PDA

View Full Version : evolution refuted simply



Khattab
04-13-2005, 10:48 PM
Over the past couple of weeks, I have watched programmes from animal programmes to just day to day programmes where the theory of evolution is seen as fact. Switched on the tv and the usual ranting on about our "ancestors" etc.

My question why do you think something which is very doubtful and to this day remains a theory is pushed so heavily on us?

Danish
04-14-2005, 10:20 AM
:sl:
all thanks to the media i s'pose

Link
05-28-2005, 02:09 AM
:sl:

talking abt DNA, mutations, irreducible complexity of life does not work on most ppl cause they got no idea what the hell u talkin abt, they're so caught up by the propaganda of evolution they think its the scientific intellectual fact and that your just a pathetic thiest trying to argue with the big boys, no matter what science and logic u throw at them its going from one ear out the other trust me :dry:

anways, heres a very simple and absolute refutation that any old layman could understand

evolution is called a theory not a fact right? its not an undoubtable theory its controversial, this very fact actually shows its totally false-why--cause we got fossil evidence, and conclusions should be absolute

i'll eloborate on this very simply, take dinosaur evolution to bird proposal, there should be tons of inbetween steps, think about it for a bit and u'll realise that there should be many many more inbetween steps than the 1st step like alot alot more since there are sooo many steps , but where are the inbetween steps in the fossil evidence, there is none, u find tons of dinos, why don't u find the inbetween steps in museums but u find the 1st steps, very simple, they didn't exist, so they made a stupider theory called spontaneous evolution in which they teach in Uni, which means it goes from one step to another right away, alll of a sudden out of pure chance :blush: why don't they teach that in high school, probably cause the teacher would be made fun of everyday for teaching the 'new adapted theory' :D

anyone with any sort of logic can see the absolute flaw in second theory

I actually convinced 3 ppl with this, plus my teacher :D

Danish
05-28-2005, 10:32 AM
:sl:
:j: yeh, thats the logic i use too

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-28-2005, 03:18 PM
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

:w:

imaad_udeen
05-31-2005, 04:35 PM
Concerning the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, there is some evidence:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/?/news/1999/10/15/flyingdino991015

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/8152/age.html

Not saying which is correct, just that there is some evidence to back the claim.

When you are dealing with issues which go back hundreds of millions of years then it is going to be hard to find a lot of evidence. Hence, everything is a "theory."

:)

anis_z24
07-24-2005, 04:34 AM
Salam
True it is a theory. But It is more than that. This theory of the Darwin has become the curiculum of the of the way life should go according to the new world order.
This is extremly dangerous as it is used to control people.
And the theory of Darwin has proved that it only adds misory to the world(ex. hitler), but they are still teaching this to us in schools.

Bittersteel
07-28-2005, 06:40 PM
Concerning the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, there is some evidence:

obviously there is but this does not conflict with Islam.

I still find it hard to believe how can an ugly ape named Lucy could have turned into a beautiful woman.

root
07-30-2005, 11:52 AM
evolution is called a theory not a fact right? its not an undoubtable theory its controversial, this very fact actually shows its totally false-why--cause we got fossil evidence, and conclusions should be absolute

Gravity - The theory of relativity.

Are you trying to suggest Gravity does not exist because it is not a fact!!!!!!

You are placing a "theory" in the context as an "Hypothosis". You should understand what a "Theory" actually is before you spout nonsense.


i'll eloborate on this very simply, take dinosaur evolution to bird proposal, there should be tons of inbetween steps, think about it for a bit and u'll realise that there should be many many more inbetween steps than the 1st step like alot alot more since there are sooo many steps , but where are the inbetween steps in the fossil evidence, there is none, u find tons of dinos, why don't u find the inbetween steps in museums but u find the 1st steps, very simple, they didn't exist, so they made a stupider theory called spontaneous evolution in which they teach in Uni, which means it goes from one step to another right away, alll of a sudden out of pure chance :blush: why don't they teach that in high school, probably cause the teacher would be made fun of everyday for teaching the 'new adapted theory'

You show a remarkable lack of evolutionary understanding. And what you have stated is simply utter rubbish,

spontaneous evolution

Natural evolution is the uncontrived growth of a society. It can be seen in the movement from a single family to the expansion of that family into a tribe, or the tribe created by the intermarriage of families or combination of tribes. The migratory nature of some tribes is evidence of their using up the resources of one place and then moving on to another. Since people by nature are not settled, all of this movement and adjusting can be called natural evolution

In short, your not even talking the main guts of evolution which is "Common Ancestory"

In short consider:

I find it hard to imagine a way in which a thousand-ton piece of metal could fly through the air. Therefore, airplanes will never work

Also, if you care to read about lack of intermediate fossils which again only highlights your ignorance on the subject matter

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#phylogenetics


In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (a dromaeosaur from China now named Cryptovolans pauli; Czerkas et al. 2002 ) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al. 1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"), Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.


anyone with any sort of logic can see the absolute flaw in second theory

lol.......


I actually convinced 3 ppl with this, plus my teacher

Obviously, as ignorant to the subject as you I would say.

czgibson
07-31-2005, 11:56 PM
Well done root for clearing up some of the most common misconceptions about evolution! :applaud:

Remember: evolution is a theory. Until someone comes up with a better theory, or completely disproves it, it will remain a part of science.

Muezzin
08-02-2005, 11:14 AM
Can I propose a scientific theory that man did not evolve from apes but instead Cornettos?

https://www.islamicboard.com/images/imported/2005/08/cornetto1-1.jpg

That's Chris Evans' ancestor, that is.

Abdul Fattah
08-06-2005, 11:30 PM
Gravity - The theory of relativity.
Are you trying to suggest Gravity does not exist because it is not a fact!!!!!!
You are placing a "theory" in the context as an "Hypothosis". You should understand what a "Theory" actually is before you spout nonsense.

I'd say that's a bad comparison. There's a diffrence between theory of gravity and theory of evolution.

First of all the theory of gravity can be tested upon and even used to make accurate calculations showing us it's correctness and thus elevating the "theory" into "certain" or at least a higher degrea of certainty. The common descent of all creatures out of one being and the spontanious evolvement of that first being out of lifeless matter is however NOT testable, and also not proven. It's a probability. That's why we should take the word theory with a grain off salt as opposed to the theory of gravity.

Second of all the theory of gravity makes part of a bigger scienific p.o.v. to claim it as wrong would bring down a whole other branch of scientific theory's because it's so deeply embedded into science. Even to that degrea that we must ignore and deny the most obvious things in this world. The trinity of evolution however (abiogenesis+ common descent + evolution of species) CAN be simply denied without any major reprocussions in our scientific vieuws.


You show a remarkable lack of evolutionary understanding. And what you have stated is simply utter rubbish,

You show a remarkable lack of respect to other people's opinions. And you can call it rubbish as much as you want, but without any arguments that's just another bloke's opinion.


Obviously, as ignorant to the subject as you I would say.

Thats a very narrow minded way of reasoning Root:

1. I'm certain of my opinion in my absolete knowledge.
2. When someone claims differently they must obviously claim wrong.
3. They must therefor be stubid.
4. See, stuppid people don't believe that theory.
5. Ain't I the smartest
;D

- Qatada -
08-06-2005, 11:38 PM
I'd say that's a bad comparison. There's a diffrence between theory of gravity and theory of evolution.

First of all the theory of gravity can be tested upon and even used to make accurate calculations showing us it's correctness and thus elevating the "theory" into "certain" or at least a higher degrea of certainty. The common descent of all creatures out of one being and the spontanious evolvement of that first being out of lifeless matter is however NOT testable, and also not proven. It's a probability. That's why we should take the word theory with a grain off salt as opposed to the theory of gravity.

Second of all the theory of gravity makes part of a bigger scienific p.o.v. to claim it as wrong would bring down a whole other branch of scientific theory's because it's so deeply embedded into science. Even to that degrea that we must ignore and deny the most obvious things in this world. The trinity of evolution however (abiogenesis+ common descent + evolution of species) CAN be simply denied without any major reprocussions in our scientific vieuws.



You show a remarkable lack of respect to other people's opinions. And you can call it rubbish as much as you want, but without any arguments that's just another bloke's opinion.



Thats a very narrow minded way of reasoning Root:

1. I'm certain of my opinion in my absolete knowledge.
2. When someone claims differently they must obviously claim wrong.
3. They must therefor be stubid.
4. See, stuppid people don't believe that theory.
5. Ain't I the smartest
;D


Asalam o alikum warahmatulahi wabarakatuh.

2ryt! i agree with ma bro. mash Allah!! end of the day we know we muslims and its a matter of faith in Allah (swt) that will help us in this life and the afterlife. and insh Allah we have somethin to look forward to if we work hard for it. n no atheist or non muslim will be able to distract us from the straight path insh Allah no matter how much theories or anything against Islam that they come up with.

walaikum asalam warahmatulahi wabarakatuh.

root
08-07-2005, 02:31 PM
First of all the theory of gravity can be tested upon and even used to make accurate calculations showing us it's correctness and thus elevating the "theory" into "certain" or at least a higher degrea of certainty. The common descent of all creatures out of one being and the spontanious evolvement of that first being out of lifeless matter is however NOT testable, and also not proven. It's a probability. That's why we should take the word theory with a grain off salt as opposed to the theory of gravity.

You show a remarkable lack of understanding of a scientific theory, that is all I can say.........


First of all the theory of gravity can be tested upon and even used to make accurate calculations showing us it's correctness and thus elevating the "theory" into "certain" or at least a higher degrea of certainty

The only "certain" is that you can't accept scientific theory when it smacks in the face of your own ideals.

Abdul Fattah
08-07-2005, 03:00 PM
You show a remarkable lack of understanding of a scientific theory, that is all I can say.........


It's quite sad I would say, that that is all you can say in response.....

It's easy to accuse someone of having a lack of understanding without pointing out why. But in fact it tends to give the impression that the one making the accusation is in fact the one with the lack, the lack of furter arguments that is.



The only "certain" is that you can't accept scientific theory when it smacks in the face of your own ideals.

I've reverted from atheism to islam, so I have already proven that I have the ability to accept something that differed from my original thoughts.

The only certainty is that you have failed over and over again in diffrent topics to prove us just why evolution should be taken over creation. In the end of the day, it's just one possibility over another, both UNproven.

Mainul_Islam
08-07-2005, 05:33 PM
http://www.harunyahya.com/download/download.php?id=16214

scared one
08-07-2005, 06:21 PM
it makes people forget about allah and their religous beliefs if you ask me. allah created us, and if this evolution theory is true as scientists say it is, they need to do more reseach, it makes people turn into athiests. compare religion to the theory of evolution, cant believe they still teach it in school, you can teach about sex or a humans body no matter how digusting the lesson is, once you talk about creation in science or started a theory about it and it being without a creator, you have just crossed the line. it conflicts with peoples religous beliefs, nobody wants to hear this, example buddhists dont believe in a diety or creator so it would mess them up, and others expect atheists.

root
08-08-2005, 08:40 AM
It's quite sad I would say, that that is all you can say in response.....

I am sorry you feel this way. However, it ended for me when you took 2 theories and claimed one had a more "certainty" and the other being less.

What can I say depite all we have spoken about. If this is your position then it is no stronger that ID is true because the Koran tells you so. To this end, I am happy for you.

Regards

Root

Abdul Fattah
08-09-2005, 12:41 AM
I am sorry you feel this way. However, it ended for me when you took 2 theories and claimed one had a more "certainty" and the other being less.

What can I say depite all we have spoken about. If this is your position then it is no stronger that ID is true because the Koran tells you so. To this end, I am happy for you.

Regards

Root

I don't recall what post you'r reffering to, But it seems unlikely that I said one is more certain. I think what you mean is that I said one seems more probable to me. If that makes u want to end the discussion, that is your good choice, but that statement howevers doesn't rectify you saying:


You show a remarkable lack of understanding of a scientific theory, that is all I can say

See we have a diffrence of opinion corrcet, but in the conversation none of us were able to present any proof of any opinion being uncorrect, so saying I have a lack of understanding is just saying you don't wanna agree to disagree, you can't face the fact that a diffrent opinion might be truth even when you find no proof of why it's wrong. Now that's what I find SAD.

root
08-09-2005, 06:18 PM
Steve - I don't recall what post you'r reffering to, But it seems unlikely that I said one is more certain. I think what you mean is that I said one seems more probable to me.

OK, to clear any confusion. here is your statement again where you compared the theory of Gravity to have more weight than the theory of common descent.



First of all the theory of gravity can be tested upon and even used to make accurate calculations showing us it's correctness and thus elevating the "theory" into "certain" or at least a higher degrea of certainty. The common descent of all creatures out of one being and the spontanious evolvement of that first being out of lifeless matter is however NOT testable, and also not proven. It's a probability.

OK, so you only see common ancestory as "probability". This very much annoys me because it is much more than that. I would agree that a multiverse for example has a probability of being correct but to compare common ancestory as nothing more than a probability is taking the issue of the matter and simply belitteling of our current understanding.

Please find below Chromozone Banding Patterns for Humans (H) Chimps (C) Gorilla (G) and Orang Utang (O)

http://mail.lionrampant.co.uk/users/root/Pictures/hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

you can see there that the banding patterns are all pretty much the same. one major difference of course if that the other apes have 2 chromosomes there, whereas humans only have 1. However when we examine the human chromosome in more detail (which you can't from those diagrams) you find that in the centre of the human chromosome we have telomere like structures, which normally exist only at the ends of chromosomes. telomeres are a bit like the cellular lifetime counter, and a bit is lost on each cellular reproduction (with the exception of sex cells and cancer, which repair their telomeres) so if a telomere is '=' and a centromere is '8' (that is the bit of the chromosome containing the genes and so on) then the chimp, gorilla and orang utan 2p and q would look like ===888=== and ===888=== but the human 2 looks like ===888====888=== and you can still see this now in humans.

Telomeres are highly conserved sequences, which are primarily the same between all organisms in a group, for example all vertebrates have TTAGGG repeating over and over. In primates, between 300-5000 times. Ajacent to these regions are other regions of repeats called pre-telometric regions, which are highly variable, and vary significantly even within a species, but can be recognised between members of a species and closely related species.

In Humans, further evidence for a chromosome fusion, the order of these sequences (in the middle of the chromosome between the two centromere sections)

pretelomeric sequence, a telomeric sequence, an inverted telomeric sequence and an inverted pretelomeric sequence. so even these features are conserved.

note that only the 2p centromere functions now. the centromere of 2q, while remaining very clear that it was a functioning centromere, is no longer the point where the two chromatids join dusing cellular reproduction. This sort of analysis is not limited to chromosome 2, but can be applied to the entire karyotype: Here are the sequences for Human & Chimps only.

http://mail.lionrampant.co.uk/users/root/Pictures/YunisFig2.GIF

Retroviruses are a class of viruses that have their genetic material in the form of RNA and consist of groups such as the oncoviruses (e.g. HTLV-1) and lentiviruses (e.g. HIV). Normally DNA is transcribed into RNA before being read in order to produce proteins, however retroviruses use Reverse Transcriptase in order to take their own RNA and integrate it into the organisms own DNA. Like all genetic processes however, there is a risk of inaccuracy, and sometimes a retrovirus may become crippled by a mutation during reverse transcription, and hence may not be able to reproduce itself as a normal virus would.

Endogenous retroviruses may embed themselves into any cell in the body, and this includes the sex cells (gametes) as well as the normal body (or somatic) cells. If an ERV occurs in a sex cell that goes on to fertilise an egg (or be fertilised by a sperm) then the ERV will be present in every single cell of the new organism, including it's sex cells (well since it will be in one chromosome, initially it will only be in 50% of the sex cells).

Now one of the most important theories within evolution is that of random genetic drift, and this is an element of evolution that was only understood after the discovery of DNA. Genetic drift is a stochastic (statistical definition) process in which a particular allele (version of a gene), or bit of the DNA, will randomly increase and decrease in presence in the population, provided there is no selection pressure on that particlar allele or section of the DNA, and eventually it may become fixed within the population i.e. when it is present in all members of the population. This may happen to an ERV which became embedded within one particular individual; via random genetic drift it may become embedded in the whole breeding population. This occurs more rapidly in smaller breeding groups than large breeding groups.

The next step is the consideration of ancestry. If we have a group A, all of whose members have a particular ERV, we will call this ERV 'E1', and this group splits into 2 new groups, B and C, perhaps by a river forming in the middle of the group across which none of the organisms can cross, now both groups B and C will still have this ERV in all members. Now let us say that a new ERV is introduced into a member of group B and becomes fixed in group B. all members of group B will have this new ERV, which we will call 'E2'. now when we look at populations B and C, we see that B has both E1 and E2, and C has only E1. this means that E2 was introduced to the population B after B and C became separated. If B furter splits into Bi and Bii and Bii has a new ERV 'E3' fixed within its poulation, we find that Bi has E1 and E2, Bii has E1 E2 and E3 and population C still only has E1, so we can build up a tree of what order these different groups broke apart. An important point to note, is that we should never find a retrovirus shared between, for example, Bii and C alone, since the common ancestral group between Bii and C is the same common ancestral group with Bi: if an ERV becomes fixed in A, then all of its ancestors should have the ERV.

By examining ERVs, we can look at ancestral links between these populations. if we look at the presence of retroviruses within a population we can find when a particular group broke away from a different group due to the presence of the retroviruses within the group.

here is a chart of ERV distributions in the primates, and the phylogenetic tree constructed from it

http://mail.lionrampant.co.uk/users/root/Pictures/retrovirus.gif

the above diagram is from the following paper:

Lebedev, Y. B., Belonovitch, O. S., Zybrova, N. V, Khil, P. P., Kurdyukov, S. G., Vinogradova, T. V., Hunsmann, G., and Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes." Gene 247: 265-277.

A common creationist objection to the ERV concept is that of multiple insertions i.e. the idea that a virus might insert itself into the same place in different organisms and it becomes embedded in both organisms i.e. a human might be infected with E1, and this ERV becomes embedded in the human population, and a chimp might become infected with E1 and this also becomes embedded, however there are multiple problems with this hypothesis. (Remember the "Theory" of Evolutionary common descent uses "Evidence" such as whis post. The Hypothosis of the ID attitude still remains an "Hypothosis" for common ancestory does not exist within the bounds of Creationism

First and foremost, Of a genome that is 6 billion bases long, what are the odds that a ERV will be inserted into the same place? 1 in a 6 billion, right? Now, if there are 2 such ERVs, the odds are 1 in 6 billion times 1 in 6 billion for both being inserted into the same places by chance. If there are 3, you must multiply by another 1 in 6 billion. Now, since you have 12 such insertions in humans compared to the common ancestor, you have just passed the creationist number for it having occured by chance! By creationism's own criterion, their argument is invalid. The only creationist rebuttal to this is that there are hot spots, where the odds of a virus being inserted are slightly higher than other places, but there are still a great number of hotspots throughout the genomes, and given the above points, there is no reason why multiple infections would result in the same ERVs being inserted in the same locations with the same crippling errors and showing the same pattern of change with time. Again if there are multiple hotspots and multiple infections, there is no reason that there should not be ERVs that do not match the phylogenetic tree. again we see no deviances from expected inheritance patterns.

Secondly, there is no good reason as to why this would form the phylogenetic tree that it does. Even if there was a virus that was simultaneously capable of infecting every kind of primate from new world monkeys through to humans, there is no reason to think that this virus would actually infect every available primate and become fixed in every single population. we might well expect several to be missed i.e. we might see spider monkeys, bonobos, chimps and humans infected, but not gorillas or Orang Utan. we do not find these spurious distributions of ERVs.

Thirdly, we just do not find these sorts of retroviruses that have such a wide species affinity. and again, even if we did, there is no reason that the retroviruses would form the phylogenies that they do.

Fourthly, the retroviruses are crippled, but still identifiable as retroviruses. the retroviruses that we see in different species are crippled in the same way. If the retroviruses are the result of multiple infections, then there is no reason to expect the retroviruses to be crippled in the same way in different species.

Finally, additional alterations have been made to the ERV sequences over time. Since the ERVs themselves are not selected for or against, they themselves may be altered due to the same kind of genetic drift that caused them to be embedded within the population. we see inheritance of these changes too, that also match the phylogenetic tree of the presence of different ERVs.

Other Phylogenetic trees can be constructed in similar fashions by looking at ALU sequences (long sequences of repeating DNA) and transposons (kind of like internal viruses that only ever exist within the nucleus and copy themselves around the DNA) Finally I must quickly discuss Transposons;

I will be brief with transposons since most of what needs to be said has already been said in the ERV section. Transposons are a form of internuclear parasite; they are sections of the genome that can copy and paste themselves around the rest of the genome. Again these transposons may become fixed within the population, and form the same sorts of phylogenetic profiles as ERVs. transposons are however completely independent from ERVs and function with a different mechanism (i.e. they do not use reverse transcriptase, they do not have viral coat proteins and they cannot cross cellular boundaries). The only possible mechanism of infection of another organism is via germ line cells - you may infect your children in other words, but nobody else. In this case there is absolutely no possibility for multiple insertions. The same phylogenetic trees can be constructed from independent analysis of transposons. It is these transposons which are responsible for much of the intergenic DNA and are also used in DNA fingerprinting, since cutting of certain chunks of DNA results in the same patterns for a given individual.

So here in is a big part of common ancestoral evolution, or should I say the theory of, since the theory uses "Known Facts" to add weight.

The challenge for any ID is to explain how ID fits in with what we have established as factual evidence, this said & since the thread states "evolution refuted simply" does one care to refute the evidence posted here "simply"...........

Personal thanks to Radical Edward for most of my source material.

Muezzin
08-09-2005, 06:21 PM
Good gibbons in a flat banana, these posts are long!

Abdul Fattah
08-10-2005, 11:25 PM
OK, to clear any confusion. here is your statement again where you compared the theory of Gravity to have more weight than the theory of common descent.

Ah I thought you ment creationism over abiogenesis. My mistake.
As for this statement, yes I still stand by it, the theory of common descent is not testable as the theory of gravity is. I’m sure the arguments you just posted are suficient to convince you, but not me. And if this is what you base your statement of “lack of knowledge” on, I'll have to disapoint you, you did not tell me anything I did not know already. So the reason that I don’t see common descent as a certainty has lil' to do with these “proofs” but rather with my point of vieuw on them. Allow me to ellaborate.

First of all lets concider the pictures of the cromosones.
We already discussed in other threads that to proove evolution one needs not to look at the fysical characteristics of an animal but to it’s DNA, since the theory claims that the diffrences between creatures arose from mutations in DNA. So I’d say you’r on the wright track comparing chromosones. On the wright track but not completely there. Our genetic information is stored in our DNA, these strings are then wound around cromosones. If you really want to compare human DNA to ape DNA, compare the DNA itself not the chromosones on wich they are wound. Comparing cromosones to proove relativness is just like comparing a human cell to an animal cell, they both show simularitys (both have a double membrane, a nucleidcore containing these cromosones and so on...) but that doesn’t mean their DNA shows simularitys. So what you did was not comparing DNA but comparing chromosones to show simularity’s in DNA. That would be like comparing two panoramic pictures of two diffrent houses to proove that the bricks underneath the paint are in fact the same.

As a second argument against this “proof” one could say your reasoning is flawned, because even if the DNA has simularitys that doesn’t mean one origenated from another. If two houses are simular in desing, build out of the same material, in the same style and shape, that doesn’t mean that one house is the descendant of another. In fact it would seem more logical to assume that both are simply designed by the same architect rather then formulating a theory of how one house had mutaded offsprings. Tell me why do you assume that for creationism to work, a creator created all creatures in totaly difrent ways? If it’s not broken why fix it?

Now lets take a look at these endogenous retroviri
First of all you have two agdmit that you made 2 assumptions. First of all you asume that the proces of proviral integration is random. It could very well be that this integration is only possible at a certain loci, either determined by the structure of the virus or by the structure of the DNA. Do not forget the importance of 3dimensional structures when studying processes at this level. Such an inhibition by a virus in DNA is not likely to be coincedental, but rather a result of it’s characteristics.
Second of all you asume that even though genetic drift is random, it is possible for a whole population to carry the endogenous virus due to a single proviral integration. Not only is this very unlickely to have happened, it is also the only alternative to assuming multiple viri infiltrated the DNA with multiple hosts at the same loci.

Lets take a look at those last phrases again. Basicly we have the factor of “luck” being faveroble for both sides. You could say it’s unlikely for multiple viri to inhibit the same loci, while I can say it’s very unlikely that a whole population inhereted this from a single source. The only diffrence between my unlikely theory and your unlikely theory is that I have arguments to take take the chance factor down (being the inability of the virus to integrate another loci). I think this shows how it’s very biased to dismiss the posibility that both apes and humans to have aquired this endogenous virus in simular ways rather then from heritage.

Also take note that this is somewhat contrading. Evolution tells us that humans and apes did not evolve from one another but evolved from a thirth species. As difrent branches in a tree rather then a strict line, while the added illustration chart of ERV distributions suggest a straigh lineage.

It’s not just a matter of where hot spots are situated as you commmented. When looking at chemical reactions with molecules of this magnitude a simple cis-trans isomere can make a world of diffrence. To claim that there’s an absent of ERV’s that don’t match the phylogenetic tree as an argument against hotspots is again assuming it’s coincedential nature. And also neglecting the fact that we have only mapped human DNA a couple years ago and still haven’t searched all primate DNA with a fine-thooth-comb.

The second problem that it’s strange that some viruses have infected every single primate rather then skipping one is again biased on the 2 assumptions.
1. That it’s likely for a whole population to carry this from a single source.
2. That it’s unlickly to happen more then once on the same loci at different species
If one would assume the opposite, by reasons I mentioned above, you would see that for this ERV to become present in a whole population it must by nature be a virus that was widely spread and that integrates the DNA sequence easily. So then it doesn’t seem far fetched for this virus to have spread interspecial and to have integrated all these species. Also, the absence of a retrovirus that is compatible with all those species at current time, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Our knowledge on ancient viri isn’t that big seeing our only source of information is those ERV, so that argument is completely backwards.

To assume the crippledness of the virus is also a factor against multiple integrations is again overestimating the randomness of the proces. It’s very likely to have happened in a specific way due to specific reasons. These things don’t just happen out of the blue in total randomness, there’s fysical laws, and chemical characteristics to take in account. These so called changes that would have been made to the ERV later on way very well be due to the proces of integration.

Now moving on to your thirth argument, Phylogenetic.
I think I have a pretty good idea why your friend Radical Edward failed to give you much information to go along with this argument. Simply because there is none. As I said before, we haven’d mapped primate DNA, so a heritigal study cannot be made. Secondly this is, as you said unique for a single family rather then a whole population, so it’s merely impossible to study this, even if in fact man evolved from monkey, it would still be hard to find wich human family carries proof of wich ape familly. This being said the information you provided, as interesting as it may be, is of no use in this topic.

I don't expect you to accept all my arguments, but I hope at least in the future you'll be carefull before claiming someone has a lack of knowledge just because they have a diffrent opinion. (And by the way, This response is out of the top of my head as aposed to yours being "inspired" by material lended from a friend, so I'd seriously reconcider this "a lack of knowledge" attitude)

Abdul Fattah
08-10-2005, 11:31 PM
By the way sorry link, guess we'r both of topic in "evolution refuted simply"

root
08-11-2005, 10:47 PM
Hi Steve

Thanks for the reply. It will of course take me several days to go over the points and cross check them before I can respond. However, as a quick point I would like to just kill off a misconception and falsehood.


Steve = We already discussed in other threads that to proove evolution one needs not to look at the fysical characteristics of an animal but to it’s DNA, since the theory claims that the diffrences between creatures arose from mutations in DNA.

This is false Steve, DNA Mutation is not a sole force behind evolutionary change. For we must consider survival of the fittest/luckiest, adaptation to name but a few. I am not accusing you of anything "Underhand" I simply want to note that evolutionary change is not driven simply by genetic mutation.

Regards

Root

Abdul Fattah
08-14-2005, 01:24 AM
I think you've taken my words out of centext. I simply stated that according to evolutiontheory, the changes in DNA need to be concidered rather then thinking in "arms -> wings" or "fins -> toe's". Because it's easy to speculation one is a devertion from the other, but it's a whole diffrent thing explaining just how those specific mutation occured in DNA at a chemical level. This doesn't mean that DNA Mutation is the sole force behind evolutionary change. But since it's the modus opperandi, it is one of the most important things to discuss when questioning the theory. All the other parts (survival of the fitest, adaptation and others...) are more secundairy questions. It's simply stating, if this theory is true, howcome this influenced things into the way it is now.

F.Y.
08-14-2005, 07:24 AM
I do find a problem with the idea behind 'survival of the fittest' because it has been used, till today by imperialist powers as one of the reasons behind their need to dominate others. I do not understand why anyone would accept this theory - Darwin's On The Origin Of Species is a text that is not devoid of racist, paranoid sentences which suggest that Africans are "savage apes" and that one day these races will be "exterminated". Man, sounds like Hitler, who also believed in a kind of 'higher race' - the superiority of the blonde haired/blue eyed people ("Aryan") race. Personally, it seems like a rather backward theory to me. It is not suitable for any society or world community to function in.
Indeed, even those who claim Islam to be a backward way of life are surprised when we say that the Prophet said in his final sermon, that "no arab is surperior to a non- arab, nor is a non-arab superior over an arab, nor is black superior to white, nor white superior to black." We are all one under the eyes of the creator - the oly thing that separates us is how much piety you have and how well you fulfil the rights of your fellow brother or sister.

By the way, did you know the DNA of rice is more complex than that of humans? Interesting. Maybe evolutionsits see that as our next step in the series.

Peace.

czgibson
08-14-2005, 12:24 PM
I do find a problem with the idea behind 'survival of the fittest' because it has been used, till today by imperialist powers as one of the reasons behind their need to dominate others.

Really? Any evidence for this?


I do not understand why anyone would accept this theory - Darwin's On The Origin Of Species is a text that is not devoid of racist, paranoid sentences which suggest that Africans are "savage apes" and that one day these races will be "exterminated".

Really? Where does Darwin say this in the Origin of Species?


Personally, it seems like a rather backward theory to me. It is not suitable for any society or world community to function in.

OK, you're entitled to your view. However, scientists will continue to believe in evolution until they find evidence that contradicts it. Or until a better theory comes along and replaces it.


By the way, did you know the DNA of rice is more complex than that of humans? Interesting. Maybe evolutionsits see that as our next step in the series.

Very interesting. Some evolutionists believe that human evolution has stopped, or is at least slowing down, as we progressively face fewer challenges from our environment. I'd be very surprised if we started evolving into rice though...

Peace.

Muezzin
08-14-2005, 12:40 PM
Very interesting. Some evolutionists believe that human evolution has stopped, or is at least slowing down, as we progressively face fewer challenges from our environment. I'd be very surprised if we started evolving into rice though...
And rice is a primary ingredient of Cornetto cones, thus further proving my true evolutionary theory expounded a few pages back about humans being highly developed ice-creams.

czgibson
08-14-2005, 12:57 PM
And rice is a primary ingredient of Cornetto cones, thus further proving my true evolutionary theory expounded a few pages back about humans being highly developed ice-creams.

;D

An intriguing theory, Muezzin - inform the biologists!

Uthman
08-14-2005, 01:07 PM
:sl:

I second that! http://img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif

:w:

root
08-14-2005, 01:39 PM
Hi Steve

I am pleased that debating with you does force me to research a little. I am further pleased that by cross referencing and checking I am able to find a way forward and not come to a "Dead End". So here goes.


I’d say you’r on the wright track comparing chromosones. On the wright track but not completely there. Our genetic information is stored in our DNA, these strings are then wound around cromosones. If you really want to compare human DNA to ape DNA, compare the DNA itself not the chromosones on wich they are wound. Comparing cromosones to proove relativness is just like comparing a human cell to an animal cell, they both show simularitys (both have a double membrane, a nucleidcore containing these cromosones and so on...) but that doesn’t mean their DNA shows simularitys. So what you did was not comparing DNA but comparing chromosones to show simularity’s in DNA. That would be like comparing two panoramic pictures of two diffrent houses to proove that the bricks underneath the paint are in fact the same.

Chromosomes are not like boxes that store goods. The chromosomes are not a separate component from the DNA. The chromosomes are the DNA that is wraped around proteins called histones. The chromosomes just refer to a state that the DNA exists in when it is tightly condensed, in distinct units, and associated with certain proteins.

Each species has a unique karotype that can be used to identify it. The amount of chromosomes and the banding pattern of each chromosome are specific for each species. Comparing chromosomes is a valid tool for identification of a species and determining the relationship between two organisms. Chromosomal comparison is just one of many independent forms conformation that establishes the common descent of life. So in essence, science has a way of cross checking it's data to confirm it's findings.


As a second argument against this “proof” one could say your reasoning is flawned, because even if the DNA has simularitys that doesn’t mean one origenated from another. If two houses are simular in desing, build out of the same material, in the same style and shape, that doesn’t mean that one house is the descendant of another. In fact it would seem more logical to assume that both are simply designed by the same architect rather then formulating a theory of how one house had mutaded offsprings. Tell me why do you assume that for creationism to work, a creator created all creatures in totaly difrent ways? If it’s not broken why fix it?

It may not be broken, but why create a common flaw? Endogenous Retroviral Sequences are errors where a virus inserted some of its DNA into a host gamete. I think I would fire a builder who was so careless in his designs. Besides which your reasoning is flawed because the second house is not a reproduced version of the first, only a reproduction of the design! Which is an independant issue since house two does not need house 1 for anything.


First of all you have two agdmit that you made 2 assumptions. First of all you asume that the proces of proviral integration is random. It could very well be that this integration is only possible at a certain loci, either determined by the structure of the virus or by the structure of the DNA. Do not forget the importance of 3dimensional structures when studying processes at this level. Such an inhibition by a virus in DNA is not likely to be coincedental, but rather a result of it’s characteristics

Thousands of locations in the humane genome contain Endogenous Retroviral Sequences. It is almost unthinkable to imagine a virus inserting itself into exactly the same spot in an entire population of a species while simultaneously inserting itself into the exact same locale in entire populations of many other species.


Second of all you asume that even though genetic drift is random, it is possible for a whole population to carry the endogenous virus due to a single proviral integration. Not only is this very unlickely to have happened, it is also the only alternative to assuming multiple viri infiltrated the DNA with multiple hosts at the same loci.

You have not thought this argument through. Why do "all" Asians have jet black hair? Why do they "all" have brown eyes? The answer is simple. A small population of individuals separated from the rest of man and made his home in Asia. This group had these traits, either all of the members had these traits or the majority did and the other traits were lost by selection or drift. The event that you are calling "very unlickely" has already occurred many times. A very similar occurrence produced a population that all have the same endogenous retroviral sequences.

There are hundreds of examples where an entire small isolated population has DNA sequences that have no conceivable advantage or disadvantage that the rest of the world does not have. It doesn't take a great imagination to see that if this were the only population to survive that all of the members of that species would have that DNA sequence and all of species that evolved from it would to, unless of course it was lost by the same means.


Also take note that this is somewhat contrading. Evolution tells us that humans and apes did not evolve from one another but evolved from a thirth species. As difrent branches in a tree rather then a strict line, while the added illustration chart of ERV distributions suggest a straigh lineage

Misinterpretation of chart


It’s not just a matter of where hot spots are situated as you commmented. When looking at chemical reactions with molecules of this magnitude a simple cis-trans isomere can make a world of diffrence.

DNA all has the same handedness.


To claim that there’s an absent of ERV’s that don’t match the phylogenetic tree as an argument against hotspots is again assuming it’s coincedential nature. And also neglecting the fact that we have only mapped human DNA a couple years ago and still haven’t searched all primate DNA with a fine-thooth-comb

Finding the ERV's does not require searching the DNA with a fine-tooth-comb.


Also, the absence of a retrovirus that is compatible with all those species at current time, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Our knowledge on ancient viri isn’t that big seeing our only source of information is those ERV, so that argument is completely backwards

Trying to imagine an ancient virus completely different than today's is a little farfetched.

In response to F.Y who has an objection to the term "Survival of the fittest". As much as this may seem distasteful upon ones lips the fact of the matter is that it is an observable fact. Certain traits within species and one could pick any species at random, for example a "Giraffe". Survival of the fittest would imply that the Giraffes with the longest necks can reach food smaller necked giraffes cannot reach, so evolution will favour the giraffe who can survive when times are hard because of it's reach. So the slow evolutionary process will favour long necked giraffes......... of course this does not need to go to the extreme.

Muhammad
08-14-2005, 02:28 PM
Peace all,

I was also of the impression that human DNA and rat DNA are very similar, so I hope this does not mean that somewhere along the line we descended from them too?

root
08-14-2005, 02:59 PM
I was also of the impression that human DNA and rat DNA are very similar, so I hope this does not mean that somewhere along the line we descended from them too?

Rat genome completed
After four years, 220 researchers have completed a high-quality draft of 90
percent of the laboratory (Norway) rat DNA sequence.
Human: 2.9 billion base pairs
Rat: 2.75 billion base pairs
Mouse: 2.6 billion base pairs
-- Rats first appeared in lab research in 1828
-- Humans and rodents diverged from a common ancestor 80 million years ago
-- Rats and mice diverged 12-24 million years ago
-- Rodents consume one-fifth of the world's food supply
Source: Nature

Scientists noted that the lab rat strain mistakenly was thought by the British to be a Norwegian immigrant, but actually originated in Asia. It may have landed in Europe in 1727 by swimming the Volga River after an earthquake. A different strain, Rattus rattus or the black rat, was in Europe centuries sooner and is the one whose disease-carrying fleas are implicated in the spread of bubonic plague in medieval Europe.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/01/MNG325ULAM1.DTL

I was also of the impression that rodents survived the cataclysmic event of the meteorite impact that destroyed the dinasaurs. Changing the evolutionary future of the planet that we see today. The K2 Boundary shows us that the earth was impacted in a cataclysmic event.............

Abdul Fattah
08-15-2005, 04:20 PM
Chromosomes are not like boxes that store goods. The chromosomes are not a separate component from the DNA. The chromosomes are the DNA that is wraped around proteins called histones. The chromosomes just refer to a state that the DNA exists in when it is tightly condensed, in distinct units, and associated with certain proteins.

You'r wright about the chromosones being histrones + chromatide, I got terminology mixed up. But back to the point. I dismissed the picture you provided wich showed simularities between human and apes not because the DNA was inside of it, but rather because it was unrecognisable. DNA strings are only 10 atoms in width and about 700 nucleotides in lenght. This is then wrapped around these histrones. The size of the DNA to the histrone can be compared with the size of a hair that's wrapped around cigaretfilter. I think a picture of the filter would give us lil' information about the hair wraped around it wright? It's presence would perhaps be notecable if the picture is taken strong enough, but thats were it ends.


Each species has a unique karotype that can be used to identify it. The amount of chromosomes and the banding pattern of each chromosome are specific for each species. Comparing chromosomes is a valid tool for identification of a species and determining the relationship between two organisms. Chromosomal comparison is just one of many independent forms conformation that establishes the common descent of life. So in essence, science has a way of cross checking it's data to confirm it's findings.

Yes it's true that each type of species has it's own way of wrapping the DNA around the histron. And this characteristic does make it a recognised tool if identification. But how does it identify the steps of evolution? Does the way DNA is wrapped around the histron effect the code that's it carrying in any way? Does this karotype influence the functions of DNA. Are diffrent enzymes manufatered due to the karotype?


It may not be broken, but why create a common flaw? Endogenous Retroviral Sequences are errors where a virus inserted some of its DNA into a host gamete. I think I would fire a builder who was so careless in his designs.

I did not state that both apes and humans were created with this retrovirus present. I claimed that they both wre created without it, and aquired it in a simular way. The "not broken" part refered to the simularitys in desing (both with DNA, both wrapped around the histrones in a simular way). If it worked for apes, why would our creator come up with a diffrent way, what cause would have been there?


Besides which your reasoning is flawed because the second house is not a reproduced version of the first, only a reproduction of the design! Which is an independant issue since house two does not need house 1 for anything.

Ok, here comes the circles of thoughts again. Alow me to analyse that tree of reasoning:

1. I believe in evolution
2. This means man evolved from ape
3. So without ape, there was no man
4. The argument you presented is false since (3.) shows that man needs ape in order to exist
5. So evolution is the only possible alternative
6. I believe in evolution


Thousands of locations in the humane genome contain Endogenous Retroviral Sequences. It is almost unthinkable to imagine a virus inserting itself into exactly the same spot in an entire population of a species while simultaneously inserting itself into the exact same locale in entire populations of many other species.

Really? More then a 1000. Could you give me the exact number of them? Dare I even ask, a refference for that number? Even if it's a thousand just because a diffrent virus was able to infeltrate a diffrent loci, doesn't mean our common virus would have been able to do so. You'r overlooking threedimensional characteristics of molecules wich is very important when talking about processes that occur with such large molecules. It' not like tetris, were all shapes are made up of squares, and turning them around will eventully make 'm fit somewhere. You have an unimagenable large set of shapes and only some fit into eachother.


You have not thought this argument through. Why do "all" Asians have jet black hair? Why do they "all" have brown eyes? The answer is simple. A small population of individuals separated from the rest of man and made his home in Asia. This group had these traits, either all of the members had these traits or the majority did and the other traits were lost by selection or drift. The event that you are calling "very unlickely" has already occurred many times. A very similar occurrence produced a population that all have the same endogenous retroviral sequences.

That has nothing to do with it. First of al survival of the fitest doesn't fly here since endegous retroviri are junk DNA and serve no benefit. So their’s no adaptation to consider. Secondly you’ll have to admit that this immegration that caused the human races is an extreme situation. To claim that the same happened with the monkeys from wich we supposedly come from, without any indication of such seems far fetched. You’ll also have to concider the way these characteristics work. Dark hair is dominant over blonde. So if a person has in his DNA one gene that says blond from his mother and another that says black from his father he'll have black hair since it's dominant. The domination however is only noticeble in characteristics of the person. The dark-haired child is not the end of the "blond-gene" heretige of this family the chanses of him passing the gene is still 50%. Eventualy the more you mix it up, the more rare a certain characteristic may become. A good example of this is bloodtypes, their you see that although some are very rare, they keep surviving throughout history.


There are hundreds of examples where an entire small isolated population has DNA sequences that have no conceivable advantage or disadvantage that the rest of the world does not have. It doesn't take a great imagination to see that if this were the only population to survive that all of the members of that species would have that DNA sequence and all of species that evolved from it would to, unless of course it was lost by the same means.

No there aren’t. First of all“hundreds” is inacurate; and in most of those cases there is an advantage. It’s more a matter of adaptation and survival. Also note that the island is an extreme isolation wich cannot be representive here. According to evolutionists man did not origenated in an isolated island


DNA all has the same handedness.

Well it’s always made out of the same base material, but 3dimensional feateres (such as lenght) need to be taken in account. Also the adenine, thymine, gaunane and citosine is structured differently causing different delta- and delta+ charges


Finding the ERV's does not require searching the DNA with a fine-tooth-comb.

That depends on what you’r looking for. If you’r looking to proove evolution by showing simularitys. Then you just look at the locus where humans are known to have an ERV. If You want to find an ERV that humans don’t have, than you’ll have to do a complete search of the primate’s DNA.


Trying to imagine an ancient virus completely different than today's is a little farfetched.

I didn’t say it’s completely different, it doesn’t have to be that different to fit the bill. It’s not like such a virus is imposseble. The only reason your argument exists is because we do not have an example present. Not because it’s unlikely for a virus to do so. So my response, that our database of ancient DNA is made only through examination of these ERV’s shows quite well how the argument is backwards.

root
08-18-2005, 06:28 PM
You'r wright about the chromosones being histrones + chromatide, I got terminology mixed up. But back to the point. I dismissed the picture you provided wich showed simularities between human and apes not because the DNA was inside of it, but rather because it was unrecognisable. DNA strings are only 10 atoms in width and about 700 nucleotides in lenght. This is then wrapped around these histrones. The size of the DNA to the histrone can be compared with the size of a hair that's wrapped around cigaretfilter. I think a picture of the filter would give us lil' information about the hair wraped around it wright? It's presence would perhaps be notecable if the picture is taken strong enough, but thats were it ends.

Sorry Steve but you are way off base. This evidence for common ancestory detailed here is not really about common comparisons between apes and humans DNA. Let us simplify what I am trying to explain. As everyone knows cells contain DNA, and cells divide and multiply (we can also call this reproduction), simply creating copies of itself. A virus comes along and inserts a bit of it's own DNA into the hosts DNA. This "Junk DNA" as you reffered to under certain circumstances is then copied and passed onto the next generation. In turn this DNA with the "Junk" inserted becomes passed on so families inherit them. Over time an entire species will carry the retro virus DNA harmlessly. This is sound science and a scientific fact. The other issue we need to clear up, is the insertion point record remains the same. One would expect this since cells are complete copies of themselves. We can see the insertion point by observing the banding pattern of the chromosones wrapped around the DNA, As illustrated in the images. If I have six banded insertion points highlighted, we could go as far back as thousands of years to my ancestors and by comparing the insertion point of the original insertion they will match. Afterall, the insertion occures once, and the gene will carry this for ever more, no matter who is related to me.

Now, as we should accept the above as scientifically credible and a true assessment of retro virus insertions into host DNA. Let us move on.

By comparing RVA (Retro-virus insertion points) we can look at common ancestory, i.e the closeness of relationship between us and other animals. Their have been many RVA investigations done within many species. Now, as we discussed in other threads one thing a theory needs to do is make an accurate prediction. This said science predicted that the number of RVA insertions matching Human RVA insertions would be the chimp. And what of this prediction, it is no surprise to me that this is indeed the case, RVA insertions are precisely shared at a number of points within the primate species. Now within this primate group we share more RVA's with the chimp than other primate species discovered so far.

The Killer question from a Creationist point of view is simply "How did the chimp and human share these matching RVA sequences!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If afterall, they are simple copies of themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The answer can only be that the insertion points match because we share a close common ancestor. In other words we are not humans because we evolved from the chimp, but we share common ancestory with chimps and as the ERV shows, we rightly so are classed as a primate.


Yes it's true that each type of species has it's own way of wrapping the DNA around the histron. And this characteristic does make it a recognised tool if identification. But how does it identify the steps of evolution? Does the way DNA is wrapped around the histron effect the code that's it carrying in any way? Does this karotype influence the functions of DNA. Are diffrent enzymes manufatered due to the karotype?

I am not talking identification of the steps for evolution. I am talking identification of common genetic matching of RVA insertions between species to identify a common link. The RVA Insetion point, is "carried" and always reproduced. How comes the same insertion point is present between 2 or more species unless the source was the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for the latter of your above quote, I am not a genetecist nor am I a Biologist.


I did not state that both apes and humans were created with this retrovirus present. I claimed that they both wre created without it, and aquired it in a simular way.

This is the common objection for Creationists. The claim that although we see a high number of matching ERV's. The insertions are present but not linked, in effect your asking me what I answered in the first post. Since I have a lot of respect for you I will show you the floor in your arguement. First and foremost, Of a genome that is 6 billion bases long, what are the odds that a ERV will be inserted into the same place? 1 in a 6 billion, right? Now, if there are 2 such ERVs, the odds are 1 in 6 billion times 1 in 6 billion for both being inserted into the same places by chance. If there are 3, you must multiply by another 1 in 6 billion. Now, since you have 12 such insertions in humans compared to the common ancestor, you have just passed the creationist number for it having occured by chance! By creationism's own criterion, their argument is invalid.


Ok, here comes the circles of thoughts again. Alow me to analyse that tree of reasoning:

1. I believe in evolution
2. This means man evolved from ape
3. So without ape, there was no man
4. The argument you presented is false since (3.) shows that man needs ape in order to exist
5. So evolution is the only possible alternative
6. I believe in evolution

Contrary to your reasoning. This is also floored because evolution DOES NOT state we evolved from Apes, we share common ancestory with apes. This does not mean we are directly evolved from an ape.



Quote:Root
You have not thought this argument through. Why do "all" Asians have jet black hair? Why do they "all" have brown eyes? The answer is simple. A small population of individuals separated from the rest of man and made his home in Asia. This group had these traits, either all of the members had these traits or the majority did and the other traits were lost by selection or drift. The event that you are calling "very unlickely" has already occurred many times. A very similar occurrence produced a population that all have the same endogenous retroviral sequences.

Quote:Steve
That has nothing to do with it. First of al survival of the fitest doesn't fly here since endegous retroviri are junk DNA and serve no benefit. So their’s no adaptation to consider. Secondly you’ll have to admit that this immegration that caused the human races is an extreme situation. To claim that the same happened with the monkeys from wich we supposedly come from, without any indication of such seems far fetched. You’ll also have to concider the way these characteristics work. Dark hair is dominant over blonde. So if a person has in his DNA one gene that says blond from his mother and another that says black from his father he'll have black hair since it's dominant. The domination however is only noticeble in characteristics of the person. The dark-haired child is not the end of the "blond-gene" heretige of this family the chanses of him passing the gene is still 50%. Eventualy the more you mix it up, the more rare a certain characteristic may become. A good example of this is bloodtypes, their you see that although some are very rare, they keep surviving throughout history

I feel you are getting a little desperate here. You are correct that RVA is Junk DNA & serves no benefit. 99% of mutations serve no benefit. This is not disputed. I am not claiming that "Monkeys" underwent the same migration as Humans, remember for Humans to Migrate they need to be human in the first place. The RVA's were already present, you have them I have them and every human on this planet has them at the same points................... Though not uniquely, we have other RVA's that are more localised.



Quote:Root
There are hundreds of examples where an entire small isolated population has DNA sequences that have no conceivable advantage or disadvantage that the rest of the world does not have. It doesn't take a great imagination to see that if this were the only population to survive that all of the members of that species would have that DNA sequence and all of species that evolved from it would to, unless of course it was lost by the same means.


Steve
No there aren’t. First of all“hundreds” is inacurate; and in most of those cases there is an advantage. It’s more a matter of adaptation and survival. Also note that the island is an extreme isolation wich cannot be representive here. According to evolutionists man did not origenated in an isolated island

Hundreds is valid and an accepted scientific fact.

Also note that Isolated Islands gave us the "Hobbit". Man originated from Africa, we know this. Do you disagree with this fact. Also, While you answer that I wonder what your answer is to where "Chimps" also originated from!


Well it’s always made out of the same base material, but 3dimensional feateres (such as lenght) need to be taken in account. Also the adenine, thymine, gaunane and citosine is structured differently causing different delta- and delta+ charges

This has nothing to do with the subject matter.

Finding the ERV's does not require searching the DNA with a fine-tooth-comb.



That depends on what you’r looking for. If you’r looking to proove evolution by showing simularitys. Then you just look at the locus where humans are known to have an ERV. If You want to find an ERV that humans don’t have, than you’ll have to do a complete search of the primate’s DNA.

I actually never knew we shared an ERV with a locust. This does not matter of course as we can assume two things:

1. It was random luck.
2. We share ancestory with a locust or visa versa.

With point 2 we should share ancestory with just about every species, "The brancing tree". If you had said we share 7 ERV's with a locust then you would have a valid point, but you do not. with 16 matching ERV's shows us we are closely related to primates still.


I didn’t say it’s completely different, it doesn’t have to be that different to fit the bill. It’s not like such a virus is imposseble. The only reason your argument exists is because we do not have an example present. Not because it’s unlikely for a virus to do so. So my response, that our database of ancient DNA is made only through examination of these ERV’s shows quite well how the argument is backwards.

We are not talking DNA matching or investigation. Merely insertion points!

Regards

Root




















OK. Here comes the sticky point. The first


h

Abdul Fattah
08-21-2005, 03:27 PM
I’ll answer the points raised in your post in an unchronological order if you don’t mind. It seems the essence of it al is lost.

Let’s start with the “chance” argument in my point of vieuw

Steve: I did not state that both apes and humans were created with this retrovirus present. I claimed that they both wre created without it, and aquired it in a simular way.
Root: This is the common objection for Creationists. The claim that although we see a high number of matching ERV's. The insertions are present but not linked, in effect your asking me what I answered in the first post. Since I have a lot of respect for you I will show you the floor in your arguement. First and foremost, Of a genome that is 6 billion bases long, what are the odds that a ERV will be inserted into the same place? 1 in a 6 billion, right? Now, if there are 2 such ERVs, the odds are 1 in 6 billion times 1 in 6 billion for both being inserted into the same places by chance. If there are 3, you must multiply by another 1 in 6 billion. Now, since you have 12 such insertions in humans compared to the common ancestor, you have just passed the creationist number for it having occured by chance!

But I already replyed to that remember, so why did you repeat yourself? You assume here that the insertion is random, whereas I replyed to that these processes aren’t likely to be random, as reactions on this micro level usually follow a strict causality. 3-dimensional structures are very important wwhen looking at chemical reactions with molecules of this big a size


Root: All RNA has the same structual form.
Steve: Well it’s always made out of the same base material, but 3dimensional feateres (such as lenght) need to be taken in account. Also the adenine, thymine, gaunane and citosine is structured differently causing different delta- and delta+ charges.

Those delta charges define the polair characteristic of a molecule, and with it, its probability to “fit” in a certain place. To this you answered:


Root: This has nothing to do with the subject matter.

Euhm... If you say so, I’ll guess we’ll just believe you... or we could qoute the architect from the matrix reloaded: Denial is the most predictable of all human responses...

Then there was the problem with the existance of a virus that has affinety for several species. I do not have a direct example ready, I’m not a virologist, but there is no reason to assume that it couldn’t exist.

Steve: I didn’t say it’s completely different, it doesn’t have to be that different to fit the bill. It’s not like such a virus is imposseble. The only reason your argument exists is because we do not have an example present. Not because it’s unlikely for a virus to do so. So my response, that our database of ancient DNA is made only through examination of these ERV’s shows quite well how the argument is backwards.
Root: We are not talking DNA matching or investigation. Merely insertion points!
Ok if you wanna drop your argument that’s fine by me.

Now lets take a look at your chance factor.
I brought to our attention the unlikelyness of a whole population accuiring a gene from a single source through random drift. This you tackled with the obvious fact of people having evolved different racial features.

Root: I feel you are getting a little desperate here. You are correct that RVA is Junk DNA & serves no benefit. 99% of mutations serve no benefit. This is not disputed. I am not claiming that "Monkeys" underwent the same migration as Humans, remember for Humans to Migrate they need to be human in the first place. The RVA's were already present, you have them I have them and every human on this planet has them at the same points................... Though not uniquely, we have other RVA's that are more localised.

Ok first of all the use of a gene does has a lot to do with the matter here. This means factors like adaptation and survival can’t be taken into account wich make random drift, well more random then with racial features. It’s true that 99% of mutation serve no benefit, but that 99% doesn’t get spread over whole populations.
Also, you DID claim that monkeys, or at least our supposed common ancestor, underwent a simular migration. From your point of vieuw, if an ERV is common between human and monkeys due to evolution. The virus must have infested in the common ancestor before monkeys evolved from it, then that ancestor migrated so the gene could become present in the whole population, and then humans evolved from it. It’s just very far fetched, and our knowledge of ancient populations suggest that this was not the case. You’r on a wild goose chase here.


Root: There are hundreds of examples where an entire small isolated population has DNA sequences that have no conceivable advantage or disadvantage that the rest of the world does not have. It doesn't take a great imagination to see that if this were the only population to survive that all of the members of that species would have that DNA sequence and all of species that evolved from it would to, unless of course it was lost by the same means.
Steve: No there aren’t. First of all“hundreds” is inacurate; and in most of those cases there is an advantage. It’s more a matter of adaptation and survival. Also note that the island is an extreme isolation wich cannot be representive here. According to evolutionists man did not origenated in an isolated island
Root: Hundreds is valid and an accepted scientific fact. Also note that Isolated Islands gave us the "Hobbit". Man originated from Africa, we know this. Do you disagree with this fact. Also, While you answer that I wonder what your answer is to where "Chimps" also originated from!
I told you before if you want to pass something as certain, you’ll have to proof it first. The hobbit (homo floralis) is only 1 example, were are the other 199 (hundreds, multiple of hunderd means at least 200 cases). Also note that these cases are irrelevant, the hobbit case is an isolated evolution of a humanoid species wich has nothing to do with racial developement of human beings. Racial development of human beings did not involve an isolated step. The migrations only worked partially because there was always some interactions between different tribes causing a sort of mix in the gene pool. Not all genes are of the dominant-regressive type, there’s also co-domination were a mixture between both is made.


Root: I actually never knew we shared an ERV with a locust. This does not matter of course as we can assume two things:

Sorry there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding. There are no common ERV between human an locust. You got confused by the word “locus” the singular form of “loci” wich is latin for: a place. In terms of DNA it refers to a specific gene place.
Having that cleared up, alow me to rephrase what I was trying to say about monkey DNA needing to be looked up completely.
You used commen ERV as an argument for evolution. However if there would also be ERV that show an inconsitancy with the supposed branch of evolution, that could show how either:
A. Common descent is false
B. Common descent might still work but simular ERV at the same locus did NOT come from a single source, but rather from both human and monkey getting the same virus.

In your original post you stated how the lack of such inconsitancys could be seen as an argument for evolution. By doing so however you completely ignored how ERV’s were researched. Lets compare the human DNA with a 23-part-encyclopedia wich we complete read and mapped. Then lets compare each ape DNA with a diffrent set of encyclopedias wich we haven’t read. Let’s say you want to proove that all encyclopedias are a different copy from the same. So you find something that is quite unique to the human encyclopedia wich you read. This feature is in the 16th book on page 256 in the 3th alinea. You then take the ape-encyclopedia and look at the same numbered book at the same page in the same alinea. Very easy. But to do the opposite, to show inconsistancy’s we need to completely read the ape-encyclopedia. Be it as it may, again even though your argument seems strong it might be defeated by the notion that not both encyclopedias must have been copies from an older version, but more likely they are just both written by the same author!

Ok now lets go back to your first argument, the one about simular chromosones between human and ape

Root: Sorry Steve but you are way off base. This evidence for common ancestory detailed here is not really about common comparisons between apes and humans DNA. Let us simplify what I am trying to explain. As everyone knows cells contain DNA, and cells divide and multiply (we can also call this reproduction), simply creating copies of itself. A virus comes along and inserts a bit of it's own DNA into the hosts DNA. This "Junk DNA" as you reffered to under certain circumstances is then copied and passed onto the next generation. In turn this DNA with the "Junk" inserted becomes passed on so families inherit them. Over time an entire species will carry the retro virus DNA harmlessly. This is sound science and a scientific fact. The other issue we need to clear up, is the insertion point record remains the same. One would expect this since cells are complete copies of themselves. We can see the insertion point by observing the banding pattern of the chromosones wrapped around the DNA, As illustrated in the images. If I have six banded insertion points highlighted, we could go as far back as thousands of years to my ancestors and by comparing the insertion point of the original insertion they will match. Afterall, the insertion occures once, and the gene will carry this for ever more, no matter who is related to me.
Now, as we should accept the above as scientifically credible and a true assessment of retro virus insertions into host DNA. Let us move on.
It is true that trough banding processes relativness can be found. But not thousand of years back. In fact if you were to compare the banding patterns of 2 brothers, although you’d find a lot of simularitys, you’ll find even more diffrences then on the drawing of human and chimp chromosones wich you posted some posts ago. BTW, here's a picture of Chromosones notice how the accuracy is in fact less lower then in your drawing? Thats due to our limitation of microscopes caused by the waveamplitude of light. http://www.ams.ac.ir/AIM/0144/image22.gif
So this is not valid as an argument for common descent. The only real simularity we share are the histones around wich the DNA is waved. But saying that that prooves commen descent is just like saying. We (human and chimps) both have hearths, or we both have blood pumping trough, we both have eye’s, so we most have a common ancestor? That’s incedently what darwin based his theory upon, and obviously not an irrefutable logic.

Steve: Yes it's true that each type of species has it's own way of wrapping the DNA around the histron. And this characteristic does make it a recognised tool if identification. But how does it identify the steps of evolution? Does the way DNA is wrapped around the histron effect the code that's it carrying in any way? Does this karotype influence the functions of DNA. Are diffrent enzymes manufatered due to the karotype?
Root: I am not talking identification of the steps for evolution. I am talking identification of common genetic matching of RVA insertions between species to identify a common link. The RVA Insetion point, is "carried" and always reproduced. How comes the same insertion point is present between 2 or more species unless the source was the same!!!
As for the latter of your above quote, I am not a genetecist nor am I a Biologist.
No it’s not the point does diffrientate. As for my questions, I was not looking for a genetecist nor a biologist’s reply. I was simply showing what’s flawed in your reasoning. For evolution to be proven we need to show simularitys between human and ape DNA, and develop a theory of how both evolved from a third ancestor. What you’r doing here is just comparing the way it’s carryed, it sounds like comparing DNA, it slooks like comparing DNA, but it’s not comparing DNA it’s comparing features of the cell. The argument is as strong as th following would be: Both human and ape cells have mitochondra, nucleus, double mebrane etc... so we must have a common ancestor. The fact that banding is used to test direct lineage (father/son, and not great-grand-grand-father/great-gran-grand-son) has nothing to do with evolution.

The “house” example
At a certain point I made an example of how certain simularitys does not inevetibly proof common descent by comparing it to different houses drawn from the same architect.

Root: Besides which your reasoning is flawed because the second house is not a reproduced version of the first, only a reproduction of the design! Which is an independant issue since house two does not need house 1 for anything.
Steve: Ok, here comes the circles of thoughts again. Alow me to analyse that tree of reasoning:
1. I believe in evolution
2. This means man evolved from ape
3. So without ape, there was no man
4. The argument you presented is false since (3.) shows that man needs ape in order to exist
5. So evolution is the only possible alternative
6. I believe in evolution
Root: Contrary to your reasoning. This is also floored because evolution DOES NOT state we evolved from Apes, we share common ancestory with apes. This does not mean we are directly evolved from an ape.

Ok tell me, how does common ancester rather then straight lineage make ANY difference in my argument? You assumed that one needs another to exist through evolution as an argument for evolution wich is a circle of thouhgts. Commen ancestor or straight lineage, it’s still a circle of thouhgts.

Ok I believe I covered most of your arguments now. I think it’s beginning to be clear that in the end of the day neither party will be able to present any irrefutable “proof”. What we have are diffrences in opinions and personal beliefs that one possibility is more likely then another. I think this sufficiently shows the diffrence between the theory of gravity and the theory of common decent. One can easily be negleted where another seems so certain it’s illogical to claim it being false. Wich inevetibly also means that being a creationist doesn’t mean one has a lack of knowledge in the case. I do not expect you to suddenly see things my way, or to dismiss the theory of evolution, just know that it isn’t as certain as gravity, and that not everyone opposing your ideas is by defenition dead-wrong.

root
08-21-2005, 04:26 PM
Thanks for the info Steve.

before I move onto the rest of your constructive points. Lets clear something up here............


Steve - But I already replyed to that remember, so why did you repeat yourself? You assume here that the insertion is random, whereas I replyed to that these processes aren’t likely to be random, as reactions on this micro level usually follow a strict causality. 3-dimensional structures are very important wwhen looking at chemical reactions with molecules of this big a size

OK, your trying to suggest that the Retro Virus inserts it's "junk" into the host at the exact same place. Thus retro virus insertions are NOT "Random".

Is this your claim?

Regards

Root

Muezzin
08-21-2005, 06:58 PM
Okay, seriously, what do retroviral insertion points have to do with evolution?

Abdul Fattah
08-22-2005, 12:20 AM
No I don't believe it to be random. And if you respond to this that: it apears to be chaotic to our current knowledge. I would simply reply that such a thing says something about our current knowledge of the proces rather than something about the proces itself. Afteral, is chaos not a word we invented to define an order wich we fail to understand?

root
08-22-2005, 12:41 PM
Steve - No I don't believe it to be random. And if you respond to this that: it apears to be chaotic to our current knowledge. I would simply reply that such a thing says something about our current knowledge of the proces rather than something about the proces itself. Afteral, is chaos not a word we invented to define an order wich we fail to understand?

Hi steve,

Trying to give me a philosophical predicted answer serves no purpose. For you are simply ignoring the main fact that I am trying to put to you. You are in agreement with me that the insertion points we see are not "Random" and nor are they "Luck".

What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of DNA? The very same logic applies. Given the improbable event of two separate infections leading to the same ERV the most likely scenario is that the two species share a common ancestor. Taxonomy, through the study of fossils, has come to the conclusion that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Therefore, knowing the implications of ERV production, we should find ERV’s at the same letter of DNA in each of these species. This is a prediction made by the theory of evolution. Not only that, but the patterns of similarities should also match cladistics. Cladistics is what many call “the tree of life” which show species branching off from one another. One such clade, constructed through the study of fossils, proposes that humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans all share a common ancestor. The first species to branch off were orangutans, the second were gorillas, the third were chimps, and the final branch resulted in humans. This allows us to make very precise predictions. If humans and orangutans share a common ERV at the same letter of DNA, then chimps and gorillas should also have that same ERV at the same letter of DNA because all of these species share one common ancestor. Since orangutans branched off before the other three, we should see ERV’s occuring after this branching. That is, there should be ERV’s common between gorillas, chimps, and humans that orangutans do not have. Since gorillas split off next, we should see ERV’s shared between chimps and humans that are not seen in gorillas or orangutans. In fact, there are twelve ERV’s between humans and chimps that can only be explained by common ancestory, as well as the other ERV’s shared by humans and other apes.

With an Intelligent Designer who created differing species. We would just not see what we are seeing........

We can diverge with as much complexity and smoke as you care. At the end of the day the simple question remains, other than "common ancestory" how can you account for the facts that Chimps and humans share 12 ERV insertions. Currently you have still failed to provide a credible answer. Stating that they have the same but accuired them in a different manner is speculative, unfounded and has nothing to support this. You are employing nothing more than speculation to disprove over-whelming evidence.

Abdul Fattah
08-22-2005, 08:29 PM
You are in agreement with me that the insertion points we see are not "Random" and nor are they "Luck". What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of DNA? The very same logic applies. Given the improbable event of two separate infections leading to the same ERV the most likely scenario is that the two species share a common ancestor.

So first they were random (remember the 1-to-6-billion-chance-argument) wich is an argument for evolution. Now we both agrea that they are not likely to be random, and then it's aparently a proof favorouble for evolution. Seems that the argument is of lesser importance to you and the theory is already proven no matter what. But i'll take the bait anyway, so explain me how. How does the hypothese that both species got this ERV through seperate infections, makes a common ancestor more likely?


Taxonomy, through the study of fossils, has come to the conclusion that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Therefore, knowing the implications of ERV production, we should find ERV’s at the same letter of DNA in each of these species. This is a prediction made by the theory of evolution.

Ok so now it's just two hypothesis who happen to share common ground. One of wich I'm in the middle of debating to ground an onother based on unscientific findings like: hey we both have skulls, we must have evolved from one another.
No really, the only reason they share common ground is because the hypothese origenated from a biased point of vieuw!


If humans and orangutans share a common ERV at the same letter of DNA, then chimps and gorillas should also have that same ERV at the same letter of DNA because all of these species share one common ancestor. Since orangutans branched off before the other three, we should see ERV’s occuring after this branching. That is, there should be ERV’s common between gorillas, chimps, and humans that orangutans do not have. Since gorillas split off next, we should see ERV’s shared between chimps and humans that are not seen in gorillas or orangutans. In fact, there are twelve ERV’s between humans and chimps that can only be explained by common ancestory, as well as the other ERV’s shared by humans and other apes.

You'r assuming that I the whole branch wich isn't the case, i'm simply saying that human don't fit in that branch. This doesn't deny the evolution of different ape's.


We can diverge with as much complexity and smoke as you care. At the end of the day the simple question remains, other than "common ancestory" how can you account for the facts that Chimps and humans share 12 ERV insertions. Currently you have still failed to provide a credible answer. Stating that they have the same but accuired them in a different manner is speculative, unfounded and has nothing to support this. You are employing nothing more than speculation to disprove over-whelming evidence.

No, YOU are the one claiming a certain speculation is an overwhelming proof. Since the proof is not waterthight and shows so many holes it's only logical to see it as a speculation. You can claim this is evidence for common descent, but it is not. The data wich you start from can clearly be interpreted in a totally different way. The only reason it seems so overwhelming to you is because you WANT it to be a proof.
...
...
See? An argument can often works both ways. It is because it's not based on logic but on emotions and personal feelings. You were the one claiming I had a lack of knowledge on this, so I suggest you'd wise up and refrain from those personal arguments but rather stick to the facts.

root
08-23-2005, 11:31 AM
Quote:Root
You are in agreement with me that the insertion points we see are not "Random" and nor are they "Luck". What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of DNA? The very same logic applies. Given the improbable event of two separate infections leading to the same ERV the most likely scenario is that the two species share a common ancestor.


Steve - So first they were random (remember the 1-to-6-billion-chance-argument) wich is an argument for evolution

We cannot debate when you are being so misleading. The initial infection leading to the insertion of the "junk" DNA is random. The subsequent copies of cell/species reproduction is not. the 1-to-6 billion chance arguement (actually 1-to-6=billion X 12: since we observe 12 such insertion points) is the creationists argument against random luck.


Now we both agrea that they are not likely to be random, and then it's aparently a proof favorouble for evolution.

Yes, this is true. The randomness of the intitial insertion is random, subsequent copies of the gene are then fixed creating a "marker" that we all carry at the same place


Seems that the argument is of lesser importance to you and the theory is already proven no matter what.

Unless creationists can come up with a credible reason for what we observe yourself included then yes like the theory of relativity, it is what it is because it is testable, predictable and observable.


But i'll take the bait anyway, so explain me how. How does the hypothese that both species got this ERV through seperate infections, makes a common ancestor more likely?

Firstly, I have never stated the ERV insertions were through seperate infections as this goes against all we have discussed. One insertion point in multiple species (in this case primates), by carrying the static "copy" of the original random infection can only suggest common ancestory.


Ok so now it's just two hypothesis who happen to share common ground. One of wich I'm in the middle of debating to ground an onother based on unscientific findings like: hey we both have skulls, we must have evolved from one another.
No really, the only reason they share common ground is because the hypothese origenated from a biased point of vieuw!

I like the way you have switched from theory to hypothosis. This is a mistake since ERV insertions within the animal kindom is a theory and not hypothosis. As stated above we can Observe, test and make predictions based on observation, this afterall is what validates the theory of relativity. And I simply don't understand how you can subscribe a biased point of view when it is based on observable and credible scientific observation.


You'r assuming that I the whole branch wich isn't the case, i'm simply saying that human don't fit in that branch. This doesn't deny the evolution of different ape's

ERV insertions is a scientifically credible at ancestory observation. We also observe matching ERV insertions between a woolly mammoth & Elephant. We observe matching insertion points within the reptile species and again with mammals. Each species showing common ancestory (matching ERV's within their own groups.)


No, YOU are the one claiming a certain speculation is an overwhelming proof. Since the proof is not waterthight and shows so many holes it's only logical to see it as a speculation. You can claim this is evidence for common descent, but it is not. The data wich you start from can clearly be interpreted in a totally different way. The only reason it seems so overwhelming to you is because you WANT it to be a proof

If the proof is not water tight then please post your objections.

No, ERV insertions cannot be interpreted in any other way that would make sense. This is like saying the theory of relativity shows many holes in logic then bot actually concluding why one would reach such a conclusion.

No, the only reason it seems so overwhelming is because we have the evidence. Observable, testable and predictable. Everything a theory needs.


See? An argument can often works both ways. It is because it's not based on logic but on emotions and personal feelings. You were the one claiming I had a lack of knowledge on this, so I suggest you'd wise up and refrain from those personal arguments but rather stick to the facts.

I agree, and thus stuck to the facts regarding ERV insertions. I am still waiting for you to give me a credible fact against ERV proving common ancestory. In other words when are you going to post factual information that explains why we see matching ERV sequences within our closest relatives. And other species show to they have matching ERV's within there branches too.

Unless you bring this evidence to the debate, your only going around in circles.

Regards

Root

Abdul Fattah
08-23-2005, 06:34 PM
I’ve noticed in the last couple of posts that you’r responses to certain quotes have a total disregard of wich is further mentioned in the original post. To avoid me repeating myself, and to avoid people thinking I’m running around in circles, kindly read through my post at least once before making a reply so you have knowledge of what comes behind the piece of text you quote.


We cannot debate when you are being so misleading. The initial infection leading to the insertion of the "junk" DNA is random. The subsequent copies of cell/species reproduction is not. the 1-to-6 billion chance arguement (actually 1-to-6=billion X 12: since we observe 12 such insertion points) is the creationists argument against random luck.
Ok first it’s totally random, then it’s totally not, and now the infection is random but reproduction not. And I’m the one being misleading? No my point of vieuw has been christalclear. Namely that the method of infection is not random. And it’s not just out of the bleu, I provided evidence to go with that claim. You are in fact the one who now tries to mislead people by bringing up un-randomness of the reproduction, wich has nothing to do with the discussion at hand point. You’r simply blowing smoke so no one would notice your failure in providing decent arguments.


Yes, this is true. The randomness of the intitial insertion is random, subsequent copies of the gene are then fixed creating a "marker" that we all carry at the same place

Euhm there is no reason at all to assume the loci where the virus is inserted is random. I already showed in fact why it would be logical to assume the oposite.


steve: Seems that the argument is of lesser importance to you and the theory is already proven no matter what.
Root:Unless creationists can come up with a credible reason for what we observe yourself included then yes like the theory of relativity, it is what it is because it is testable, predictable and observable.

First of, common descent is not testable, nor observable nor predictable. That’s why you can’t compare it with gravity or relativity for example. Creationist do have a credible explenation, and even if we didn’t it’s absurd to claim a theory is wright just because you fail to find an alternative.

If the proof is not water tight then please post your objections.
Ow my God, what do you think I’ve been doing all this time? Did you actually thouroughly read my posts or just do a quick copy-paste and replyed the first thing that popped in your mind? Or is asking for something that I already posted just another way of escaping confrontation?


No, ERV insertions cannot be interpreted in any other way that would make sense. This is like saying the theory of relativity shows many holes in logic then bot actually concluding why one would reach such a conclusion.

Yes it can be interpretated in other ways that make sense. I’m currently defending an interpretation that makes perfect sense. You might think that it is nonsensical, but the actual judgement of my point of vieuw can only be made when no more arguments are left to debate wright?


steve: But i'll take the bait anyway, so explain me how. How does the hypothese that both species got this ERV through seperate infections, makes a common ancestor more likely?
Root: Firstly, I have never stated the ERV insertions were through seperate infections as this goes against all we have discussed. One insertion point in multiple species (in this case primates), by carrying the static "copy" of the original random infection can only suggest common ancestory.

Forgive me for trying to place words in you mounth but when I read the following quote I did seem to me as if you clamed the insertion point (place were virus infects) are not randomly chosen.


You are in agreement with me that the insertion points we see are not "Random" and nor are they "Luck". What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of DNA?
Ok, moving on to the next item at hand....

I like the way you have switched from theory to hypothosis. This is a mistake since ERV insertions within the animal kindom is a theory and not hypothosis. As stated above we can Observe, test and make predictions based on observation, this afterall is what validates the theory of relativity. And I simply don't understand how you can subscribe a biased point of view when it is based on observable and credible scientific observation.
Ow my, did you just now ignore all of my previous posts when making this statement? ERV insertion is a theory, but using ERV-insertion to back up common descent is a hypothesis. And for a very simple reason. As I said before, and even demonstrated, the presence of these ERV’s can very well be interpretated in a different way. Therefor the presence of these ERV do not undeniably imply common descent. This is why it’s a hypothesis and not a theory. As for being biased. If there are multiple ways of interpreting these ERV’s, and you say one interpretation (mine) is speculation, and the other interpretation (yours) is an overwhelming evidence for common descent, then you are VERY biased.


ERV insertions is a scientifically credible at ancestory observation. We also observe matching ERV insertions between a woolly mammoth & Elephant. We observe matching insertion points within the reptile species and again with mammals. Each species showing common ancestory (matching ERV's within their own groups.)
Yes it’s commonly accepted way of ancestorial observation. Why? Alow me to show the steps that were taken in the course of it getting recognised.
1. A lot of scientist believe in common descent.
2. With ERV’s only commonalitys were searched to proof this descent. (remember the encyclopedia argument?)
3.We found some ERV’s that if we assume origenated from a single source rather then from multiple infections would speak favorouble for evolution.
4. Since this hypothesis seems to corelate to common descent so good, it must be true.
5. So now we see this as a theory rather then a hypothesis.
6. The theory corelates to common descent.
7. I no longer need to believe in common descent, since it’s now a proven fact...


I agree, and thus stuck to the facts regarding ERV insertions. I am still waiting for you to give me a credible fact against ERV proving common ancestory. In other words when are you going to post factual information that explains why we see matching ERV sequences within our closest relatives. And other species show to they have matching ERV's within there branches too. Unless you bring this evidence to the debate, your only going around in circles.

I will not bring evidence that proofs your hypothesis falsness for the following 4 reasons:

1. My point was made clear: I believe those ERV’s to be the result of different infections wich would explain why they are present in whole populations. You have countered this with the “chance” argument. First of, I showed you how it needend be a case of “luck” and secondly I showed you how your point of vieuw also has some problems with a “chance factor”.
3. My p.o.v. stands undefeated so far, whereas you stopped fighting the arguments I presented to your p.o.v. So in a way, I’ve already done more then you did.
4. I do not have the spare time to look up the whole proces of ERV’s to calculate how polarity and threedimensional shapes of diffrent virusses would influence this proces.
5. Even if I did have the time for it, I wouldn’t bother. I entered the discussion only to show that common descent is not proven; and by doing so to show that when someone opposes you, that doesn’t neccesairly mean that he has a lack of knowledge in the matter at hand. I did show you that your “proofs” are only hypothesis. I've already done what I wanted to do. Now you want me to proof your hypothesis is wrong, or else you'll accuse me of going in circles? Even though you've failed to proof mine is wrong? No, I shared my point of vieuw, If you don't want to accept it out of personal judgement of one likelyness versus another then that's your choice, I have nothing to do with that.

Note that this doesn't mean I'm bailing out the conversation. I will Inshallah try to continue answering any comments you have to this post. Al be it only out of politeness to allow you to further try your case. This is simply me saying: what you require of me is to much and uncalled for.

With respect steve

root
08-23-2005, 08:27 PM
Hi Steve

OK,


Ok first it’s totally random, then it’s totally not, and now the infection is random but reproduction not. And I’m the one being misleading? No my point of vieuw has been christalclear. Namely that the method of infection is not random. And it’s not just out of the bleu, I provided evidence to go with that claim. You are in fact the one who now tries to mislead people by bringing up un-randomness of the reproduction, wich has nothing to do with the discussion at hand point. You’r simply blowing smoke so no one would notice your failure in providing decent arguments.

I would like if I may to break your first and most important piece down a little into smaller chunks:


Ok first it’s totally random, then it’s totally not, and now the infection is random but reproduction not. And I’m the one being misleading?

I fail to see why you have stated this since from the outset I have always claimed that the insertion point of the virus is random. Subsequent copies of the "infected" gene are static, throughout this post I have always stated this.


No my point of vieuw has been christalclear. Namely that the method of infection is not random. And it’s not just out of the bleu, I provided evidence to go with that claim.

Yes you did, and this concluded that the insertions were not random.


You are in fact the one who now tries to mislead people by bringing up un-randomness of the reproduction, wich has nothing to do with the discussion at hand point.

No, I am claiming simply this as stated right at the beginning:

Endogenous retroviruses may embed themselves into any cell in the body, and this includes the sex cells (gametes) as well as the normal body (or somatic) cells. If an ERV occurs in a sex cell that goes on to fertilise an egg (or be fertilised by a sperm) then the ERV will be present in every single cell of the new organism, including it's sex cells (well since it will be in one chromosome, initially it will only be in 50% of the sex cells).

In summary this means that the insertion to the host is random (currently disputed) and that the new organism will carry the junk DNA at a specific point. Indeed we as human will share this same insertion point today.

Again, this all comes down to the issue as to wether or not the initial infection is random in it's insertion position within the host chromozones.


You’r simply blowing smoke so no one would notice your failure in providing decent arguments.

OK, readers can see for themselves if I am constantly changing position.

In summary, we will not be able to make any progression towards a greater truth until we have resolved the issue with the insertion point being random or not as I originaly discounted it as random for the following reasons:

A common creationist objection to the ERV concept is that of multiple insertions i.e. the idea that a virus might insert itself into the same place in different organisms and it becomes embedded in both organisms i.e. a human might be infected with E1, and this ERV becomes embedded in the human population, and a chimp might become infected with E1 and this also becomes embedded,

Again, this is taken from my first post on ERV insertions and common decent. And it is a matter of fact that this is indeed your objection. As seen on page two, and your right in stating that the debate balloned out of which we need to slim it. hence why I am concentrating on your very first rebuttle. i.e The insertion points are not random

Sometimes, subjects become very complex and I hope readers take the time to read suggested link to follow this story through to better educate themselves how Evolution cannot and will not be as easily refuted as the original poster intended. (I don't mean Steve for whome I have a lot of respect).

I can provide many professional links to scientific data that suggests the insertions are random. Since the only source on the internet that did rebuttle a claim against randomness was removed by the author, placing yourself at the wrong end of the debate.

a class that creationists often claim cannot exist. We know that sequences are randomly being inserted into our DNA by retroposition even today, as genetic accidents without apparent divine intervention, including insertions that can cause inherited diseases in subsequent generations or induce cancer in the individual in which they arise. If these insertions have no beneficial function, there is no reason to suspect any function for the similar insertions that are shared between species.


Although creationists have been, for the most part, conspicuously silent on ERVs as strong evidence for evolution (a notable exception was AIG's Carl Wieland, who wrote a response to Edward Max's Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/); Max's reply (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/wieland.html#WielandRetracts), pointing out the piece's serious and misleading errors, convinced him to remove it from their webpage) a common theme of dissenters is to deny, implicitly or explicitly, the randomness of proviral integration into the host genome. If integration is non-random, they argue, the extreme improbability of ERVs showing up at the same loci across different species (a problem circumvented by acknowledging they represent ancestry, and not different, convergent instances of infection) effectivly goes out the window. To buttress this claim, creationists cite mainstream literature on specific aspects of integration specificity. For example, Zhu et al (1999) knocked out Sir3p and Sir4p, two components of silent chromatin, in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. This was followed by a more than nine-fold decrease in Ty5 (one of the families of S. cerevisiae ERV) integration specificity, which normally (more than 90%) occur near the silent chromatin bounded telomeres and HM loci.

Source:http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Endogenous_retroviruses

I also thought that readers may enjoy this, the rebuttle to have your claim removed. (Well, it's not exactly your claim but your understanding as to why ERV insertion is not a sound theory)


Dear Carl Wieland,

I have just come across your article on the Web entitled 'Junk-making' viruses neutralize an evolutionary argument, in which you claim that the evolutionary argument based on shared pseudogenes is invalid. As you may be aware, I have written an extensive article (posted at the Talk.Origins Archive) in which I outline in detail why retroposons/pseudogenes shared between species argue strongly for common ancestry and therefore support evolution. I am writing to you now to explain why I believe the conclusions of your article to be erroneous.

1. You write "there is no consistent pattern of pseudo-genes (sic) in humans, chimps and gorillas from which it could be argued that humans are closer to chimps than they are to gorillas. Some pseudogenes are shared by humans and chimps, not by gorillas, while others are shared by humans and gorillas, but not chimps."

According to the current evolutionary view, humans, chimps and gorillas shared common ancestors for hundreds of millions of years from the origin of life until about 6 million years ago, when a separate gorilla lineage diverged. Therefore, the evolution model predicts that most human retroposons/pseudogenes would be shared between all three species since any retroposons/pseudogenes that arose in human ancestors before 6 million years ago (MYA) would have been passed on equally to those ancestors' human and ape descendants. This prediction is supported by current evidence that most human pseudogenes examined are shared by chimps and gorillas, and it is this evidence that argues strongly that these three species shared a common ancestor. If the data you cite in your second sentence above actually exist, they bear only on the question of whether chimp or gorilla ancestors first diverged from the human lineage, and not on the fundamental validity of evolution.

Current evidence suggests that the chimp lineage diverged from human ancestors about 5 MYA. Therefore, the evolution model would predict that human DNA should harbor some retroposons/pseudogenes not shared with chimps or gorillas, namely those that arose less than 5 MYA. This prediction is also supported by current evidence, in that several retroposons/pseudogenes whose sequence characteristics suggest that they arose recently are in fact not found in chimps and gorillas. Similarly, there are recent chimp retroposons/pseudogenes not found in humans or gorillas.

The interval of time between the divergence of gorillas from humans and the divergence of chimps from humans is believed to be about 1 million years, which is a tiny portion of the evolutionary history of these three species. Accordingly, evolution predicts that this period would have been too brief to have accumulated many retroposons/pseudogenes that we might now find shared by chimps and humans but not gorillas. Consistent with this prediction, I have not found any documented examples of such pseudogenes, although there are many examples of other more frequent types of genetic alteration (deletions, nucleotide substitutions, small insertions) which are shared by humans and chimps but not gorillas. [note added 4-26-00: An example of a sequence present in human and chimpanzee but not gorilla or other primate species is described in Keller et al., Mol Biol Evol 16:1019, 1999.]

What about a hypothetical pseudogene/retroposon shared by humans and gorillas but not chimps? As I argue in section 5.8 of my Web posting, although such a retroposon/pseudogene is not predicted by evolution, a few such examples can easily be accommodated with an evolutionary explanation: a pseudogene or retroposon that arose in the common ancestor of humans, chimps and gorillas may get deleted in chimps. Such deletions are not common, but are known to occur.

But suppose as DNA sequence data accumulates in the future we discover not a few, but many pseudogenes shared by humans and gorillas, and far fewer ones shared by humans and chimps; would this threaten the foundations of evolutionary theory as you imply? Absolutely not; it would, however, cause us to rethink the notion that gorilla ancestors diverged from the human lineage before chimp ancestors. The current view of an earlier gorilla divergence (and the estimated dates given above) derive from statistical calculations based on the very slightly greater similarity of DNA sequences between human and chimp than between human and gorilla; but only a small fraction of the DNA of these species has been sequenced, so these similarity estimates carry some uncertainty. Because most scientists feel that shared retroposons represent better clues to species relatedness than routine sequence similarity comparisons, a greater number of shared gorilla-human retroposons would probably compel the conclusion that the gorilla lineage diverged from the human more recently than the chimp lineage. The slightly greater chimp-human sequence similarity than gorilla-human would, if it persisted as more sequence data accumulate, suggest a greater mutation rate in the gorilla lineage than in human or chimp.

Alternatively, if future investigations discover just as many chimp-and-human-but-not-gorilla shared retroposons/pseudogenes as gorilla-and-human-but-not-chimp, this could be explained if chimp and gorilla ancestors diverged simultaneously (or very closely in time) from the human lineage. In this case the incompletely shared retroposons/pseudogenes could have inserted into the common ancestor such a short time before the lineage split that they had not spread throughout the population before the lineage split occurred; some retroposons/pseudogenes might become fixed in gorillas and humans but not chimps, and others might become fixed in chimps and humans but not gorillas.

In any case, I am surprised that you were able to find enough examples of gorilla-human-but-not-chimp pseudogenes to make the generalization in your second sentence quoted above. I would appreciate it if you would send me the literature references to all these examples. I can't help wondering if you are generalizing from the single example that creationist John Woodmorappe has cited, that of an epsilon immunoglobulin pseudogene supposedly shared by gorilla and human but not chimp. If you read my Web posting (the boxed sidebar under section 5.8), you will see that this example is erroneous.

2. You cite a creationist model of pseudogene formation (shown in your Fig. 1) in which genes A, B and C present in early populations of humans, chimps and gorillas lead to pseudogenes in modern populations of these species. If you think that this model accurately reflects the current observations of pseudogenes, you seriously misunderstand the details of the pseudogene data. Your model suggests that the pseudogene A' in humans arose independently from the pseudogene A' in chimps and in gorillas. The problem with your formulation is that many examples exist where not only do humans and chimpanzees both have a pseudogene derived from the same source gene, but they both have the SAME pseudogene; i.e. the pseudogene has the SAME defects and is located in the SAME location in the DNA of the two species, inserted into the SAME sequence at the target DNA site. There is no way that the random origin of retroposons/pseudogenes independently in two species, as described in your model, can explain identical defects and identical locations of the same pseudogene shared between species. On the contrary, your model predicts that random pseudogenes arising independently in chimps and humans would carry different mutations and, at least for processed pseudogenes, be located in different locations; both of these predictions are contradicted by the evidence.

3. Finally, you claim that "at least some of the 'pseudogenes may not properly be such at all, and may turn out to have a function like so many of their 'junkyard' cousins have." These arguments are also dealt with in my Web article (sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4). I suggest that you (and any other readers of this letter) consult my article. To briefly summarize these sections:

(a) It is true that a very few examples exist of retroposed genes that have no mutational defects and are functional; these are properly called "processed genes." They can easily be distinguished from processed pseudogenes, and do not suggest any function for those pseudogenes.

(b) A very few examples are known of retroposed sequences that have regulatory function. These represent examples of very rare favorable mutations, a class that creationists often claim cannot exist. We know that sequences are randomly being inserted into our DNA by retroposition even today, as genetic accidents without apparent divine intervention, including insertions that can cause inherited diseases in subsequent generations or induce cancer in the individual in which they arise. If these insertions have no beneficial function, there is no reason to suspect any function for the similar insertions that are shared between species.

(c) As scientists, we do not declare dogmatically that no function will ever be found for most pseudogenes. However, we base our current conclusions on currently available data. And those data indicate that shared retroposons/pseudogenes are functionless genetic accidents and can best be explained as originating in a common ancestor. Indeed, no other credible scientific explanation has been proposed either in the scientific literature or in creationist or mainstream scientific responses to my Web article.

Because my Web article already links to sites with opposing points of view (and includes my responses to those sites) I plan to ask the Webmaster of Talk.Origins to include a link to your site, and a link to a copy of this response to it. I would appreciate any comments you might have to this response, and am sure that Talk.Origins would be willing to include a link to your comments. If you have any interest in providing the readers of your site with an opposing point of view so that they can make up their own minds based on a comprehensive review of the data, you might want to consider linking to my site.

Sincerely,

Edward E. Max

[Note added later:
Shortly after receiving this letter, Carl Wieland responded cordially, agreeing that his page on Answers in Genesis might have been misleading. He stated that he would remove his page, and it promptly disappeared from the Answers in Genesis site. ]

Source:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/wieland.html#WielandRetracts

I would link to the initial rabbutle. But the author removed it after reading the above!

Regards

Root

root
09-03-2005, 12:42 PM
This has been a real engaging thread to read, and highlights the differences within differing groups of Islam. The link to http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ with "An invitation to discover Islam", has a small "tucked away in the corner" refutations to evolution.

Being interested in an article on this site I clicked the link then randomly chose a subject which in this case was titled "A professional chemical weapons expert".

The page has no direct link to it, however it makes a claim that since the Beetle uses two explosive mixing chemicles, such a creature could not evolve and thus scientific evidence of a creation.


As soon as these materials interact, an explosive reaction occurs and an irritating chemical named quinone at 120 C is squirted at a tremendous speed. It is impossible for an enemy that is exposed to the dreadful weapon of the bombardier beetle to escape

Blatant Innacuracy ^1

The two chemicals being refered to are Hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide. which when mixed DO NOT cause an explosion, but you don't have to take my word for it and there is little point me posting any rebuttle page since these two chemicals can be purchased legally. Hydroquinone can be sourced from a photography shop and Hydrogen Peroxide from a basic chemist. Go buy them and mix them together yourself.............


It is impossible for this marvelous system in the beetle to have formed as a result of coincidences. These chemicals, which explode the moment they interact, are kept separately in special chambers and mixed only at the moment of attack.

Blatant Innacuracy ^2

That description of bombardier beetles' physiology is inaccurate. It is based on a sloppy translation of a 1961 German article by Schildknecht and Holoubek (Kofahl 1981).

Before I am accused of being "off-topic" my point here is mis-representation of the truth and a dogmatic attitude to be seen as credible by such Islamic sites as this. progress, perhaps is to acknowledge when one can clearly see the blatant lies that are misrepresenting the true discovery of Islam and it's forward thinking attitude.

Regards

Root

Ansar Al-'Adl
09-04-2005, 02:40 PM
Your post has been moved here, Root. Please do not go off-topic in threads again. Allaahuakbar.net was never quoted as an authority on biological sciences.

Regards

Bittersteel
09-05-2005, 11:16 AM
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline

Abdul Fattah
09-05-2005, 05:34 PM
I haven't been around for a while, got a full time job 6 days out of seven 7+ hours a day so I have lil time to reply here. I have noticed though in a quick scroll that as interesting as these things may be they have lil or even nothing to do with the arguments i raised angains evolution. It's not because the argumets of some creationists are defeated that threfor all creationists arguments are wrong, wright? :)

root
09-08-2005, 10:51 AM
Steve - It's not because the argumets of some creationists are defeated that threfor all creationists arguments are wrong, wright?

I think with reference to the fire cracking beatle which was used to support a creationist view until it was proved false highlights the disinformation there is within the creationist cramp.

P.S, Too much work and no play is not good for you Steve.

Regards

Root

azim
09-12-2005, 01:48 AM
Salamu alaykum.

Nay! Verily, man does transgress all bounds (in disbelief and evil deed, etc.).
Because he considers himself self-sufficient. (Chapter 96, Verse 6-7)

I just posted these lines of the Quran because to me, they illustrate a point. We're all taught in school about the theory of evolution. Which, despite its many flaws, is 'religiously' defended by some scientists. To me, the zealous nature in which they defend it has a lot to do with the belief that evolution makes mankind 'self-sufficient'. Why do we need Allah if evolution gives us all we need to survive?

Evolution is actually adaptation. You only hear about evolution on the small scale. For example - a giraffe could eat more leaves with a longer neck, so the ones with longer necks survived and you end up an animal with a longer neck than body. Yet, scientifically speaking, that's adaptation, not evolution.

If evolution was true, then you could logically give a reasonable account of how a single-celled organism could evolve into ANY creature with an eye. I have really tried to do this, but it's not possible. Try it yourself. No matter how many steps you take, you can not logically imagine any way that a cell could become an animal with an eye.

It is He, Who has created for you (the sense of) hearing (ears), sight (eyes), and hearts (understanding). Little thanks you give. (Chapter 23, Verse 78)

This is the same with so many things. The double-circulatory system is another example. Most animals have a single-cirulatory system (blood goes to heart, the heart pumps to the lungs, they receive oxygen, leave carbon dioxide and carry on the journey around body). Some highly developed animals (such as birds) and humans however, have a double circulatory system (blood goes to one valve in the heart, is pumped to the lungs, recieves oxygen, returns to the heart and is then given another pump for its journey around the body). No mutation or evolutionary step could take something from having a single-circulatory system to having a double-circulatory system. It is completely and scientifically impossible.

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding. (Chapter 3, Verse 190)

I know the Religion vs. Evolution debate is an old one, but I was wanted my little say on it :p. Jazak'Allah khaiyran for reading.

PS: The option to try and explain the evolution of the eye and double-circulatory system is open to all.

Danish
09-12-2005, 09:00 AM
:sl:
i seem to recall darwin saying in his book "the thought of the eye makes me cold all over" :)

mashallah good post

root
09-14-2005, 07:58 AM
Darwin argued the key to the puzzle was to find "eyes" of intermediate complexity within the animal kingdom which could demonstrate a possible path from simple to complicated.

An example of this intermediate stage can be found with the species "Tripedalia Cystophora" (Box jellyfish) which has 24 eyes. 16 of these eyes are just pits of light sensitive pigment with 8 eyes of surprising complexity...........

The lens structure in the complex eyes are unusual because of a refractive index that blurs the image. From here it would be an easy step to evolve an "Image forming eye". Evolutionists beleive that the very first "eye's" were cells that were sensitive to light, nothing more and nothing less. Such a mutated cell would carry a distinct advantage within it's environment almost immediately.

azim
09-14-2005, 09:05 PM
Darwin argued the key to the puzzle was to find "eyes" of intermediate complexity within the animal kingdom which could demonstrate a possible path from simple to complicated.

An example of this intermediate stage can be found with the species "Tripedalia Cystophora" (Box jellyfish) which has 24 eyes. 16 of these eyes are just pits of light sensitive pigment with 8 eyes of surprising complexity...........

The lens structure in the complex eyes are unusual because of a refractive index that blurs the image. From here it would be an easy step to evolve an "Image forming eye". Evolutionists beleive that the very first "eye's" were cells that were sensitive to light, nothing more and nothing less. Such a mutated cell would carry a distinct advantage within it's environment almost immediately.

I had read about the jellyfish before, but they don't really explain anything. Evolutionists have argued that the lens which blurs the image, is actually a product of advanced evolution as it helps the jellyfish make more sense of their surroundings then an eye with more detail.

Also, a cell could never 'mutate' to become sensitive to light, that is to say, it would not be the product of a single mutation. There would have had to have been several mutations along the way.

The evolutionary process doesnt however make anymore sense if we include the jellyfish eyes.

Singe Cell
More Developed Cells
Cells which are made up of some Light Sensitive Cells
>
>(Somewhere around here, the light senstive cells would need to
>somehow connect to the brain of the animal to interpret prescence/absence of >light)
>
>(Around here, a lens would have to develop, such a mutation is impossible)
>
Jellyfish with blurred vision.
>
>(A whole host of complexities would develop around here).
>
Human eye or a better example, a bird's eye (which is more developed).

None of the steps in between seem any more or less likely if the jellyfish eye was some sort of intermediate step.

There is also the question of the double circulatory system which causes evolutionists a lot more grief.

Thank you for your post root. Even if you do not agree with my view, I hope you agree that evolution has discrepencies which should be taught in education, if only to try and find a more permenant and sound theory in the future.

root
09-14-2005, 09:37 PM
Cool, glad you took the time to read it.

At the moment I am looking into how clay geot into comet Temple 1, However I do have some questions if you don't mind.


Also, a cell could never 'mutate' to become sensitive to light,

How sure are you about this?


Human eye or a better example, a bird's eye (which is more developed).

Why do you believe a birds eye is more developed?


There is also the question of the double circulatory system which causes evolutionists a lot more grief.

Not really heard of this one! have you a source?


I hope you agree that evolution has discrepencies which should be taught in education, if only to try and find a more permenant and sound theory in the future.

can you expand.

Also, I wonder how you feel about a type of bat and a type of mole who now are evolving losing sight as the eyes sink into the fur and show actual signs of diminishing. I am interested how you account for such a happening.

I don't have a problem with the evolution of eyes, they are varied amongst species and all have seem to be perfectly (within reason, since the Human eye is not perfect). Why are all the eyes of species perfectly suited to thier current environment, and why when they change environment do the eyes change accordingly! (In your opinion)

Finally, and I hope you take the time, for I am interested. can you give me a clue in your opinion to what you mean here:


if only to try and find a more permenant and sound theory in the future.

Regards

Root

azim
09-15-2005, 05:58 PM
Thanks for the reply root.

I’ll just reply to the points you mentioned one by one.

1) Mutating to become sensitive to light.

A mutation is technically a defect in the genetic information of a cell. If we imagine the information contained in the DNA to look something like this.

A-B-C-D-E-F-G

Then a mutation would be this: -

A-B-C-E-F-G
or in other cases
A-B-X-C-D-E-F-G

There a several different types. In most cases, a mutation is negative. As far as human mutation goes, it’s always negative. In all cases of mutation in a child’s genetic information, the child is born with a disease, for example, cystic fibrosis.

Evolution holds the assumption that mutation can lead to beneficial products in some instances. These beneficial products lead to an advantage for the creature with the mutation, which means creatures with that mutation survive and procreate, passing on the mutation.

The very first cell created (which in itself is highly improbable) would not be sensitive to light. So somehow, a mutation would have to provide with the ability to react to light. It is impossible for a single mutation to provide with this ability. So the only way it’s possible is if several mutations lead to it. I could not answer what mutations could lead to a cell having this ability.

2) Bird’s eye being more developed.

A bird’s eye is more developed than a human eye as a fact. A bird can spot a mouse from the sky several hundred meets high (well some birds, for example, owls/eagles).

3) Double circulatory system.

You want a source on the double circulatory system? Type it into google, take you’re pick.

4) “I hope you agree that evolution has discrepancies which should be taught in education, if only to try and find a more permanent and sound theory in the future.”

If discrepancies in the evolutionary theory are taught, then at least the youth who grow up to be the scientists of the future can work to a solution to these problems. Why ignore them?

5) Moles and Bats with diminishing eye-sight.
This is the first I have heard about this topic.

I will say that although a bat uses hearing as there main sense, their eyesight is not useless to them. Certain bats use their eyes to find very specific flowers for example. Say their habitat changed, and they no longer found these flowers, and so changed their diet to adapt to the new circumstances, then there is no benefit in having the eyesight. Yet if they moved back into an area with the certain flowers they feed from exist, then they could quite easily start using their eyesight for this purpose again. This is adaptation, I do not deny adaptation.

I hope I have explained the final quote you used in the earlier point, if not, then I will go into further detail.

Just to explain my standpoint, I am a Muslim and so believe Allah created the universe. I believe personally that evolution is impossible without a creator. The Quran neither affirms nor negates the evolution of animals. What it does do however is firmly negates the evolution of mankind, as Allah created Adam (as). Therefore, that is what I believe.

Thank you for discussing the topic in such a friendly manner with me. I hope this has cleared up what I meant and look forward to a reply.

root
09-18-2005, 05:09 PM
Hi Azim.

Thanks for the response. I feel we should at this point (before going further), clear up what IS and IS NOT truthful.


There a several different types. In most cases, a mutation is negative. As far as human mutation goes, it’s always negative. In all cases of mutation in a child’s genetic information, the child is born with a disease, for example, cystic fibrosis.

OK, cool. Firstly, here is the evolutionary mutation driven currently evolving bird flu.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6125

Anti-biotic resistent bacteria is the classic of beneficial mutation, Bacteria replicate extremely fast, and are thus a good model for studying genetic diversity and adaptation.

Nonetheless, you seem to be looking for a beneficial genetic mutation in humans:

Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998 Apr;18(4):562-567. "PAI-1 plasma levels in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis: relation to environmental and genetic determinants," by Margaglione M, Cappucci G, d'Addedda M, Colaizzo D, Giuliani N, Vecchione G, Mascolo G, Grandone E, Di Minno G; Unita' di Trombosi e Aterosclerosi, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy.

Abstract:

Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) plasma levels have been consistently related to a polymorphism (4G/5G) of the PAI-1 gene. The renin-angiotensin pathway plays a role in the regulation of PAI-1 plasma levels. An insertion (I)/deletion (D) polymorphism of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene has been related to plasma and cellular ACE levels. In 1032 employees (446 men and 586 women; 22 to 66 years old) of a hospital in southern Italy, we investigated the association between PAI-1 4G/5G and the ACE I/D gene variants and plasma PAI-1 antigen levels. None of the individuals enrolled had clinical evidence of atherosclerosis. In univariate analysis, PAI-1 levels were significantly higher in men (P<.001), alcohol drinkers (P<.001), smokers (P=.009), and homozygotes for the PAI-1 gene deletion allele(4G/4G) (P=.012). Multivariate analysis documented the independent effect on PAI-1 plasma levels of body mass index (P<.001), triglycerides (P<.001), sex (P<.001), PAI-1 4G/5G polymorphism (P=.019), smoking habit (P=.041), and ACE I/D genotype (P=.042). Thus, in addition to the markers of insulin resistance and smoking habit, gene variants of PAI-1 and ACE account for a significant portion of the between-individual variability of circulating PAI-1 antigen concentrations in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis.

N Engl J Med 1998 Jan 8;338(2):79-85

Polymorphisms in the coagulation factor VII gene and the risk of myocardial infarction.

Iacoviello L, Di Castelnuovo A, De Knijff P, D'Orazio A, Amore C, Arboretti R, Kluft C, Benedetta Donati M Department of Vascular Medicine and Pharmacology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Santa Maria Imbaro, Italy.

BACKGROUND: High blood levels of coagulation factor VII are associated with a risk of ischemic vascular disease. Although factor VII levels may be genetically determined, the relation between genetic polymorphisms of factor VII, factor VII blood levels, and the risk of myocardial infarction has not been established. METHODS: We performed a case-control study of 165 patients with familial myocardial infarction (mean [+/-SD] age, 55+/-9 years) and 225 controls without a personal or family history of cardiovascular disease (mean age, 56+/-8 years). The polymorphisms involving R353Q and hypervariable region 4 of the factor VII gene were studied. Factor VII clotting activity and antigen levels were also measured. RESULTS: Patients with the QQ or H7H7 genotype had a decreased risk of myocardial infarction (odds ratios, 0.08 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.01 to 0.9] and 0.22 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.08 to 0.63], respectively). For the R353Q polymorphism, the RR genotype was associated with the highest risk, followed by the RQ genotype and then by the QQ genotype (P<0.001). For the polymorphism involving hypervariable region 4, the combined H7H5 and H6H5 genotypes were associated with the highest risk, followed in descending order by the H6H6, H6H7, and H7H7 genotypes (P<0.001). Patients with the QQ or H7H7 genotype had lower levels of both factor VII antigen and factor VII clotting activity than those with the RR or H6H6 genotype. Patients with the lowest level of factor VII clotting activity had a lower risk of myocardial infarction than those with the highest level (odds ratio, 0.13; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that certain polymorphisms of the factor VII gene may influence the risk of myocardial infarction. It is possible that this effect may be mediated by alterations in factor VII levels.

Further to this, you will also note the recent post I made "Proof, our brains are evolving:

Quote:
University scientists say they have found strong proof that the human brain is still evolving. By comparing modern man with our ancestors of 37,000 years ago, the Chicago team discovered big changes in two genes linked to brain size.

Quote:
One of the new variants emerged only 5,800 years ago yet is present in 30% of today's humans, they believe. This is very short in evolutionary terms, suggesting intense selection pressures, they told Science.

Quote:
Each gene variant emerged around the same time as the advent of so called "cultural" behaviours. The microcephalin variant appeared along with the emergence of traits such as art and music, religious practices and sophisticated tool-making techniques, which date back to about 50,000 years ago.
It is now present in about 70% of humans alive today

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=5025


Evolution holds the assumption that mutation can lead to beneficial products in some instances. These beneficial products lead to an advantage for the creature with the mutation, which means creatures with that mutation survive and procreate, passing on the mutation.

It's not an assumption. See above


The very first cell created (which in itself is highly improbable) would not be sensitive to light. So somehow, a mutation would have to provide with the ability to react to light. It is impossible for a single mutation to provide with this ability. So the only way it’s possible is if several mutations lead to it. I could not answer what mutations could lead to a cell having this ability.

OK, firstly. The theory of evolutuion does not involve how the first cells came to be. This is another matter. Additionally, it is your assumption that (physical eyes) mutated as a result of randomness. Do you realise that we have light sensitive cells in our brains even today, indeed a living marine worm of today that still resembles an early ancestor up-to 600 million years ago contains cone like rods within the brain cells. I just do not understand for the life of me that the world you live in is subject to chemical laws, (We call it chemistry) and we don't need to mutate light sensitive cells we need to formulate them, adaptation does the rest. Mutations, can simply be the same componants but in differing quantities. Unless perhaps we should also point out "Gaps" in the Chemistry class also.


A bird’s eye is more developed than a human eye as a fact. A bird can spot a mouse from the sky several hundred meets high (well some birds, for example, owls/eagles).

This is simply a false premis. Birds eyes are adapted for thier environment, primates for theirs. Have you considered the consequences of having Bird's eyes as humans!!!!!!!! You just cannot make such a ridiculous claim and try to stay "credible"


3) Double circulatory system.

I took a look into this, and it has nothing against an evolution model. It's part of the circulatory system that is one system out of 8 other systems of our bodies. Besides, primates birds and mammals have the same system. All warm blooded life formas share the same system, it is not unique in anyway. Perhaps you could enlighten me why you see it to be as "special" to revoke the theory of evolution.


If discrepancies in the evolutionary theory are taught, then at least the youth who grow up to be the scientists of the future can work to a solution to these problems. Why ignore them?

What discrepencies are you refering to! True, we don't know everything such as the full evolutionary eye, but does that not mean we will never know. Based on current knowledge I would say personally that it does NOT mean we will never know. The eye shows tell tale signs of not being an "Intelligent Design", we have enough scientific data ("Light sensitive cells in Human brain" and "Chemisty") we can find intermediate living eye stages (Box Jelly Fish). Micro-Evolution is accepted in full, creationists claim multi cellular life is "Different", why they draw this conclusion I do not understand and nor does the scientific community.


If discrepancies in the evolutionary theory are taught, then at least the youth who grow up to be the scientists of the future can work to a solution to these problems. Why ignore them?

Do you really think so & what discrepencies. Perhaps we should just state "Our eyes are here because they were intelligently designed by an Intelligent designer (in your case Allah, for others by thier version of god differs to yours). Should this be taught in science, is this what you are suggesting..........


Just to explain my standpoint, I am a Muslim and so believe Allah created the universe. I believe personally that evolution is impossible without a creator. The Quran neither affirms nor negates the evolution of animals. What it does do however is firmly negates the evolution of mankind, as Allah created Adam (as). Therefore, that is what I believe.

Yes, that is your right. and as you say that is your belief, however faith is taught in Religous education & evolution is taught in the science class. The two should not cross paths........... We don't throw a bunch of magnets into a bin and shake it then say "Look at the complexity of the pattern. Such complexity of each magnet precisely located to form this marvelous structure. Why such complexity must only be the result of an Intelligent Designer" What an odd world that would be!

azim
09-18-2005, 06:33 PM
Thanks for the reply root.

You mentioned the bird flu as an example of beneficial mutation. Mutation leading to a strain which is resistant to antibiotics is a completely different matter than mutation leading to new ability, or something that wasn’t present in the original. The bird flu has significantly changed itself to be immune to the antibiotics, it hasn’t gained any new abilities or qualities. It’s simply changed.

In regards to the beneficial mutations in humans you have shown, in both cases, they are not single mutations, but whole genes. Which simply leads back to the comment I made earlier, that it is not possible for a single mutation to lead to a beneficial end product, it must be several beneficial mutations all working towards one end.

Say the chromosomes in a gene are people of different height standing in order. Now say if the people were arranged in order of age, then the gene would be beneficial. If all the people randomly started moving around, it is highly improbable they would end up in order of age. The only way that could happen is if each person moved with the said aim.

The theory of evolution relies on how the first cell came to be. Saying they are separate is like saying its fine to build a house on water, since the fact it’ll sink has no bearing on the house itself. This obviously isn’t true. You can not consider evolution without considering the very first cell.


This is simply a false premis. Birds eyes are adapted for thier environment, primates for theirs. Have you considered the consequences of having Bird's eyes as humans!!!!!!!! You just cannot make such a ridiculous claim and try to stay "credible"

So saying a dog has a better sense of smell is also a false premise as dogs have adapted for their environment and humans for ours? A dog can smell better than me, a bird can see better than me. Never will I need to smell as well as a dog does, nor will I need to see as well as a bird does. This does not negate the fact they have more acute abilities of eyesight and hearing.


I took a look into this, and it has nothing against an evolution model. It's part of the circulatory system that is one system out of 8 other systems of our bodies. Besides, primates birds and mammals have the same system. All warm blooded life formas share the same system, it is not unique in anyway. Perhaps you could enlighten me why you see it to be as "special" to revoke the theory of evolution.

I’m glad you took a look into it, but obviously not well enough.

http://www.islamicboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=250&stc=1

(Move counter-clockwise)

Please explain to me how this system evolved, or show me an intermediary stage, or show me any some proof as to how this ‘has nothing against an evolution model’. Or retract your statement.


What discrepencies are you refering to!

The one’s we’ve just been taking about ??

I don’t believe religion should be taught in science. But I don’t understand why so many people believe in the theory of evolution as flawless, and not be questioned. Anyone who does is an ignorant creationist. This topic is leading to a debate between evolution vs. creation. The topic has been argued, by so many other people, so many times and is not one I would like to get into as it will lead nowhere. The point I made at the start of this thread is still valid, and has not been disproved. It was mainly a message to the members of this forum to not accept things as fact, and to question what is taught, as science deals with unquestionable facts, not loose theories.

I look forward to your reply.

Abdul Fattah
09-19-2005, 01:50 AM
Don't take this personal Root, but it never seize to amaze me how you'll bend over backwards trying to defend evolution. I mean it's one thing to say: well personnally I think this and that... But why do you insist when we make a claim we cross the t's and dot the I's. Sometimes it feels like you'r picking discussions for the sake of argueing and discredeting the other person. As if you know there's an answer ready, but if you'r lucky, the opposite party just might give up and no longer care to answer...

root
09-23-2005, 07:09 PM
Steve = Don't take this personal Root, but it never seize to amaze me how you'll bend over backwards trying to defend evolution. I mean it's one thing to say: well personnally I think this and that... But why do you insist when we make a claim we cross the t's and dot the I's. Sometimes it feels like you'r picking discussions for the sake of argueing and discredeting the other person. As if you know there's an answer ready, but if you'r lucky, the opposite party just might give up and no longer care to answer...

Your point being, other than I dismiss creationism and enjoy debating it is!

Azim

I am quite busy and want to continue this, so please allow me a little more time for a response.

Regards

Root

root
09-24-2005, 01:16 PM
I am very sceptical as to your wording here.


You mentioned the bird flu as an example of beneficial mutation. Mutation leading to a strain which is resistant to antibiotics is a completely different matter than mutation leading to new ability, or something that wasn’t present in the original. The bird flu has significantly changed itself to be immune to the antibiotics, it hasn’t gained any new abilities or qualities. It’s simply changed.

I agree with you, it is mutational "Change" and "Change" in essence is Evolutionary change. So I fail to see your objection.

The virus is closely related to the H5N1 flu that was the first bird flu to kill people, in Hong Kong in 1997. The team from Shantou University in Guangdong, China and Hong Kong University report that since 2000, genetically similar viruses have increasingly been infecting chickens as well as their normal hosts, ducks, in southern China.

But since 2002 one family of these viruses, which the team calls genotype Z, has replaced all the others, indicating it possesses a massive selective advantage. Its mutations suggest that this advantage involves greater adaptation to chickens.

source:http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6125


In regards to the beneficial mutations in humans you have shown, in both cases, they are not single mutations, but whole genes. Which simply leads back to the comment I made earlier, that it is not possible for a single mutation to lead to a beneficial end product, it must be several beneficial mutations all working towards one end.

Say the chromosomes in a gene are people of different height standing in order. Now say if the people were arranged in order of age, then the gene would be beneficial. If all the people randomly started moving around, it is highly improbable they would end up in order of age. The only way that could happen is if each person moved with the said aim.

The theory of evolution relies on how the first cell came to be. Saying they are separate is like saying its fine to build a house on water, since the fact it’ll sink has no bearing on the house itself. This obviously isn’t true. You can not consider evolution without considering the very first cell.

This is the guts of our debate in reference to the Evolution of the human eyes. Firstly, I would like to express what mutation actually can be within evolutionary fields. Organisms carry an enormous arsenal of inactive genes and residual DNA. I think some of the mutations that we find that have resulted in beneficial changes occur when a gene that was once active and beneficial millions of years ago for an ancestor with a different niche becomes active again and provides a new advantage now that the organism has again changed environments.

a mutation that occurs in a developmental gene that regulates bone growth. This gene produces a protein that acts as a hormone that induces bone growth for the early stages of the developing animal. When this animal's ancestors were on the ground he needed dense bones to sustain all of the activity of tumbling around on the ground. So this gene was regulated to produce 50 copies of the protein per milliliter of blood to induce the correct density of bone. However, since the animal now leaps from tree to tree he would benefit greatly from having lighter bones. Now when a mutation occurs that causes greater regulation of that gene that produces a protein that regulates bone growth and results in only 30 copies of the protein per milliliter of blood it spreads throughout the population because lighter bones have now become an advantage

The point of all that was to show that small mutations in developmental genes can cause great and sometimes beneficial changes in the phenotype of an animal, animals keep large warehouses of old genes and DNA that can be reactivated for future use, animals often have several copies of genes that can be increased or decreased to need, animals have a variety of steps during development and regulation that are subject to mutations and can cause a range in protein amounts and phenotypic changes, and that variations caused by these mutations already exist within populations and are constantly acted on by natural selection and can work together simultaneously to create a synergistic effect causing an adaptation to a new environment. Evolution does not have to create from scratch and it rarely does. We have to bear in mind that ALL LIFE SHARES A BIG GENETIC MATCH.

Now this "Mutational" adaptation is more clear we need to go back to your original point.


If evolution was true, then you could logically give a reasonable account of how a single-celled organism could evolve into ANY creature with an eye. I have really tried to do this, but it's not possible. Try it yourself. No matter how many steps you take, you can not logically imagine any way that a cell could become an animal with an eye.

If we now go back to known evolutionary beginnings then firstly (and I do not know myself) why does it have to be a single celled organism that developed light sensitive cells. At this stage so early in the evolution of life, the development of light sensitive cells is a chemical mutational change that could easily have occured in early multi-cellular life. Secondly, early light sensitive cells are not yet "eyes" but the ability to react to light will bring a massive evolutionary advantage and would quickly come to dominate nearly all life. From here time and adaptation will do the rest. Eyes would have been at an advanced level well before the very first fish started to occupy dry land.

My final point is to do with the double circulatory system. As you quote here:


Please explain to me how this system evolved, or show me an intermediary stage, or show me any some proof as to how this ‘has nothing against an evolution model’. Or retract your statement.

OK, here is an intermediate stage:

An ancient family of fish thought to be the direct ancestors of land vertebrates takes this adaptation one step further. The three living lungfish, one in each of Australia, Africa and South America, live in muddy streams that are prone to drying. Oxygen levels are low and the fish must sometimes burrow in the mud to survive droughts. Clearly, gills are not the best respiratory surfaces under such circumstances. The lungfish have adapted the swim bladder as a lung by diverting the artery from the sixth gill arch directly to it. Thus it receives deoxygenated blood under fairly high pressure. The vein returning from the lung then adds oxygenated blood to the heart, reducing the amount of oxygen that must be picked up in the gills.

Finally, The closure of the ventricular septum (a wall between two cavities)
created the double circulatory system toward, the last step in heart
evolution. Closure of this valve is not a giant leap of faith by any stretch of the imagination. Four-chambered hearts have the advantage re-pumping blood after
its passage through the lungs, without mixing oxygenated
and non-oxygenated blood. The blood that is pumped by the heart of a
mammal or bird into the systemic arterial system if fully
oxygenated.

Regards

Root

PS. Yes dogs have a better sense of smell, birds do have better vision. My point is merely that they are not "Better" than ours, just better adapted to their environment. This follows that humans with bird sight or dog sense of smell is a BIG disadvantage to us.

Abdul Fattah
09-25-2005, 02:04 PM
I agree with you, it is mutational "Change" and "Change" in essence is Evolutionary change. So I fail to see your objection.

I think that Azim’s point was that you cannot compare the two diffrent cases. For a virus to beneficially mutate, al it needs is a diffrent shape. For a human gene to beneficially mutate it needs a new order thus the ability to make new enzymes. The first is quite easy (in terms of probability) were as the second is not!


This is the guts of our debate in reference to the Evolution of the human eyes. Firstly, I would like to express what mutation actually can be within evolutionary fields. Organisms carry an enormous arsenal of inactive genes and residual DNA. I think some of the mutations that we find that have resulted in beneficial changes occur when a gene that was once active and beneficial millions of years ago for an ancestor with a different niche becomes active again and provides a new advantage now that the organism has again changed environments.

Well first of all these are all asumptions. As far as I know there is no record of eyeless creatures carrying inactive eye-genes. You’r more then welcome to prove me wrong on that of course. Secondly, these inactive genes (as illustrated in your example) is mostly the case of a characteristic (heavy bones/light bones) that some where along the way got lost by the creature, not the other way around. It’s true that in some cases these inactive genes can become active again, but there’s no reason to believe that this actually happend.


Evolution does not have to create from scratch and it rarely does. We have to bear in mind that ALL LIFE SHARES A BIG GENETIC MATCH.

No, that’s were you’r wrong. Evolution does have to work from scrap. What you are suggesting: “evolution made inactive mutations ready inside genes so it could then when the time is wright mutate an eye” is not evolution! Most evolution-theorist would laugh that away as ID and creationist-theory.
Please take note that what you suggest goes against survival of the fittest, against the probability of the proces being random rather then regulated, against evolution.


If we now go back to known evolutionary beginnings then firstly (and I do not know myself) why does it have to be a single celled organism that developed light sensitive cells. At this stage so early in the evolution of life, the development of light sensitive cells is a chemical mutational change that could easily have occured in early multi-cellular life. Secondly, early light sensitive cells are not yet "eyes" but the ability to react to light will bring a massive evolutionary advantage and would quickly come to dominate nearly all life. From here time and adaptation will do the rest. Eyes would have been at an advanced level well before the very first fish started to occupy dry land.

Quite wright. Nonetheless if evolution wisches to pose as an alternative for creation, it needs to thouroughly show how you get from a single cell organism to a seeing creature, and even further then that.


OK, here is an intermediate stage:
An ancient family of fish thought to be the direct ancestors of land vertebrates takes this adaptation one step further. The three living lungfish, one in each of Australia, Africa and South America, live in muddy streams that are prone to drying. Oxygen levels are low and the fish must sometimes burrow in the mud to survive droughts. Clearly, gills are not the best respiratory surfaces under such circumstances. The lungfish have adapted the swim bladder as a lung by diverting the artery from the sixth gill arch directly to it. Thus it receives deoxygenated blood under fairly high pressure. The vein returning from the lung then adds oxygenated blood to the heart, reducing the amount of oxygen that must be picked up in the gills.

I must be missing something, but the way you discribed it it does not serve as an intermediate system. It’s a single surculatory system with a secundairy source of air. It may serve as an intermediate form between gills and lungs, but it does not serve as an intermediate system between single circulatory and double circulatory systems. (see attachment)

ummbilal
09-25-2005, 02:36 PM
Allah is the Evolver,

ok big bang theoryists, where did the chemicals and gases that caused the big bang come from?????



Allahualam
Allah knows best,

Abdul Fattah
09-25-2005, 04:36 PM
:sl:
That's a good question ummbilal but that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution and big bang are two diffrent things.

root
09-29-2005, 07:03 PM
I think that Azim’s point was that you cannot compare the two diffrent cases. For a virus to beneficially mutate, al it needs is a diffrent shape. For a human gene to beneficially mutate it needs a new order thus the ability to make new enzymes. The first is quite easy (in terms of probability) were as the second is not!

I have thought long and hard over this comment. I still cannot understand this, what exactly do you mean that a virus only needs to change shape!


Well first of all these are all asumptions. As far as I know there is no record of eyeless creatures carrying inactive eye-genes. You’r more then welcome to prove me wrong on that of course. Secondly, these inactive genes (as illustrated in your example) is mostly the case of a characteristic (heavy bones/light bones) that some where along the way got lost by the creature, not the other way around. It’s true that in some cases these inactive genes can become active again, but there’s no reason to believe that this actually happend.

Science is not allowed to make assumptions. That is called an hypothosis, creatures alive today have no eyes yet retain the genetic coding to have them. For example like bats & moles, some crabs are now born without eyes retain the genetic coding for eyes and still develop "rods" to which the eyes use to be attached but are not any longer.

I find your other point dogmatic, you accept inactuve genes can become active again yet you state thier is no reason to believe this to happen. Not only DOES it happen but it is one of the biggest causes of cancer when it does happen. Of course cancer is not the only cause of inactive genes reactivating. But if what you claim is true then we simply would not have half the cancers around today. The bombshell is that we do.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter5.html


No, that’s were you’r wrong. Evolution does have to work from scrap. What you are suggesting: “evolution made inactive mutations ready inside genes so it could then when the time is wright mutate an eye” is not evolution! Most evolution-theorist would laugh that away as ID and creationist-theory.
Please take note that what you suggest goes against survival of the fittest, against the probability of the proces being random rather then regulated, against evolution.

You once said you was an atheist. I don't understand why you don't display basic evolutionary understanding. Evolution in all species today did not require to start from scratch, since we share about 70% of genes to all life (both active and inactive). It would be just plain dumb to think we need to mutate an eye, for our crab for example when the genetic coding for it already exists albeit redundant. Your point is worthless for your understanding of redundent/active genes is way off the real world.


Quite wright. Nonetheless if evolution wisches to pose as an alternative for creation, it needs to thouroughly show how you get from a single cell organism to a seeing creature, and even further then that.

and so it does, with some gaps. But what we kbow so far is enough to show creationism is a lie.


I must be missing something, but the way you discribed it it does not serve as an intermediate system. It’s a single surculatory system with a secundairy source of air. It may serve as an intermediate form between gills and lungs, but it does not serve as an intermediate system between single circulatory and double circulatory systems.

You are missing the point. Secondary source of air which involves extra heart valves and evolution does the rest........

With all the debating you have done with me. You have yet to provide one credible source for creationism, This is typical since you have no evidence.

Vedad
09-29-2005, 07:49 PM
I havent read much but i recommend this site...http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php
its blowing ure evolution theory aparts, thats what i heard... and if ure a follower of darwanism u should read little in his book The Origin of Life ehere darwin suggested that European white races had progressed in evolution, whereas the other races where still at the same levels as apes.

wa allahu alem... i read that in the book for beginners

azim
09-29-2005, 07:58 PM
Salamu alaykum everyone.

Root - First I’d like to apologise for not replying for some time. September means student life starts again and free time soon disappears so I have not been able to find time to keep up with this. Secondly, a different debate has continued between yourself and Steve so I will simply state what I have to say on some points you have raised.


This is the guts of our debate in reference to the Evolution of the human eyes. Firstly, I would like to express what mutation actually can be within evolutionary fields. Organisms carry an enormous arsenal of inactive genes and residual DNA. I think some of the mutations that we find that have resulted in beneficial changes occur when a gene that was once active and beneficial millions of years ago for an ancestor with a different niche becomes active again and provides a new advantage now that the organism has again changed environments.

It doesn’t matter how many inactive genes are carried since they would have to get their in the first place. This is completely irrelevant to the topic of debate – why mention it?



Evolution does not have to create from scratch and it rarely does. We have to bear in mind that ALL LIFE SHARES A BIG GENETIC MATCH.

So…the very first cells in the earliest stages of evolution shared a big genetic match with me. No. So evolution does have to start from scratch. You are defending evolution from the present day back; I’m talking about evolution from the beginning forward. If the theory is correct, it should be valid both ways.



If we now go back to known evolutionary beginnings then firstly (and I do not know myself) why does it have to be a single celled organism that developed light sensitive cells.

It doesn’t matter whethers it is single or multi-celled, the point remains that at least ONE cell would have to become sensitive to light. This leads back to my original argument. Feels like we’re going in circles here.

On the topic of the double circulatory system.


The lungfish have adapted the swim bladder as a lung by diverting the artery from the sixth gill arch directly to it.

How exactly does evolution ‘divert’ the artery? How exactly does a swim bladder become a lung? I thought you had a decent knowledge about evolution and biology. This saldy proves you otherwise. A swim bladder is a sack full of air. A lung is a complex organ with hundreds of processes going on.

The rest of your explanation relating to the four-chambered heart has one major flaw. It doesn’t explain how a four-chambered heart came into existence through evolution, it explains ‘why’, but science asks ‘how’, and that is what I asked you.


But what we kbow so far is enough to show creationism is a lie.

cre•a•tion•ism (kr - sh -n z m)
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

I’d prefer not to claim I’m a creationist for that reason.

At the core of this debate lies the fact that if evolution did not create life on this earth – then Allah must have.

Abdul Fattah
09-30-2005, 01:21 AM
I have thought long and hard over this comment. I still cannot understand this, what exactly do you mean that a virus only needs to change shape!

Well concider what mutation would be beneficial, would it be as advanced as the mutation needed for the development of the eye for example? No, it does not, it's not the same leage not even the same ball game. All a virus has to do to becom resistant is shapeshift.


creatures alive today have no eyes yet retain the genetic coding to have them. For example like bats & moles, some crabs are now born without eyes retain the genetic coding for eyes and still develop "rods" to which the eyes use to be attached but are not any longer.

Well there you go. It's not a case of the first step in evolution, but rather the disapearence of a charesteristic. Wich is exactly what I was trying to say. These inactive genes aren't the first step, they 'r a step back.


I find your other point dogmatic, you accept inactuve genes can become active again yet you state thier is no reason to believe this to happen. Not only DOES it happen but it is one of the biggest causes of cancer when it does happen. Of course cancer is not the only cause of inactive genes reactivating. But if what you claim is true then we simply would not have half the cancers around today. The bombshell is that we do.

I see how that can sound contradictive. Allow me to explain it better with the bat example. So the bat has lost his eyes because he no longer needs them, at some point however, it is possible for an offspring to have his eyes back, since the gene is still (inactivly) carried. It would be absurd however to assume that that's how the eye evolved because it obviously postphones the question to the earlier eye, the one before bat lost it.


You once said you was an atheist. I don't understand why you don't display basic evolutionary understanding. Evolution in all species today did not require to start from scratch, since we share about 70% of genes to all life (both active and inactive). It would be just plain dumb to think we need to mutate an eye, for our crab for example when the genetic coding for it already exists albeit redundant. Your point is worthless for your understanding of redundent/active genes is way off the real world.

Don't push the limit of your bias over to my side. First of all that 70% is just plain bull**** 70 % what? What exactly is it that was measured to make such a claim? How many animal DNA is decyphered? How do you compare Diffrent DNA's How do you calculate such a statistic. Come on, don't believe everything you'r fed. Secondly what do you base your claim of my of-world-vieuw on redundant genes on? You'r building a strawman here. As I said before: there is no knowledge of a creature that suddenly mutated an inactive gene-thread wich can be concidered as a jumpstart for the evolution of the eye. You can claim there was, but this is one of the gaps evolution has, and the gap will be black unless it would be filled.


and so it does, with some gaps.

Well sore but It simply doesn't cut the mustard. there's to many gaps and to many oddities. In a way I find it takes more blind faith then creationism does.


But what we kbow so far is enough to show creationism is a lie.

O for crying out loud! Are you seriously interested in gaining any knowledge here? Or are you just playing games. Everytime You made that statement I challenged you on it, and everytime you failed. Failed to show how this is so. Failed to bring absolete proof of the opposite. Failed that several times you acknowledge that in the end of the day it's just personal preference. That no theory can overwhelmingly blast the other away. It's all a matter of paradigms, invisioning and interpretation.
But here you are again making that repugnant, ignorant, and vain statement.


You are missing the point. Secondary source of air which involves extra heart valves and evolution does the rest........
No, I don't think so, it's not a matter of how many chambers the haerth has, but a matter of how the bloodvessel go.


With all the debating you have done with me. You have yet to provide one credible source for creationism, This is typical since you have no evidence.
Well I haven't even tried. I'm not out to proof creationism, I never did, nor did I bring the impression. What I was out to, is showing that evolution has many gaps and absolutely no proof. Whereas creationism doesn't have gaps. It was never my intention to proof anything to you. You can find your own proofs if you need 'm. All I want to do is show people that there's a valid alternative. That science has not driven people to believe in evolution by default.

You think this really means something to us on a daily basis? You think this is a weak spot from wich you can tackly our religion? the only reason I care to discuss this is because sometimes people get so overwhelmed by the technicality of evolutionist's arguments that they begin to think evolution is a certainty. I'm not so vain to think I can convince evelutionists to my point of vieuw, bring them over sort of speak. Not because my beliefs and logic arent strong enoughf, but simply because a paradigms a wall of diffrent bricks wich can't be crippled by taking out a single stone. A replacement stone will always be ready. It's a safehaven of the mind, and unless there's a serious obvious reason to do so, people like to keep it safe and predictable.

root
10-11-2005, 02:14 PM
Hi Steve,

Been away and am busy. Wish I had more time.


Well concider what mutation would be beneficial, would it be as advanced as the mutation needed for the development of the eye for example? No, it does not, it's not the same leage not even the same ball game. All a virus has to do to becom resistant is shapeshift.

You don't really think the eye was a result of a single mutation as you seem to imply as such.

OK, you lost me. Why would a virus need to simply shapeshift to become immune to something like an antibiotic, you hail the champion of arguements presented by complexity then tramp all over it by saying "All the virus has to do is shape-shift". How do you propose that happens!!!!!!! (Over simplistic)

Abdul Fattah
10-11-2005, 03:44 PM
Well antibiotics is another thing but concider for example the capacity of white bloodcells (I'm not so sure their called white blood cells in English could be a poor translation, I mean the blood cells responsable for immunesystem) to defeat a virus. It is mainly due to a certain shape fitting inside a certain receptor. In this world shape is everything. When You look at how Human DNA works, you see that their are a ton of interactions between "The enzyme DNA tells you to make" and "the final endresult in which the DNA manifest itsself". To see something evolving here would be a much more balanced elegance then a simple evolution of a virus.

meknesi
10-11-2005, 04:01 PM
mashallah brother azim

meknesi

edil
10-11-2005, 04:59 PM
Thank you

Navidkhan
10-11-2005, 06:05 PM
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Here is a good power point presentation about the creation of the eye, as a proof of the existence of God.


http://www.------------/ppt2/index.html


Wassalam

Navidul Haq Khan

root
10-12-2005, 08:59 PM
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Here is a good power point presentation about the creation of the eye, as a proof of the existence of God.


http://www.------------/ppt2/index.html


Wassalam


Navidul Haq Khan

Never have been impressed with an hypothosis that claims one thing on the basis that it cannot understand another.....

root
10-12-2005, 09:06 PM
Well antibiotics is another thing but concider for example the capacity of white bloodcells (I'm not so sure their called white blood cells in English could be a poor translation, I mean the blood cells responsable for immunesystem) to defeat a virus. It is mainly due to a certain shape fitting inside a certain receptor. In this world shape is everything. When You look at how Human DNA works, you see that their are a ton of interactions between "The enzyme DNA tells you to make" and "the final endresult in which the DNA manifest itsself". To see something evolving here would be a much more balanced elegance then a simple evolution of a virus.

Steve - Perhaps we drop this line of enquiry since the human immune system that you are describing is of no issue here.

Abdul Fattah
10-13-2005, 02:18 PM
As you see fit. It was never my goal of forcing things :)

MetSudaisTwice
10-13-2005, 03:24 PM
salam
mashallah
jazakallah bro
wasalam

azim
10-13-2005, 06:02 PM
Salam.

Root - can I expect a reply on my post or will the discussion be carrying on between yourself and Steve. Just curious.

root
10-16-2005, 05:26 PM
Root - First I’d like to apologise for not replying for some time. September means student life starts again and free time soon disappears so I have not been able to find time to keep up with this. Secondly, a different debate has continued between yourself and Steve so I will simply state what I have to say on some points you have raised.

OK, Cool



Quote:Root
This is the guts of our debate in reference to the Evolution of the human eyes. Firstly, I would like to express what mutation actually can be within evolutionary fields. Organisms carry an enormous arsenal of inactive genes and residual DNA. I think some of the mutations that we find that have resulted in beneficial changes occur when a gene that was once active and beneficial millions of years ago for an ancestor with a different niche becomes active again and provides a new advantage now that the organism has again changed environments.

AZIM - It doesn’t matter how many inactive genes are carried since they would have to get their in the first place. This is completely irrelevant to the topic of debate – why mention it?

I mentioned it because some people wrongly assume Humans and a lot of other species needed to evolve an eye which is simply not the case.


Quote:Root
Evolution does not have to create from scratch and it rarely does. We have to bear in mind that ALL LIFE SHARES A BIG GENETIC MATCH.



AZIM - So…the very first cells in the earliest stages of evolution shared a big genetic match with me. No. So evolution does have to start from scratch. You are defending evolution from the present day back; I’m talking about evolution from the beginning forward. If the theory is correct, it should be valid both ways.

No, You share a genetic match from them! and thus have redundant genes no longer active, evolution CAN and DOES use redundent inactive genes for adaptation which is evolution & yes Evolution can work both ways.


Quote:Root
If we now go back to known evolutionary beginnings then firstly (and I do not know myself) why does it have to be a single celled organism that developed light sensitive cells.

AZIM - It doesn’t matter whethers it is single or multi-celled, the point remains that at least ONE cell would have to become sensitive to light. This leads back to my original argument. Feels like we’re going in circles here.

I agree with you, it's just you said single cell, so I thought you was looking at single celled life to develop/mutate light sensitive cells. And as you make clear and I agree with you light sensitive cell mutation could have occured in multi-cellular life.




Quote:Root
The lungfish have adapted the swim bladder as a lung by diverting the artery from the sixth gill arch directly to it.

AZIM - How exactly does evolution ‘divert’ the artery? How exactly does a swim bladder become a lung? I thought you had a decent knowledge about evolution and biology. This saldy proves you otherwise. A swim bladder is a sack full of air. A lung is a complex organ with hundreds of processes going on.

Perhaps you should find answers to those questions instead of asking me to do your homework! However, I will help point you to a good starting point:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/dipnoi.html


the rest of your explanation relating to the four-chambered heart has one major flaw. It doesn’t explain how a four-chambered heart came into existence through evolution, it explains ‘why’, but science asks ‘how’, and that is what I asked you.

Not sure I fully understand you here. Perhaps you could expand.


AZIM - cre•a•tion•ism (kr - sh -n z m)
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

I’d prefer not to claim I’m a creationist for that reason.

But you do take the literal view of genesis, right?


AZIM - At the core of this debate lies the fact that if evolution did not create life on this earth – then Allah must have.

Sorry, can't accept your over simplified approach. Firstly, evolution does not cover the "creation" of life so your point is not valid.

Regards

Root

muslimrebel
10-19-2005, 08:17 AM
[Science is not allowed to make assumptions. That is called an hypothosis,]

root if they are not allowed then y do they assume things......y do they make me write up an experiment wif a hypothosis.....lol they sure doo make many assumptions as they taught me to do the same thing

Malaikah
10-19-2005, 08:33 AM
can some one just breifly explain why the focus her has been so specificaly on the eye? i mean, why did darwin say that the thought of the eye amde him cold?

Abdul Fattah
10-19-2005, 03:10 PM
Basicly, the eye is one of the most complex organs, which suggest a creator. it is to elegant to be the result of random mutation and survival of the fitest.

root
10-19-2005, 03:23 PM
root if they are not allowed then y do they assume things......y do they make me write up an experiment wif a hypothosis.....lol they sure doo make many assumptions as they taught me to do the same thing

Your not making sense.

sonz
12-14-2005, 08:16 PM
Recently, several letters have tried to indicate that the theory of evolution is fact. That is not so and, in fact, it is becoming more discredited. Darwin's book was written in 1859 and since that time there have been no discoveries made to substantiate the theory. However, there have been scientific conclusions leading to debunking the theory. Over 100 scientists have indicated their doubts about evolution (see www.discovery.org) declaring that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." Darwin himself lamented, "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed." Then why do so many of his followers contend otherwise?

In "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" it was noted, "... nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the diverse cells on earth". Kenneth Hsu wrote in the "Journal of Sedimentary Petrology," "Darwinism contains 'wicked lies'; it is not a 'natural law' formulated on the basis of factual evidence but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century." Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup said, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." Sir John William Dawson, who served as president of McGill University, said, "This evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity ... a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech ... now no one pretends that they rest on facts actually observed, for no one has ever observed the production of even one species ..." Paul Lemoine, past president of the Geological Society of France and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, wrote, "The Theory of evolution is impossible. A base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it ..." Dr. T.N. Tahmisian of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission said, "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men and the story they are telling may be one of the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

The facts we do have indicate that there must be intelligent design behind this earth and everything that is on it and the theory of evolution should be ignored and discarded.

KEITH SNELSON

Goshen

Eric H
12-14-2005, 09:11 PM
Greetings and peace sonze, whilst I tend to agree with you that evolution seems to explain very little, there are some extremely clever people who look on the theory of evolution as proof that there is no God. If you ever want to really challenge evolutionary theory try this atheist forum, they love a challenge

---
If you ever think of trying this site just make sure your life insurance is up to date and you have a bullet proof vest.

Eric

Quruxbadaan
12-14-2005, 10:03 PM
Asalaamu Alaikum

yea right bullet proof vest thats gotta be a joke !!
what are they gonna do virtually shoot me

Ansar Al-'Adl
12-14-2005, 11:00 PM
:sl:
Thread merged.

Please also read:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/6570-biological-evolution-islamic-perspective.html

:w:

Abdul Fattah
12-15-2005, 05:25 PM
Eric, don't be intimidated to quickly. It's not because somebody seems to be smart that everything that person believes in is right. Note that there are a lot of smart peopel and scientists who DO believe in God. I've debated evolution with scientists in the past and eventually we always came to a point where it's personal opinion versus personal opinion rather then facts over facts. But a lot of people rather then admitting that will start mocking creationists for their believe rather then questioning their own believe. If you're having problems defending creationism, I suggest you read some of the posts that have been exchanged between me and root on this thread, If you follow up from the beginning you 'll see that if you stick your ground eventually they have to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Eric H
12-15-2005, 11:25 PM
Greetings Steve and thanks for your reply, thanks for your encouragement and I do not feel intimidated by their arguments. As you say when you pursue the arguments to a bottom line there is no proof and they use words like, believe, imagine and suppose and you end up chasing your tail all the time.

The arguments almost seem pointless as there is no real proof either way,

Take care

Eric

Pk_#2
12-21-2005, 05:51 PM
salaamz

Hasn't the evolution theory been proved wrong?

Besides if we evolved from apes why are there still apes...

Fi AmaanAllah

w/salaamz

Halima
12-21-2005, 09:04 PM
salaamz

Hasn't the evolution theory been proved wrong?

Besides if we evolved from apes why are there still apes...

Fi AmaanAllah

w/salaamz




If you have any doubts about evolution then this indicates that you are having doubts about science in general. You say why are there still apes on this planet? Let me ask you where in science has it ever concluded that apes would be instinct? Without production apes will never increase in population. Moreoever, apes will never exist. The science theory is trying to prove that way back from the ice age since we as humans have adapted to a better way of thinking hence the tools to hunt. The tools to kill. Now, we can stand on four legs, and we can run with two feet.

Pk_#2
12-22-2005, 06:57 PM
salaamz Halima...

Jazakhala'khairun for your reply sis :)

Nope i have no real doubts about science i just generally was asking if evolution theory was proved wrong...

One of my fellow Ukhtis once told me that missing fossils proved evolution wrong...so i was wondering if that was false...

Fi Amaan Allah
w/salaamz all

czgibson
12-22-2005, 07:17 PM
Greetings,

No, evolution by natural selection has not been proven wrong. Some people choose not to believe it for whatever reason, and of course they are free to do so. See here for more information about evolution, including accounts of evidence that supports it:

Evolution - Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

Peace

Halima
12-22-2005, 08:22 PM
salaamz Halima...

Jazakhala'khairun for your reply sis :)

Nope i have no real doubts about science i just generally was asking if evolution theory was proved wrong...

One of my fellow Ukhtis once told me that missing fossils proved evolution wrong...so i was wondering if that was false...

Fi Amaan Allah
w/salaamz all


It's ok if you have your doubts. Everyone has their doubts. That is why it's good to ask questions.

Abdul Fattah
12-22-2005, 09:24 PM
No, evolution by natural selection has not been proven wrong. Some people choose not to believe it for whatever reason, and of course they are free to do so. See here for more information about evolution, including accounts of evidence that supports it:

Evidence? I think not. I already debated and questioned most of the assumed "evidence" of evolution. The correct answer would be that nobody knows. Neither creationism nor evolution can be sufieciently proven and on the end of the day it's just a question of "which one seems more reasonable?"

Well if your an atheist, I can understand evolution seems more reasonable, but as a muslim creation seems more reasonable to me. It's not a matter of proof and disproof. It's just a difren point of view on things, a difrent paradigm.

Pk_#2
12-22-2005, 09:59 PM
Salaamz all...

Did we evolve or were we created?
Methinks tis a hard question to answer seeing as we did not witness a creator making us and we did not witness us evolving from apes as we were not there that many years ago...

My proof of existance, however, comes from the Holy Quran, Therefore i believe i believe that i have been created, by whom? by Allah :)

w/salaamz

Halima
12-22-2005, 10:18 PM
Salaamz all...

Did we evolve or were we created?
Methinks tis a hard question to answer seeing as we did not witness a creator making us and we did not witness us evolving from apes as we were not there that many years ago...

My proof of existance, however, comes from the Holy Quran, Therefore i believe i believe that i have been created, by whom? by Allah :)

w/salaamz


Of course we did not witness a creator making us, however, this is one of the essential creeds that we as muslims must believe in. We must have faith in God. This comes from an Islamic perpective. I would say that evoultion comes in from sicence becuase it was the scientist that have proved that human beings come from Apes. then again, if you put the whole chain to gether it doesn't make sense. God has created Adam and Eve. They weren't apes now were they? So that's why I am doubting this evolution theory. Thing thing is that Adam and Eve were already humans. God did not create Adam and Eve as apes first then proceeded to become apes. So where in this theory does human from apes become true? That is what I don't undstand. The two theories do not go together. However, I do not doubt that God has created us for 1 mintute, because i myslef as a muslim have to believe that wether i like it or not.

Pk_#2
12-22-2005, 10:31 PM
salaamz,
Thats true about Adam and Eve....so what do scientists say about Adam and Eve...are they all athiest? Because i'm sure some of them are muslims or cristians etc therefore they must believe in Adam and Eve...wouldn't they?

w/salaamz :)

Ghazi
12-22-2005, 10:34 PM
Salaam

Whats the "Evolve" Crap we were crated simple as want the proff read the quran these scientist come up with some wild Theories

Halima
12-22-2005, 10:52 PM
salaamz,
Thats true about Adam and Eve....so what do scientists say about Adam and Eve...are they all athiest? Because i'm sure some of them are muslims or cristians etc therefore they must believe in Adam and Eve...wouldn't they?

w/salaamz :)


Adam was defiently not atheist. According to Islam, Adam was a prophet. He was a matter of fact the first prophet. Adam and Eve were the first human beings on this earth. Now, this is where science AND Islam both agree.



It is said that Adam (peace be upon him) was a prophet, that he was the first prophet. Allah says: “Then Adam learned from his Lord certain words and his Lord turned towards him” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 37]

Pk_#2
12-22-2005, 11:50 PM
salaamz,

Jazakhala'khairun for your quote! Mod Halima

Please chill bro islam-truth...we are just discussing :)

w/salaamz

czgibson
12-23-2005, 12:13 AM
Greetings,

Evidence? I think not. I already debated and questioned most of the assumed "evidence" of evolution. The correct answer would be that nobody knows. Neither creationism nor evolution can be sufieciently proven and on the end of the day it's just a question of "which one seems more reasonable?"

Quite right. Did I ever say evolution had been proven?


Well if your an atheist, I can understand evolution seems more reasonable, but as a muslim creation seems more reasonable to me. It's not a matter of proof and disproof. It's just a difren point of view on things, a difrent paradigm.

Many theists believe in evolution too, but no atheists believe in creationism.


However, I do not doubt that God has created us for 1 mintute, because i myslef as a muslim have to believe that wether i like it or not.

This is one of the main difficulties I have with religion. Why should you have to believe in something even though you have no direct evidence for it?


Thats true about Adam and Eve....so what do scientists say about Adam and Eve...are they all athiest? Because i'm sure some of them are muslims or cristians etc therefore they must believe in Adam and Eve...wouldn't they?

I don't know about any Muslim scientists, but most Christians tend to view the "Adam and Eve" story of creation as a metaphor, and not as being literally true. That is how scientists of a Christian persuasion can reconcile the two beliefs.


Adam and Eve were the first human beings on this earth. Now, this is where science AND Islam both agree.

I think you'll find that the belief in Adam and Eve is very much a minority view among scientists.

Folks, let's think about this for a moment. Let's suppose that evolution by natural selection is entirely untrue. Why would scientists make it up? What could they possibly have to gain from doing copious amounts of research into animal breeding patterns, genetics and heredity? Is evolution simply a massive conspiracy by the scientific community to remove god and religion?

Why would they want to do that? Many scientists who believe in evolution are religious, after all.

I'd love to hear some thoughts on this.

Peace

Halima
12-23-2005, 12:34 AM
Greetings Professor,



Greetings,


This is one of the main difficulties I have with religion. Why should you have to believe in something even though you have no direct evidence for it?



You nor I, nor any living human on this earth was alive when God has created the first human being, the sun or the stars. There is no possible way. Why do we have to have the evidence to believe that there is a God who had create all of these things when he created us in the first place? This is not even from an Islamic perspective this is from a scientific point of view. There is no such thing as a human being with super natural powers to create something as extraordinary as the universe. That is just an absurd phenomenon. According to Islam, we as muslims have to have the faith to believe that there is a God. We cannot question about it, nor can we have any doubt about it otherwise it will make us a (kuffar) or an unbeliever. Thus, this can make us enter the hell fire.

Here are the 5 articles of faith:





There are certain things that every Muslim must believe in. Rejecting any one of these things is tantamount to disbelief. A person who doubts any of these things cannot be considered a Muslim.

These articles of faith are:
1. Belief in Allah.
2. Belief in His Angels.
3. Belief in His Books.
4. Belief in His Messengers.
5. Belief in the Day of Judgment.
6. Belief in Divine Decree



BELIEF IN ALLAH

Islam emphasizes that Allah is the Creator of all things. He is unique in every way and none has the right to be worshipped except for Him.


Source:www.islamtoday.com




According to the 5 articles of faith, it is obligatory for a person to believe in these divine rules in order to be a muslim. We cannot have any doubts, nor any questions about it.








I don't know about any Muslim scientists, but most Christians tend to view the "Adam and Eve" story of creation as a metaphor, and not as being literally true. That is how scientists of a Christian persuasion can reconcile the two beliefs.





It is impossible, because Adam was prophet. So in some aspects I would say it's true. It doesn't make sense how they would claim that Adam doesn't exist when in fact in the Quran it has said that Adam was a prophet.

Ansar Al-'Adl
12-23-2005, 04:48 AM
This is one of the main difficulties I have with religion. Why should you have to believe in something even though you have no direct evidence for it?
Once one has established that Muhammad was a Prophet or that the Qur'an is the word of God, then there is nothing wrong with drawing further conclusions from these sources, so long as one has established these sources first. For an interesting lecture on the topic, one may listen to Gary Miller's Reason and Revelation (http://www.mushlam.org/miller/audio/mp3/GM_Reason_and_Revelation.mp3).


Folks, let's think about this for a moment. Let's suppose that evolution by natural selection is entirely untrue. Why would scientists make it up? What could they possibly have to gain from doing copious amounts of research into animal breeding patterns, genetics and heredity? Is evolution simply a massive conspiracy by the scientific community to remove god and religion?

Why would they want to do that? Many scientists who believe in evolution are religious, after all.
Saying that the [punctuated equilibrium] theory of evolution is inaccurate is not the same as saying that it is the result of a conspiracy! I'm not sure how you connected the two. The theory is based on a statistical approach using extrapolation, all of which has inherent limitations. For an Islamic perspective, please refer to:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/6570-biological-evolution-islamic-perspective.html

Regards

czgibson
12-23-2005, 01:48 PM
Greetings Halima,


You nor I, nor any living human on this earth was alive when God has created the first human being, the sun or the stars. There is no possible way. Why do we have to have the evidence to believe that there is a God who had create all of these things when he created us in the first place? This is not even from an Islamic perspective this is from a scientific point of view.

I don't know what kind of science you're thinking of, to be honest.


There is no such thing as a human being with super natural powers to create something as extraordinary as the universe. That is just an absurd phenomenon.

It is. So much so, in fact, that I wonder why you bring it up.


According to Islam, we as muslims have to have the faith to believe that there is a God. We cannot question about it, nor can we have any doubt about it otherwise it will make us a (kuffar) or an unbeliever. Thus, this can make us enter the hell fire.

This is the point I was making in my last post. You have to have this faith.


Here are the 5 articles of faith:

There are certain things that every Muslim must believe in. Rejecting any one of these things is tantamount to disbelief. A person who doubts any of these things cannot be considered a Muslim.

These articles of faith are:
1. Belief in Allah.
2. Belief in His Angels.
3. Belief in His Books.
4. Belief in His Messengers.
5. Belief in the Day of Judgment.
6. Belief in Divine Decree

Are there five or six?


According to the 5 articles of faith, it is obligatory for a person to believe in these divine rules in order to be a muslim. We cannot have any doubts, nor any questions about it.

Of course, Islamic authorities want you to remain Muslim. If you had any questions or doubts you would cease to be a Muslim. It's the simplest method of social control imaginable.


It is impossible, because Adam was prophet. So in some aspects I would say it's true. It doesn't make sense how they would claim that Adam doesn't exist when in fact in the Quran it has said that Adam was a prophet.

And why would scientists who are Christian take any notice of what it says in the Qur'an?

Hi Ansar,

Saying that the [punctuated equilibrium] theory of evolution is inaccurate is not the same as saying that it is the result of a conspiracy! I'm not sure how you connected the two.

Um, I didn't. I haven't mentioned punctuated equilibrium at all.

I'm talking about evolution by natural selection, as described by Darwin and others after him. My point is, why would millions of scientists espouse this theory if they didn't have good reasons for doing so? I suggested a conspiracy to remove religion as a possible alternative motive. Do you think this is at all credible?

Peace

Ansar Al-'Adl
12-24-2005, 05:22 AM
Um, I didn't. I haven't mentioned punctuated equilibrium at all.
I placed punctuated equilibrium in square brackets because when we are talking about the theory of evolution, we are actually speaking about the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution which is the currently accepted model amongst much of the scientific community. Technically there is no single 'theory of evolution', and I wanted to make sure it was understood that we are discussing a specific theory of evolution.


I'm talking about evolution by natural selection, as described by Darwin and others after him.
Evolution, as described by Darwin is known as gradualism, as rejected by the modern scientific community as baseless. That is why I assumed you were speaking of punctuated equilibrium.


My point is, why would millions of scientists espouse this theory if they didn't have good reasons for doing so?
My answer remains the same. The idea is not that the scientists are lying or fabricating this concept, but merely that this is the result of their extrapolation based on the data they have collected. I am highly skeptical that a conspiracy is behind this, although I suppose not all Muslims would share the same view as myself.

:w:

ps. I don't have a problem describing Islam as a method of social control, but to say that it was invented as a method of social control, or concocted for the purpose of being a method of social control, ios utterly baseless when viewed in light of the life of Prophet Muhammad saws.

waji
12-24-2005, 11:04 AM
Aslam u Alikum
A very usefull site for all.

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php
see this site with open mind and eyes.
Walikum as Salam

Halima
12-24-2005, 03:50 PM
don't know what kind of science you're thinking of, to be honest.

I am talking about science generally .:confused:



Greetings Halima,

Are there five or six?


Oh woops, I meant 6 but technically the last one is like the conclusion of them all to believe the whole entire creed. So basically it is just a summary of the ones already mentioned.





And why would scientists who are Christian take any notice of what it says in the Qur'an?




Incase if you haven't noticed, science and Islam both have alot of similar theories. Where does religion come in the picture? There were valid theories from the Quran that does indeed prove that religion and science are both harmonized. They go hand-in-hand. There are also 'alleged' contradictions but to make my point I'll show you the similarities. For instance Adam/previous prophets and what scientist have discovered from the past.





We can learn about the past in two ways:
1. Direct revelation from Allah to His Prophets and Messengers.
2. Studying the evidence left behind from the events of the past.
We know that Allah created Adam directly without the agency of parents. Allah says: “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.” [S&#251;rah &#194;l `Imr&#226;n: 59]




We know from the Qur’&#226;n that Adam and his wife were the father and mother of all human beings living on the Earth today. We know about this by way of direct revelation from Allah. In the Qur’&#226;n, Allah states clearly: “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.” [S&#251;rah al-Nis&#226;’: 1] Allah also says: “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing.” [S&#251;rah al-Huj&#251;r&#226;t:13]





Another example:

The sun and its relationship to the earth





This had&#238;th is found in Sah&#238;h al-Bukh&#226;r&#238; (3199, 7424). Its text, as related by Ab&#251; Dharr al-Ghif&#226;r&#238;, is as follows:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to me: “O Ab&#251; Dharr! Do you know where the Sun goes when it sets?”

I said: “Allah and His Messenger know best.”




He said: “It goes until it prostrates beneath the Throne. Then it seeks permission and permission is granted to it. Soon it will prostrate and it will not be accepted from it, and seek permission and will not be granted permission. It will be said to it: ‘Go back where you came from.’ Then it will rise from its setting place. This is Allah’s statement: ‘And the Sun runs on to its place of settlement. That is the determination of the Mighty the Knowing. [S&#251;rah Y&#226;S&#238;n: 38]’.”

Abdul Fattah
12-25-2005, 01:02 AM
Quite right. Did I ever say evolution had been proven?
Well stating the article on wikipedia has “evidence” for evolution kind of did that yes.

Many theists believe in evolution too, but no atheists believe in creationism.

That doesn’t change the fact that finding one theory more reasonable then another is a matter of paradigms. The difference you refer to does not suggest that one is more likely then the other. This is simply the result of atheism not going well together with creationism, whereas evolution can go together with creationism; but that would be ID then. So the point you raise is irrelevant.


This is one of the main difficulties I have with religion. Why should you have to believe in something even though you have no direct evidence for it?
You don’t “have to believe” but you can if you want. But again you’re looking at this from your atheistic paradigm. I could bounce the question right back: “Why do you believe that religion is false? Even if by occams razor it is true? I mean you can form an alternative theory of how religion originated, but why not simple assume it’s true? Let me redefine the problem of difrent paradigms as such:
A paradigm is as math. In it you have axioms. An axiom is a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident. In mathematics it is a basic assumption about a system from which theorems can be deduced. For example, the system could be the points and lines in the plane. Then an axiom would be that given any two distinct points in the plane, there is a unique line through them. It’s just an assumption on which mathematics is based. In fact there are people who came up with alternative mathematics relying on different axioms which are very logical and sometimes even useful! But when you take one single thing out of that alternative mathematics, and look at it from the standard mathematic point of view, it will seem illogical. It doesn't fit in this difrent theory, you have to consider the whole theory in totality, then it makes sense.


Folks, let's think about this for a moment. Let's suppose that evolution by natural selection is entirely untrue. Why would scientists make it up? What could they possibly have to gain from doing copious amounts of research into animal breeding patterns, genetics and heredity? Is evolution simply a massive conspiracy by the scientific community to remove god and religion?

Why would they want to do that? Many scientists who believe in evolution are religious, after all.

Well in general I would agree with the response Ansar gave to this; that it isn’t necessarily a conspiracy. But I tend to believe that it did happen for a reason; from my paradigm it seems like it grew out of an absence. Just like the ancient tribes who worshipped fire, I see evolution as an answer to a question wich is raised by a lack of knowledge (in Islam). You may answer that there are many religious evolutionists, but evolution did grow outside of Islam.


An Islamic authority does not need to be a government - it could simply be someone's parents who want to ensure the continuation of the way of life that they adhere to.

The same could be said for the atheistic point of view or for the agnostiastic point of view. Do you have any idea how the people of a free western country react when they hear that you reverted to Islam? When your son would revert to Islam, would you try to engage a debate with him? Try to convince him from your atheistic point of view? Will you raise your children with your atheistic point of view, when someone in their environment dies, will you tell them that that person is now in an afterlife, or tell him he is simply gone? Seems like an irrelevant question, but it shows that the argument you raised goes both ways.

root
12-26-2005, 01:45 PM
Research into how evolution works has been named top science achievement of 2005, a year that also saw fierce debate erupt over "intelligent design".

The prestigious US journal Science publishes its top 10 list of major endeavours at the end of each year.

The number one spot was awarded jointly to several studies that illuminated the intricate workings of evolution.

The announcement comes in the same week that a US court banned the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms.

Adherents of intelligent design, or ID, maintain that many features of the Universe and of living things are too complex to have been the result of natural selection.

Instead, the "theory" says, they must have been designed by a highly intelligent supernatural force.

The studies bestowed with the title "breakthrough of the year" by Science include the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome; recreation of the 1918 flu virus in a laboratory; and a study on European blackcap birds which demonstrated how two different populations can become two separate species

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4552466.stm

I find the latter very interesting. Demonstrating how European blackcap bird species became two seperate species!

Abdul Fattah
12-26-2005, 02:26 PM
Yes it is indeed interesting. The part about the blackcap bird. And as I said before, I do believe there's an evolution of certain species, I just don't believe they all share the same ancestrial descent nor the the theory of abiogenesis. As for the chimpanzee genome helping us determine how certain viri work, that's a big maybe and a lot of assumptions, and even then it does not mean there's a direct lineage. Studying pigs for example, we can learn a lot about human diseases. this is because we share the same receptors on our cellmembrane as pigs, alowing the same diseases to infest our cells. But I think it's clear to any scientist that there's no direct lineage between pigs and humans. So again this teaches us:
1. Simularity does not proof one evolved out of the other.
2. Humans shouldn't eat pig. :coolious:

Of topic:
Not only do we share the same receptors and can thus take pig diseases. But apearently pigs also share a difrent receptor with birds. So a pig can get a bird disease, the viri multiply in the cell, some of them go out and grab a "human" receptor on the way out. And boom. The bird disease which normaly can't enter our cells can now do so!
Birds on there turn share some receptors with other species. so eventually we can get ANY animal disease trough pigs. :enough!:

Alhamdoelillahi for warning us not to eat pig. :)

root
12-26-2005, 03:24 PM
I do believe there's an evolution of certain species, I just don't believe they all share the same ancestrial descent

And I can understand why you think that considering you don't believe accepted scientific fact that one can follow common ancestory via RVI. Still you raise an interesting question:

1. At what point do you call a species "evolved" or "Intelligently Designed"..... And what criteria do you apply?

czgibson
12-26-2005, 04:23 PM
Greetings,

There are quite a few points that have been raised by different people, and unfortunately I don't have time to answer them all just now. I'll try to get through them as thoroughly as I can in the time available.

---


I placed punctuated equilibrium in square brackets because when we are talking about the theory of evolution, we are actually speaking about the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution which is the currently accepted model amongst much of the scientific community. Technically there is no single 'theory of evolution', and I wanted to make sure it was understood that we are discussing a specific theory of evolution.

Well, there's considerable debate among the scientific community on this question. I certainly didn't assume we were discussing punctuated equilibrium.


Evolution, as described by Darwin is known as gradualism, as rejected by the modern scientific community as baseless. That is why I assumed you were speaking of punctuated equilibrium.

Not all scientists reject gradualism, as far as I know.


My answer remains the same. The idea is not that the scientists are lying or fabricating this concept, but merely that this is the result of their extrapolation based on the data they have collected.

True. And what's wrong with that?


I am highly skeptical that a conspiracy is behind this, although I suppose not all Muslims would share the same view as myself.

So why do you think scientists espouse evolution by natural selection? I agree with you that it's unlikely to be a conspiracy, so why would you say their extrapolations from research tend in the direction of evolution?


Incase if you haven't noticed, science and Islam both have alot of similar theories.

I hadn't noticed this, to be honest.


Where does religion come in the picture? There were valid theories from the Quran that does indeed prove that religion and science are both harmonized. They go hand-in-hand. There are also 'alleged' contradictions but to make my point I'll show you the similarities. For instance Adam/previous prophets and what scientist have discovered from the past.

I've read your examples, and thank you for providing them, but I don't see how they correspond to current scientific explanations. For example, what is this business of the sun "asking permission"?


Well stating the article on wikipedia has “evidence” for evolution kind of did that yes.

Saying that something has supporting evidence is not the same as saying it has been proven.


That doesn’t change the fact that finding one theory more reasonable then another is a matter of paradigms. The difference you refer to does not suggest that one is more likely then the other. This is simply the result of atheism not going well together with creationism, whereas evolution can go together with creationism; but that would be ID then. So the point you raise is irrelevant.

I don't see how it's irrelevant. Evolution can fit in with more world-views than creationism can. Doesn't that show that creationism is a limiting belief-system?


You don’t “have to believe” but you can if you want.

This is certainly not true in Islam, though, is it? Halima has just given a list of things that Muslims "have to believe" in order to remain Muslim.


But again you’re looking at this from your atheistic paradigm. I could bounce the question right back: “Why do you believe that religion is false? Even if by occams razor it is true?

Occam's razor can be used to support opposing positions - for instance, I would say that Occam's razor can be used to show that god is an additional complication that people introduce to their thinking; a complication that explains very little, and actually requires explanation itself.


A paradigm is as math. In it you have axioms. An axiom is a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident. In mathematics it is a basic assumption about a system from which theorems can be deduced. For example, the system could be the points and lines in the plane. Then an axiom would be that given any two distinct points in the plane, there is a unique line through them. It’s just an assumption on which mathematics is based. In fact there are people who came up with alternative mathematics relying on different axioms which are very logical and sometimes even useful! But when you take one single thing out of that alternative mathematics, and look at it from the standard mathematic point of view, it will seem illogical. It doesn't fit in this difrent theory, you have to consider the whole theory in totality, then it makes sense.

OK, I'm familiar with non-Euclidean geometries and so on. So are you saying that we simply start from different assumptions that give rise to our different beliefs?


Why would they want to do that? Many scientists who believe in evolution are religious, after all.

My point exactly! Why would they want to do that?


Well in general I would agree with the response Ansar gave to this; that it isn’t necessarily a conspiracy. But I tend to believe that it did happen for a reason; from my paradigm it seems like it grew out of an absence. Just like the ancient tribes who worshipped fire, I see evolution as an answer to a question wich is raised by a lack of knowledge (in Islam).

Evolution is very different from worshipping fire, surely? In fact, I'd say fire-worship is closer to Islam, since they both contain worship. I'd also say that religion in general developed due to a lack of knowledge about how the world works. Anything that could not be explained could be ascribed to a deity. With increased understanding about how natural processes take place, the need for religion is diminished. I'm obviously speaking from my "paradigm" here!


The same could be said for the atheistic point of view or for the agnostiastic point of view. Do you have any idea how the people of a free western country react when they hear that you reverted to Islam?

They might be quite shocked to begin with, but if they can see you're committed I would hope they'd be supportive. Incidentally, when you use the word "free" in that sentence, is that a good thing or a bad thing for society to be, in your view?


When your son would revert to Islam, would you try to engage a debate with him? Try to convince him from your atheistic point of view?

If I had any children, I would let them adopt any belief system that seemed reasonable to them.


Will you raise your children with your atheistic point of view, when someone in their environment dies, will you tell them that that person is now in an afterlife, or tell him he is simply gone?

I would tell them what different people believe about death, and my own view, and allow them to make up their minds. I certainly wouldn't say "my view is the only view, and you must believe it".

Peace

Abdul Fattah
12-27-2005, 03:23 PM
And I can understand why you think that considering you don't believe accepted scientific fact that one can follow common ancestory via RVI. Still you raise an interesting question:
Come on Root, I already showed you how ancestry via RVI is debatable, and still you choose to call it an “accepted scientific fact”

Saying that something has supporting evidence is not the same as saying it has been proven.
Yes that’s cute, but lets try not to waste our time in beating around the bush.

I don't see how it's irrelevant. Evolution can fit in with more world-views than creationism can. Doesn't that show that creationism is a limiting belief-system?
Well that’s not very logical is it? Since all these world views refer to the same world, at places were they disagree obviously only one can be true. So you’re saying your view is more likely true because it fits both with the accurate world view as with the inaccurate one? Is your point of view better because it’s compatible with an inaccurate theory? Yes you can mix the two up theories up, and it still seems to make sense, but that doesn’t mean one is better then the other.

Steve: you don’t “have to believe” but you can if you want.
cgibson: This is certainly not true in Islam, though, is it? Halima has just given a list of things that Muslims "have to believe" in order to remain Muslim.
Well you don’t “have to” be a Muslim against your will.

Occam's razor can be used to support opposing positions - for instance, I would say that Occam's razor can be used to show that god is an additional complication that people introduce to their thinking; a complication that explains very little, and actually requires explanation itself.
See, here it’s shown nicely how it’s just two people looking at the same thing from different angles. Try to follow my view for a second. I could say, when you start from an obvious fact: some centuries ago there suddenly appeared a book. Now in it is a theory, which is very advanced for it’s time. It claims to be the word of our creator the one and only omnipotence God. It builds a religion, and it makes perfect sense. It even has miracles in it. Now atheists would give an alternative explanation for that book. It was based on difrent sources, the one who wrote it down was very advanced, the miracles in it are misinterpretations and twisting of the words, and so on. And a third person could say that this is just a hoax for those aliens who live on mars their entertainment.
The third one is absurd. The second one lacks a motive. Why would you assume that alternative explanation? But the first one is still –by occams razor- correct. Now you may feel like the second is more likely because you’re not inclined to believe the metaphysical part of the theory mentioned in that book. But that’s a matter of personal preference, and is not by occams razor.


OK, I'm familiar with non-Euclidean geometries and so on. So are you saying that we simply start from different assumptions that give rise to our different beliefs?
Yes, exactly.

Evolution is very different from worshipping fire, surely?
They are difrent in form. One is the result of imagination, the other is the result of examination therefore one is called a theory and the other is called a belief. Yet both are believed in (well at some point in history at least) without undeniable proof. Both are the result of looking for an answer to brain-teasing questions.

In fact, I'd say fire-worship is closer to Islam, since they both contain worship. I'd also say that religion in general developed due to a lack of knowledge about how the world works.
Both contain worship? That’s the strongest criteria you can come up with to show similarity? It’s not because some worship has been proven futile and even silly that all kind of worship is as such. In fact many Muslims experience the result of their worship on a frequent basis.

Anything that could not be explained could be ascribed to a deity. With increased understanding about how natural processes take place, the need for religion is diminished. I'm obviously speaking from my "paradigm" here!
Well speaking for myself, I did not revert out of a lack of knowledge; no it was quite the opposite I reverted because I acquired new knowledge. Before that I was an atheist, and I had it pretty much all worked out and found an answer to any question that soothed my mind. So there were no open questions. And another major contributor to peoples believes which cannot be underestimated is personal experience; that goes a long way. As for your so called diminishing need for religion, how would you explain for the many believing people? They all lack your knowledge?

They might be quite shocked to begin with, but if they can see you're committed I would hope they'd be supportive. Incidentally, when you use the word "free" in that sentence, is that a good thing or a bad thing for society to be, in your view?
One would hope so yes, and most people do, or appear to do so at least. But some will try to “talk some sense” in this poor “brainwashed” soul as if their life depended on it. The free was sarcastic. Because I do not believe the west is free. The highest degree of freedom is gained as slave of Allah. Only when you listen to your soul, your gain freedom from the causality of your bodily urges and desires.

If I had any children, I would let them adopt any belief system that seemed reasonable to them.
Would you mind having a heart to hearth with my mother? :D

I would tell them what different people believe about death, and my own view, and allow them to make up their minds. I certainly wouldn't say "my view is the only view, and you must believe it".

But you will show them why you believe your view to be accurate, and you would also tell them why you find other views unlikely, right?

TruthComesFirst
12-27-2005, 03:39 PM
Peace,
Yep, evolution is true, and its an accepted fact in Islam.What am I talking about?The fact that we are taught that Adam A.S. was 70 dhiraa3an(an average person would be about 4 dhiraa3).We are not monkeys, but tall people becoming short....

root
12-27-2005, 08:02 PM
Come on Root, I already showed you how ancestry via RVI is debatable, and still you choose to call it an “accepted scientific fact”

No Steve, in our lengthy debate we reduced the origins of our differences in that Science today accept as scientific fact that RVA insertions are random by nature, and against this you argue that they are not random.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/2538-evolution-refuted-simply-5.html

Here is the current scientific answer to the question of Random Insertions, so please let us keep scientific facts as facts if we could. You are free of course to believe what you want. However, irrespective it is a scientific fact that RVI Insertions are "random"

Here is the current scientific understanding:


(b) A very few examples are known of retroposed sequences that have regulatory function. These represent examples of very rare favorable mutations, a class that creationists often claim cannot exist. We know that sequences are randomly being inserted into our DNA by retroposition even today, as genetic accidents without apparent divine intervention, including insertions that can cause inherited diseases in subsequent generations or induce cancer in the individual in which they arise. If these insertions have no beneficial function, there is no reason to suspect any function for the similar insertions that are shared between species.

(c) As scientists, we do not declare dogmatically that no function will ever be found for most pseudogenes. However, we base our current conclusions on currently available data. And those data indicate that shared retroposons/pseudogenes are functionless genetic accidents and can best be explained as originating in a common ancestor. Indeed, no other credible scientific explanation has been proposed either in the scientific literature or in creationist or mainstream science

Are you suggesting, based on your current belief (i.e Insertions are not random) that recent cancer treatment advancement is based on flawed scientific understanding?

Abdul Fattah
12-27-2005, 11:25 PM
How can the randomness of somthing be a scientific fact? Science cannot say: there is no order behind it. Chaos is a word we invented to define an order we fail to understand. At best a scientist can say there apears to be no order in it based on our limited knowledge. And the randomness of this proces is not a scientific fact, just because most scientist "believe" in it.

root
12-28-2005, 01:28 PM
Steve - How can the randomness of somthing be a scientific fact? Science cannot say: there is no order behind it. Chaos is a word we invented to define an order we fail to understand. At best a scientist can say there apears to be no order in it based on our limited knowledge. And the randomness of this proces is not a scientific fact, just because most scientist "believe" in it.

That is just "Gibberish". We are simply stating that thier is no order where you state thier is order (and to which you cannot bring any credible scientific supporting evidence). The fact that you don't accept common ancestory over this issue is in my opinion because to accept this point is to rethink your opinion on the world around you and how it came to be.

Comparative, it's like someone trying to debate against that theory of general relativity as a mere theory and not a fact............

You also have a problem that models seem to match, for example the recent decoding of the "Woolly Mamoth"


The research, published in the online edition of Nature, gives an insight into the elephant family tree.

It shows that the mammoth was most closely related to the Asian rather than the African elephant.

The three groups split from a common ancestor about six million years ago, with Asian elephants and mammoths diverging about half a million years later.

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4535190.stm

Do you not find it a tad convincing that the Wooly mammoth showed a number of distinct RVI traits in it's DNA with todays elephants. Yet we NEVER see a random pattern that displays any certain nonsense such as a common ancestor of the wooly mammoth being to that of a common dog for example. The fact of the matter is that this has never been seen, and all common ancestory assesed this way shows a distinct lineage of species that does not require any unimaginable leap of faith............... If such RVI's showed a seemingly mismatch of common ancestory then I would reconsider the whole issue and creationism truly would have a valid point. The fact of the matter is that it is simply not the case and does not look remotely like it will ever be.

The whole point comes down to your not accepting scientific fact because your faith is preventing you from doing so. I think the term for that is "Living in ignorance".............

Your arguement against this is so absurd that to accept your point is to accept that modern cancer research is flawed, and all data used on genetic diseases are also flawed and medical science is completely moving forward on flawed data. between your "Debate" and medical science, please don't be offended if I suspect you are wrong not to accept common ancestory based on RVI Insertions.

Abdul Fattah
12-28-2005, 07:47 PM
That is just "Gibberish". We are simply stating that thier is no order where you state thier is order (and to which you cannot bring any credible scientific supporting evidence).

O please, when you don’t understand something, try to read it again thoroughly rather then dismissing it as gibberish. I simply stated that the current absence of knowledge of such an order does not mean that the absence by itself is proven! Yes I can’t show any proof but neither can you. I did state in our previous discussion how:

1. Such an order could take form. (The delta charges of molecules remember)
2. Why it would be extremely difficult to check for the existence of that order. (The complexity and importance of 3dimension large molecules)
3. Why it is more likely. (The unlikely ness of an ERV of an entire population to be the result of a single infection)
4. Why the current theory is easily augmented but difficult to debate ( because we ‘ve only mapped human DNA so far, the only things we know about ape DNA are some specific points that they looked up in order to illustrate this theory. )

Wheras you usually just dismissed my arguments as gibberisch, stupid, narrowmindedness or other name calling, because you fail to understand them.


The fact that you don't accept common ancestory over this issue is in my opinion because to accept this point is to rethink your opinion on the world around you and how it came to be.

No, you got that wrong. The reason I don’t accept it is because I don’t believe it. Should I be wrong however, I could easily adjust my point of view without any major consequences. I’m thinking in the line s of ID then. So there’s no hidden agenda. NO “need”. Just my opinions.


Comparative, it's like someone trying to debate against that theory of general relativity as a mere theory and not a fact............

Root …
Why do you do that? In our previous discussion you raised a similar point. And I already showed you why that comparison is inaccurate. Why do we keep going in circles? Anyway. I’ll restate my previous argument for the sake of other readers who don’t feel like scrolling all the way back.
First of all the theory of gravity can be tested upon and even used to make accurate calculations and predictions showing us it's usability and correctness and thus elevating the "theory" into "certain" or at least a higher degree of certainty. The common descent of all creatures out of one being and the spontaneous evolvement of that first being out of lifeless matter is however NOT testable, and also not proven. It's a probability. That's why we should take the word theory with a grain off salt as opposed to the theory of gravity.

Second of all the theory of gravity makes part of a bigger scientific p.o.v. to claim it as wrong would bring down a whole other branch of scientific theory's because it's so deeply embedded into science. Even to that degree that we must ignore and deny the most obvious things in this world. The mentioned parts of evolution however (abiogenesis+ common descent) CAN be simply denied without any major repercussions in our scientific views.


You also have a problem that models seem to match, for example the recent decoding of the "Woolly Mamoth"

Well the thing is, these modals are usually very vague. Most of them only show direct lineage between 10 or 20 species out of the thousand existing animals and even more counting the extinct. Also note that I do believe in Evolution, but just don’t believe in the common descent of ALL creatures. In other words I don’t believe there are different branches in the family tree, but different trees altogether.


Do you not find it a tad convincing that the Wooly mammoth showed a number of distinct RVI traits in it's DNA with todays elephants. Yet we NEVER see a random pattern that displays any certain nonsense such as a common ancestor of the wooly mammoth being to that of a common dog for example. The fact of the matter is that this has never been seen, and all common ancestory assesed this way shows a distinct lineage of species that does not require any unimaginable leap of faith............... If such RVI's showed a seemingly mismatch of common ancestory then I would reconsider the whole issue and creationism truly would have a valid point. The fact of the matter is that it is simply not the case and does not look remotely like it will ever be.

Again I restate my case which is that I have no problem with elephants being an evolved form of mammoths.
As for the suggestion you make, that’s where you’re wrong. The truth is we don’t know. We haven’t mapped these ERV’s We haven’t even mapped any animal DNA so far we’ve only managed to map human DNA and still the database is very vague. Consider the methods of examination: In the given example they accidentally stumbled on an ERV with, then they start looking at the same place with elephants. (Note that there’s a huge difference in time for looking at a specific place and looking at the whole DNA sequence for a specific Virus). SO we haven’t discovered any inconsistent ERV’s because we don’t know where to look for them! It’s like looking for a needle in a hay stack. Also note that it’s very probable for a mammoth and an elephant to have the same virus due to similar biology. Whereas an elephant and a dog are not likely to share weaknesses for the same virus.


The whole point comes down to your not accepting scientific fact because your faith is preventing you from doing so. I think the term for that is "Living in ignorance".............
No it’s not a fact. It’s a possibility, and I can have the possibility and combine it with my faith, It just doesn’t seem likely to me. But I could bounce that ball right back to you. As an atheist, you just “have” to believe that we weren’t created but rather the result of mere luck.


Your arguement against this is so absurd that to accept your point is to accept that modern cancer research is flawed, and all data used on genetic diseases are also flawed and medical science is completely moving forward on flawed data. Between your "Debate" and medical science, please don't be offended if I suspect you are wrong not to accept common ancestory based on RVI Insertions.

The cancer examination actually strengthens my point! First you say it’s unlikely that there’s an order, a system behind the occurrence of ERV’s. I say that it’s likely that there is an order behind it. Now they are looking for an order behind certain mutations (= cancer) of the DNA. And you say that my point of view is antagonistic with their research? Now you’re the one talking gibberish.

And just for kicks, let me raise one other chain of thoughts. How certain are we that ERV’s where actually viruses once? Do they have a name tag that says: this was once a virus? Or are they still recognizable as being so. If they are completely embedded in our DNA, doesn’t that mean that our Cells; while making it’s necessary proteins; would also make that virus? Wouldn’t someone born with a complete virus embedded in his DNA be chronically ill? Well obviously the ERV’s they are referring to here are mutated to that extend that they are harmless, but how can they still be recognizable as a virus then?

root
12-29-2005, 08:36 PM
O please, when you don’t understand something, try to read it again thoroughly rather then dismissing it as gibberish. I simply stated that the current absence of knowledge of such an order does not mean that the absence by itself is proven! Yes I can’t show any proof but neither can you. I did state in our previous discussion how

I really don't know how many times I need to quote the latest scientific position on this matter, yet still you persist in Gibbering on despite the fact you have NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE to support your claim......

"We know that sequences are randomly being inserted into our DNA by retroposition even today"


Wheras you usually just dismissed my arguments as gibberisch, stupid, narrowmindedness or other name calling, because you fail to understand them.

Show me the peer reviewed scientific paper that contradicts the above statement than that I have bolded for you? As far as insertions of DNA by retroposition goes one must "Put up or shut up"................


No, you got that wrong. The reason I don’t accept it is because I don’t believe it. Should I be wrong however, I could easily adjust my point of view without any major consequences. I’m thinking in the line s of ID then. So there’s no hidden agenda. NO “need”. Just my opinions.

I think we understand that you do not "Believe", even if that belief has no supporting scientific evidence. Perhaps you have "faith" that RVI will be proven as being ordered despite the overwhelming evidence against it. I still have faith my empty tin will spntaneously turn into a robot and make me a cup of tea......... Or perhaps you employ that other great lie called "hope".


Root …
Why do you do that? In our previous discussion you raised a similar point. And I already showed you why that comparison is inaccurate. Why do we keep going in circles? Anyway. I’ll restate my previous argument for the sake of other readers who don’t feel like scrolling all the way back.
First of all the theory of gravity can be tested upon and even used to make accurate calculations and predictions showing us it's usability and correctness and thus elevating the "theory" into "certain" or at least a higher degree of certainty. The common descent of all creatures out of one being and the spontaneous evolvement of that first being out of lifeless matter is however NOT testable, and also not proven. It's a probability. That's why we should take the word theory with a grain off salt as opposed to the theory of gravity.

Pure gibberish again. And to cloud the otherwise specific subject matter we are debating. (RVI Insertions), you are attempting to create a smokescreen by mentioning spontaneous evolvement of life. Evolution is not the theory that explains the origins of how life seeded and very well you know that too. Yet another smokesceen peddled by the ID/creationist "believers"


Well the thing is, these modals are usually very vague. Most of them only show direct lineage between 10 or 20 species out of the thousand existing animals and even more counting the extinct. Also note that I do believe in Evolution, but just don’t believe in the common descent of ALL creatures. In other words I don’t believe there are different branches in the family tree, but different trees altogether.

I had a feeling you would state this, most ID/creationists do. Despite the fact that the wooly mammoth shared a high number of lineage to elephants and man shows a high number with apes. I guess you just don't "BELEIVE" again.


Again I restate my case which is that I have no problem with elephants being an evolved form of mammoths. As for the suggestion you make, that’s where you’re wrong. The truth is we don’t know. We haven’t mapped these ERV’s We haven’t even mapped any animal DNA so far we’ve only managed to map human DNA and still the database is very vague.

More creationist rubbish. If what you say is true then the following link is a lie perpetuated by the media then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3586573.stm


No it’s not a fact. It’s a possibility, and I can have the possibility and combine it with my faith, It just doesn’t seem likely to me. But I could bounce that ball right back to you. As an atheist, you just “have” to believe that we weren’t created but rather the result of mere luck.

No, I am free to believe whatever I want and still remain an atheist, something a Muslim cannot do eh! However, I assure you if we were created by an intelligent designer then why does all the evidence collected so far not support that case. Like the great Noah flood, geological evidence simply does not support that position, the same applies for a creationist belief, the little evidence we have does not support creationism.


The cancer examination actually strengthens my point! First you say it’s unlikely that there’s an order, a system behind the occurrence of ERV’s. I say that it’s likely that there is an order behind it. Now they are looking for an order behind certain mutations (= cancer) of the DNA. And you say that my point of view is antagonistic with their research? Now you’re the one talking gibberish.

I don't say it's unlikely. I say it's NOT! The only observable order is heredetary because the rogue RVI insertion is reproduced in the off-spring in an ordered manner, so the same insertion point is observed simply because it is a copy which is expected. We carry rogue RVI insertions at the same points as aoes because they are copies of the original insertion. Why we share the same "copy" at the same point is the proof that common ancestory exists? It does not strengthen your point at all but reinforces the validity of obtaining common ancestory by such means.


And just for kicks, let me raise one other chain of thoughts. How certain are we that ERV’s where actually viruses once? Do they have a name tag that says: this was once a virus? Or are they still recognizable as being so. If they are completely embedded in our DNA, doesn’t that mean that our Cells; while making it’s necessary proteins; would also make that virus? Wouldn’t someone born with a complete virus embedded in his DNA be chronically ill? Well obviously the ERV’s they are referring to here are mutated to that extend that they are harmless, but how can they still be recognizable as a virus then?

Perhaps you should ask a qualified biologist?

Abdul Fattah
12-30-2005, 03:01 AM
I really don't know how many times I need to quote the latest scientific position on this matter, yet still you persist in Gibbering on despite the fact you have NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE to support your claim...... Show me the peer reviewed scientific paper that contradicts the above statement than that I have bolded for you? As far as insertions of DNA by retroposition goes one must "Put up or shut up".

True, but there’s no supporting evidence for your point of view either! Just because there’s no evidence that a theory is wrong doesn’t mean it’s right by default. Why do I have to show a point of view is wrong, when it’s not proven in the first place? People assume it’s random because they do not find the order behind it. That doesn’t cut the mustard. If you want to pass this as scientific facts, show me the evidence. Put up or shut up. :)


"We know that sequences are randomly being inserted into our DNA by retroposition even today"

How do we know it is random???


I think we understand that you do not "Believe", even if that belief has no supporting scientific evidence. Perhaps you have "faith" that RVI will be proven as being ordered despite the overwhelming evidence against it. I still have faith my empty tin will spntaneously turn into a robot and make me a cup of tea......... Or perhaps you employ that other great lie called "hope".
I could have said the exact same thing to you, but it wouldn’t of helped either one of us in this discussion.

Pure gibberish again. And to cloud the otherwise specific subject matter we are debating. (RVI Insertions), you are attempting to create a smokescreen by mentioning spontaneous evolvement of life. Evolution is not the theory that explains the origins of how life seeded and very well you know that too. Yet another smokesceen peddled by the ID/creationist "believers"
Gibberish? Smokescreen? Ok then, so how is your point of view testable? How is it proven? How is it usable? How is it predictable? Evolution is commonly used to refer to the whole of four theories being: abiogenesis, common descent, possibility of mutation and survival of the fittest. And regardless of which part I mentioned. I just copy pasted the same response I gave to you earlier. SO maybe my reference was off, but my argument still stands regardless when you adapt it with the accurate reference.


More creationist rubbish. If what you say is true then the following link is a lie perpetuated by the media then?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3586573.stm
No mister gibberisch; it’s not a lie It’s cutting edge. And the ERV theory you refer to dates back from before that If I’m not mistaken. Did you actually read it? It proved my point. Rat are only the THIRD after human and mice. So all other animals aren’t deciphered. And that article is dated from only last year.


No, I am free to believe whatever I want and still remain an atheist, something a Muslim cannot do eh!
That’s where you’re wrong. As an atheist you’re not free to believe in a deity or anything that supports the existence of such because doing so would make you agnostic rather then atheistic.

However, I assure you if we were created by an intelligent designer then why does all the evidence collected so far not support that case.
WHAT EVIDENCE????

Like the great Noah flood, geological evidence simply does not support that position, the same applies for a creationist belief, the little evidence we have does not support creationism.
Only Christians believe that flood was global.

I don't say it's unlikely. I say it's NOT! The only observable order is heredetary because the rogue RVI insertion is reproduced in the off-spring in an ordered manner, so the same insertion point is observed simply because it is a copy which is expected. We carry rogue RVI insertions at the same points as aoes because they are copies of the original insertion. Why we share the same "copy" at the same point is the proof that common ancestory exists? It does not strengthen your point at all but reinforces the validity of obtaining common ancestory by such means.
What do you think they are looking for here Root? Exactly they are trying to find out WHY this happens (so they can prevent it). This suggests there’s a reason.

Perhaps you should ask a qualified biologist?
Well actually, it was a virologist who brought this to my attention.

Listen I don't mind that you have a limited knowledge of these things. I know they are complex matters, and do not expect everybody to be an expert on this. But I think I already sufficiently proved to know a lot about it. On top of that, I'm always to steps ahead of you. So please to save yourself from further humiliation, keep it civil and stop dismissing my arguments as gibberish when you cannot defeat them otherwise.

root
12-31-2005, 12:28 PM
Hi Steve,


True, but there’s no supporting evidence for your point of view either! Just because there’s no evidence that a theory is wrong doesn’t mean it’s right by default. Why do I have to show a point of view is wrong, when it’s not proven in the first place? People assume it’s random because they do not find the order behind it. That doesn’t cut the mustard. If you want to pass this as scientific facts, show me the evidence. Put up or shut up..

In summary, ERV?s are a potent test of common ancestory between species. Commonalities between ERV?s in separate species is easily explained by simple heredity of a mutation. The chances of an ERV occurring at the same letter of DNA in separate genomes is extremely improbable due to the random nature of retrovirus insertion and the rarity of ERV production. Given that we share seven such ERV?s with chimps rules out one single improbable event. This would be similar to winning the lottery seven times in only a few hundred tries. The insinuation by some in the creationist movement that ERV?s are the fingerprints of design is not supported, nor is it substantiated by any data. ERV?s are random mutations and viral in origin.

Source:
[1] "Retroviral DNA Integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV Show Distinct Target Site Preferences," Mitchell RS et al., PLoS Biol. 2004 August; 2 (8): e234

[2] "Insertional polymorphisms of full-length endogenous retroviruses in humans," Turner G et al, Curr Biol. 2001 Oct 2;11(19):1531-5

[3]"Endogenous retroviruses and MS: using ERVs as disease markers," Clausen J, Int MS J. 2003 Apr;10(1):22-8

OK, Steve I have detailed 1 source and noted another two peer reviewed journals that all come to the same conclusion and including the one made several posts ago brings my tally to four versus your zero. Clearly I have risen to your counter challenge to put up or shut up. Time I think you were a little honourable in your approach, time is at hand for you now to put up or shut up?

Abdul Fattah
12-31-2005, 05:49 PM
Just quoteing other people who ASSUME the same things isn't giving me proof. So you haven't put up, you just found other people who think the same thing. SO the score is still 0-0.
Happy newyear

root
12-31-2005, 06:33 PM
I love the way you class peer reviewed scientific journals by people at the top of thier profession "Other People"! Priceless........

And I hope you have a gr8 2006 too!

Abdul Fattah
01-01-2006, 11:04 PM
Well it's not my intention to be disrespectfull towards their work, but if what you claim, that the randomness of ERV's is a proven fact. Then why don't you give me that proof rather then just saying: look these guys asume the same thing as I do.

root
01-02-2006, 05:13 PM
Then why don't you give me that proof rather then just saying: look these guys asume the same thing as I do.

"These guys" don't assume anything:


Genomic Characterization of Recent Human LINE-1 Insertions: Evidence Supporting Random Insertion

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/GR-1947RRv1

"When the whole of science are in agreement. One cannot simply live in denial"

Abdul Fattah
01-02-2006, 11:41 PM
"When the whole of science are in agreement. One cannot simply live in denial"
First of all they are not in agreement.
Secondly even if they are, when it’s an assumption then that’s just wishful thinking. It wouldn’t be the first time that mainstream opinions turn out wrong.
Thirdly this is not denial but a difference in opinions as long as there’s no proof.

As for the site you linked to…

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/GR-1947RRv1

What a joke, did you actually read this article? What did you think? That I would get intimidated by the specific terminology and not read it? Did you actually read this article?

It does not talk op ERV insertions it talks about transposons. That’s when a piece of DNA gets cut and pasted on another loci of the DNA-string. So nice try, but the score is still 0-0.

Look this is getting really ridiculous. You try to mock me, but you are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Maybe you should try a less cocky attitude.

root
01-03-2006, 09:53 AM
First of all they are not in agreement.

OK, Cool. Show me the peer reviewed scientific journal that states otherwise please? I would love to see such a document that contradicts mainstream scientific discovery that contradicts the randomness of the insertions!

Abdul Fattah
01-04-2006, 01:36 AM
I'll tell you the same thing I have been telling you all the time. "NOBODY KNOWS"
Some scientist assume that it is random because they do not see a direct cause. That is not a proven fact, they do not have very good indications which tell them they are right. It is just an opinion, but not an obviously recognisable one. Now stating the contrary, that you think there is a system behind it; is very easily recognised as an opinion. The reason nobody writes about that in an article is because he will emidiatly be asked how, what order, what system, how do you know. Whereas the oposite assumption is not questioned.

However, I have pointed out many arguments in the past of this discussion that point out why I beleiev these ERV's not to be random. So I suggest you tacklle those first before asking me for new material.

sumay28
01-04-2006, 02:26 AM
I'm going to level with you... i havn't gone through this whole thread. .. I understand that evolutionist believe we all come from one common cell. Keep in mind, this is a THEORY.. not a fact. I can already see there are people holding on to this evolution thing as fact. That we're similar in appearance & DNA to the apes. There are hundreds of places on pig and human chromosomes where the genes match. Could a muslim please give an ISLAMIC explanation on why our DNA is so closely related? I know it has been explained to me, but I do not want to come forward with any incorrect information.

Abdul Fattah
01-04-2006, 11:58 AM
Why our DNA is so closely related? I don't think there's a specific reason. I think our DNA is simular because Allah intended us to have simular charesteristics (eyes , ears, heart, liver... all things we have in common). So the simularitys are just to acomplish that. Why should our creator have chose a completely difrent way of creating other animals? If it's not broken, don't try to fix it.

It's like an architext who always builds houses in a simular way. Not because people would see simularitys. No, he just works in a certain way because he thinks thats a better way of building. Because he believes it would benefit the inhabitats to do it in a certain way.

sumay28
01-04-2006, 01:21 PM
5:60 Then say: "Should I inform you [People of the Book] of those, who will have even worse recompense from Allah than the transgressors? They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under His wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine; who worshipped taghut [the devil or idols]; those are the people who are in a far worse plight and who have turned farthest away from the Right Way."

If that is indeed to be taken literal, that would pretty much explain the genetic similarity. But to take it literal wouldn't exactly be politically correct lol. I can see where the scientists would come up with this theory of evolution. But without a God, how do you explain animals, who have a brain the size of a spec of dust, can know how to form colonies, how to fight a battle. OUR soldiers had to learn from the ants a better technique of battle. In science.. how do you make sense of that? How can science, without any divine being, be so perfect? How come an infant can breath while suckling the mother at the same time? How can science put everything in a perfect order? Just ponder on life, dude...

TruthComesFirst
01-04-2006, 01:42 PM
Peace,
It seems there is a misunderstanding here.Let me make one thing clear:if you believe in Darwin's evolution theory, you have renounced Islam.Simple as that!
Peace

root
01-04-2006, 10:18 PM
I'll tell you the same thing I have been telling you all the time. "NOBODY KNOWS"

In other words you cannot find any supporting evidence to your view.


Some scientist assume that it is random because they do not see a direct cause.

Some! could you at the very least show me a credible scientist in this field that supports your opinion? I don't think so.......


Tha is not a proven fact,

Nor is the theory of general relativity!


they do not have very good indications which tell them they are right. It is just an opinion, but not an obviously recognisable one.

I beg to differ, but you have nothing to support your opinion.


Now stating the contrary, that you think there is a system behind it; is very easily recognised as an opinion. The reason nobody writes about that in an article is because he will emidiatly be asked how, what order, what system, how do you know. Whereas the oposite assumption is not questioned.

That is rubbish, and you know it.


However, I have pointed out many arguments in the past of this discussion that point out why I beleiev these ERV's not to be random.

None of your points were related to the insertions being orderly by nature, I put it to you that you cannot find any material because it does not exist and that is because it is FALSE.


So I suggest you tacklle those first before asking me for new material.

In other words you mean you cannot find any supporting evidence that the insertions are orderly. You simply cannot accept they are random, because as soon as you do it becomes almost impossible to deny apes as our closest living ancestor! Else, the ERV Insertion points we share with apes can only possibly be thier because we are directly related to them. And that is the creationists worst nightmare come true.................

sumay28
01-04-2006, 11:29 PM
I dunno about you, but I ain't related to no monkey, dude...

root
01-04-2006, 11:33 PM
I dunno about you, but I ain't related to no monkey, dude...

Yes, keep thinking that way:

Creationists sure like to play the out of sight, out of mind game when it comes to evidence.

sumay28
01-04-2006, 11:43 PM
Yes, keep thinking that way:

Creationists sure like to play the out of sight, out of mind game when it comes to evidence.
The same goes for evolutionists when it comes to evidence of creation.

root
01-04-2006, 11:50 PM
The same goes for evolutionists when it comes to evidence of creation.

Actually, Evolution is for the science class and creationism/ID is for religous education. (nuff said).

It's like this for a reason and contradicts what you blindly "claim"

Regards

Abdul Fattah
01-05-2006, 01:30 AM
In other words you cannot find any supporting evidence to your view.
You could compare this with the following hypothetical situation:
Person A says: maybe there is intelligent life outside of our planet.
Person B says: No there isn’t. I know for sure because everybody else says so.
Person A says: do you have any proof of that absence then?
Person B says: No, but you don’t have any proof of such a presence so you’re wrong.

This is the gist of your arguments Root.
I’ve already shown you why I think they aren’t random, how an order behind it could function, why that is more plausible. And you didn’t even respond to that. All you did is run around in circles and avoid my arguments.


Some! could you at the very least show me a credible scientist in this field that supports your opinion? I don't think so.......

Why? So you could discredit that person? Stop trying to make this into a popularity contest and stick to the facts.


ME: That is not a proven fact,
Root: Nor is the theory of general relativity!
Ok honestly Root, that’s the third time you use that argument in the same thread after I told you how that is a bad comparison twice. Really how desperate can you get Root?
For the people who only star treading later on I shall give my reply even a third time.

Difrences between your theory (the randomness of ERV) and the theory of general relativity:

1. General relativity is built on arguments logic and tests.
Your theory is based on the absence of a noticeable order.
2. General relativity is testable.
Your theory is not testable.
3. General relativity is falsifiable.
Your theory is not falsifiable.
4. General relativity is used for calculating future events which turn out accurate.
Your theory cannot give us any predictions or calculations.
5. General relativity does not seem to be conflicting with any other worldly knowledge.
Your theory is not only conflicting with most mainstream religions but is also conflicting with survival of the fittest and even defying logic!
6. General relativity is a theory.
Your theory is nothing but an assumption dressed in a fancy word.

See the difference? Fine. Now next time you want to hide behind words like “theory”. Or make me look anti-scientific. Please do address these 6 points first.


I beg to differ, but you have nothing to support your opinion.
You beg to differ when I say that they do not have anything supporting their assumption?
And then you point out that I have nothing to support my claim. So you want me to “proof” that they do not have any indication to assume that? I’ve already told you a couple of times: “It is impossible to proof an absence of something. You can proof a presence of something in some situations. But one cannot proof an absence.” If you beg to differ; why don’t you give us these indications? These proofs? As I recall the best you could do so far is paste a link to an article that wasn’t even related.
And as I recall the score is still 0-0 in the “proof-department”.


That is rubbish, and you know it.
No that’s not! That’s a simple fact. Until people will have a good indication of such an order behind the ERV’s nobody will write a scientific article of it. But that absence does not mean that ERV’s are by default random. And the reason there are no scientific works about this is because we haven’t been able to find the reason behind it.


None of your points were related to the insertions being orderly by nature, I put it to you that you cannot find any material because it does not exist and that is because it is FALSE.
Yes there were. I remember mentioning the importance of 3dimensional shape of molecules when looking at chemical reactions at this level. Delta charges in polair molecules can play a significant part in this process and have an affinity for certain loci. On top of that certain loci are weak (easely splitted for an insertion) (A point that was raised in the not-relating article you linked to.)


In other words you mean you cannot find any supporting evidence that the insertions are orderly.
That’s lame. I already claimed that we do not know of an order behind it, and then you ask me to find evidence showing an order behind it.
Hmm… maybe If we’re really quiet, and not point out how illogical this argument is, everybody will think Root has won the debate


You simply cannot accept they are random, because as soon as you do it becomes almost impossible to deny apes as our closest living ancestor! Else, the ERV Insertion points we share with apes can only possibly be thier because we are directly related to them. And that is the creationists worst nightmare come true.................

First of All I already told you I do not have a hidden agenda. Believing in creation (wich I do now) or believing in intelligent design (wich I probably would do should ERV’s turn out to be random after all) makes no real difference in my daily life. It will not weaken my faith. It will not cause me sleepless nights or nightmares. In fact, I do not have a preference to one of those two personally. However, I do prefer creation over ID because of logical reasoning. So my opinion does not come from a believe whereas your opinion does. I mean, as an atheist admitting towards the direction of creation is a nightmare right?

So if not for a hidden agenda, why do I believe these ERV’s are not random? Because it’s very unlikely to be random. Because that means that a whole population through sheer luck acquired that ERV. It does not go together with survival of the fittest and it defies chance.

sumay28
01-05-2006, 01:44 AM
Actually, Evolution is for the science class and creationism/ID is for religous education. (nuff said).

It's like this for a reason and contradicts what you blindly "claim"

Regards


Darling, science plays a huge part in religion, thank you. I studied ecology. :statisfie

If you could just ponder for a second on how the HECK a person 1400 years ago, can POSSIBLY understand things that are scientific FACTS in this day and age, without any means to find out about these things. And I sure hope and assume, as a follower of science, that you have studied religion and drew your own conclusion based on your research and understanding of the scientific backbone it has. So I don't really need to post here any articles or proof regarding my statement. Please man... the word theory means there IS NO PROOF!, otherwise, it'd be the "Fact of Evolution"

root
01-05-2006, 12:46 PM
Hi Steve -

I think you are getting lost in the debate over ERV Insertions:


This is the gist of your arguments Root.
I’ve already shown you why I think they aren’t random, how an order behind it could function, why that is more plausible. And you didn’t even respond to that. All you did is run around in circles and avoid my arguments.

I disagree with you, I bring scientific data to the debate, you bring nothing!


Why? So you could discredit that person? Stop trying to make this into a popularity contest and stick to the facts.

Again, it's not about popularity. You simply cannot bring supporting evidence because you cannot find credible sources to support your position.


Ok honestly Root, that’s the third time you use that argument in the same thread after I told you how that is a bad comparison twice. Really how desperate can you get Root?
For the people who only star treading later on I shall give my reply even a third time.

Difrences between your theory (the randomness of ERV) and the theory of general relativity:


1. General relativity is built on arguments logic and tests.
Your theory is based on the absence of a noticeable order.

If we observe a retro-virus inserting it's dna randomly within it's host, (this evidence was provided) it is logical to assume that the virus does not require to insert at a specific point thus conclude it's insertion is random. For example a mosquito will bite at a random point on a human host, your arguement by comparisom claims that it is ordered on the basis that we cannot prove it to be random?


2. General relativity is testable.
Your theory is not testable.

It is!


3. General relativity is falsifiable.
Your theory is not falsifiable.

As to falsification, if you were able to find a sequence shared by gorillas and humans that was not found in chimps then the theory of evolution would be in serious doubt. Additionally, find an ERV only shared by orangutans and humans and not chimps or gorillas, you would again cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution. However, these potential falsifications have never been observed. Only recently has the human genome been decoded, and even more recently the chimp genome. Soon, the gorilla genome will be complete, so even more ERV?s may show up. As more genomes are completed this test can be continually applied as new ERV?s are discovered in other primate and ape species, not to mention other non-primate species. Therefore, ERV?s are a fine example of a repeatable and falsifiable data set that can be used to test the theory of evolution.


4. General relativity is used for calculating future events which turn out accurate.
Your theory cannot give us any predictions or calculations.

Correct, though misleading since you are simply talking the ability to predict. Fine, What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of DNA? Given the improbable event of two separate infections leading to the same ERV the most likely scenario is that the two species share a common ancestor. Taxonomy, through the study of fossils, has come to the conclusion that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Therefore, knowing the implications of ERV production, we should find ERV?s at the same letter of DNA in each of these species. This is a prediction made by the theory of evolution. Not only that, but the patterns of similarities should also match cladistics. Cladistics is what many call ?the tree of life? which show species branching off from one another. One such clade, constructed through the study of fossils, proposes that humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans all share a common ancestor. The first species to branch off were orangutans, the second were gorillas, the third were chimps, and the final branch resulted in humans. This allows us to make very precise predictions. If humans and orangutans share a common ERV at the same letter of DNA, then chimps and gorillas should also have that same ERV at the same letter of DNA because all of these species share one common ancestor. Since orangutans branched off before the other three, we should see ERV?s occuring after this branching. That is, there should be ERV?s common between gorillas, chimps, and humans that orangutans do not have. Since gorillas split off next, we should see ERV?s shared between chimps and humans that are not seen in gorillas or orangutans. In fact, there are seven ERV?s between humans and chimps that can only be explained by common ancestory, as well as the other ERV?s shared by humans and other apes.


5. General relativity does not seem to be conflicting with any other worldly knowledge.
Your theory is not only conflicting with most mainstream religions but is also conflicting with survival of the fittest and even defying logic!

Of course it conflicts with religion, creationists cannot explain same ERV sequences at the same point (unless like the mosquito example you claim the virus infected the ape & human seperately but at the precise same location) to which you have no evidence to support this becasause it is FALSE!!!!

Survival of the fittest/luckiest has nothing to do with this.


6. General relativity is a theory.
Your theory is nothing but an assumption dressed in a fancy word.

And so is Evolution, what is your point?


See the difference? Fine. Now next time you want to hide behind words like “theory”. Or make me look anti-scientific. Please do address these 6 points first.

I don't see the difference. Do you?


You beg to differ when I say that they do not have anything supporting their assumption?
And then you point out that I have nothing to support my claim. So you want me to “proof” that they do not have any indication to assume that? I’ve already told you a couple of times: “It is impossible to proof an absence of something. You can proof a presence of something in some situations. But one cannot proof an absence.” If you beg to differ; why don’t you give us these indications? These proofs? As I recall the best you could do so far is paste a link to an article that wasn’t even related.

Why don't you show me a virus that inserts itself at the same letter of a dna sequence!!!! if it is ordered it woulkd happen again and again!!!!!!


No that’s not! That’s a simple fact. Until people will have a good indication of such an order behind the ERV’s nobody will write a scientific article of it. But that absence does not mean that ERV’s are by default random. And the reason there are no scientific works about this is because we haven’t been able to find the reason behind it.

To draw upon the example of a mosquito, I could simply state that it bites a human host in a set order, the only reason no scientist shows us the evidence is that we assume it to be random by default. Like your position, it's pure gibberish.


Yes there were. I remember mentioning the importance of 3dimensional shape of molecules when looking at chemical reactions at this level. Delta charges in polair molecules can play a significant part in this process and have an affinity for certain loci. On top of that certain loci are weak (easely splitted for an insertion) (A point that was raised in the not-relating article you linked to.)

OK, if thats true again, show me a virus that inserts at the same letter of dna and I will convert to Islam instantly. Fact is you can't.


That’s lame. I already claimed that we do not know of an order behind it, and then you ask me to find evidence showing an order behind it.

I agree it is lame, similar to finding a pattern of random mosquito bites on a human host and claiming an order to it's bite point. But that is about the strength of your debate.


First of All I already told you I do not have a hidden agenda. Believing in creation (wich I do now) or believing in intelligent design (wich I probably would do should ERV’s turn out to be random after all) makes no real difference in my daily life. It will not weaken my faith. It will not cause me sleepless nights or nightmares. In fact, I do not have a preference to one of those two personally. However, I do prefer creation over ID because of logical reasoning. So my opinion does not come from a believe whereas your opinion does. I mean, as an atheist admitting towards the direction of creation is a nightmare right?

Yes it is a nightmare, the evidence suggests I have nothing to beleive that creationist accounts driven by religous doctrine will ever be taken seriously and confined to the religous education classes. Hence, you cannot find any supporting data for your belief that insertion points are orderly.


So if not for a hidden agenda, why do I believe these ERV’s are not random? Because it’s very unlikely to be random.

This is nuts, all the evidence shows it to be random similar to why a mosquito bites at a random point.


Because that means that a whole population through sheer luck acquired that ERV.

The odds of an effective viral insertion occurring at the same letter of DNA in two different infections is 1 in 50 million, and this is for your run of the mill, full blown, cell killing infection. What we are talking about now is a rare event of a viral misfire. Not only that, but a misfire that happens in an egg or sperm, and even more improbable a misfire in an egg or sperm that leads to living offspring who themselves reproduce at a later time. This multiplies the chances of two people having the same ERV at the same letter of DNA due to separate viral insertions as being highly, and I mean highly, unlikely. Therefore, we can conclude that they share something like a great, great, great grandparent. You are the one claiming it's luck, not I.


It does not go together with survival of the fittest and it defies chance.

I agree your point does not bode well. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with survival of the fittest/luckiest.

Abdul Fattah
01-05-2006, 10:55 PM
I disagree with you, I bring scientific data to the debate, you bring nothing
Oh really? Where is that scientific data then? Just saying a certain scientists thinks the same as you do does not make that thinking scientific. Or are you perhaps referring to the article you linked to? Yes that had scientific data. But it did not prove your point. The only thing you proved by posting that is that you do not know what you’re talking about and that you are in way over your head but to stubborn to admit it.

Again, it's not about popularity. You simply cannot bring supporting evidence because you cannot find credible sources to support your position.
Listen up, I don’t care how many times you present the same argument; my answer will always be the same: The reason I don’t bring any evidence up is because ‘till today whether it is random or orderly is unknown. Some just assume it is random because it goes along well with evolution. And that is exactly why this cannot be used as an argument in favor of evolution. You can try and discredit me by challenging me to present evidence. But joke’s on you, ‘cause as far as I know:

Score is still 0-0


If we observe a retro-virus inserting it's dna randomly within it's host, (this evidence was provided) it is logical to assume that the virus does not require to insert at a specific point thus conclude it's insertion is random.
There is no such evidence. When has this been witnessed who observed it. Where’s this evidence? Not only are you unable to present this so called evidence, but you just admit that it is an assumption in the very next sentence. That there is no proof. And why is it logical that it does not require a specific point to be inserted in? And how does such a reasoning give us certainty of that assumption?

your arguement by comparisom claims that it is ordered on the basis that we cannot prove it to be random?
NO, you are wrong! I said that nobody knows that it could be either one. You are the only one making assumptions here. You are the one jumping to conclusions. You are the one who assumes it is random because we cannot proof it is organized.
So in conclusion; number one still stands:
1. General relativity is built on arguments logic and tests.
Your theory is based on the absence of a noticeable order.

It is![testable]
Yes sure, and if you reapeat that long enough and believe real hard eventually that statement will be true! Regardless of that miracle, it would still be insufficient in a debate to proof your point! so objection 2 also still stands.
2. General relativity is testable.
Your theory is not testable.

As to falsification, if you were able to find a sequence shared by gorillas and humans that was not found in chimps then the theory of evolution would be in serious doubt. Additionally, find an ERV only shared by orangutans and humans and not chimps or gorillas, you would again cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution. However, these potential falsifications have never been observed. Only recently has the human genome been decoded, and even more recently the chimp genome. Soon, the gorilla genome will be complete, so even more ERV?s may show up. As more genomes are completed this test can be continually applied as new ERV?s are discovered in other primate and ape species, not to mention other non-primate species. Therefore, ERV?s are a fine example of a repeatable and falsifiable data set that can be used to test the theory of evolution.
Very true. But until the day those genes are decoded the theory is still not falsifiable. So until then, argument three still stands.
3. General relativity is falsifiable.
Your theory is not falsifiable.


Correct, though misleading since you are simply talking the ability to predict. Fine, What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of DNA?
Not to split hairs, but I think you mean loci rather then letter. The whole DNA consists only out of four letters. Difrent genes are created by difrent combinations of those 4. When refereeing to a specific place on the DNA thread that’s a loci (from the latin locus, which means “place”)

Just to avoid confusion…

Given the improbable event of two separate infections leading to the same ERV the most likely scenario is that the two species share a common ancestor. Taxonomy, through the study of fossils, has come to the conclusion that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Therefore, knowing the implications of ERV production, we should find ERV?s at the same letter of DNA in each of these species. This is a prediction made by the theory of evolution. Not only that, but the patterns of similarities should also match cladistics. Cladistics is what many call ?the tree of life? which show species branching off from one another. One such clade, constructed through the study of fossils, proposes that humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans all share a common ancestor. The first species to branch off were orangutans, the second were gorillas, the third were chimps, and the final branch resulted in humans. This allows us to make very precise predictions. If humans and orangutans share a common ERV at the same letter of DNA, then chimps and gorillas should also have that same ERV at the same letter of DNA because all of these species share one common ancestor. Since orangutans branched off before the other three, we should see ERV?s occuring after this branching. That is, there should be ERV?s common between gorillas, chimps, and humans that orangutans do not have. Since gorillas split off next, we should see ERV?s shared between chimps and humans that are not seen in gorillas or orangutans. In fact, there are seven ERV?s between humans and chimps that can only be explained by common ancestory, as well as the other ERV?s shared by humans and other apes.
That is all very interesting but as you already hinted to with your opening does not defeat argument 4. The theory is still not usable to make calculations of future insretions of retroviri. It does not enable us to send a rocket to the moon.
4. General relativity is used for calculating future events which turn out accurate.
Your theory cannot give us any predictions or calculations.


Of course it conflicts with religion, creationists cannot explain same ERV sequences at the same point (unless like the mosquito example you claim the virus infected the ape & human separately but at the precise same location) to which you have no evidence to support this because it is FALSE!!!!
That’s a very stupid way of thinking root. Something is not false because of a lack of evidence.


Survival of the fittest/luckiest has nothing to do with this.
Yes it does. According to the survival of the fittest any mutation that is a benefit will higher the possibility of survival whereas any mutation that is unbeneficial would lower it. Although ERV’s aren’t really harmful by nature; they do inhibit some enzymes of the body thus lower production of necessary enzymes, and on top of that, when being inserted can damage a gene. So if anything, ERV’s would bring down survival rates. Yet an entire population acquired this ERV through a single insertion. That is pushing “luck”.
So I think it’s safe to say:
5. General relativity does not seem to be conflicting with any other worldly knowledge.
Your theory is not only conflicting with most mainstream religions but is also conflicting with survival of the fittest and even defying logic!


And so is Evolution, what is your point?
My point is that there’s a big difference between the “theory” of general relativity; and your “theory”. My point is that both need to be looked at with different standards. That the word “theory” has a much heavier meaning in one case then it has in the other. In other words my point is that:
6. General relativity is a theory.
Your theory is nothing but an assumption dressed in a fancy word.

I don't see the difference. Do you?
Yes I do see it, and it comes in the shape of six differences why the two shouldn’t be compared. I even put them in red typing. If you don’t see it, than you are either blind or unwilling.

Why don't you show me a virus that inserts itself at the same letter of a dna sequence!!!! if it is ordered it woulkd happen again and again!!!!!!
OK, if thats true again, show me a virus that inserts at the same letter of dna and I will convert to Islam instantly. Fact is you can't.[/

Well first of all, the absence of evidence does not proof the opposite assumption. So you dodged my request smoothly, but not smooth enough. Second of all; your counter request does not make any sense. Different viri would have different affinities for different loci (letters as you would say). So it would be absurd to assume that they insert at the same place where there is already an ERV present. Also take under consideration that by infecting the DNA the retrovirus altered the state of the DNA thread and thus the loci also changes. Perhaps in a less preferable place for insertions.

To draw upon the example of a mosquito, I could simply state that it bites a human host in a set order, the only reason no scientist shows us the evidence is that we assume it to be random by default. Like your position, it's pure gibberish.
Well first of all the randomness of mosquito bites hasn’t been proven either, as absurd as that might sound. But, when it comes to ERV’s the absurdity stops. Because here there is an assumable possibility. It is not absurd to imagine an order behind it for reasons that I already mentioned more then enough such as delta charges which give affinity for certain loci. Or certain loci being weak and easily spitted for insertion.

I agree it is lame, similar to finding a pattern of random mosquito bites on a human host and claiming an order to it's bite point. But that is about the strength of your debate.
First of all it’s not the strength of my debate, but the weakness of yours. You are the one talking about proof and scientific facts. I am the one saying we simply don’t know. Second of all, I do have reasons to believe that it is not random, I presented them and all you could say in response was: show me. I told you, we don’t know. Neither my p.o.v. nor yours is accepted. I could say yours is just as weak and lacking of evidence as mine.
But just for fun. Lets consider that a mosquito is drawn to certain areas just as a virus could be drawn to insert in certain areas. A mosquito does not bite randomly. Be it either by the smell of sweat of by body heat. It is drawn to certain flesh. How come I can sleep in the same room of my sister and wake up without a single bite while my sister is full of bites? Let’s also consider that certain areas of skin aren’t preferable for biting just as certain areas of DNA wouldn’t likely split. A mosquito wouldn’t bite me in a place on my hands where I have lots of corn, because it would be to hard to go trough. But if you want to think of this as totally random just because nobody ever made a serious study involving the order and places in which mosquito’s bite, well be my guest then.


Yes it is a nightmare, the evidence suggests I have nothing to beleive that creationist accounts driven by religous doctrine will ever be taken seriously and confined to the religous education classes. Hence, you cannot find any supporting data for your belief that insertion points are orderly.


This is nuts, all the evidence shows it to be random similar to why a mosquito bites at a random point.
WHAT EVIDENCE???? I’ve asked you thousand of times… and Mr. PIE is still saying the same thing:
score: 0-0

The odds of an effective viral insertion occurring at the same letter of DNA in two different infections is 1 in 50 million
That is, assuming it is random. I do not assume it’s random, so I do not have to answer to this luck calculation. My problem with luck, the odds of an entire population acquiring this ERV as the result of a single infection still stands though.

I’ve seen dogs who got tired from running in circles a lot faster then you do Root.

muslim dude
01-06-2006, 06:28 PM
Sub-Topic : Science strengthens the emaan of the believers...
(post might be a little off-topic)

May Allah bestow His peace on these who are guided and may Allah bestow His peace on these who are not guided by guiding them to the straight path.

Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim


Actually, Evolution is for the science class and creationism/ID is for religous education. (nuff said).

It's like this for a reason and contradicts what you blindly "claim"


In addition to Sistah Sumayah's response, I would like to state that Evolution is not an argument against creation, but simply another possible process of creation that is disputed.

The general meaning of creation is that something did not exist at a point in time and then existed after a point in time. And obviously, there is a certain implication by the existence of creation...

(Qur'an, Chapter 52 (At-Tur: The Mount): 35-36)
"Were they created by nothing, or were they they themselves the creators?"
"Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay but they have no firm Belief."

The various science classes (of the nature of the world) becomes important by providing verifiable evidence that objects in this world and in the universe did not exist in a certain point in time.

For example, at the time of Abraham (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), there was no verifiable evidence that the sun and the moon was created, which science has verified for us now.

So when he (pbuh) argued with his people that were misguided, he (pbuh) had to debate with them from a different angle. He (pbuh) told them, look how the sun and moon operates, by appearing and disappearing i.e. why would anyone be foolish enough to not recognise that these are mere objects that are following a fixed course (and hence is not acting out of its own accord).

(Qur'an, Chapter 6 (An-An'am: The Cattle): 77-78)
"When he saw the moon rising up, he said: 'This is my lord.' But when it set, he said: 'Unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among the erring people.'"
"When he saw the sun rising up, he said: 'This is my lord.This is greater.' But when it set, he said: 'O my people! I am indeed free from all that you join as partners in worship with Allâh."

So we can also see, that science also helps in understanding that the sun and moon operates in a non-random manner and not according to the objects own "will". They have even given a name to this as the "Law of Gravity". The fact that scientists (of the nature of the world) have given us verifiable evidence that objects are simply following a predictable order that is in harmony with other objects (e.g. the moon does not overtake the sun). Obviously the existence of "natural" laws has a certain implication...

(Qur'an, Chapter 16 (An-Nahl: The Bee): 12)
"And He has subjected to you the night and the day, the sun and the moon; and the stars are subjected by His Command. Surely, in this are proofs for people who understand."

So, in summary, the more our understanding of science (of the nature of the world) increases, the more it leads to the conclusion there is One that created and sustained all that exists.

Also, it is worth noting people are capable of making mistakes, due to their limited understanding of science, as people are themselves creations and subject to "natural" laws, they will only discover and deduce as much as the effort they put in, both physically (gaining knowledge, experimentation etc.) and spiritually by asking of the One that has full knowledge (science) of what He Creates and Sustains.

(Qur'an, Chapter 2 (Al-Baqarah: The Cow): some of 255)
"... And they will never compass anything of His Knowledge except that which He wills. ..."

And as muslims know, "actions are only by intentions", therefore if intentions are not sincerely for seeking the truth, then even conclusions based on truthful evidences can be false. For example, Darwin took the scientific evidence of "natural" variation within the same species (i.e. humans come in all shapes, colours and sizes) to conclude something false (i.e humans descended from a different species) so that he can say the bible is wrong, perhaps to reduce the authority of priests (note: his motives for reaching the false conclusion is speculation on my part).

Ok, you guys probably will not remember all that I have written here, so if you only remember one thing from this piece, just remember this; Evolution is not an argument against creation, but simply another possible process of creation that is disputed.

muslim dude
01-06-2006, 06:34 PM
Not only that, but the patterns of similarities should also match cladistics. Cladistics is what many call ?the tree of life? which show species branching off from one another. One such clade, constructed through the study of fossils, proposes that humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans all share a common ancestor. The first species to branch off were orangutans, the second were gorillas, the third were chimps, and the final branch resulted in humans. This allows us to make very precise predictions. If humans and orangutans share a common ERV at the same letter of DNA, then chimps and gorillas should also have that same ERV at the same letter of DNA because all of these species share one common ancestor.

Even taking into account the "scientific data" you have provided, the conclusion that is assumed is not necessarily accurate. Firstly, all the mentioned species orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans are called "branches" from a "tree of life". Then what happened to the species that represents the "trunk" of the so called "tree of life". Completely disappeared?! Shouldn't logic and scientific reasoning dictate that the species representing the "trunk" be far more numerous than the "branches" - where are the "trunk" creatures that all the others branched from?! Where are the fossils of the "trunk" species?! At the moment, all we know about are the "branch" species, but no one mentions the "trunk" species. Probably, the same reason they do not mention fairies and unicorns either...

Hey, you know what? I too can provide an alternative conclusions to the "scientific data" (note, big assumption is that the "scientific data" is valid).

So another conclusion could be that perhaps the the "trunk" species are the humans and the some of the various apes are the "branch" species that descended from the "trunk".


5:60 Then say: "Should I inform you [People of the Book] of those, who will have even worse recompense from Allah than the transgressors? They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under His wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine; who worshipped taghut [the devil or idols]; those are the people who are in a far worse plight and who have turned farthest away from the Right Way."

I called it the Theory of Devolution ;)

Another theory that could be concluded from the provided "scientific data" is that the common traits between different species would most likely be due to the fact that they are made from the same "materials". However, being made out of the same "materials" does not mean that they evolved from the same "object".

For example, a Ford Escort and a Ferrari are made out metal and consist of similar parts like, engines, exhausts, steering wheel etc. but no one is going to say Ferrari evolved from a Ford Escort just because of the similar nature of these two "motor species". So to me, it's even more illogical to say that humans evolved from apes, bearing in mind that organic material is far more complex than metallic and electronic materials.

Since, both species are made from the same material, then most likely they would share similar properties. So, continuing with my analogy, if one were to crash the Ford Escort and the Ferrari (no man!, not the Ferrari :( ) by driving it head-on against a wall for example, then it should not surprise anyone that the damage inflicted in both cars would be similar (i.e. crumpled bonnet etc.)

Similarly, if a human and ape were to get bitten by the same virus, then due to the fact they are made up of the same materials, it would not be that surprising to conclude they will suffer infections in similar locations without having to conclude one is the common ancestor of the other.


Some! could you at the very least show me a credible scientist in this field that supports your opinion? I don't think so.......

Honestly Root, I sometimes think you would not know a credible scientist if one were to come and hit you on the head :hiding: (just a figure of speech ;) ) but someone I would class as credible, is if they have demonstrated knowledge of the field under discussion, and al-hamdulilah, Steve fits the bill nicely!

root
01-07-2006, 06:43 PM
Oh really? Where is that scientific data then? Just saying a certain scientists thinks the same as you do does not make that thinking scientific. Or are you perhaps referring to the article you linked to? Yes that had scientific data. But it did not prove your point. The only thing you proved by posting that is that you do not know what you’re talking about and that you are in way over your head but to stubborn to admit it.

Slightly derogative in that you try to reduce it to "Certain Scientists". Actually it's the integrated text-based search and retrieval system used at NCBI for the major databases, including PubMed, Nucleotide and Protein Sequences, Protein Structures, Complete Genomes, Taxonomy, and others. It's a service of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of health.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11731495&dopt=Abstract

Genomic characterization of recent human LINE-1 insertions: evidence supporting random insertion.

The data has been directly cited additionally by:

Nucleic Acids Research
Genetics:http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/

Genetics
http://www.genetics.org/

Moleculor Biology and Evolution
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/

Science
http://www.sciencemag.org/

Genome Research
http://www.genome.org/

Proceedings of the national acadamy of sciencee
http://www.pnas.org/


NO, you are wrong! I said that nobody knows that it could be either one. You are the only one making assumptions here. You are the one jumping to conclusions. You are the one who assumes it is random because we cannot proof it is organized.
So in conclusion; number one still stands:
1. General relativity is built on arguments logic and tests.
Your theory is based on the absence of a noticeable order.

So you disagree with all these organisatations and main-stream science, your free to do so. At least we now know that Islam is NOT in harmony with mainstream Science despite the contrary often being stated in this forum.


Well first of all the randomness of mosquito bites hasn’t been proven either, as absurd as that might sound. But, when it comes to ERV’s the absurdity stops. Because here there is an assumable possibility. It is not absurd to imagine an order behind it for reasons that I already mentioned more then enough such as delta charges which give affinity for certain loci. Or certain loci being weak and easily spitted for insertion.

I think the absurdety of your position still remains. How do you prove the bite of a mosquito is random? loci and delta charges are true, but it's a smokescreen your blowing since even within "hot spots" insertion remains random? As stated earlier you are free to believe it's ordered.

czgibson
01-07-2006, 11:33 PM
Hi Steve,

Sorry for the late reply - I've been busy at work as usual.


Yes that’s cute, but lets try not to waste our time in beating around the bush.

This was in response to my statement that saying there is evidence supporting something is different to saying it's been proven. I don't see how that can be classed as beating around the bush. I don't see what's cute about it either. They're clearly two quite different assertions!

Example: there is evidence to suggest that determinism is true, but it certainly hasn't been proven.


Well that’s not very logical is it? Since all these world views refer to the same world, at places were they disagree obviously only one can be true. So you’re saying your view is more likely true because it fits both with the accurate world view as with the inaccurate one? Is your point of view better because it’s compatible with an inaccurate theory? Yes you can mix the two up theories up, and it still seems to make sense, but that doesn’t mean one is better then the other.

My point was simply that if you accept creationism, you are closing your mind to so much. After all, evolution is the foundation of modern biology, is it not?


Well you don’t “have to” be a Muslim against your will.

That's the kind of tolerant view I've come to respect from the majority of Muslims I've met. Sadly, many people only hear about the intolerant form of Islam that has been in the news frequently over the past few years.


See, here it’s shown nicely how it’s just two people looking at the same thing from different angles. Try to follow my view for a second. I could say, when you start from an obvious fact: some centuries ago there suddenly appeared a book. Now in it is a theory, which is very advanced for it’s time.

What theory are you talking about and in what way is it advanced?


The third one is absurd. The second one lacks a motive. Why would you assume that alternative explanation? But the first one is still –by occams razor- correct. Now you may feel like the second is more likely because you’re not inclined to believe the metaphysical part of the theory mentioned in that book. But that’s a matter of personal preference, and is not by occams razor.

Occam's razor can be used to support all sorts of personal views; I think we've already established that. It says, essentially, "the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct". Now, of course, that means "whichever explanation seems simplest to you".


Both contain worship? That’s the strongest criteria you can come up with to show similarity? It’s not because some worship has been proven futile and even silly that all kind of worship is as such.

Worshipping something nobody can see or detect seems odd to me and always has done. Hence my belief-system.


In fact many Muslims experience the result of their worship on a frequent basis.

That's an interesting point. Are you thinking of feelings of comfort and peacefulness or perhaps something else? I'd be interested to hear what sort of results you're talking about. While we're on the subject, would you say that these results are similar for people of all religions, or are the Muslim results unique?


Well speaking for myself, I did not revert out of a lack of knowledge; no it was quite the opposite I reverted because I acquired new knowledge. Before that I was an atheist, and I had it pretty much all worked out and found an answer to any question that soothed my mind. So there were no open questions. And another major contributor to peoples believes which cannot be underestimated is personal experience; that goes a long way. As for your so called diminishing need for religion, how would you explain for the many believing people? They all lack your knowledge?

There's nothing special about my knowledge, I can tell you that for certain!

What I'm referring to is that in the past, say, the Middle Ages, everyone in the West believed in god. Everyone. Of course, if they announced publicly that they didn't, the punishment would be severe, so that was unthinkable. However, as science and philosophy have progressed, the number of non-believers has increased dramatically. I think there's a clear connection there, that's all.


One would hope so yes, and most people do, or appear to do so at least. But some will try to “talk some sense” in this poor “brainwashed” soul as if their life depended on it. The free was sarcastic. Because I do not believe the west is free.

I agree that the West is not completely free, though I suspect we have very different reasons for saying that.


The highest degree of freedom is gained as slave of Allah.

That's what I'd call a paradox, or a self-contradiction. How can a slave be free?


Would you mind having a heart to hearth with my mother? :D

I take it she doesn't approve of your new religion? That's a real shame, but surely she realises you've become a Muslim for what you believe are very good reasons?


But you will show them why you believe your view to be accurate, and you would also tell them why you find other views unlikely, right?

I'm sure I would, but what would be more important would be for them to question all these different views, including mine.

"Question everything", said Socrates.

Peace

Abdul Fattah
01-08-2006, 12:51 AM
@ Root:

Slightly derogative in that you try to reduce it to "Certain Scientists". Actually it's the integrated text-based search and retrieval system used at NCBI for the major databases, including PubMed, Nucleotide and Protein Sequences, Protein Structures, Complete Genomes, Taxonomy, and others. It's a service of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of health.
Not all scientists believe this is random hence “some” believe it. It’s as simple as that. It doesn’t matter which one is mainstream and which ones isn’t. It’s not a popularity contest. What matters is that there are difference opinions regarding it.

Ok regarding the first link you put up:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

It immediately struck me as very familiar when I started reading it. It’s the first paragraph of the previous site you linked to.

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/GR-1947RRv1

And as I already told you, this is not about ERV’s! The insertions they are talking about are mutations not endogenous retro viri. Take a good look at that article, perhaps you could even try to read it. The word virus, the word endogenous, the word retro, ERV, none of these things are even mentioned in the article! This is not what you claim it to be!

And then you post up a whole bunch of sites who supposedly back up this unrelated article. Fine, so what, that article doesn’t discus ERV’s. But you don’t even bother to search for it. You just give the home page, and we have to believe your word for it or look it up ourselves.

And another thing. Although the article talks about mutation of DNA (strands of DNA who get cut and paste at a difrent loci) rather then virus insertions it still helps my case. See the article is named random insertions, but in the article its actually suggested that they are not that random. That certain loci have a high probability of breaking up. This confirms what I’ve been saying all along because if a certain area lends itself for breaking up, it has a higher probability of retro virus insertion to.

Here it is:
Historically, several different observations indicated that human and mammalian L1s are not distributed randomly in the genome. These studies concurred that L1s are found more frequently in genomic regions characterized by relatively low average levels of G + C nucleotides and less commonly in regions of high GC (Soriano et al. 1983 ; Korenberg and Rykowski 1988 ; Moyzis et al. 1989 ; Boyle et al. 1990 ; Baker and Kass 1994 ). The recently completed draft human genome sequence confirms these results (Lander et al. 2001 ). The distribution of L1s in human DNA stands in marked contrast to the distribution of Alu elements in the human genome. Alus are most concentrated in genomic regions of high GC and less concentrated in DNA low in GC. These differences are most perplexing in light of the major similarities between these two types of transposons. Both L1s and Alus transpose via an RNA intermediate. Both elements insert into the genome followed by poly(A) tails and the production of short target site duplications, and both are believed to transpose by making use of the L1-encoded transposition machinery (Dombroski et al. 1991 ; Jurka 1997 ).


So you disagree with all these organisatations and main-stream science, your free to do so. At least we now know that Islam is NOT in harmony with mainstream Science despite the contrary often being stated in this forum.
No, science is still in perfect harmony with Islam. Those theory’s you suggested are contradicting Islam. But then again, those theorys lack any form of proof and are nothing but opinions. I’ve asked more then 5 times. Bring me a single proof. Let’s ask Mr. PIE again.
score: 1-0 in favor for Steve


I think the absurdety of your position still remains. How do you prove the bite of a mosquito is random? loci and delta charges are true, but it's a smokescreen your blowing since even within "hot spots" insertion remains random? As stated earlier you are free to believe it's ordered.
Hot spots? Who ever mentioned hot spots. Again you proof that you do not know what you are talking about. Delta charges are caused by electrons and are very confined to a certain area. DNA doesn’t break just anywhere for a virus to get inserted. It can only break at certain points. The distance between these insertion points is much bigger then the span of a delta charge. So to suggest that a certain delta charge could result in two different insertions depending on luck is absurd. I’m not blowing any smokescreens. I’m sticking to the facts, you are the one with a vivid imagination.

sumay28
01-08-2006, 01:13 AM
The scientific method leaves no room to prove the existence of God. We have our science book-- the Qu'ran-- and many well-respected, world renown scientists can agree that it is a scientific phenominon. There are scientists who are former athiests, who have come to believe in a God based on their own personal experiences. Proffessor Keith L. Moore, co-author of Essential Clinical Anatomy, Joe Leigh simpson, author of Genetics Obstetrics & Gynecology.... are these guys a couple of chumps? I've known many scientists who believe in God and they enjoy their jobs a hellava lot more. Why argue with it??

Abdul Fattah
01-08-2006, 02:06 AM
@czgibson:

Hi Steve,
Sorry for the late reply - I've been busy at work as usual.
That’s quite alright. I am neither impatient by nature nor did I had an unsatisfied need for your answer so there’s really no need for apologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve
Yes that’s cute, but lets try not to waste our time in beating around the bush.


This was in response to my statement that saying there is evidence supporting something is different to saying it's been proven. I don't see how that can be classed as beating around the bush. I don't see what's cute about it either. They're clearly two quite different assertions! Example: there is evidence to suggest that determinism is true, but it certainly hasn't been proven.

Well from a down to earth perspective, evidence is directly linked to proof. If evidence exists, it can proof something. Unless you look at it from an agnostic-philosophic point of view, where everything’s possible and there are no certainties in life. According to the first point of view you were beating around the bush, and according to the second one you were being cute. My point was, when you come to a thread that discusses evolution, and claim that a certain site has proof, you’re bound to hear someone saying that they aren’t evidence since they proof nothing. You can call them arguments at best. But unless they proof something they aren’t evidence.


My point was simply that if you accept creationism, you are closing your mind to so much. After all, evolution is the foundation of modern biology, is it not?
I don’t agree with your point, but first of all, my point is, that if you accept evolution, you are closing your mind to so much. After all, creation is the beginning of religion, is it not?
I said I tend to disagree. Why? Well first of all I need to clarify that I do believe some animals evolved from one another, I just don’t believe in abiogenesis (the theory that life arose out of lifeless matter spontaneously) nor do I believe in common descent (the theory that all animals evolved from a single ancestral animal). This being said; I think it’s clear that my point of view does not close my mind but is 100% compatible with modern biology.

That's the kind of tolerant view I've come to respect from the majority of Muslims I've met. Sadly, many people only hear about the intolerant form of Islam that has been in the news frequently over the past few years.
Yes that is sad indeed. At the risk of sounding paranoid, don’t trust the image the news portraits. Throughout history the powerful have always used information as a weapon. Ask any American what the civil war was about. Either they won’t know because they don’t care, or they’ll tell you it was a war against slavery. What they don’t know is that the north only forbid slavery after 3 years of war. It was a strategic sacrifice, knowing that the south relied on slavery to work at the plantations, without it they had no economy. There were even black soldiers fighting for the south front. See After winning, the victor always decides what gets into the history books and what is conveniently left out. After WWII Communists were public enemy number one. Why? Because sharing just scares the Hell out of Americans? No, simply because the Russians were communistic and the Russians had power. Now it’s the Muslims. I’m glad at least some people take the time to look what’s behind the lies, for that I congratulate you.

steve:See, here it’s shown nicely how it’s just two people looking at the same thing from different angles. Try to follow my view for a second. I could say, when you start from an obvious fact: some centuries ago there suddenly appeared a book. Now in it is a theory, which is very advanced for it’s time.
Cgibson: What theory are you talking about and in what way is it advanced?
I wasn’t referring to a specific theory. What I meant was that it suggests a life style, it gave us Islam, which was advanced for the time in which it was revealed.


Occam's razor can be used to support all sorts of personal views; I think we've already established that. It says, essentially, "the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct". Now, of course, that means "whichever explanation seems simplest to you".
Yes I agree. In fact. When I first started this discussion -by arguing that religion is true by occams razor- I intended to guide the discussion to that particular point. The motive for doing so was: A lot of atheists and agnostics tend to see believing as contradicting with the obvious. As if people believe “despite” their logic reasoning. At least that is the view of believers I had back when I was atheistic. So provoking you with “occams razor” was to try and show you how it’s the other way around. That we believe because we think that our religion is more likely to represent the truth then any alternative explanation you, or anyone else for that matter, can give us.

Worshipping something nobody can see or detect seems odd to me and always has done. Hence my belief-system.
I can perfectly understand that, in fact a few years back from now, I thought exactly the same. Yet I’m confident that common sense will allow you to admit that such a chain of reasoning is not by logic but rather by feeling. A feeling opposite to the feeling believers have regarding this.

That's an interesting point. Are you thinking of feelings of comfort and peacefulness or perhaps something else? I'd be interested to hear what sort of results you're talking about.
Well it’s the sum total of many things. Comfort and peacefulness are in fact two things I immediately and actively experienced upon accepting Islam. Not only piece of heart, also piece of mind. I quit smoking, I no longer needed alcohol to set my mind at ease. I lost my paranoid nature. But next to that there is also a sense of guidance. Events happening in your life that seem to defy expectations in such an elegant way that it seems as someones looking out for you. Now I hear you thinking out loud: you just changed from one paranoid point of view to another. No the difference is paranoia inhibits the acceptance of anything. It stands between theory and truth. That’s why paranoid people are often described as conspiracy theorist; because they just keep an open mind to very single possibility because they cannot accept either one. So believing is like the most difficult step to take. Now did I start to believe because I fought back my paranoia, or did I start fighting back my paranoia because I started believing… Well I don’t know, and quite frankly, I don’t care. What I know is that Allah guides who he wishes. And I am most gratefull because Alhamdoelillahi I feel guided.

While we're on the subject, would you say that these results are similar for people of all religions, or are the Muslim results unique?
Well I do think people of different religions can have similar experiences. But in my limited knowledge I tend to think not at the same level a Muslim has. See Lets assume Islam is the true religion and let’s say a pious catholic person prays to God. Now don’t think just because he has some false Ideas that Allah leaves him hanging, maybe this person is just confused, or hasn’t heard the true message of Islam.

What I'm referring to is that in the past, say, the Middle Ages, everyone in the West believed in god. Everyone. Of course, if they announced publicly that they didn't, the punishment would be severe, so that was unthinkable. However, as science and philosophy have progressed, the number of non-believers has increased dramatically. I think there's a clear connection there, that's all.
Well that reminds me of this quote, the biggest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince mankind he doesn’t exist. It’s true that there are many atheists. But I don’t think there’s a direct relation with growing knowledge. At best it could make people vain, thinking they have all the answers. But as you can see on this forum, upon closer inspection Islam is still very alive and goes hand in hand with this newly acquired knowledge.

I agree that the West is not completely free, though I suspect we have very different reasons for saying that.
Well besides freemasonry and those kind of things. The REAL inhibition to the freedom of the west is atheism from my point of view. I believe the mind can only obtain freedom of the causalityof the processes in the brain if it starts listening to the soul. Only IF you choose to ignore certain impulses have you acquired freedom. To quote the prophet’s (pbuh) son in law: As slave of Allah you have the highest degree of freedom.

That's what I'd call a paradox, or a self-contradiction. How can a slave be free?
So the freedom lies in the fact not being bound to the casuistic nature of physics laws that regulate our body. To deny certain urges, to reach a higher level then animals have.

I take it she doesn't approve of your new religion? That's a real shame, but surely she realises you've become a Muslim for what you believe are very good reasons?
Well she still loves me very much and respects me, but she’s having a hard time accepting that I chose to revert, and I’m sure that she’d take up any opportunity she sees to convince me away from Islam.

I'm sure I would, but what would be more important would be for them to question all these different views, including mine.

"Question everything", said Socrates.
Fair enough. In that case I gladly admit misjudging you. It seems you are truly agnostiastic. So would It be correct to assume that when you raise questions here you do so only in an attempt to finding and listing the different possible answers rather then to suggest a single one?

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-08-2006, 04:49 AM
The highest degree of freedom is gained as slave of Allah.That's what I'd call a paradox, or a self-contradiction. How can a slave be free?
First, a paradox is completely different from a self-contradiction. A paradox seems self-contradictory, but is actually true.

I would agree that the paradox of true freedom is to submit oneself as a slave of Allah; this is how a soul achieves true liberation. I do not think this is a contradiction, although it may initially appear to be such until one thinks it over carefully.

Regards

root
01-08-2006, 01:33 PM
Here it is:
Historically, several different observations indicated that human and mammalian L1s are not distributed randomly in the genome. These studies concurred that L1s are found more frequently in genomic regions characterized by relatively low average levels of G + C nucleotides and less commonly in regions of high GC (Soriano et al. 1983 ; Korenberg and Rykowski 1988 ; Moyzis et al. 1989 ; Boyle et al. 1990 ; Baker and Kass 1994 ). The recently completed draft human genome sequence confirms these results (Lander et al. 2001 ). The distribution of L1s in human DNA stands in marked contrast to the distribution of Alu elements in the human genome. Alus are most concentrated in genomic regions of high GC and less concentrated in DNA low in GC. These differences are most perplexing in light of the major similarities between these two types of transposons. Both L1s and Alus transpose via an RNA intermediate. Both elements insert into the genome followed by poly(A) tails and the production of short target site duplications, and both are believed to transpose by making use of the L1-encoded transposition machinery (Dombroski et al. 1991 ; Jurka 1997 ).

what you are actually pointing out here is regarded as a "Hot Spot", of which several thousand exist in the human genome. where the odds of a virus being inserted are slightly higher than other places, there is no reason why multiple infections would result in the same ERVs being inserted in the same locations with the same crippling errors and showing the same pattern of change with time.

As for your 1 : 0 score, the whistle blows. Your off-side, goal disallowed!


Hot spots? Who ever mentioned hot spots. Again you proof that you do not know what you are talking about.

You did.............

czgibson
01-08-2006, 02:13 PM
Hello Ansar,

First, a paradox is completely different from a self-contradiction. A paradox seems self-contradictory, but is actually true.

I'm afraid not. Some paradoxes are true, some aren't. Also, most paradoxes appear to contradict themselves, as you say - hence my yoking of them with self-contradictions. Take one of the most famous ones of all:

"All Cretans are liars," said the Cretan.

That's clearly self-contradictory, no?

See here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox


I would agree that the paradox of true freedom is to submit oneself as a slave of Allah; this is how a soul achieves true liberation. I do not think this is a contradiction, although it may initially appear to be such until one thinks it over carefully.

I'm still stuck on that one, I'm afraid. I suppose it depends on what your view of freedom is. Perhaps it's your view that anyone who is not a slave cannot be truly free. In my view, however, a slave is not free by definition - it's as simple as that.

Peace

Pk_#2
01-08-2006, 03:19 PM
Peace (salaams),

For those who go against Islam ....May Allah (swt) help you :)

Fi Amaan Allah

peace (w/salaamz) xx

root
01-08-2006, 08:07 PM
Hi Muslim Dude


Even taking into account the "scientific data" you have provided, the conclusion that is assumed is not necessarily accurate. Firstly, all the mentioned species orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans are called "branches" from a "tree of life".

I can accept your definition and in essence.


Then what happened to the species that represents the "trunk" of the so called "tree of life". Completely disappeared?! Shouldn't logic and scientific reasoning dictate that the species representing the "trunk" be far more numerous than the "branches"

If you construct a family tree, I doubt anyone would propose such a question? One could easily become bogged down in philosophy. For example, if you followed the "tree of life" then the different species abundent today may well increase or decrease (working backwards). However as you travel down the "trunk" evolution predicts that species variation would decline eventually back to single celled organisms, to go further back you would come to just two that we know of.


- where are the "trunk" creatures that all the others branched from?! Where are the fossils of the "trunk" species?!

protobionts would be the trunk (which are still around today, I think)


At the moment, all we know about are the "branch" species, but no one mentions the "trunk" species. Probably, the same reason they do not mention fairies and unicorns either... Hey, you know what? I too can provide an alternative conclusions to the "scientific data" (note, big assumption is that the "scientific data" is valid).

You might be on your way to being a top scientist. Only problem you have is that fairies and unicorns (if they exist) are multi-celled life, the trunk would be only a simple single cell life.


So another conclusion could be that perhaps the the "trunk" species are the humans and the some of the various apes are the "branch" species that descended from the "trunk".

As I said, multi-celled species probably don't appear on the trunk.

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-09-2006, 03:05 AM
Hi Callum,

I'm afraid not. Some paradoxes are true, some aren't. Also, most paradoxes appear to contradict themselves, as you say - hence my yoking of them with self-contradictions.
Yes, you're right, but this does not negate the fact that a paradox may refer to something that appears self-contradictory but is actually not, correct?

I'm still stuck on that one, I'm afraid.
I'm not surprised. As a matter of fact, I would find it very strange if an atheist agreed that true freedom comes in being the salve of God! :happy:

Regards

Pk_#2
01-09-2006, 09:23 PM
salve...?

Asalamualaykum, (peace)

people in this forum write a lot Allah must've put barakah (blessings) in your time.. mashaAllah

Fi Amaan Allah (In Allahs faith)

Walaikumsalaamz (peace be with you)

bluff master
01-09-2006, 09:36 PM
whe those mad scientist talks about evloution just ignore them. If we were monkey than why is that, we human hearts cant be replaced with monkeys. why is it with pig?

If we were monkeys than their heart should be perfectly be fit for human when he has heart opertion.

Pk_#2
01-09-2006, 09:49 PM
AsalamuAlaykum,

Bro chill...let them show their point of view..its not like they can prove it...

Jazakhala'khairun for reply


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


whe those mad scientist talks about evloution just ignore them. If we were monkey than why is that, we human hearts cant be replaced with monkeys. why is it with pig?

If we were monkeys than their heart should be perfectly be fit for human when he has heart opertion.

Good analogy MashaAllah..

Fi Amaan Allah

Walaykum Salaamz Brother Tc

czgibson
01-09-2006, 09:52 PM
Greetings,

Yes, you're right, but this does not negate the fact that a paradox may refer to something that appears self-contradictory but is actually not, correct?

Quite right - but I'm sure you can see why I yoked paradoxes and self-contradictions together. I did not mean to imply that they are identical, merely similar. As an English teacher I feel I must apologise profusely for my lack of clarity...;)


whe those mad scientist talks about evloution just ignore them. If we were monkey than why is that, we human hearts cant be replaced with monkeys. why is it with pig?

If we were monkeys than their heart should be perfectly be fit for human when he has heart opertion.

I have to say, I think that's the most masterful bluff I've ever seen.

Peace

sumay28
01-11-2006, 06:11 AM
I'm telling you.. Everytime I hear Jeff Corwin call these monkeys our cousins just makes me laugh, dude. I guess we should all have a "Primate Reunion"... I'll bring my cuz's Pepito and Donkey Kong. We'll all have a BBQ of bananas.


It's a minor point on the pig-thing. They've done plenty of transplants with the heart of a pig. Chimps are supposed to be our closest genetic "kin", sharing more than ninety-nine percent of our genome, which minimizes the chance of rejection. But since they are an endangered species, that leaves heart xenotransplantation two options. One being the baboon and, yes.. as disguisting as it is to even think of having this animal's heart in me (let alone any animal's heart)... a pig (oink oink).

Now unfortunately, the ridiculous idea of the baboons being our closest "kin" (:rant:), it poses risks of transmitting human pathogens (supposedly). However, it has been done before, several times, and the cause of rejection was not due to this factor. The real deal: not enough offspring. Long gestation periods. Not enough baboons! Since pigs are a dime a dozen.. BAM! Aparantly they pose concerns due to the fact that they are not closely related to us blah blah blah, HOWEVER, it has been proven that the pig heart has had fewer rejections.

SO. There's a little snafoo, here.

mansio
01-11-2006, 08:16 AM
Sumay

What is a human ? He is an ape-like animal that became endowed with reason by God and nothing else.
As I know you like to answer questions you provoke (wittingly or unwittingly), I ask you the following one:

What is in the animal called the human, that is not in the animal called the ape ?

Of course, everything related to reason (call it superior intelligence if you like) being excluded.

If case you are an ethereal being, not concerned by hunger, pain, cold, your bowels, sex urge, maternity, children, rest, quarreling, home, physical attractiveness, good food, drinking, sickness, play, you do not need to answer the question.

root
01-11-2006, 12:51 PM
It's a minor point on the pig-thing. They've done plenty of transplants with the heart of a pig. Chimps are supposed to be our closest genetic "kin", sharing more than ninety-nine percent of our genome, which minimizes the chance of rejection. But since they are an endangered species, that leaves heart xenotransplantation two options. One being the baboon and, yes.. as disguisting as it is to even think of having this animal's heart in me (let alone any animal's heart)... a pig (oink oink).

One of the problems holding back the use of other species to grow organs for transplant into humans is the presence of retroviruses (retroviruses have been much spoken about in this thread in their genomes that could activate in humans and cause a devastating infection. There is even a risk that such an infection could turn out to be transmissable to other humans. This problem has so far ruled out the use of other primate species as a source of organ transplants in spite of their greater genetic similarity to humans than is the case with other types of species.


Now unfortunately, the ridiculous idea of the baboons being our closest "kin" (), it poses risks of transmitting human pathogens (supposedly). However, it has been done before, several times, and the cause of rejection was not due to this factor. The real deal: not enough offspring. Long gestation periods. Not enough baboons! Since pigs are a dime a dozen.. BAM! Aparantly they pose concerns due to the fact that they are not closely related to us blah blah blah, HOWEVER, it has been proven that the pig heart has had fewer rejections.

Baboons are not our closest "kin" the Ape is? However, we share common ancestory with all primates which is proven by Retrovirus markers shared within our genes that clearly show lineage to primates.


SO. There's a little snafoo, here

Don't know what snafoo is so cannot comment eh!

Takumi
01-11-2006, 01:19 PM
Baboons are not our closest "kin" the Ape is? However, we share common ancestory with all primates which is proven by Retrovirus markers shared within our genes that clearly show lineage to primates.



Can you do me a favor. I don't subscribe to the theory of evolution but since I'm a member of this forum, your using WE or OUR would make me one of you.

Please rephrase your sentence like this.

Baboons are not MY closest "kin" the Ape is? However, I share common ancestory with all primates which is proven by Retrovirus markers shared within MY genes that clearly show lineage to primates.

I know it's not academic, but it's like when muslims say WE come from Adam, while maybe you're not particular about other people saying that you come from Adam, I am. Or, maybe I should just not read this thread, but it's so tempting.

Is there any post that deals with the purpose of this evolution, for example, I don't quite understand why, apes must have the eyes in front. Wouldn't it be more cool if the eyes are like lizards or gecko? I mean, why only TWO eyes? Why does the flimsly fly have all the eyes it wants?

I'd like to read explanation to these, if you guys have any. You don't have to answer in another post. Just give me the link.

Thanks, keep up the good job boys!

:thankyou:

root
01-11-2006, 02:59 PM
I share common ancestory with all primates which is proven by Retrovirus markers shared within MY genes that clearly show lineage to primates.

Why though would you want me to be under presumed ignorance. The fact that you have misfired Retrovirus DNA is in the exact same location as me, shows the exact corrupted sequence and shows the same degrading over time and further, your future offspring will also have them and so on. Clearly this is not individuality. Every human being on this planet has them in the exact same location as noted above.

Therefore to say "I" have them would not only be misleading but untruthfull.


Is there any post that deals with the purpose of this evolution, for example, I don't quite understand why, apes must have the eyes in front. Wouldn't it be more cool if the eyes are like lizards or gecko? I mean, why only TWO eyes? Why does the flimsly fly have all the eyes it wants?

I'd like to read explanation to these, if you guys have any. You don't have to answer in another post. Just give me the link.

I do hope you read the entire page.

Q: How did these different kinds of eyes evolve?

Source:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html

A: The traditional idea is that the eyes evolved separately into separate animal phyla. An insect eye looks so different from a human eye that one would assume intuitively that this must have arisen quite differently in evolution. There was a separate sort of construction, which was invented differently from the human eye. In the squid, for example, the eye develops as an invagination of the skin; that is, the skin forms a little cavity, a little bulb, inside. In our case the brain forms an invagination, a bulb which is moving outwards, towards the skin. One traditionally thought that this would be a fundamental difference.

We come to a very different conclusion. We have found that there is the same underlying genetic basis in all animal phyla. You have the same genes that are involved in eye development. Therefore, we now consider it much more likely that the eye was sort of invented only once in evolution. Then the various animal phyla used this basic construction of a very simple eye to diverge and to make various forms of the eye.

Takumi
01-11-2006, 03:10 PM
Why though would you want me to be under presumed ignorance. The fact that you have misfired Retrovirus DNA is in the exact same location as me, shows the exact corrupted sequence and shows the same degrading over time and further, your future offspring will also have them and so on. Clearly this is not individuality. Every human being on this planet has them in the exact same location as noted above.

Therefore to say "I" have them would not only be misleading but untruthfull.



Untruthful is so subjective. But, your stand on this matter is duly noted.

While, I find it hard to believe, I welcome your reading and seemingly very informed posts. Kudos for that.

Now, with advances in DNA technology and whats not, do you think you can predict what you're future offsprings going to evolve to next? [while your notion of we all come from ape is accepted, I'm still hesitant to conform the word usage, I do hope you don't mind]

Forgive my ignorance. I'm just having my easy way out here.

sumay28
01-11-2006, 05:14 PM
I'm sorry.. I apologize... my mistake on the baboon thing. However, I did state that the Chimpanzees are our closest genetic kin I think. I wrote that at like 1 in the morning, dude.... I was delirious. I ask you people to look past what you read about other people's research. I couldn't even fulfill my dream as a biologist because you can't get a degree when you pick and choose what you want to learn. And scientific classification is not one of the things I want to pay attention to. It's brainwashing. I just look at common sense, here. I see a lot of characteristics in the ape that is superior to the humans. I see a lot of creatures who show a lot of genetic similarity to the human, or a lot of creatures who are genetically similar to other creatures who arn't even classified as such. Why don't we see any valid evidence of the transitional beings that supposedly existed.. at all? Where did all this matter come from? What are the odds of such a coincidence to occur? And for those of you who believe in a God, why is it easier to believe that everything on the earth evolved from a single cell, a freakin' THEORY thought up by man, than to believe that God put creatures on this earth seperately? Because biology class told you that? Half of the things you learn in school are a pack of lies and that's a fact. Putting religious scriptures to the side, what about the concept, the theory (that I see as fact), that God put a man and a woman on this earth to procreate.

Oh and BY THE WAY... I ain't related to no chimp.

Pk_#2
01-11-2006, 05:23 PM
AsalamuAlaykum

aww sis Im sure no1 was thinking that :P

Fi Amaan Allah

walaykum salam

mansio
01-11-2006, 09:51 PM
Sumay

Could you tell us about some of the things you learned in school that were a pack of lies ?
I'm very astonished by your assertion because all I was taught in the French educational system always proved right.

sumay28
01-12-2006, 07:00 AM
Sumay

Could you tell us about some of the things you learned in school that were a pack of lies ?
I'm very astonished by your assertion because all I was taught in the French educational system always proved right.


Dude that's a whole other discussion man. I just havn't got the energy. I've had a long day. I never went to school in France. But I'm guessing liars live in France too, the epidemic could have made it's way to your school, too. Just within the past 5 months my eyes were open to a lot of things. There are a lot of illusions in this life. I might sound like a conspiracy theorist right now lol. But it's true about the illusions. :hiding: :phew :yawn: :ooh: I'm tired, sir. Insha allah I'll be back on the board tomorrow like a bullfighter

nighty-night.. asalamu alaikum.

root
01-12-2006, 09:26 AM
Takumi - Now, with advances in DNA technology and whats not, do you think you can predict what you're future offsprings going to evolve to next? [while your notion of we all come from ape is accepted, I'm still hesitant to conform the word usage, I do hope you don't mind]

Takumi, I would like if I may to correct your thinking here. Evolution does not claim we came from ape, only we are a sub-species of primate. Nor are we evolved from Apes, but Humans & Apes evolved from a common ancestor.

aamirsaab
01-12-2006, 09:34 AM
:sl:
Ah sub-species. One thing. Over the recent years i've learnt some stuff about evolution and basically a species evolves in order to adapts to it's surroundings e.g. it promotes it's survival. So, why would a species evolve into two sub-species? According to evolution, this shouldn't happen. Only the species (or in this case, sub-species) with the most beneficial adaptations should be alive. In this case, humans.

Takumi
01-12-2006, 01:45 PM
Takumi, I would like if I may to correct your thinking here. Evolution does not claim we came from ape, only we are a sub-species of primate. Nor are we evolved from Apes, but Humans & Apes evolved from a common ancestor.


Thanks, permission granted. :statisfie

Well, I'd like to know how far such evolutionary process would go.

I mean, have the human eyes evolved perfectly? Can it be perfected?

I read the PBS article, yes, completely, I'm not quite sure why evolution chose the eyes to be on top of the head and in front. I mean, tigers have knows to attack from behind and people in India wear masks behind their head to look as if they have another face to prevent attacks.

Wouldn't it be cool if evolution help us in this? What kind of environment do you think will influence the evolutionary process further?

Oh ya, does the Origin of Species talk only about the evolution of animals. Do the sky, ocean, trees, grass, wind evolve too?

Sorry for all those questions. I'm just intrigued. Because it's hard for me to understand why nature only chooses animals (I bet DNA is so easy to manipulate) but leave the other elements as they are.

We could probably use fresh water more than salt water, now we gotta pay for fresh drinking water, or since the sun is so scorching hot in the savannah of Africa, I mean, why can't evolution expand its horizon a bit and make some clouds over there.

Oh ya, you haven't answered my question about, what would your progenies be? Are there any genetic research that use The Evolutionary theory and actually predict our future being, say in the year 4 million A.D?

Thanks.

sumay28
01-12-2006, 06:52 PM
If we are animals, then we certainly are the worst of the animals.

czgibson
01-12-2006, 10:17 PM
Greetings Takumi,

Oh ya, does the Origin of Species talk only about the evolution of animals. Do the sky, ocean, trees, grass, wind evolve too?

I'll leave the other questions for someone who is more knowledgeable about these matters than I am, but I can tell you that all plants and animals evolve, according to evolutionists. Evolution does not control the weather, unless you see climate change as a form of planetary evolution; basically it affects all living things.

Peace

Takumi
01-13-2006, 05:25 AM
Greetings Takumi,


I'll leave the other questions for someone who is more knowledgeable about these matters than I am, but I can tell you that all plants and animals evolve, according to evolutionists. Evolution does not control the weather, unless you see climate change as a form of planetary evolution; basically it affects all living things.

Peace

So, there's something that mother nature does not have control of?

Why in the world does mother nature has to "select" that primate to make us?

If it had chosen a bird, then we would have wings by now.

:grumbling

czgibson
01-14-2006, 02:49 AM
Greetings Takumi,

So, there's something that mother nature does not have control of?

What does "mother nature" not have control over? What exactly do you mean by "mother nature", for that matter?


Why in the world does mother nature has to "select" that primate to make us?

If it had chosen a bird, then we would have wings by now.

The fact is we happen to be genetically very similar to apes. If we had evolved from birds, or shared a common ancestor with birds, we would be genetically similar to them.

In the light of this, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Peace

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-14-2006, 04:07 AM
Perhaps what Br. Takumi means (and I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong) is that why haven't any intelligent lifeforms evolved comparable to human beings yet with a difference ancestry (eg. from birds, from reptiles, from fish).

Takumi
01-14-2006, 04:16 AM
Greetings Takumi,


What does "mother nature" not have control over? What exactly do you mean by "mother nature", for that matter?

The fact is we happen to be genetically very similar to apes. If we had evolved from birds, or shared a common ancestor with birds, we would be genetically similar to them.

In the light of this, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Peace

Greetings!

sorry, I was using evolution and mother nature interchangeably. My bad.

We happen to be genetically very similar to apes? It was all merely fortuitous?

Why? why couldn't we have evolved from birds? What were the circumstances that lead to this "happen to be genetically" very similar to apes?

Will there be intelligent creatures from the birds in the future?

I just can't understand what the bru ha ha about evolution is. If people want to think that they are genetically similar to apes and EVOLVEd, let them be. I know don't. If they think I do, let them think that I do. They don't affect my thoughts and my actions. Those are mine alone.

Now, if you have kids, then you have to worry a bit because if you want your kids to belief what YOU belief then raise him/her yourself. Every religion or belief must have followers who made a conscious decisions. Let them be muslim, Catholic, Agnostic, Buddhist or Hindu. A child born into a muslim family will not inherit Islam. He/she will make that conscious decision when he's old enough. If your child does not accept Islam so what? He needs to make that choice himself, so that when he makes it he understands its implications. We'll have less muslims bombing buildings and killing people and being zealots.

My point is, as I see it, evolution fails to explain at least to me, why we, evolve from a primate. Who made this choice? The fact that we are here being intelligent and all and suddenly we found out, hey, we are actually genetically similar to ape and we might have evolved from a primate like the apes did, doesn't change the fact who we are. I mean to be politically correct, who I am.

Just like when people ask me, "according to your belief, will people of other religion go to the hell fire?" I don't have any problem in saying, Heck yeah! you are buddy, if you die in disbelief"

The get offended if I give them that answer, which I think, why would they get offended? I mean, it's MY belief. Hell fire is not in my control. Unless you belief in hell fire, you don't have anything to worry about, right? I am still going to respect you, I'm gonna tell you what my beliefs are to the core. If you disagree, that's your choice. It's not that I'm gonna burn you alive. ;D I'm not going to comfort you by telling you that you're go to heaven because you're my friend. If you belief that I will go to hell fire, it's fine with me. Because I don't belief what YOU belief. But, we can still be friends, right? Because we're here now. We're not in the day hereafter yet. [that is if you belief that there is a day hereafter]

Wow, how did I get to this? Mods! Spare me your katanas! Please.

I'm just a simple guy, I call it when I see it. You might beg to differ, that's your choice. Right now for me evolution is just tripping big time. It may explain the physical changes that have occurred in order to adapt, but, I wonder, did the primate who was selected to evolve to us have feelings?

I mean, did it know happiness? or sadness? how about feeling angry? if the physical changes and emotional presence are proportional to each other, can I safely assume that that lousy primate (dang! I wish I had wings!!!),had very primitive feelings (wow, I wonder how to gauge that?) and then adapt so that in the year 2006 its progenies can take Xanax and antidepressants?

Well, forget about cytokines and all those hormonal changes that takes place during fright-flight, I know them already. I want to know how these primates (why? why?) respond to emotional stimulus.

any readings that you may suggest?

Peace

[like i tell my Church of the Latter Day Saints friends: I'm not going to convert, but you are most welcomed to come to my house and we can chat. I'd like that, after which they stopped coming. Go figure]

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-27-2018, 05:19 AM
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 01-26-2016, 08:31 PM
  3. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-29-2014, 12:30 PM
  4. Replies: 59
    Last Post: 06-27-2010, 02:01 PM