creatures on earth before hand, that has not been disclosed to us, but the Prophet Adam (as) did not evolve from anything, he was made directly from clay and then sent to this earth for the first time. So there was no evolution.

However, ahadith do point to the fact that, the ancient prophets, and hence humans, did look different to us. The Prophets Adam, Nuh, and Ibrahim (pbut) all looked different physically to a person now. So I believe in adaptation within a species over time.

As for the process of humans evolving from one species to another, I can't say about other animals, but I'm pretty much sceptical of this 'theory'. I think a problem is that when Muslims reject evolution, they are considered to be rejecting scientific research. That is not the case, we believe in science as a way to understand the world and bring benefit to mankind, but this is guided by the Qur'an and it overrides any theory when there is a contradiction.

[Serinity]

I don't believe in evolution (from one species to another). Allah SWT created us like He SWT wanted to create us.

[Bhabha]

What are you talking about? Black men are superior to white men in nearly every physical attribute. Generally speaking they're bigger, stronger, faster and are more suited to living in warm climates due to the melatonin in their skin so your statement could not be more wrong.

White people only came about because we travelled from the African plains to America and Europe and over time we did not need black skin any more because it was not as hot so our skin became lighter. There are of course other environmental factors at play such as dietary needs and vitamin D deficiency.

We're still evolving, even as we speak. Ever wondered what your wisdom teeth are for? Considering they just grow sideways in 95% of people and cause nothing but pain? Thousands of years ago when we ate roots and leaves we'd use these teeth to grind them up. Now we no longer use them so they no longer grow properly, eventually our bodies will just evolve to stop growing them all together.

What about your coccyx (tailbone)? Another completely useless non functioning body part, yet it would have certainly served us well when we were swinging around in trees, like a monkey. Since we no longer swing around in trees we've no need for a tail so the coccyx is the last remanence of our tails.

The appendix? I'll let you research this one. Hint hint, get it removed and nothing about your health or ability to digest food changes.

We evolved and are still evolving, stop being so ignorant.

P.S Adding to my point that beautifully illustrates evolution. The Barbary Macaque monkey has almost no tail, why? Because it lives in mountainous regions where, who would have guessed it, there are barely any more trees for it to swing around in and thus no longer needs a tail.

I'm talking about scientific racism that use evolution as a means to subjugate other people who didn't fit into the "white" category.

[Bhabha]

I'm going out on a limb here but, I'm pretty sure Bhabha's was NOT trying to put the white man above anyone else. He wasn't trying to put the white man on a pedestal but rather, questioning why the white man is always viewed that way from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe he can correct me if I'm wrong.

That's correct ^___^

This comment came about when I was working on my paper and my mother was watching this video about the "evolution" of man.

As you can guess, it starts with the video of an ape, then ...... somewhere a black guy......variations of "colored" men and at the end is a white guy, blonde, light eyes and he's apparently the evolved man.

Then my mother makes a comment.

"some people are still evolving"... and I go on a rant..

[Serinity]

yes we have appendix and stuff, that is just how Allah SWT created us - but to draw the line that we came from 'monkeys' (which is an insult and a lie) - is an assumption. A false assumption.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you noraina;

I don't believe in evolution. When it comes to whether humans ever evolved from another species - that is a complete no full stop.

Agreed.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[Cpt.America]

Just my two cents (as our American peeps say ;))

As a Muslim, I don't believe in evolution. When it comes to whether humans ever evolved from another species - that is a complete no full stop.

Do I believe in adaptation within a species? Yes I do. Allah swt created the Prophet Adam (as) from clay, maybe there were human-like creatures on earth before hand, that has not been disclosed to us, but the Prophet Adam (as) did not evolve from anything, he was made directly from clay and then sent to this earth for the first time. So there was no evolution.

However, ahadith do point to the fact that, the ancient prophets, and hence humans, did look different to us. The Prophets Adam, Nuh, and Ibrahim (pbut) all looked different physically to a person now. So I believe in adaptation within a species over time.

As for the process of humans evolving from one species to another, I can't say about other animals, but I'm pretty much sceptical of this 'theory'. I think a problem is that when Muslims reject evolution, they are considered to be rejecting scientific research. That is not the case, we believe in science as a way to understand the world and bring benefit to mankind, but this is guided by the Qur'an and it overrides any theory when there is a contradiction.

Truth

[EgyptPrincess]

Just my two cents (as our American peeps say ;))

As a Muslim, I don't believe in evolution. When it comes to whether humans ever evolved from another species - that is a complete no full stop.

Do I believe in adaptation within a species? Yes I do. Allah swt created the Prophet Adam (as) from clay, maybe there were human-like creatures on earth before hand, that has not been disclosed to us, but the Prophet Adam (as) did not evolve from anything, he was made directly from clay and then sent to this earth for the first time. So there was no evolution.

However, ahadith do point to the fact that, the ancient prophets, and hence humans, did look different to us. The Prophets Adam, Nuh, and Ibrahim (pbut) all looked different physically to a person now. So I believe in adaptation within a species over time.

As for the process of humans evolving from one species to another, I can't say about other animals, but I'm pretty much sceptical of this 'theory'. I think a problem is that when Muslims reject evolution, they are considered to be rejecting scientific research. That is not the case, we believe in science as a way to understand the world and bring benefit to mankind, but this is guided by the Qur'an and it overrides any theory when there is a contradiction.

You realise that monkeys, fish, elephants and humans are made out of the exact same stuff right? So if we're made from clay then so is a fish and an elephant. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen etc so it makes no sense to say we are made from clay but monkeys are not. As for being made out of clay this is mostly true. Clay and life share many of the same elements except clay is composed of a lot of silicates. The evolutionary model fits just fine into Allah swt's creation.

Life is made from similar elements found in clay.
Allah swt created all life.
Allah swt created our ancestors.
Allah swt gave Adam and Eve consciousness.
Homo erectus (humans) begin.

There's no contradiction here. Creation doesn't need to be spontaneous, as I mentioned in the cake baking example. When I create a cake, it might take 40 minutes for the creation to appear and this creation was made from flour, eggs, sugar etc. Allah swt creates all life with similar elements and decides to instil consciousness into one of his creations. I don't really see what all the confusion is about.

yes we have appendix and stuff, that is just how Allah SWT created us - but to draw the line that we came from 'monkeys' (which is an insult and a lie) - is an assumption. A false assumption.

Are you ashamed that we used to be monkeys? Does it somehow take away from Allah swt's beautiful creation? Absolutely not. For some reasons a lot of humans don't like the fact that we used to be nothing but monkeys and this makes them feel insecure and inferior somehow.

[Pygoscelis]

I think a problem is that when Muslims reject evolution, they are considered to be rejecting scientific research.

They are rejecting mounds and mounds of scientific research, and they feel motivated to do so based on something anti-scientific (faith). Let us not pretend that they simply looking at the evidence in an unbiased fashion and finding it lacking. If that were so there would not be the huge correlation between religious fundamentalism and anti-evolution that there so clearly is.

I don't believe in evolution (from one species to another). Allah SWT created us like He SWT wanted to create us.

Perfect example. Forget all the scientific research if God belief trumps it. After all, God is perfect and all powerful, and if science disagrees science must be wrong. God must have put those fossils there to trick us, or shaytan did, etc. Science and reason become moot when you base everything on an unfalsifiable faith belief.

yes we have appendix and stuff, that is just how Allah SWT created us - but to draw the line that we came from 'monkeys' (which is an insult and a lie) - is an assumption. A false assumption.

We didn't come from monkeys. We have a common ancestor with them. And why is that an insult? I keep seeing that in a lot of religious folks? This odd sort of human arrogance from people who claim to be so humble.

[noraina]

You realise that monkeys, fish, elephants and humans are made out of the exact same stuff right? So if we're made from clay then so is a fish and an elephant. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen etc so it makes no sense to say we are made from clay but monkeys are not. As for being made out of clay this is mostly true. Clay and life share many of the same elements except clay is composed of a lot of silicates. The evolutionary model fits just fine into Allah swt's creation.

Life is made from similar elements found in clay.
Allah swt created all life.
Allah swt created our ancestors.
Allah swt gave Adam and Eve consciousness.
Homo erectus (humans) begin.

There's no contradiction here. Creation doesn't need to be spontaneous, as I mentioned in the cake baking example. When I create a cake, it might take 40 minutes for the creation to appear and this creation was made from flour, eggs, sugar etc. Allah swt creates all life with similar elements and decides to instil consciousness into one of his creations. I don't really see what all the confusion is about.

Hmmmm, Allah swt knows best sis. From my understanding of the Qur'an, the creation of Adam and Eve was spontaneous - Allah swt fashioned them from clay and they were sent to his earth. Before then all accepted accounts state how they were in Jannah immediately following creation.

I agree, we are all from a common source. We share the same elements as monkeys, ants, bananas, trees and rocks. That is because we were created by the same Lord, is doesn't necessarily mean we evolved from one thing to the other just because we are similar. A good percentage of our DNA is shared with a banana, it doesn't mean we evolved from a banana though. It just means we have a common source from which we came and to which we'll return. Humans are searching for the purpose of life and the reason for their existence, but it doesn't mean we have to grasp at the idea we came from monkeys just because we are very similar.

Indeed, monkeys are created from clay, we are created by the same Lord, just we were created separately.

As I've said, I do not believe in evolution - it is not something there is confusion about. I believe in adaption within a species, but not the transformation of one species to another, at least that certainly wasn't the case with mankind.

[Pygoscelis]

I'm talking about scientific racism that use evolution as a means to subjugate other people who didn't fit into the "white" category.

... which isn't evolution itself. Evolution doesn't make value judgments or say any species is "better" than any other. Bigoted humans do that.

[EgyptPrincess]

The thing that amazes me is if more Muslims actually studied biology, chemistry and astronomy it would only increase their faith as it glorifies Allah swt's work even more in my opinion. They would not say god does not exist, they would say Alhamdulillah.

[noraina]

They are rejecting mounds and mounds of scientific research, and they feel motivated to do so based on something anti-scientific (faith).

Evolution is small branch of the vast discipline which constitutes scientific discipline. I meant that people assume Muslims reject all forms of scientific research entirely when that is far from the case.

I suppose this is where we really differ in our understandings, as you know, for Muslims faith is our priority. And in all honesty is faith really anti-scientific? I see a beautiful harmony between the two, I mentioned before for me science is a way to understand the creation of Allah swt, who is perfect and without fault. Humans and their theories can have faults or be inaccurate, as has been proved before. So in the very *rare* case there is a conflict between science and faith (and this conflict is exaggerated a lot) faith will take priority because it can never be wrong.

And kind of off topic here, but as I remember reading that there is no reason human-like creatures didn't exist before. Allah swt hasn't told us everything about His creation - and He knows best but it could be these fossils are from creatures who were indeed similar to humans but not an ancestor, as humans were created separately..

[EgyptPrincess]

Hmmmm, Allah swt knows best sis. From my understanding of the Qur'an, the creation of Adam and Eve was spontaneous - Allah swt fashioned them from clay and they were sent to his earth. Before then all accepted accounts state how they were in Jannah immediately following creation.

I agree, we are all from a common source. We share the same elements as monkeys, ants, bananas, trees and rocks. That is because we were created by the same Lord, is doesn't necessarily mean we evolved from one thing to the other just because we are similar. A good percentage of our DNA is shared with a banana, it doesn't mean we evolved from a banana though. It just means we have a common source from which we came and to which we'll return. Humans are searching for the purpose of life and the reason for their existence, but it doesn't mean we have to grasp at the idea we came from monkeys just because we are very similar.

Indeed, monkeys are created from clay, we are created by the same Lord, just we were created separately.

As I've said, I do not believe in evolution - it is not something there is confusion about. I believe in adaption within a species, but not the transformation of one species to another, at least that certainly wasn't the case with mankind.

Allahu alam

Sis can you show me where in the Quran it mentions how long Allah swt took to create Adam and Eve? Adam and Eve were taken up to Jannah when Allah swt breathed a soul (consciousness) into them right?

As far as I know there is no mention of how long Allah took to make Adam and Eve. It doesn't say instantly or 5million years. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[EgyptPrincess]

Evolution is small branch of the vast discipline which constitutes scientific discipline. I meant that people assume Muslims reject all forms of scientific research entirely when that is far from the case.

I suppose this is where we really differ in our understandings, as you know, for Muslims faith is our priority. And in all honesty is faith really anti-scientific? I see a beautiful harmony between the two, I mentioned before for me science is a way to understand the creation of Allah swt, who is perfect and without fault. Humans and their theories can have faults or be inaccurate, as has been proved before. So in the very *rare* case there is a conflict between science and faith (and this conflict is exaggerated a lot) faith will take priority because it can never be wrong.

And kind of off topic here, but as I remember reading that there is no reason human-like creatures didn't exist before. Allah swt hasn't told us everything about His creation - and He knows best but it could be these fossils are from creatures who were indeed similar to humans but not an ancestor, as humans were created separately..

Sorry to keep spam quoting you sis but I have just one thing to mention about this :)

Science is different to axioms. An axiom is self-evidently true and does not require testing. Take the following axioms for example.

If A is equal to B then B must be equal to A.
If A is more than B then B must be less than A.

When it comes to scientific laws, these are laws which are proven using mathematics to be true. We cannot prove mathematically that evolution exists, if I love my mother or something similar. A theory is an explanation backed by lots of evidence, a law is mathematical proof that the explanation is correct.

[noraina]

I'm not that knowledgeable in Qur'an or ahadith to be able to sift out all of the appropriate texts, but here are a couple. Also, the Qur'an points out numerous times how mankind is 'honoured' compared to the rest of creatures, so as Muslims we don't need to reject the idea of evolution or natural selection - it is just that this idea of evolution doesn't apply to us.

"The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’ and he was.” (Quran 3:59]

This points out to me that Adam (pbuh) was created without the agency of parents, Allah swt said 'Be' and he was created - suggesting spontaneous creation, like how the Prophet Isa (pbuh) was created. And this:

“O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women.” (Quran 4:1)

An important point is, modern science cannot confirm or deny directly the creation of Adam (pbuh) in this way, it was a unique event in history only replicated once so no amount of research can confirm or deny its truth. This comes into a matter of the Unseen, a matter of faith that although we did not see the miraculous creation of Adam (pbuh) (or the Prophet Isa (as)) in this way, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Allah swt knows best :)

[EgyptPrincess]

"The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’ and he was.” (Quran 3:59]


“O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women.” (Quran 4:1)

Consider these two carefully. Allah swt created Adam from dust. THEN said to HIM, "be" and he was.

This tells me that Allah swt created Adam first and after he was created, then he said to him "be" and he was. "be" in this context I think means "gave him consciousness". Think of a dark room where my lights respond to my voice. If I walk into the room and say let their be light, the lights will come on. But I already wired everything up before hand. From these ayats it would seem that Allah swt first created Adam, then brought him into being.

I apologise if I'm interpreting it wrong but some things I interpret different to other people.

Inshallah we are rewarded for trying to understand Allah's creations accurately. We are only human, we make mistakes. May Allah swt grant us patience in understanding his complexity :)

[noraina]

Look what I found, an interesting discussion on this very topic - http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...rspective.html

[Serinity]

Adam AS was created directly by Allah SWT without the agency of parents, and with no ancestors.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

And in all honesty is faith really anti-scientific?

Faith is belief based on spiritual conviction rather than observable evidence; the scientific method consists principally of the formation, testing and modification of hypotheses based on observable evidence. So, by definition, the two are in opposition.

Humans and their theories can have faults or be inaccurate, as has been proved before.

No scientific theory is complete and unalterably true. Science is always provisional, and searches for the "least wrong" explanation.

So in the very *rare* case there is a conflict between science and faith (and this conflict is exaggerated a lot) faith will take priority because it can never be wrong.

This is a most surprising claim. There are countless examples of people having faith in things that turn out to be untrue, so much so that it would be more accurate to say that faith is wrong far more often than it is right. Examples include the belief that looking at dead animals can be a good way of predicting the future; the belief that diseases or bad weather are caused by sinful behaviour; and the belief that the sun revolves around the Earth. Also, as a Muslim, you have to believe in many types of faith being wrong e.g. faith in Hinduism, Christianity, ancient Greek polytheism etc.

Peace

[noraina]

This is a most surprising claim. There are countless examples of people having faith in things that turn out to be untrue, so much so that it would be more accurate to say that faith is wrong far more often than it is right. Examples include the belief that looking at dead animals can be a good way of predicting the future; the belief that diseases or bad weather are caused by sinful behaviour; the belief that the sun revolves around the Earth. Also, as a Muslim, you have to believe in many types of faith being wrong e.g. faith in Hinduism, Christianity, ancient Greek polytheism etc.

Peace

I should have been more clear with what I meant :). In terms of faith I was meaning 'Islam', all of those example you provided have no basis in Islam and are, as you have pointed out, untrue and not 'faith'.

Islam is a faith which discourages blind belief and encourages the use of reason. For me I see very little conflict between science and Islam, science is a means to appreciate my religion further and I find that to be a beautiful thing about the Qur'an and the way it encourages reflection.

Faith in Islam has many branches, in some cases it can be supported by science and observation as proofs of the existence of Allah swt, (the planets, the stars, scientific facts in the Qur'an) and in a very different way it also requires spiritual conviction and belief in the Unseen, including Allah swt, the angels, heaven, hell, our soul etc. I see it as a balance of both reason and faith.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I should have been more clear with what I meant :). In terms of faith I was meaning 'Islam', all of those example you provided have no basis in Islam and are, as you have pointed out, untrue and not 'faith'.

Well, now that you put it that way it makes a bit more sense.

Islam is a faith which discourages blind belief ... it also requires spiritual conviction and belief in the Unseen

You can surely see the contradiction here?

In the case of evolution, if you simply say that faith trumps everything and as a consequence evolution is untrue, then you exclude yourself from the discussion because of the vast array of observable evidence that is against you, and the unalterable nature of your position.

Peace

[noraina]

You can surely see the contradiction here?

Not quite a contradiction, rather they reinforce each other.

As a Muslim, when I see the way everything has been created and organised with such order, these observations lead to the reasoning that Allah swt, Who is unseen, exists and is the Creator of everything. We use the reason and free will Allah swt has gifted us with to observe the evidences around us, and hence believe in His existence and sovereignty.

With evolution I have read up on it, and the position of Islam upon it. This is a matter of faith I know but for me the evidence of the Qur'an 'trumps' the evidence of any scientific investigation. For example, disciplines such as medicine or astronomy I have no problem with because they are perfectly in line with Islam and the use of human intellect to understand creation.

Evolution itself, other animals may well have evolved from other species into different species, and I accept that - but Islam is clear when it says that mankind is unique and the Prophet Adam (as) was created directly from clay, with no ancestors or parents. So for humans, adaptation is very possible, but not evolution.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Not quite a contradiction, rather they reinforce each other.

OK, perhaps you can't see the contradiction, but the fact is that having to believe in the Unseen is a form of blind belief. Once again, the definition of each term ensures this. Unless you are again using words in a special way of your own, of course. :p

With evolution I have read up on it, and the position of Islam upon it. This is a matter of faith I know but for me the evidence of the Qur'an 'trumps' the evidence of any scientific investigation.

Exactly. You have admitted that your position comes solely down to faith, so philosophically the discussion ends there. I am sure you are happy with this position, and you have every right to believe that it is valid, but don't try to pretend that there is any logical or empirical basis for it. It is purely a matter of your own personal faith.

Peace

[Cpt.America]

The thing that amazes me is if more Muslims actually studied biology, chemistry and astronomy it would only increase their faith as it glorifies Allah swt's work even more in my opinion. They would not say god does not exist, they would say Alhamdulillah.

I did study biology and chemistry, (I am a huge fan of NASA, but alas I have not studied enough astronomy yet in my life) and I agree that studying about the creation of Allah should increase our faith and appreciation for Allah's power and perfection.

And I've medaled in a state level competition (after city and before nationals) with an essay on the topic of evolutionary development.

And I was a biology major.

That being said, I've become incredibly disillusioned to the concept of human evolution.

I really do not advocate forcing the concept of human evolution down anyone's throats. There is honestly very little evidence for it.
If someone wishes to believe that we've all had a common ancestor that is fine and well, but evidence for that degree of speciation is really not up to par (unlike evidence for microevolution which is extremely prevalent). Allah's creation may very well share common ancestors, or very well may not. At any rate they share a common creator.

Ultimately the whole topic of macroevolution is quite useless. There is no real way to study something like that in a legitimate fashion when you are taking about time spans that deep, and lacking DNA that's long since degraded to actually compare. Furthermore, there is no application to macroevolutionary hypothesis.

There is much application to microevolutionary theory.

However macro is little more than applied micro, with no reals methods of testing.

Ultimately belief in macro evolution is just something sold on the back of microevolution's evidence. It requires just as much faith as any religion, but it's a popular concept in academia so students accept it without questioning.

All that being said, you see gradual changes in some species occur over time, and if that is a mechanism by which Allah wants to change some species, that is His will, and there is no harm in believing the possibility thereof.
I was excited as anyone else when they found Tiktaalik in 2004. And coelacanths are my jam. Those slimy buggers didn't change at all in 350 million years! Which is just ultra cool!

But even then, gradualism on a massive macro scale is lacking in evidence. With the fact that the fossil record is just a whole mess of punctuated equilibrium there is honestly no difference between the possibility of one species suddenly and rapidly changing into another (despite only minimal gradualistic changes occurring prior) due to God's command and decree (otherwise you'll have to stick to the idea that a massive amount of mutations, nay BENEFICIAL mutations very suddenly appeared and created variation to select from) and the idea that a species was removed and God created something new.
Because you just don't find enough gradualism in deep time to clearly prove a species had turned into another.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson; and I hope you are enjoying the sunny weather,

No scientific theory is complete and unalterably true. Science is always provisional, and searches for the "least wrong" explanation.

If we were given two possible answers that 2+2=5, or 2+2=8, we could conclude that 2+2=5, because it is the least wrong explanation. If we accepted that 2+2 =5, we would then have to adjust our complete understanding of mathematics

Life exists, it had a beginning, and it has a history, the ToE sounds to me like the least wrong explanation, but it still has the word 'wrong' before explanation.

Faith is belief based on spiritual conviction rather than observable evidence; the scientific method consists principally of the formation, testing and modification of hypotheses based on observable evidence.

The fossil evidence from 400 - 600 million years ago, is very poor, there is no real evidence as to how the eye evolved. It needs a lot of faith to believe the Nilsson - Pelgar interpretation is the truth

Also, as a Muslim, you have to believe in many types of faith being wrong e.g. faith in Hinduism, Christianity, ancient Greek polytheism etc.

Faith in God is very much about how we strive to change ourselves, Ramadan has just started today, and Muslims find this a time of both personal challenges and blessings. This is something I can relate to as a Christian. Whatever our differences, the same God hears all our prayers.

In the spirit of praying to 'One God'

Eric

[Scimitar]

Greetings.

Please, no bleating.

There is over 150 years of research into evolution and it has long been proven that evolution is a fact.......... [/snip]

BS cut from post

Why are scientific types such morons?

Fact?

FACT?

Since when?

Coz that's bloody well news to me lol.

Like I said, you must be a complete moron, I couldn't even read past the first line of dribble and had to snip you short.

For the love of your mother, do not make a mockery of your words in their opening lines. SHEESH.

Scimi

[Cpt.America]

Please, no bleating.



Why are scientific types such morons?

Fact?

FACT?

Since when?

Coz that's bloody well news to me lol.

Like I said, you must be a complete moron, I couldn't even read past the first line of dribble and had to snip you short.

For the love of your mother, do not make a mockery of your words in their opening lines. SHEESH.

Scimi

Bruh, OP was a nonmuslim just curious about muslims views on the subject.
We shouldn't give him a hard time. He's been nothing but respectful here. He wasn't trying to troll or anything.
The things you quoted are simply his beliefs.

[Scimitar]

I used to be an editor of B2B magazines and newspapers, don't talk schitt bro.

I know his game.

He won't be back now that he's been ruffled. Unless his ego needs to exact some sort of hullabalooo :D

Scimi

[Pygoscelis]

And in all honesty is faith really anti-scientific?

Absolutely. Science and faith are opposite approaches to knowledge.

Science is admitting you don't know, and may never know something, and the systematic testing and retesting and constant replacing of your understanding as more and better evidence comes to light. If you declare a "truth" by "revelation", declare it absolutely true and render it unfalsifiable, you have rejected the scientific approach.

So in the very *rare* case there is a conflict between science and faith (and this conflict is exaggerated a lot) faith will take priority because it can never be wrong.

Exactly my point. You cant take a position like that and claim to be scientific. It is the complete opposite.

[Pygoscelis]

Life exists, it had a beginning, and it has a history, the ToE sounds to me like the least wrong explanation, but it still has the word 'wrong' before explanation.

I would much rather admit that I have the least wrong explanation, than pretend I have the "perfect" answer. The latter may be more comfortable, but it would hamper me from continuing to search for a better and more complete answer.

[Bhabha]

... which isn't evolution itself. Evolution doesn't make value judgments or say any species is "better" than any other. Bigoted humans do that.

I didn't say evolution used anything, I said scientific racism utilize these things to subjugate others.

and EgyptPrincess - Muslims do study these fields, there are far more Muslims in Science, Engineering and Health Sciences than there are non-Muslim.. At least this was in my University. However, there are different ontological ways that these fields are actually studied... and the implications that their studies have on the people studying them.

[Pygoscelis]

I didn't say evolution used anything, I said scientific racism utilize these things to subjugate others.

Sure, but that is no fault of evolution or any reason to dismiss evolution. Saying it is would be like saying that daesh is the fault of Islam and grounds to dismiss Islam.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

Science is admitting you don't know,

You have said a number of times there is overwhelming evidence for the ToE, you have been treating it as the done deal.

and may never know something,

Like the truthful way the eye came into existence, the fossil record from 400 - 600 million years ago for soft tissue is lacking. I have watched videos of Richard Dawkins cleverly talk to school children, about how the eye could evolve, based on the Nilsson Pelger theory. He concludes it could happen in the blink of an eye, he sounds very much like he is trying to prove the least wrong answer like showing evidence that 2+2 could equal 5.

Darwin started a very plausible theory with his observation on finches beaks, but he knew the evolution of the eye would be one of the greatest challenges to his theory.

and the systematic testing and retesting and constant replacing of your understanding as more and better evidence comes to light.

Truthful evidence for the evolution of the eye does not exist, but it is being talked about like a done deal, case closed your honour.

If you declare a "truth" by "revelation", declare it absolutely true and render it unfalsifiable, you have rejected the scientific approach.

Evolution seems to be talked about almost as if it is a divine revelation.

Absolutely. Science and faith are opposite approaches to knowledge.

I don't need faith to accept that 2+2=4, it is a proven fact. But I would need faith to accept the flimsy evidence that the eye could evolve in half a million generations, the same level of proof does not exist. I question your use of 'Absolutely'.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

I would much rather admit that I have the least wrong explanation,

But what benefit does having the least wrong explanation bring, do you have to pretend; that what you have described as the overwhelming evidence for the ToE; is right.

than pretend I have the "perfect" answer.

People who have a real faith in their creator do not pretend, real faith is a huge challenge for believers, read some of the post about the struggles and joys of journeying through Ramadan.

The latter may be more comfortable, but it would hamper me from continuing to search for a better and more complete answer.

Faith in God is probably more of a challenge than a comfort, but I find a profound sense of peace through my faith. The creation of the universe and life is history, I am fascinated by the science that strives to understand our universe.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[Pygoscelis]

You have said a number of times there is overwhelming evidence for the ToE

There is. From many different disciplines too.

you have been treating it as the done deal.

Nothing is a done deal. There is plenty about evolution that has yet to be discovered and yet to be improved on. There are real controversies in evolution... you example of the eye isn't really one of them.

Like the truthful way the eye came into existence, the fossil record from 400 - 600 million years ago for soft tissue is lacking. I have watched videos of Richard Dawkins cleverly talk to school children, about how the eye could evolve, based on the Nilsson Pelger theory. He concludes it could happen in the blink of an eye, he sounds very much like he is trying to prove the least wrong answer like showing evidence that 2+2 could equal 5.

What is the big deal about the eye? Why is that such a stumbling block for you? Simple photosensitive cells are not so complicated. Are you saying that they could not have evolved? From there you need only a series of improvements, each a benefit over the last. Since you refer to Dawkins, I highly recommend his book "Climbing mount improbable".

Darwin started a very plausible theory with his observation on finches beaks, but he knew the evolution of the eye would be one of the greatest challenges to his theory.

He also addressed it head on as such:

...if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

There is evidence for the progressing development of eyes. It isn't conclusive, no. Nothing ever is in science. But it sure is a better theory than proposing that a magical and perfect designer God made the eye, with all of its many faults. It would be some incredibly inept engineering, what with the blind spot where our optic nerve is, and the way that it inverts the image, requiring our brains to process it and revert it.

Creationism is full of oddities like that, which I am pretty sure is why creationists spend all their time attacking evolution instead of putting for evidence and argument for creationism. They seem to think that if you proved evolution wrong, then creationism would be right by default. It wouldn't.

But lets actually look at creationism itself. If there is a creator God that designed everything, it would have to be an incredibly poor designer given what we keep finding. Everything from foot bones in whales to the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe (that is one looooong route for a nerve to take - talk about poor design!)

I question your use of 'Absolutely'.

Why? I didn't say that Evolution is absolutely true. I said that Faith is absolutely anti-science, and it is. Faith and Science are opposite means of finding truth, or in the case of faith, what we pretend it to be.

In the spirit of searching for God.

In the spirit of open and rational inquiry.

[Cpt.America]

There is. From many different disciplines too.



Nothing is a done deal. There is plenty about evolution that has yet to be discovered and yet to be improved on. There are real controversies in evolution... you example of the eye isn't really one of them.



What is the big deal about the eye? Why is that such a stumbling block for you? Simple photosensitive cells are not so complicated. Are you saying that they could not have evolved? From there you need only a series of improvements, each a benefit over the last. Since you refer to Dawkins, I highly recommend his book "Climbing mount improbable".



He also addressed it head on as such:



There is evidence for the progressing development of eyes. It isn't conclusive, no. Nothing ever is in science. But it sure is a better theory than proposing that a magical and perfect designer God made the eye, with all of its many faults. It would be some incredibly inept engineering, what with the blind spot where our optic nerve is, and the way that it inverts the image, requiring our brains to process it and revert it.

Creationism is full of oddities like that, which I am pretty sure is why creationists spend all their time attacking evolution instead of putting for evidence and argument for creationism. They seem to think that if you proved evolution wrong, then creationism would be right by default. It wouldn't.

But lets actually look at creationism itself. If there is a creator God that designed everything, it would have to be an incredibly poor designer given what we keep finding. Everything from foot bones in whales to the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe (that is one looooong route for a nerve to take - talk about poor design!)



Why? I didn't say that Evolution is absolutely true. I said that Faith is absolutely anti-science, and it is. Faith and Science are opposite means of finding truth, or in the case of faith, what we pretend it to be.



In the spirit of open and rational inquiry.

The physiological blind spot is not an aberration of engineering. It's simply the point the optic nerve enters the eye, and all animals (other than Cephalopods I think have it).

The spot in the visual field that would correspond to the physiological blind spot anyway is covered by the contralateral eye.


Anyway, muslims don't believe that our engineering was meant to be perfect in this life, because this life is itself imperfect.
But the engineering we do find in nature is beyond any human capacity to ever recreate.

And that's straight truth.

If we could engineer even a single red blood cell.
One of the most uncomplicated of cells, as it straight up lacks a nucleus, then we would never require blood transfusions and no person would ever have to suffer thalassemia or anemia or hemorrhagic shock. But that's not the way it is.

We have to recognize the perfection of the Creator through the creation.

And true perfection and the full majesty of it all will be in the after life.

So what I'm trying to say is:

Nature is undeniably amazing. The creation of Allah even in this plane of existence is undeniably complex and astounding.

But the One who has created all this, describes it all to be close to worthless to Him, and He is not restricted from creating that which is much better, and InshaaAllah in the afterlife we will see that. But for now this should be enough to guide us to appreciate Him and worship Him alone.

In short:
This isn't even my final form bro! Lol

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson; and I hope you are enjoying the sunny weather,

Thanks, Eric. Yes, I have been enjoying the arrival of the British summer. Let's hope it lasts this time.

Since Pygoscelis has answered most of your points very capably, I'll confine myself to these:

If we were given two possible answers that 2+2=5, or 2+2=8, we could conclude that 2+2=5, because it is the least wrong explanation. If we accepted that 2+2 =5, we would then have to adjust our complete understanding of mathematics

If we were in a position where 2 + 2 = 5 was the best available approximation at the time, then it would indeed be the best answer for us to accept provisionally, until the arrival of better answers. The fact that the rest of our understanding of mathematics would need modifying is actually a good thing; a system of mathematics where 2 + 2 = 5 is clearly badly in need of modification!

Life exists, it had a beginning, and it has a history, the ToE sounds to me like the least wrong explanation, but it still has the word 'wrong' before explanation.

Every scientific theory or law is the "least wrong" one available at the time. Things like the law of gravity, which we might take for granted as being "correct", are in fact incomplete and imperfectly understood, and certainly capable of being revised and improved. The same is true of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I don't need faith to accept that 2+2=4, it is a proven fact.

It's actually not possible to prove that 2 + 2 = 4. At least, not without referring to further unproven axioms on which all of mathematics rests. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries this state of affairs caused great concern for mathematicians and philosophers, who attempted to discover a more solid foundation for mathematics, but this project was not successful.

Peace

[EgyptPrincess]

It's actually not possible to prove that 2 + 2 = 4.

Yes it is.

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/as2446/224.pdf

Mathematics isn't subject to the same process as science. Once a statement is true, it is always true, unlike with science, as you rightly said.

Take the laws of gravity, we have a theory of gravity and a law of gravity. The theory is the why (which is never 100% true) and the law which is the how (mathematical) is always true.

[noraina]

In all honesty, we are not going to agree on this matter concerning the relationship between faith and science any time soon. :D

In most cases, scientific research is a way to understand the creation of Allah swt - they are two very different approaches to knowledge which complement and reinforce one another. Darwinism and the theory of human evolution sound weak, it's strongest evidence is hominid human-like skeletons and fossils dating back millennia, but similarity doesn't necessarily mean shared ancestry.

When I observe the natural world, and even when looking at the claims of human evolution, all the evidence points forward to an intelligent Creator. For you it is different, and I accept and can understand that, but for me it is clear evidence of intelligent design.

Science is there to only observe and describe the patterns that Allah places in His creation. I am not completely against the idea of evolution, adaptation and natural selection - but as with all scientific theories, it is one of many explanations of the observed patterns in creation.

And just as question, what do you guys think of Michael Behe?

[EgyptPrincess]

In all honesty, we are not going to agree on this matter concerning the relationship between faith and science any time soon. :D

In most cases, scientific research is a way to understand the creation of Allah swt - they are two very different approaches to knowledge which complement and reinforce one another. Darwinism and the theory of human evolution sound weak, it's strongest evidence is hominid human-like skeletons and fossils dating back millennia, but similarity doesn't necessarily mean shared ancestry.

When I observe the natural world, and even when looking at the claims of human evolution, all the evidence points forward to an intelligent Creator. For you it is different, and I accept and can understand that, but for me it is clear evidence of intelligent design.

Science is there to only observe and describe the patterns that Allah places in His creation. I am not completely against the idea of evolution, adaptation and natural selection - but as with all scientific theories, it is one of many explanations of the observed patterns in creation.

And just as question, what do you guys think of Michael Behe?

Ultimately whether we are right or wrong, Allah swt knows best and will forgive our mistakes Inshallah. The universe is unimaginably complex and we can only do our best to understand Allah swt's creation.

As for Michael Behe, I never knew who he was until now when I just googled him but I think there will always be scientists who disagree with certain things. It's basically like the general consensus, same with religion. 95% of Muslims don't agree with ISIS, but there are still 5% who do. 95% of scientists believe the theory of evolution is correct, but 5% do not.

You can never have 100% of the population of the world agree on something.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Yes it is.

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/as2446/224.pdf

As I said, it is not possible to prove 2 + 2 = 4 without relying on unproven axioms, which is what this proof does.

Peace

[EgyptPrincess]

Greetings,



As I said, it is not possible to prove 2 + 2 = 4 without relying on unproven axioms, which is what this proof does.

Peace

How are they unproven? What you're essentially saying is that nothing can ever be proven because everything uses something unproven to prove something. Somethings are inherently true. 0 < 1 is true because it is. It doesn't need proving.

Would you go so far as to suggest that we cannot prove that 0 < 1? If you do then you live in a dream world.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

How are they unproven? What you're essentially saying is that nothing can ever be proven because everything uses something unproven to prove something. Somethings are inherently true. 0 < 1 is true because it is. It doesn't need proving.

Would you go so far as to suggest that we cannot prove that 0 < 1? If you do then you live in a dream world.

Your words suggest that you have never looked into this topic in any detail. I do not have the time or the inclination to teach you all about it, and we are off topic here anyway. If you are interested in learning more about it, then perhaps you could start by reading a page like this or a thread like this.

Peace

[EgyptPrincess]

Greetings,



Your words suggest that you have never looked into this topic in any detail. I do not have the time or the inclination to teach you all about it, and we are off topic here anyway. If you are interested in learning more about it, then perhaps you could start by reading a page like this or a thread like this.

Peace

The proof of Gödel's completeness theorem given by Kurt Gödel in his doctoral dissertation of 1929 (and a rewritten version of the dissertation, published as an article in 1930) is not easy to read today; it uses concepts and formalism that are no longer used and terminology that is often obscure

Yeah I think I'll pass. I suspect you're leaning towards the philosophical approach to mathematics which I do not care for. If we can state that a single axiom is true, then we can prove others.

If A = A then A = A. This is probably the most simple basic one I can think of.


If A = B then B must equal A.
If A = B and B = C then C = A

Take your philosophy nonsense somewhere else. Acting like a philosopher doesn't make you a philosopher, it makes you a wannabe.

[jabeady]

If we were in a position where 2 + 2 = 5 was the best available approximation at the time, then it would indeed be the best answer for us to accept provisionally, until the arrival of better answers. The fact that the rest of our understanding of mathematics would need modifying is actually a good thing; a system of mathematics where 2 + 2 = 5 is clearly badly in need of modification!

Every scientific theory or law is the "least wrong" one available at the time. Things like the law of gravity, which we might take for granted as being "correct", are in fact incomplete and imperfectly understood, and certainly capable of being revised and improved. The same is true of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I hope you don't mind if I butt in, but I don't like the term "least wrong" as it is being applied here. In mathematics we intentionally use incorrect amounts all the time, not because they are "least wrong," but because they are "close enough." The value of pi, for example, cannot be expressed accurately because, in theory, it goes on forever. 3.14 or, more rarely, 22/7, is used because it is close enough for what we need.

Similarly, evolution settles for close enough because whatever it is we're talking about is good enough for its purpose. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work. It doesn't even have to work well enough to be beneficial, it just has to work well enough to not be dangerous. There are many species whose eyes are, supposedly, worse than the human eye, yet they are good enough for the creatures that have them. There are creatures whose eyes are "better" than the human eye, yet they would be of no benefit to us. The human eye is good enough for what it does, and is no better; there is no evolutionary need for it to be any better than it is. Mind you, Id like to be able to see into the infrared, but I cannot imagine what good it would do me.

The problem, as I see it, with claiming some sort of intelligence, especially an all-knowing intelligence, behind a design is that it has to be designed intelligently. Presumably, a perfect intelligence would come up with a perfect design. Further, since many religions claim humans are the Creator's supreme design, then it would follow that humans are designed supremely well. I'm not going to attempt a catalog of the flaws in human design, they are all too self-evident, but the only one capable of destroying the species as a whole is our intelligence. If human intelligence is indeed a fatal flaw in evolution, natural selection will eventually take care of the problem; if it is the result of divine intervention in the universe, the Designer is just going to have to live with it because, if you'll remember, we are the best He could do, we are His crowning achievement.

Just my two cents.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Yeah I think I'll pass. I suspect you're leaning towards the philosophical approach to mathematics which I do not care for.

Please forgive me. I didn't realise that your own personal opinion on the matter was the criterion of truth here.

Good day to you. :)

I hope you don't mind if I butt in, but I don't like the term "least wrong" as it is being applied here.

I think we are talking about different things. I'm in full agreement with everything else you say in your post.

Welcome to the forum, by the way. :)

Peace

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady; and welcome to the forum,

Similarly, evolution settles for close enough because whatever it is we're talking about is good enough for its purpose. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work. It doesn't even have to work well enough to be beneficial, it just has to work well enough to not be dangerous. There are many species whose eyes are, supposedly, worse than the human eye, yet they are good enough for the creatures that have them. There are creatures whose eyes are "better" than the human eye, yet they would be of no benefit to us. The human eye is good enough for what it does, and is no better; there is no evolutionary need for it to be any better than it is. Mind you, Id like to be able to see into the infrared, but I cannot imagine what good it would do me.

Single cell life was good enough three billion years ago, so why should it evolve into millions of species?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[EgyptPrincess]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady; and welcome to the forum,


Single cell life was good enough three billion years ago, so why should it evolve into millions of species?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Because the conditions of Earth changed. Life wants to survive, there's a reason animals don't commit suicide... it's not in the interest of the species.

So when life first arose it was just single celled organisms but then as Earth changes, life also needs to change and thus evolution starts.

[jabeady]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady; and welcome to the forum,


Single cell life was good enough three billion years ago, so why should it evolve into millions of species?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Short answer: Because if you're not growing, you're dying. Life grows and expands because that's what life does. As it expands into new places, it adapts/evolves to meet the environment of the new places. In a nutshell, that's the entire idea behind evolution.

[Cpt.America]

Short answer: Because if you're not growing, you're dying. Life grows and expands because that's what life does. As it expands into new places, it adapts/evolves to meet the environment of the new places. In a nutshell, that's the entire idea behind evolution.

The existence of viruses would beg to differ.

Terribly rebellious buggers they are.

[jabeady]

Excuse me?

[Cpt.America]

Excuse me?

Current evolutionary theory holds that viruses evolved from bacteria.

Viruses are nonliving and unable to reproduce.

So life progressed to nonlife.

But for reals, viruses just don't make any sense existing. Doesn't stop them from messing is pretty bad all the same lol.

It's pretty insane when you think about it. A nonliving material straight up hacking your cells.

[jabeady]

Current evolutionary theory holds that [b]viruses evolved[/] from bacteria.

Fixed that for you. ;D

Viruses are nonliving and unable to reproduce.

So life progressed to nonlife.

But for reals, viruses just don't make any sense existing. Doesn't stop them from messing is pretty bad all the same lol.

It's pretty insane when you think about it. A nonliving material straight up hacking your cells.

Evolution doesn't take into account the theory of Panspermia, the idea that organic material is brought to earth by comets and meteors. I only mention this as a possible source of viruses.

[Cpt.America]

Panspermia is unlikely.
Viruses are too in tune with our biology (animal and plant cell biology) and too specialized for most scientists to consider their source being that foreign, hence the pervading belief that they "evolved" from parasitic bacteria.

[EgyptPrincess]

the idea that organic material is brought to earth by comets and meteors. I only mention this as a possible source of viruses.

Highly unlikely in my opinion. The sheer number of asteroids that land on Earth and not a single one has any trace of life. I mean sure it's possible but I suspect life developed here and did not "emigrate" here.

[jabeady]

Current evolutionary theory holds that viruses evolved from bacteria.

I hate not being able to edit my own post. :(

[jabeady]

Highly unlikely in my opinion. The sheer number of asteroids that land on Earth and not a single one has any trace of life. I mean sure it's possible but I suspect life developed here and did not "emigrate" here.

OTOH, the bacteria that Apollo 12(?) brought back from the moon shows that life is able to survive in space. The bacteria was a contaminant that somehow got onto a previous lunar probe before launch from earth. The Apollo mission landed nearby and brought back parts of the probe for study. When the bacteria was first discovered, it was thought to be proof of panspermia and was only later determined to be of earth origin. If not proof of panspermia, it's at least proof of concept.

Personally, I think life on earth may be a result of both panspermia and "home grown" processes.

[Cpt.America]

OTOH, the bacteria that Apollo 12(?) brought back from the moon shows that life is able to survive in space. The bacteria was a contaminant that somehow got onto a previous lunar probe before launch from earth. The Apollo mission landed nearby and brought back parts of the probe for study. When the bacteria was first discovered, it was thought to be proof of panspermia and was only later determined to be of earth origin. If not proof of panspermia, it's at least proof of concept.

Personally, I think life on earth may be a result of both panspermia and "home grown" processes.

Bruh, just toss Creationism in the mix while you're at it then seeing as we're firmly in the realm of speculation now.

[jabeady]

Bruh, just toss Creationism in the mix while you're at it then seeing as we're firmly in the realm of speculation now.

When I see Panspermia being seriously discussed by the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan, I feel safe in regarding it as more than mere speculation. But then, I'm only familiar with their work and not yours.

[Cpt.America]

When I see Panspermia being seriously discussed by the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan, I feel safe in regarding it as more than mere speculation. But then, I'm only familiar with their work and not yours.

Carl Sagan was a bruh.

Neil deGrasse Tysons whatever tho.

Still gonna say, isn't any harm in throwing Creationism in the mix.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

Similarly, evolution settles for close enough because whatever it is we're talking about is good enough for its purpose. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work. It doesn't even have to work well enough to be beneficial, it just has to work well enough to not be dangerous. There are many species whose eyes are, supposedly, worse than the human eye, yet they are good enough for the creatures that have them. There are creatures whose eyes are "better" than the human eye, yet they would be of no benefit to us. The human eye is good enough for what it does, and is no better; there is no evolutionary need for it to be any better than it is. Mind you, Id like to be able to see into the infrared, but I cannot imagine what good it would do me.

I understood the ToE as being an arms race, if the prey had eyes, the predators needed them, If the prey evolved better eyes, the predator also needed an advantage. How would eyes evolve if all species had the same pinhole eyes, and this was good enough?

Short answer: Because if you're not growing, you're dying. Life grows and expands because that's what life does. As it expands into new places, it adapts/evolves to meet the environment of the new places. In a nutshell, that's the entire idea behind evolution.

So all these species that you say have good enough eyes, that would mean they are not growing, therefore they are dying in your words.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[EgyptPrincess]

Neil deGrasse Tysons whatever tho.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a boss. I love the way he conveys science.

I've watched a few videos of Carl Sagan, the pale blue dot is amazing.

[Zafran]

When I see Panspermia being seriously discussed by the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan, I feel safe in regarding it as more than mere speculation. But then, I'm only familiar with their work and not yours.

They are still speculating, Or is this an argument from authority?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

Personally, I think life on earth may be a result of both panspermia and "home grown" processes.

I believe life could not exist without God.

the bacteria that Apollo 12(?) brought back from the moon shows that life is able to survive in space. The bacteria was a contaminant that somehow got onto a previous lunar probe before launch from earth. The Apollo mission landed nearby and brought back parts of the probe for study. When the bacteria was first discovered, it was thought to be proof of panspermia and was only later determined to be of earth origin. If not proof of panspermia, it's at least proof of concept.

This only proves that home grown bacteria can travel through space. There is no reason to link this with the start of life on another planet.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[jabeady]

Carl Sagan was a bruh.

Neil deGrasse Tysons whatever tho.

Still gonna say, isn't any harm in throwing Creationism in the mix.

That's your opinion, to which you are perfectly entitled. I disagree with it, which I am perfectly entitled to do.

[jabeady]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

I understood the ToE as being an arms race, if the prey had eyes, the predators needed them, If the prey evolved better eyes, the predator also needed an advantage. How would eyes evolve if all species had the same pinhole eyes, and this was good enough?

If all the members of a species have the same type of eye, this would still change over time as mutations are introduced.

So all these species that you say have good enough eyes, that would mean they are not growing, therefore they are dying in your words.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

That particular remark was directed at a species, not at an individual component of an individual member of that species. Even so, come to think of it, your interpretation of my words is in general correct. When a child is born, it's eyes have a focal distance of ~six inches. As the child ages, the focal distance improves to whatever will be its best. From that point on, it will deteriorate in various ways. At their best, my eyes were 20/15 at about age 25. From that point on it has been a gradual deterioration to their present 20/50 uncorrected, with the addition of minor cataracts. If enough time goes by and I live so long, they can be expected to fail entirely.

As for an individual person, is stagnation life? At what point do we begin to die, exactly?

I'm bothered by your questions. I have to ask, were they truly intended as "searching for God," or were they an attempt to trip me up in my own words? A rhetorical victory is only rhetorical.

[jabeady]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

I believe life could not exist without God.

As an atheist, I obviously disagree. Even so, I wouldn't mind having you as a next-door neighbor.

This only proves that home grown bacteria can travel through space. There is no reason to link this with the start of life on another planet.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

As I said earlier, if not proof that it actually happened, it was proof of the concept. OTOH, scientists have recovered meteorites from Mars that bear what may have been living bacteria at one point. Not saying that this proves anything either, but t still goes into the mix of things to be considered.

[jabeady]

They are still speculating, Or is this an argument from authority?

It's more than speculation, but less than proof. The idea seems valid, and has some evidence behind it, but it has yet to be demonstrated as more likely than not.

There's nothing wrong with arguing from authority, depending on how it's done. One thing I've learned from around 20 years' worth of online conversations is to not claim knowledge which I do not have, because there's always going to be someone who is more conversant with the arguments than I am. However, I can speak as someone who is more educated in the field than is the average person, and I have learned to trust certain authorities over others. I will give more credence to Tyson and Sagan than I will to Stitchin, for example.

[jabeady]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a boss. I love the way he conveys science.

I've watched a few videos of Carl Sagan, the pale blue dot is amazing.

You might be interested in the two versions of "Cosmos," the original by Sagan and the update by Tyson. They're both 13 hours long, though, so not a minor investment of time.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

As for an individual person, is stagnation life? At what point do we begin to die, exactly?

Possibly from the moment of conception or birth, every minute of our life brings us a minute closer to death. I only bring this up because I believe life is imperfectly created, if life was perfect we would not die. Cancers, viruses etc, are only minor imperfections compared to death. This is only my take on imperfection, I can understand there are many opposing views.

I'm bothered by your questions. I have to ask, were they truly intended as "searching for God," or were they an attempt to trip me up in my own words? A rhetorical victory is only rhetorical.

I am a Catholic, so when I talk with my Muslim brothers and sisters here, I often end with, 'In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of One God'. If there is only the One god, then the same God hears all our prayers, we have a duty to care for all of God's creation, and that has to mean caring for each other, despite our differences.

Even if Evolution happened, my firm belief is that it could not happen without God. The ToE is not a big deal to me one way or the other, however, I have come to understand that some people fiercely defend ToE, in order to prove there is no God. They say it in such a way, that science has never been able to prove the existence of God question, one way or the other. At some later point they then bring up that a magical sky fairy is not needed.

So in these type of threads I often finish with...

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[AabiruSabeel]

Just read this post on Facebook and thought it might be good to share here.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/haqiqatjou/...74350066117041

This is a great example of the shoddy, fallacious reasoning that underpins evolutionary science. This article relates how scientists have wondered why sex would first evolve when asexual cloning is a more efficient, safer, less resource intensive form of reproduction. By all accounts, asexual cloning as far as bacteria and "simple" organisms are concerned appears more adaptive than sex. Yet, sex first evolved in these simple organisms. How is this to be explained?
Consider this passage:

"Around 2 billion years ago in a world ruled by microbes, a bacterial species formed a close symbiotic partnership with another simple cell – an archaeon. The interaction was so tight that bacterial symbionts eventually colonised the insides of archaea and were gradually transformed into mitochondria – the organelles of our cells specialising in energy production. The chimeric cell grew and expanded, using the genetic material of both partners and the newly available mitochondrial energy source to forge a cell of unparalleled complexity, inventing countless eukaryotic features along the way – including sex."

Did you catch that? This is all a story of what may have perhaps happened 2 billion years ago. There were no scientists observing any of this take place 2 billion years ago. There is no fossil record that can provide evidence that any of these molecular processes actually happened. It is all 100% speculation based on what these biologists believe to be the case about organisms today.

In logic, we call this the post hoc fallacy and post hoc analysis. We already know that many organisms today reproduce sexually. Given that fact, you can cook up any number of an infinite variety of explanations for why that is the case. You can then cull that infinite set of explanations according to your assumptions about what must be the case, e.g., certain ideas about cellular biology, genetics, and of course, Darwinian evolution. And then you pick whatever story accommodates your assumptions, but that story tells you more about your presuppositions and your understanding of the world rather than explaining the phenomenon in question or giving you new information about the world.

Post hoc explanations and "just so" stories plague all of evolutionary biology, but people think that science is still being done. They don't realize that science is not supposed to be riddled with logical fallacies. At minimum, a scientific theory must be logically valid if it has any hope of being factually true. Amazingly, logical reasoning is not a degree requirement for science majors. At least not at Harvard or any of the American universities I know.

---


This might also be a good read: http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post2913312

[Serinity]

What people teach of science today is failing in reasoning and logic.

IF I go into a science class and use logic, I can easily refute any 'theory' of evolution that is void of reasoning and logic, by use of reasoning and logic.

I've done it many times. I always linger with the question "HOW did the bacteria know to do THAT and not THIS?" etc. The Bacteria do not have the intelligence to do anything, yet somehow they believe it could mold us? That is stupidity right there.

It is Allah :swt: who created us. I am firm in my belief that this universe could never be created except by the guidance of Allah :swt: and by His :swt: will. This could not have been created except by Allah :swt: .

I see lack of reason from the atheists in disbelieving in God, "not enough proof" you say? Don't you see around you, how complex yet beautiful everything is? Nay, rather you refuse to admit, or are too blind to see.

may Allah :swt: guide us all. Ameen.

[truthseeker63]

Can a Muslim believe in Evolution ?

[Mahir Adnan]

Greetings.



For example we share 98% of the dna that chimpanzees have, is this just a coincidence? 69% of our dna is shared with a rat...! A rat?! This is why we test vaccines and medication etc on rats and mice because they're so similar to us.

see- DNA of Human and chimpanzee

DNA of Human and chimpanzee Atheists claim that chimp and human possess 98% similar DNA. But truth is,there lies a huge difference. Because, calculation of percentage is not accur...

[Alamgir]

Greetings.

There is over 150 years of research into evolution and it has long been proven that evolution is a fact. It's backed by thousands upon thousands of scientific evidences and there is absolutely no doubt that evolution happened over hundreds of millions of years and is still happening. So from my understanding of Islam, there was no evolution. God created humans as is, despite the very fact that we evolved, in fact all life evolved so how can this be? Clearly these two are mutually exclusive, the Quran says one thing, science says another.

For example we share 98% of the dna that chimpanzees have, is this just a coincidence? 69% of our dna is shared with a rat...! A rat?! This is why we test vaccines and medication etc on rats and mice because they're so similar to us.

So my question to Muslims is, do Muslims simply refuse to accept this scientific fact or do they have a different understanding of evolution somehow? Obviously Muslims don't reject science, after all we use it everyday, you're utilising about 20 different areas of science simply reading this message. So my question is, how do you reconcile the fact that evolution is not mentioned in the Quran at all and it goes so far as to say that humans were created "as is" and did not evolve?

And yes I know science cannot yet explain how the first life developed (single cell organisms) but one step at a time.

I'm not trying to start an argument or pull anyone from religion... I just want to know your reasoning for accepting some scientific facts and rejecting others.

Thanks for reading.

We have no problem with evolution, other than saying homo sapiens came from monkeys or that life started randomly.

Yasir Qadhi has some interesting talks on the topic, and the Deen Institute has this whole several hour discussion on the matter (it's on YouTube).

By the way, macroevolution is not fact. It cannot be observed, only microevolution can be observed. Just because fossils look similar doesn't mean a thing, loads of animals have similar looking bones despite being related to each other. Also, fossils have been forced to suit the agenda of evolutionary scientists (search up Piltdown man).

Genetics can just be argued as the creatures being made from very similar materials. It doesn't provide concrete evidence monkeys and humans have a common ancestor.

Different scientists have also made different conclusions based on the same observations. For example, other than Darwinian evolution, you also have James Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engineering, and the theory of evolution (just like everything else in science) can and does change, like how the tree of life became a web of life.

There are also several problems with the theory of evolution, such as Haldane's dilemma (never been solved to this day), the fact some of the evidence doesn't 100% hold up to scrutiny (Chimp 2 genome).

Also, several major scientists such as James Tours have expressed their doubts over evolution, and I'm sure many others also hold this view, but they risk total isolation from the scientific community if they express such doubts.

- - - Updated - - -

We have no problem with evolution, other than saying homo sapiens came from monkeys or that life started randomly.

Yasir Qadhi has some interesting talks on the topic, and the Deen Institute has this whole several hour discussion on the matter (it's on YouTube).

By the way, macroevolution is not fact. It cannot be observed, only microevolution can be observed. Just because fossils look similar doesn't mean a thing, loads of animals have similar looking bones despite being related to each other. Also, fossils have been forced to suit the agenda of evolutionary scientists (search up Piltdown man).

Genetics can just be argued as the creatures being made from very similar materials. It doesn't provide concrete evidence monkeys and humans have a common ancestor.

Different scientists have also made different conclusions based on the same observations. For example, other than Darwinian evolution, you also have James Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engineering, and the theory of evolution (just like everything else in science) can and does change, like how the tree of life became a web of life.

There are also several problems with the theory of evolution, such as Haldane's dilemma (never been solved to this day), the fact some of the evidence doesn't 100% hold up to scrutiny (Chimp 2 genome).

Also, several major scientists such as James Tours have expressed their doubts over evolution, and I'm sure many others also hold this view, but they risk total isolation from the scientific community if they express such doubts.

*despite NOT being related
*fossils have been FORGED

[Good brother]

There are also several problems with the theory of evolution, such as Haldane's dilemma (never been solved to this day), the fact some of the evidence doesn't 100% hold up to scrutiny (Chimp 2 genome).

To solve the problem of different number of chromosomes between apes and humans, Darwinists suggested the ‘chromosome 2 fusion model’. This scenario involves the claim that the fusion of two small chimpanzee-like chromosomes (2A and 2B) formed one chromosome in humans, leading to the difference in diploid chromosome numbers between humans and great apes. While the chromosome 2 fusion model is routinely touted as dogma, very little new genomic data, although readily available for analysis, has been presented as evidence.




Wikipedia mentioned that the model is "widely accepted":

But, What you need to know is:
1- A majority of the data for the fusion model is based on DNA hybridization and chromosomal staining experiments conducted prior to the sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes.

2- Synteny (shared ordering of genes between organisms) of the chromosomes is not a surprise. We already knew there was a vast amount of similarity between humans and primates both in terms of physical characteristics and genetic material and structure. It is a mistake to assume that observing similarities necessarily brings you to the conclusion of common descent. Taxonomy based on physical characteristics was already a very well established science when the idea of common descent came on the scene.

3- The telomere region involves a complex and dynamic framework of DNA motif repeats 5’ to 3’ (TTAGGG)n , structural loops, structural and a wide variety of proteins. and it confer stability and preventing fusion or shortening of the chromosomes. It's in perfect tandem of DNA from about 10 to 15 kb (10,000 to 15,000 bases) and contains 1,667 to 2,500 telomere repeats at each chromosome end.

4- In a head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes, we would expect at least 5,000 bases of (TTAGGG)n repeats in tandem, we would also expect the orientation of the plus-strand repeat to change to the reverse complement (CCCTAA)n, which should also occur in near-perfect tandem for approximately 5,000 or more bases. The area containing the suspected ‘fusion region’ is often called 2qfus or 2chr2fus and occupies the genomic area between 2q13 and 2q14.1.

5- Within the 10 to 30 kb window of DNA sequence surrounding the hypothetical fusion site,a glaring paucity of telomeric repeats exist that appear mostly as independent monomers, not tandem repeats. The TTAGGG repeat to the left of the fusion site, less than 35 motifs exist. For the CCCTAA reverse complement sequence, to the right of the fusion site, less than 150 telomere motifs can be found.

6- The only research group to seriously analyze the actual fusion site DNA sequence data in detail were confounded by the results which showed a lack of evidence for fusion—a genomic condition for this region which they termed ‘degenerate’.(Fan, Y. et al., Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes, Genome Research 12:1651–1662, 2002. )

7- Fairbanks said that 44 out of 158 repeats match (28%) and that the rest of the sequences are ‘close’. The problem is, to obtain even this low match level, the consensus reading frame is entirely ignored and ambiguous matches are contrived by assuming many insertion and deletion mutations of varying sizes.

8- There are genes throughout the alleged fusion region. In an analysis of a 614 kb area encompassing the postulated chromosome fusion site, Fan et al. found evidence of “at least 24 potentially functional genes and 16 pseudogenes”.(Fan, Y. et al., Gene content and function of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in human chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions, Genome Research 12:1663–1672, 2002.). In the 30-kb region directly encompassing the fusion site, which should definitely be devoid of any genes, there exists two actively transcribed genes, each in a flanking position in regard to the fusion site (one on each side). There are also at least two other genes in the immediate vicinity of the fusion site thought to be inactive due to frame shift mutations. However, research related to the human ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project has shown that many genes thought to be inactive (pseudogenes) are actually functional due to a variety of newly discovered regulatory mechanisms.(Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project, Nature 447:799–816, 2007)

9- If the telomere motifs that populate internal areas of chromosomes serve some important, yet unknown function, the chromosome fusion model actually impedes research aimed at determining possible function in these regions.

10- telomeres are designed to prevent fusion. Broken chromosomes at any location immediately invoke the cell’s double-stranded DNA repair machinery where the aberrant fusion of fragments actually triggers cell fault tolerance mechanisms.6 In the case of an aberrant fusion, a senescence response or programmed cell death (apoptosis) cascade is normally triggered, effectively eliminating the damaged cell from the system.

A cell with telomeres that have progressively shortened over time and reached a threshold length will also activate the double-stranded DNA repair machinery; inducing cell senescence and/or death. When in certain types of germline cells, telomerase adds telomere repeats to shortened telomeres, chromosomes are ‘healed’ and can again become stable. The telomeres cap the ends of linear chromosomes and effectively prevent fusion or trigger cell elimination if the telomere is shortened to a certain point, damaged, or aberrantly fused.6 According to the fusion model, this protective process was somehow bypassed in early humans.

11- Telomere sequence is not unique to the telomere. the existence of telomeric repeats in internal sites is not unusual or unexpected. We know that ITS (interstitial telomeric sequences) present in Chromosomes 1,4,5,9,12,16, and 17 (http://www.ncbi.nlm....4?dopt=Abstract)

12- The evidence for a second remnant centromere at any stage of sequence degeneracy is negligible.The supposed evidence includes the finding that “every human and great-ape chromosome centromere contains a highly variable DNA sequence that is repeated over and over, a 171 base-pair sequence called the Alphoid sequence.”3 Fairbanks adds that scientists have “searched for Alphoid sequences in human chromosomes and found them at every centromere, as expected. They also found Alphoid sequences at the site in human chromosome 2 where the remnants of this second centromere should be. These remnants are evidence of a now-defunct centromere.” problem is that, although research has been done on some primates, no systematic study of centromeres exists to determine how common alphoid DNA is in mammals.(Baldini, A. et al., An alphoid DNA sequence conserved in all human and great ape chromosomes: evidence for ancient centromeric sequences at human chromosomal regions 2q21 and 9q13, Human Genetics 90:577–583, 1993) Baldini et al. found that the “highest sequence similarity between human and great ape alphoid sequences is 91%, much lower than the expected similarity for selectively neutral sequences.”

13- Alpha-satellite DNA or alphoid DNA, although found in centromeric areas, is not unique to centromeres and is also highly variable. Because highly variable alphoid DNA is also commonly found in non-centromeric regions of human chromosomes, their presence does not indicate the remnants of a degenerate centromere. Based on the reasoning of Fairbanks and others promoting the human chromosome 2 fusion model, one could conclude that human chromosomes contain literally hundreds of degenerate centromeres.

14- The site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.( source )

http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot....ion-model.html

[Alamgir]

To solve the problem of different number of chromosomes between apes and humans, Darwinists suggested the ‘chromosome 2 fusion model’. This scenario involves the claim that the fusion of two small chimpanzee-like chromosomes (2A and 2B) formed one chromosome in humans, leading to the difference in diploid chromosome numbers between humans and great apes. While the chromosome 2 fusion model is routinely touted as dogma, very little new genomic data, although readily available for analysis, has been presented as evidence.




Wikipedia mentioned that the model is "widely accepted":

But, What you need to know is:
1- A majority of the data for the fusion model is based on DNA hybridization and chromosomal staining experiments conducted prior to the sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes.

2- Synteny (shared ordering of genes between organisms) of the chromosomes is not a surprise. We already knew there was a vast amount of similarity between humans and primates both in terms of physical characteristics and genetic material and structure. It is a mistake to assume that observing similarities necessarily brings you to the conclusion of common descent. Taxonomy based on physical characteristics was already a very well established science when the idea of common descent came on the scene.

3- The telomere region involves a complex and dynamic framework of DNA motif repeats 5’ to 3’ (TTAGGG)n , structural loops, structural and a wide variety of proteins. and it confer stability and preventing fusion or shortening of the chromosomes. It's in perfect tandem of DNA from about 10 to 15 kb (10,000 to 15,000 bases) and contains1,667 to 2,500 telomere repeats at each chromosome end.

4- In a head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes, we would expect at least 5,000 bases of (TTAGGG)n repeats in tandem, we would also expect the orientation of the plus-strand repeat to change to the reverse complement (CCCTAA)n, which should also occur in near-perfect tandem for approximately 5,000 or more bases. The area containing the suspected ‘fusion region’ is often called 2qfus or 2chr2fus and occupies the genomic area between 2q13 and 2q14.1.

5- Within the 10 to 30 kb window of DNA sequence surrounding the hypothetical fusion site,a glaring paucity of telomeric repeats exist that appear mostly as independent monomers, not tandem repeats. The TTAGGG repeat to the left of the fusion site, less than 35 motifs exist. For the CCCTAA reverse complement sequence, to the right of the fusion site, less than 150 telomere motifs can be found.

6- The only research group to seriously analyze the actual fusion site DNA sequence data in detail were confounded by the results which showed a lack of evidence for fusion—a genomic condition for this region which they termed ‘degenerate’.(Fan, Y. et al., Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes, Genome Research 12:1651–1662, 2002. )

7- Fairbanks said that 44 out of 158 repeats match (28%) and that the rest of the sequences are ‘close’. The problem is, to obtain even this low match level, the consensus reading frame is entirely ignored and ambiguous matches are contrived by assuming many insertion and deletion mutations of varying sizes.

8- There are genes throughout the alleged fusion region. In an analysis of a 614 kb area encompassing the postulated chromosome fusion site, Fan et al. found evidence of “at least 24 potentially functional genes and 16 pseudogenes”.(Fan, Y. et al., Gene content and function of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in human chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions, Genome Research 12:1663–1672, 2002.). In the 30-kb region directly encompassing the fusion site, which should definitely be devoid of any genes, there exists two actively transcribed genes, each in a flanking position in regard to the fusion site (one on each side). There are also at least two other genes in the immediate vicinity of the fusion site thought to be inactive due to frame shift mutations. However, research related to the human ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project has shown that many genes thought to be inactive (pseudogenes) are actually functional due to a variety of newly discovered regulatory mechanisms.(Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project, Nature 447:799–816, 2007)

9- If the telomere motifs that populate internal areas of chromosomes serve some important, yet unknown function, the chromosome fusion model actually impedes research aimed at determining possible function in these regions.

10- telomeres are designed to prevent fusion. Broken chromosomes at any location immediately invoke the cell’s double-stranded DNA repair machinery where the aberrant fusion of fragments actually triggers cell fault tolerance mechanisms.6 In the case of an aberrant fusion, a senescence response or programmed cell death (apoptosis) cascade is normally triggered, effectively eliminating the damaged cell from the system.

A cell with telomeres that have progressively shortened over time and reached a threshold length will also activate the double-stranded DNA repair machinery; inducing cell senescence and/or death. When in certain types of germline cells, telomerase adds telomere repeats to shortened telomeres, chromosomes are ‘healed’ and can again become stable. The telomeres cap the ends of linear chromosomes and effectively prevent fusion or trigger cell elimination if the telomere is shortened to a certain point, damaged, or aberrantly fused.6 According to the fusion model, this protective process was somehow bypassed in early humans.

11- Telomere sequence is not unique to the telomere. the existence of telomeric repeats in internal sites is not unusual or unexpected. We know that ITS (interstitial telomeric sequences) present in Chromosomes 1,4,5,9,12,16, and 17 (http://www.ncbi.nlm....4?dopt=Abstract)

12- The evidence for a second remnant centromere at any stage of sequence degeneracy is negligible.The supposed evidence includes the finding that “every human and great-ape chromosome centromere contains a highly variable DNA sequence that is repeated over and over, a 171 base-pair sequence called the Alphoid sequence.”3 Fairbanks adds that scientists have “searched for Alphoid sequences in human chromosomes and found them at every centromere, as expected. They also found Alphoid sequences at the site in human chromosome 2 where the remnants of this second centromere should be. These remnants are evidence of a now-defunct centromere.” problem is that, although research has been done on some primates, no systematic study of centromeres exists to determine how common alphoid DNA is in mammals.(Baldini, A. et al., An alphoid DNA sequence conserved in all human and great ape chromosomes: evidence for ancient centromeric sequences at human chromosomal regions 2q21 and 9q13, Human Genetics 90:577–583, 1993) Baldini et al. found that the “highest sequence similarity between human and great ape alphoid sequences is 91%, much lower than the expected similarity for selectively neutral sequences.”

13- Alpha-satellite DNA or alphoid DNA, although found in centromeric areas, is not unique to centromeres and is also highly variable. Because highly variable alphoid DNA is also commonly found in non-centromeric regions of human chromosomes, their presence does not indicate the remnants of a degenerate centromere. Based on the reasoning of Fairbanks and others promoting the human chromosome 2 fusion model, one could conclude that human chromosomes contain literally hundreds of degenerate centromeres.

14- The site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.( source )

http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot....ion-model.html

Asalamu Alaikum

Scientists themselves have discussed the problems with the Chimp 2 genome being used as evidence. It's nowhere near as concrete as keyboard warrior atheists will have you believe.

[Good brother]

Asalamu Alaikum

Scientists themselves have discussed the problems with the Chimp 2 genome being used as evidence. It's nowhere near as concrete as keyboard warrior atheists will have you believe.

Darwinist Scientists themselves, unlike brainwashed atheists, don't have solid faith in the current theory. Take this one as an example:

Gerd B. Müller^1,2
1Department of Theoretical Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
²Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research, Klosterneuburg, Austria

"A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution [2–14], indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike."

"Indeed, a growing number of challenges to the classical model of evolution have emerged over the past few years, such as from evolutionary developmental biology [16], epigenetics [17], physiology [18], genomics [19], ecology [20], plasticity research [21], population genetics [22], regulatory evolution [23], network approaches [14], novelty research [24], behavioural biology [12], microbiology [7] and systems biology [25], further supported by arguments from the cultural [26] and social sciences [27], as well as by philosophical treatments [28–31]. None of these contentions are unscientific, all rest firmly on evolutionary principles and all are backed by substantial empirical evidence."


"Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous [32], but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory, which they see as having ‘co-evolved’ together with the methodological and empirical advances that already receive their due in current evolutionary biology [33]. But the repeatedly emphasized fact that innovative evolutionary mechanisms have been mentioned in certain earlier or more recent writings does not mean that the formal structure of evolutionary theory has been adjusted to them."

"A subtler version of the this-has-been-said-before argument used to deflect any challenges to the received view is to pull the issue into the never ending micro-versus-macroevolution debate. Whereas ‘microevolution’ is regarded as the continuous change of allele frequencies within a species or population [109], the ill-defined macroevolution concept [36], amalgamates the issue of speciation and the origin of ‘higher taxa’ with so-called ‘major phenotypic change’ or new constructional types. Usually, a cursory acknowledgement of the problem of the origin of phenotypic characters quickly becomes a discussion of population genetic arguments about speciation, often linked to the maligned punctuated equilibria concept [9], in order to finally dismiss any necessity for theory change. The problem of phenotypic complexity thus becomes (in)elegantly bypassed. Inevitably, the conclusion is reached that microevolutionary mechanisms are consistent with macroevolutionary phenomena [36], even though this has very little to do with the structure and predictions of the EES. The real issue is that genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity, not only of something vaguely termed ‘macroevolution’. Hence, the micro–macro distinction only serves to obscure the important issues that emerge from the current challenges to the standard theory."


"As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/

[Mahir Adnan]

@Good brother , I request you to post these valuable replies of yours in my thread.it would be easier for others to find all information in one place together. jajhakallah khair

[Good brother]

@Good brother , I request you to post these valuable replies of yours in my thread.it would be easier for others to find all information in one place together. jajhakallah khair

Brother, copy whatever you want whenever you find it helpful. No problem at all.

[Alamgir]

http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot....ion-model.html

Evolution: Fact or Myth ?!: chromosome 2 fusion model ...

[rafhelp]

if you look at a car sy a mercedes and you have the latest model. you say wow this is the best car.

But before this version there were many older models made by mercedes, which may share many features to the new one. you will say look this new model is very similar to the old version but its not the same.

In same manner maybe God made many creations before he made man. Maybe he maybe chimpanze before man. he then borrowed things from chimpanze when making men.

Evolution might have some truth in it but that could be due to God. We dont know what God made and when etc... Allah knows best.

Evolution proof does NOT go against islam in some cases it may support it.

For example look at ALL other species on Earth..... They all live more or less in harmony with the Earth. They have all they need. They dont transgress beyond their defined roles. Because the Earth is their natural habitat, they know its their home.

But with Humans we dont follow these rules, we always trying to change the environment and ourselves, we want to explore space and beyond, we dont exactly live in harmony with nature. The reason is because we dont belong on Earth, its isnt really our home and we were not originally designed to be on Earth. Why because the original home of man was heaven. Some would say we are the aliens of planet earth...

[Good brother]

Educate Darwinists about their own conjecture !

Did Neo-darwinists evolve from monkeys ?

By: Holly Dunsworth
(Associate professor of anthropology at the University of Rhode Island, where she teaches courses on human origins, evolution, and variation.)

Everyone’s likely heard it or seen it written on a protest sign: “I didn’t evolve from a monkey.” It’s a well-worn refrain of those who resist the evolutionary perspective. The pat response we often hear is, “You’re right! We didn’t evolve from monkeys. We share ancestors with them.” However, this talking point isn’t entirely honest.

Yes, we share ancestors with monkeys; we share ancestors with every living thing. But, also, to be clear: We did evolve from monkeys.

Around 20 million years ago, many of those lineages of fossil monkeys kept evolving as “monkeys,” but the lineage that led to us shifted to a different branch on the evolutionary tree, which we have decided to call “apes.” Those fossil apes led to present-day ones including gorillas, chimpanzees, and us. Evolution is occurring constantly, generation upon generation, creating a spectrum of inherited variation over time. To investigate and understand that variation, we often divvy up the continuum into families, or branches on the tree of life. Because they are human inventions, the boundaries around the definitions of “monkey” and “ape” warrant scientific discussion. The necessary but ultimately arbitrary practice of taxonomy is why biological classification is so often debated. Take, for instance, arguments over whether new fossil finds are newly discovered species or variations on known ones, or the row over whether we should call ourselves “apes.”

Along with the other apes (which include chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans), we evolved from ancient apes. Like modern-day apes and monkeys, we evolved from ancient monkeys. And like all vertebrates with four-limbs, known as tetrapods, we evolved from the same ancient fishes.

The more living relatives we include in a family, the farther back we must go to find that family’s common fossil ancestors. Those ancestors often have more traits in common with some living family members than others. The earliest primates, dating back to over 65 million years ago, resemble lemurs more than they resemble chimpanzees. But, of course, they’re neither. The earliest tetrapods resemble fishes more than they resemble salamanders, but they’re neither. So let’s stop pretending that our ancestors weren’t monkeys, fishes, and slimy single-celled critters. Tip-toeing around common ancestry with monkeys isn’t helpful. To one degree or another, existential questions about life’s ultimate origins run deeper than any raised by evolution.

And, of course, questions that are raised by evolution tend to lead to more questions. Scientific inquiry is a process, and one that is ongoing and incomplete. By definition, science involves uncertainties—questions without known answers. And so perhaps scientists, more than others, are comfortable with the undiscovered. Like when it comes to impenetrable questions about the origins of the universe, some of us can chalk it up to “turtles all the way down” (an infinite tower of stacked-up turtles), chuckle to ourselves, and be done with it. Others cannot, but it’s not because there’s anything wrong with them. The same is true when it comes to feelings about evolutionary thinking and those monkeys we have for uncles. Many people who struggle with these concepts are deeply thoughtful, and being dismissive of them is unhelpful at best. (https://www.sapiens.org/column/origins/monkeys-all-the-way-down/)