PDA

View Full Version : Why do Evolutionists believe....



al-fateh
08-15-2006, 06:51 PM
Why do Evolutionists believe a bunch of "smart molecules" just happen to get together one day...?

:uuh:
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
wilberhum
08-15-2006, 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by MyIslamWeb.com
Why do Evolutionists believe a bunch of "smart molecules" just happen to get together one day...?

:uuh:
It is a complex study. But it is obvious that your only intent is to deney it.
My guess is that no amount of information is going to change your closed mind.
Reply

root
08-15-2006, 07:46 PM
Why do Evolutionists believe a bunch of "smart molecules" just happen to get together one day...?
What has "smart molecules" (if they even exist) have to do with evolution. Your question is as dumb as asking why are all muslims intent on being terrorists! (and I am sure you will see that question as arrogant) and you would be right, just like your question.


Sorry, but thier it is.
Reply

chacha_jalebi
08-15-2006, 07:46 PM
lol root u killed it :p
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Woodrow
08-15-2006, 07:51 PM
In looking at the basis of life as being a purely chemical reaction. It does make logical sense. Looking at the common chain molecules such as the COH chains and the nitrated hydrocarbons with the addition of Nitrogen. It would be easy to believe that a complex chemical reaction could resemble what we know as life.

Now I just can not understand that if it is so easy for such "life like" molecules to develope in the Carbon chains, why don't we have living organisisms here on earth, that are based on the Sulpher and/or the silicon chains. Both form chains as complex as the carbon chains and some of the molecules appear to be self replicating. I am just curious as to why we do not have any random life forms running around, based on those chains.

Some how it seems there is a factor that seperates chemical reaction from life and that factor does not seem to be random or accidental.
Reply

root
08-15-2006, 08:00 PM
In looking at the basis of life as being a purely chemical reaction. It does make logical sense. Looking at the common chain molecules such as the COH chains and the nitrated hydrocarbons with the addition of Nitrogen. It would be easy to believe that a complex chemical reaction could resemble what we know as life.
Your talking the origins of life which evolution is completely the wrong theory. Your point is within abiogenesis (the origins of first organic life) which is still a great scientific mystery.

Now I just can not understand that if it is so easy for such "life like" molecules to develope in the Carbon chains, why don't we have living organisisms here on earth, that are based on the Sulpher and/or the silicon chains. Both form chains as complex as the carbon chains and some of the molecules appear to be self replicating. I am just curious as to why we do not have any random life forms running around, based on those chains.
Sounds credible. But why conclude life actually originates from earth? Panspermia has been moving forward with great strides making the origin of life from space very much a possibility.

Some how it seems there is a factor that seperates chemical reaction from life and that factor does not seem to be random or accidental
The factor has not been identified yet, so how can we rule it out as random or accidental? Besides, all this has nothing to do with evolution so why are we so off topic!
Reply

al-fateh
08-15-2006, 08:31 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
It is a complex study. But it is obvious that your only intent is to deney it.
My guess is that no amount of information is going to change your closed mind.
why close minded?

care to share yur explanation?
Reply

wilberhum
08-15-2006, 08:39 PM
Originally Posted by MyIslamWeb.com
why close minded?

care to share yur explanation?
You obviously have no knowledge and you have obviously made up your mind.
That is not the way "Open Minded" people come to conclusions.
Reply

al-fateh
08-15-2006, 08:51 PM
will...

i am openminded

just explain
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-15-2006, 09:08 PM
Oh this is fun, a discussion about who's open minded and who's not. Let's put the theory to the test:

* I am a creationist, but I am open minded to evolution. If tomorrow evolution is proven beyond doubt and I turn out to be wrong, I don't loose anything. I don't need to change my worldview or beliefsystem. I don't "need" all aspects of evolution to be false. ID is also a posibility with Islam. So For all I care evolution can be true, and it changes absolutely nothing in my belief or day to day life. The reason I am a creationist is simply because it makes more sense to me, no hidden agenda.

*Wilberhum, your turn. How open minded are you? What If tomorrow evolution turns out false, would it dramaticly change your worldview? How dependant are you upon this theory? How strongly do you "need" it to be true?
Reply

wilberhum
08-15-2006, 10:59 PM
Originally Posted by MyIslamWeb.com
will...

i am openminded

just explain
I did explain. Go read some scientific material then when you have an honest question, come ask. There are people here like Root that really understand and can answer just about any question.
Reply

wilberhum
08-15-2006, 11:02 PM
Steve,
You have one and only one asset. Your only quality, well you think it is a quality, is stubbornness..
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-15-2006, 11:07 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Steve,
You have one and only one asset. Your only quality, well you think it is a quality, is stubbornness..
Exactly the kind of answer I'd expected from the most open minded person on this forum...

...NOT :D

I guess those defeats in previous discussions must have tasted very bitter, for you to still carry a grudge around. :p
Reply

QuranStudy
08-15-2006, 11:20 PM
I want to know more about evolution.

can anyone post a site that explains the basics?
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-15-2006, 11:31 PM
Here's a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Or you could try this
Sorry about that last one, I just saw it on Alpha dude's personal page and couldn't resist :D
Edit: oh that's right they got auto-cencor :)
Reply

Joe98
08-15-2006, 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by QuranStudy
I want to know more about evolution.

A volcano erupts and it ruins the habitat of a species of animal.

The animals move to another place.

In this new place the bushes are slightly taller due to the different weather patterns.

The animals with the shorter arms have difficulty reaching their food and some die of starvation.

The ones that die usually don’t have offspring.

The ones with longer arms live on and have offspring.

Today the whole species have longer arms.

Scientists have found fossilised remains of this animal and the fossils all have short arms.

The species evolved long arms to survive.

Religious people hate evolution. According to religious people the above description must also mean that horses evolved from fish! Scientific people don’t say that.
Reply

wilberhum
08-15-2006, 11:35 PM
Originally Posted by QuranStudy
I want to know more about evolution.

can anyone post a site that explains the basics?
Try
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
It is a good start. If you do a search on "evolution" you will find thousands of entries. You will also find lots that deney it. Mostly on basis of there religious belief. If you truly want to understand, keep an open mind. You will soon learn how to spot those that want to present Scientific Information and those that want to present something else.
If you are honest in your endevor, you can IM me. I will do all I can. I hate to speak for Root, but I bet he would also be glad to help. I have read enough of his postings to see that he knows his stuff, and presents it well.

Happy learning. It is truly interesting.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-15-2006, 11:37 PM
Well Joe, that's not evolution, that's survival of the fitest. Evolution is the theory that a specie can mutate into a whole difrent one. Wulf to dog, lion to cat, but if you throw in common descent also fish to horse.
Reply

QuranStudy
08-15-2006, 11:38 PM
Thanks for the link....

Let's suppose evolution is an undeniable fact. Would that disprove the existance of God?

I try to learn as much as I can from your sources.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-15-2006, 11:43 PM
Originally Posted by QuranStudy
Thanks for the link....
Let's suppose evolution is an undeniable fact. Would that disprove the existance of God?
No it wouldn't; not at all. Evolution only tells us what species did after they came into existance. So it's not an alternative for creation. Wilberhum is just frustrated that he cannot prove me wrong. I already posted here before I don't need evolution to be wrong, it's perfectly compatible with Islam, I disbelief parts of it simply because it doesn't make sense. Then he answers that people who don't believe in evolution do so because of their belief, and he says I'm the stuborn one :)
Reply

QuranStudy
08-15-2006, 11:47 PM
No it wouldn't; not at all. Evolution only tells us what species did after they came into existance. So it's not an alternative for creation. Wilberhum is just frustrated that he cannot prove me wrong. I already posted here before I don't need evolution to be wrong, it's perfectly compatible with Islam, I disbelief parts of it simply because it doesn't make sense. Then he answers that people who don't believe in evolution do so because of their belief, and he says I'm the stuborn one
Exactly my point brother.
Reply

Woodrow
08-15-2006, 11:47 PM
Originally Posted by root
Your talking the origins of life which evolution is completely the wrong theory. Your point is within abiogenesis (the origins of first organic life) which is still a great scientific mystery.



Sounds credible. But why conclude life actually originates from earth? Panspermia has been moving forward with great strides making the origin of life from space very much a possibility.



The factor has not been identified yet, so how can we rule it out as random or accidental? Besides, all this has nothing to do with evolution so why are we so off topic!
all this has nothing to do with evolution
Actually it is what evolution is. A continuous evolution of naturaly occuring chemical processess to the point of self replication. Evolution is simply a chemical reaction, without the intervention of a planner. In terms of pure evolution, this thing we call life is merely an artifact resulting from, molecular interactions.

I have difficulty in understanding how a chemical event would result in the concept of life, without a "planner" controling the process.
Reply

KAding
08-16-2006, 02:46 PM
Originally Posted by steve
Well Joe, that's not evolution, that's survival of the fitest. Evolution is the theory that a specie can mutate into a whole difrent one. Wulf to dog, lion to cat, but if you throw in common descent also fish to horse.
I'm not that not well-versed in evolution, so if I may ask a question :). Mutations in itself is not an alternative explanation for evolution, is it? I mean, compared to the idea of natural selection. Mutations can not in itself cause evolution, since it still relies on natural selection to 'spread' beneficial mutations among the population?

I mean, to take Joe's example, mutations would be the reason why some of these animals have longer arms and others have shorter arms? Because of these variations caused by mutations natural selection can cause species to evolve, which could eventually also cause speciation, right?

Is that the crux of evolution? If so, Joe's answer would be a valid explanation of evolution?
Reply

wilberhum
08-16-2006, 03:54 PM
Mutations in itself is not an alternative explanation for evolution, is it?
Evolution is not based on a single factor. There are many factors involved. Mutation and natural selection are just two and they interact.
You really need to go to one of the sites posted and have a read.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-16-2006, 06:39 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
I'm not that not well-versed in evolution, so if I may ask a question :). Mutations in itself is not an alternative explanation for evolution, is it? I mean, compared to the idea of natural selection. Mutations can not in itself cause evolution, since it still relies on natural selection to 'spread' beneficial mutations among the population?

I mean, to take Joe's example, mutations would be the reason why some of these animals have longer arms and others have shorter arms? Because of these variations caused by mutations natural selection can cause species to evolve, which could eventually also cause speciation, right?

Is that the crux of evolution? If so, Joe's answer would be a valid explanation of evolution?
Once a specie mutates it has evolved into a difrent specie. So technically evolution is only the mutation, and natural selection is what happens after the evolution. You could compare it like this: there is a tab pouring water on the back of your hand. The open tab is responsible for the flow of the water but the curvatures on your hand will dictate in what direction teh water will flow.
Just as the open tab is responsible for the running water, so is the mutation responsible for the evolution. And natural selection is like the curvature of your hand that dictates in what direction the water will flow by being favouring certain mutants over others.
Reply

root
08-16-2006, 06:56 PM
Steve - Well Joe, that's not evolution, that's survival of the fitest.
Survival of the fittest is simply a way to describe an active mechanism of the driving force for evolutionary change. So it very much is a concept of evolution just like survival of the luckiest!

Steve - Evolution is the theory that a specie can mutate into a whole difrent one.
Evolution is simply a the change in allele frequency in a population over time! Some humans have evolved resistance to lactose yet they are still human. Others, have evolved immunity to AIDS yet are still human. How comes, going by your description should they be classed as lacto-humanoid or something ;D I think you suffer from a disconcerted mind Steve. Species evolve slowly over time and some species become isolated from thier main group and evolve down a seperate lineage with differing evolutionary pressures. Eventually arriving at a point that they can no longer interbreed from the seperated group, it's not like a single mutation turns a donkey into a type of fish is it! That is nuts

Steve - Wulf to dog, lion to cat, but if you throw in common descent also fish to horse.
Wolf to dog is common descent better described as common ancestor. Fish to horse is more distant ancestory. My favourite too is the hippo as most recent common ancestor to the whale :?

Steve - Once a specie mutates it has evolved into a difrent specie.
According to you Steve, Recombination of new offspring DNA is mutation:

http://www.islamicboard.com/363455-post79.html

Now your suggesting every off-spring is a new species! You really need to clarify your position here as it is so at odds with ehat you are actually trying to say
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-16-2006, 09:05 PM
Originally Posted by root
Evolution is simply a the change in allele frequency in a population over time! Some humans have evolved resistance to lactose yet they are still human. Others, have evolved immunity to AIDS yet are still human. How comes, going by your description should they be classed as lacto-humanoid or something ;D I think you suffer from a disconcerted mind Steve.
Nice try Root. Obviously there's a difrence between macro an micro evolution, you know very well what I'm talking about. Don't twist my words around.

Species evolve slowly over time and some species become isolated from thier main group and evolve down a seperate lineage with differing evolutionary pressures. Eventually arriving at a point that they can no longer interbreed from the seperated group, it's not like a single mutation turns a donkey into a type of fish is it! That is nuts
Sorry doesn't work that way. No matter how slow you go; at some point there have to be leaps. Either that, or there's an unexplainable gap in the fossil record, and there's a whole set of intermediary species that have just vanished.

Wolf to dog is common descent better described as common ancestor. Fish to horse is more distant ancestory. My favourite too is the hippo as most recent common ancestor to the whale :?
Technically you're right, it is common descent, but in general "Common descent" is meant to refer to universal common descent. The theory that all life descended from one single life form. Really, stop twisting my words.

According to you Steve, Recombination of new offspring DNA is mutation:
http://www.islamicboard.com/363455-post79.html
No, I said mutation gives new material for recombination and variation. Not the other way around. Stop twisting my words. Here read it again:
New genetic variation is caused by genetic mutation, which may take the form of recombination, migration and/or alterations in the karyotype

Now your suggesting every off-spring is a new species!
No, I said every mutated ofspring is a new specie. And technically that isn't right, because by defenition even a mutated form of a specie is still the same specie if it is still able to reproduce several generations of offspring with the non-mutated form. But that's irrelevant. That depends on the criteria that humans use to clasify difrent specie. So again: please, pretty please, with suger on top, stop twisting my words around.
Reply

root
08-21-2006, 08:21 PM
Hi Steve,

Nice try Root. Obviously there's a difrence between macro an micro evolution, you know very well what I'm talking about. Don't twist my words around.
Sorry Steve,The theoryof Evolution is defined as;

the change in allele frequency in a population over time!

irrespective of micro or macro evolution and besides which it is you who has failed to inform us that you was refering tio either macro or micro since in evolutionary biology it makes no difference in respect to the theory.


Root - Species evolve slowly over time and some species become isolated from thier main group and evolve down a seperate lineage with differing evolutionary pressures. Eventually arriving at a point that they can no longer interbreed from the seperated group, it's not like a single mutation turns a donkey into a type of fish is it! That is nuts
Steve - Sorry doesn't work that way. No matter how slow you go; at some point there have to be leaps. Either that, or there's an unexplainable gap in the fossil record, and there's a whole set of intermediary species that have just vanished.
Firstly here is a reference for you:

New study finds natural selection IS a general force behind the formation of new species.

When a species becomes isolated from it's main group and adapts to a new environment then the species reaches a point that it can no longer interbreed with the species it has diverged from, even if the species are reunited. This is a very important stage a species must obtain on it's way to becoming a new and evolving species.
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...evolution.html

As for fossil gaps & intermediary species, let's look at each one.

Intermediary Species

What exactly do you mean by an intermediate species! Do you mean a species that whilst being perfectly adapted to a given environment suddenly mutates a set of wings and is halfway to flight? Truth is, more to the point that every species on the planet past and present is an intermediate species in it's own right. Each species being in the business of survival with natural selection dictating which species live and which die out, there are no intermediate species alive at any given time since as I said, by definition we are all intermediate.

fossil gaps

Of course we have gaps in the fossil record and given our scientific understanding of how fossils fosilise in the first place it is no surprise to some that an estimated 85% of all past species that have lived upon the earth have dissapeard without leaving any trace. Besides which, their actually is not that many people actively looking for them.

In Evolutionary Biology, if one could build a time machine and go back in time 10,000 years to pick-up your most recent ancestor and then go back another 10,000 years to drop off the ancestor you had and picked up the new one. If you keep doing this you will reach a point that you no longer can interbreed with your ancestor, yet the most recent ancestor that was travelling with you would still be able to. If you continue dropping off and picking up your most recent ancestor every 10,000 years then your mra (most recent ancestor) will always be able to interbreed though we could not.

Steve - Technically you're right, it is common descent, but in general "Common descent" is meant to refer to universal common descent. The theory that all life descended from one single life form. Really, stop twisting my words.
Scientists Agree "Evidence-based" facts.

Fact 4

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate
their common primordial origin


Steve - No, I said mutation gives new material for recombination and variation. Not the other way around. Stop twisting my words. Here read it again:
New genetic variation is caused by genetic mutation, which may take the form of recombination, migration and/or alterations in the karyotype
Recombination creates in itself variable results, such as height. Is this a result of mutation in your opinion. A simple yes or no would be cool.

No, I said every mutated ofspring is a new specie. And technically that isn't right, because by defenition even a mutated form of a specie is still the same specie if it is still able to reproduce several generations of offspring with the non-mutated form. But that's irrelevant. That depends on the criteria that humans use to clasify difrent specie. So again: please, pretty please, with suger on top, stop twisting my words around.
Glad you admit your not right. I think this refers to at which point, a species becomes a seperate species which is covered at the beginning of this post..................
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-22-2006, 03:52 PM
Originally Posted by root
Hi Steve,
Sorry Steve,The theoryof Evolution is defined as;
the change in allele frequency in a population over time!
irrespective of micro or macro evolution and besides which it is you who has failed to inform us that you was refering tio either macro or micro since in evolutionary biology it makes no difference in respect to the theory.
No man it doesn't matter, you were splitting hairs, you new very well what I was refering to in the origenal quote a couple of posts back. Sometimes I don't go in to much of details, and put it simplified so teh posts don't get to long. This is such an example. Then you jump in and try to "punish" me for it, so I answer you: don't twist my words. 't is as simple as that, no need for complex defenitions or anything, not playing that game :)

Firstly here is a reference for you:
New study finds natural selection IS a general force behind the formation of new species.

When a species becomes isolated from it's main group and adapts to a new environment then the species reaches a point that it can no longer interbreed with the species it has diverged from, even if the species are reunited. This is a very important stage a species must obtain on it's way to becoming a new and evolving species.
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...evolution.html
First of all this has no bearing on the quote you matched it with.
Second of al, this still doesn't show natural selaction as a driving force, your own quote says "when a group adapts" But for that to happen, it needs to change for, adaptation is only posible once the new form is there. Once that a new form is present, it can overpopulate the old form because it's adaptation highers its survival chances.

As for fossil gaps & intermediary species, let's look at each one.

Intermediary Species

What exactly do you mean by an intermediate species! Do you mean a species that whilst being perfectly adapted to a given environment suddenly mutates a set of wings and is halfway to flight? Truth is, more to the point that every species on the planet past and present is an intermediate species in it's own right. Each species being in the business of survival with natural selection dictating which species live and which die out, there are no intermediate species alive at any given time since as I said, by definition we are all intermediate.
That's not true, there's way to much gaps, way to much difrence in between species. Try constructing mechanistic theories, you'll see.

fossil gaps

Of course we have gaps in the fossil record and given our scientific understanding of how fossils fosilise in the first place it is no surprise to some that an estimated 85% of all past species that have lived upon the earth have dissapeard without leaving any trace. Besides which, their actually is not that many people actively looking for them.

In Evolutionary Biology, if one could build a time machine and go back in time 10,000 years to pick-up your most recent ancestor and then go back another 10,000 years to drop off the ancestor you had and picked up the new one. If you keep doing this you will reach a point that you no longer can interbreed with your ancestor, yet the most recent ancestor that was travelling with you would still be able to. If you continue dropping off and picking up your most recent ancestor every 10,000 years then your mra (most recent ancestor) will always be able to interbreed though we could not.
Is this science or speculation? Seems like I'm not the only religious one.


Scientists Agree "Evidence-based" facts.

Fact 4

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate
their common primordial origin
First of all these agreed upon facts are a result of the theory of evolution, to then use it as an argument in favour of evolution is circular. You really think any university would have send their pro-evolution professors to that convention?
Secondly the only reason this is labeled as "fact". Is because it's agreed upon. That's not a solid ground, if a million people say a foolish thing it's still a foolish things, I need evidence before I consider it a fact. And the truth is, we're not even close to establishing universal common descent as a theory. for now that's all one big speculation.

Recombination creates in itself variable results, such as height. Is this a result of mutation in your opinion. A simple yes or no would be cool.
Simple: NO.
Expand: This is the result of dominant and regressive traits. Like a cat with long-hair-genotype on paternal DNA+ and short-hair-genotype on maternal will result mediocer-hair fenotype. Nothing mutated here, just a new combination. No difrent specie either. Perhaps it will be labeled as a difrent race, but it's still a "cat"


Glad you admit your not right. I think this refers to at which point, a species becomes a seperate species which is covered at the beginning of this post..................
You put words in my mouth that I never said. I never claimed every single ofspring is a difrent specie. Hence my reaction: don't twist my words. Now wheter my origenal statement which you twisted was 100% accurate is irrelevant. and If I was unaccurate, then the problem lies only in terminology, but not in ideology. So no harm done there either.
Reply

root
08-22-2006, 06:36 PM
Hi Steve

No man it doesn't matter, you were splitting hairs, you new very well what I was refering to in the origenal quote a couple of posts back. Sometimes I don't go in to much of details, and put it simplified so teh posts don't get to long. This is such an example. Then you jump in and try to "punish" me for it, so I answer you: don't twist my words. 't is as simple as that, no need for complex defenitions or anything, not playing that game
That is just you blowing hot air, like when you imply abiogenesis as part of evolution. Under the theory of evolution no distinction is made to differentiate between Micro & Macro Evolution, it's no good spitting the dummy because you want to simplify things (And I simply don't believe that anyway).

First of all this has no bearing on the quote you matched it with.
Second of al, this still doesn't show natural selaction as a driving force, your own quote says "when a group adapts" But for that to happen, it needs to change for, adaptation is only posible once the new form is there. Once that a new form is present, it can overpopulate the old form because it's adaptation highers its survival chances.
It's the link within that post that I was refering to so here it is:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0508653103v1

Enjoy :D

Here is a small snippet;

The new study – published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – provides empirical support for the proposition that natural selection is a general force behind the formation of new species by analyzing the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed in hundreds of different organisms – ranging from plants through insects, fish, frogs and birds – and finding that the overall link between them is positive.

That's not true, there's way to much gaps, way to much difrence in between species. Try constructing mechanistic theories, you'll see.
As I have clearly stated Steve, I question what you mean by an Intermediate species, since mainstream evolutionary biologists see all living species past and present as intermediate. perhaps you could enlighten us as to what YOU mean when you use the term "Intermediate species"!

PS, what do you mean "way to much gaps" if we only currently can account for only around 15% of all known extinct life!

Is this science or speculation? Seems like I'm not the only religious one.
Science.

First of all these agreed upon facts are a result of the theory of evolution, to then use it as an argument in favour of evolution is circular. You really think any university would have send their pro-evolution professors to that convention? Secondly the only reason this is labeled as "fact". Is because it's agreed upon. That's not a solid ground, if a million people say a foolish thing it's still a foolish things, I need evidence before I consider it a fact. And the truth is, we're not even close to establishing universal common descent as a theory. for now that's all one big speculation.
Sorry Steve, the scientific consensus is not in agreement with you. It's not circular neither. Science does not deal in "facts", and these statements are as close to a fact as science will allow, all of which is based on available scientific data with overwhelming scientific agreement.

Simple: NO.
Expand: This is the result of dominant and regressive traits. Like a cat with long-hair-genotype on paternal DNA+ and short-hair-genotype on maternal will result mediocer-hair fenotype. Nothing mutated here, just a new combination. No difrent specie either. Perhaps it will be labeled as a difrent race, but it's still a "cat"
Your idea that mutation is the sole producer of evolution just went out the window eh. And yes it is still a cat and would be able to interbreed with other cats so it's a bad example. perhaps you should read the link I gave in this post.

You put words in my mouth that I never said. I never claimed every single ofspring is a difrent specie. Hence my reaction: don't twist my words. Now wheter my origenal statement which you twisted was 100% accurate is irrelevant. and If I was unaccurate, then the problem lies only in terminology, but not in ideology. So no harm done there either.
I would suggest that the theory of evolution, while you accept the main points clash with your own belief, and your attempt to try to blur this area so you may integrate the two is the root of the problem, I just don't (and probably never will) understand how you demand so much proof to something as common descent yet accept God split the moon into two then rejoined them again on the basis of a religous book, without any "facts" proof or even rational logic. Truth is, you don't want to accept your 249,000th grandparent was an ape like primate because that makes you an animal just like the rest of life and suddenly, your uniqueness as man being seperate from the animal kingdom dissapears in a puff of smoke.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-23-2006, 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by root
That is just you blowing hot air, like when you imply abiogenesis as part of evolution. Under the theory of evolution no distinction is made to differentiate between Micro & Macro Evolution, it's no good spitting the dummy because you want to simplify things (And I simply don't believe that anyway).
Well then they should make that distinction because there's a big difrence between some species sharing a common ancester and all species sharing a common ancestor. I was refering to the universal ancestor, so your comment was irrelevant. You just can't let it go can you? You're not even defending your theory. Yuo're just desperatly trying to defend your comment what's the point of that when I already stated you misinterpreted it?

It's the link within that post that I was refering to so here it is:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0508653103v1
The new study – published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – provides empirical support for the proposition that natural selection is a general force behind the formation of new species by analyzing the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed in hundreds of different organisms – ranging from plants through insects, fish, frogs and birds – and finding that the overall link between them is positive.
Look I explained you this a thousand times. Ask any biologist he'll agree. Natural selection hapens AFTER the apearance of a new specie. First you need to have an evolved specie, then it can overpopulate through natural selection. That makes natural selection a secundairy force in evolution, not a driving force. What they meant in this article is that natural selection does have an effect they had a lousy choice of words by saying it's a driving force. What they meant is that it can steer evolution to a certain direction. But natural selection does not cause new DNA. get your cause and effect right.

As I have clearly stated Steve, I question what you mean by an Intermediate species, since mainstream evolutionary biologists see all living species past and present as intermediate. perhaps you could enlighten us as to what YOU mean when you use the term "Intermediate species"!
Well for universal common descent to be considered a theory rather then a hypothesis, they need to present mechanistic theorys. This includes a family tree, with every step in teh line. But a tree derved not from fenotype, but from simularities in genotype. Show me the fysical proces that occured between every two links in the chain, for teh DNA to have mutated from
specie A to specie B. If you'll try this, you'll find that the difrent chains have to much difrence in between their DNA for a single proces to have caused such an evolution. So for all those steps should exist a missing link.

PS, what do you mean "way to much gaps" if we only currently can account for only around 15% of all known extinct life!
Ok stop. Look at what you did. We've only found 15%? SO how do we know that there actually is 85% missing? Because evolution predicts so! So in your own words, you just admitted 85% of the chain in common descent is missing! I'd say that's a huge gap. Still having troubles understanding what I mean with intermediate species and missing links? You see why I call it a hypothesy!

Sorry Steve, the scientific consensus is not in agreement with you. It's not circular neither. Science does not deal in "facts", and these statements are as close to a fact as science will allow, all of which is based on available scientific data with overwhelming scientific agreement.
How can you call this science? All those scientists stubornly call this theory when it's clearly a hypothesis that isn't even worked out yet. As long as nobody brings foreward some mechanistic theories we don't even have a theory to put up to the test, yet you claim this is science? NO it's speculation, it's believe. And your comment about missing percentages showed you just how circular the reasonings are!

Your idea that mutation is the sole producer of evolution just went out the window eh. And yes it is still a cat and would be able to interbreed with other cats so it's a bad example. perhaps you should read the link I gave in this post.
NO it didn't it still stands very solidly. See the whole confusion here is due to a lousy terminology. Technically once two branches of the same specie grow apart to the point that the can no longer mate they're considered difrent species. But such a proces cannot account for new DNA within these species. The reason they can no longer mate is because in one of the branches a mutation took place. For new species, you need new DNA. For new DNA you need mutation. For evolution to work, you need a mutation in every single step. Once that occured, other factors like natural selection can come and interfere, but that is no longer the "cause" of evolution, that is simply the way the mutation will manifest itself.

I would suggest that the theory of evolution, while you accept the main points clash with your own belief, and your attempt to try to blur this area so you may integrate the two is the root of the problem,
First of all, I never accepted that evolution clashes with my belief. I see it perfectly posible to combine the two. I never made such claims, seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. I can see Islam and evolution combined without any problem. The reason I'm doubtfull about universal common descent is because it has way to much speculation.

I just don't (and probably never will) understand how you demand so much proof to something as common descent yet accept God split the moon into two then rejoined them again on the basis of a religous book, without any "facts" proof or even rational logic.
Why I need proof for one and not for the other? Because one of them makes sense, while the other doesn't. Because one fits better in my paradigm then the other. And you find this odd for the very same reason. I could turn this question aruond, and formulate it in a difrent way so one sounds more credible then the other to a neutral observer. But regardles of how we compare those two. Our difrent paradigms will alwyas result in oppository thinking that one is more reasonable then the other. and no matter how many arguments you can bring, and no matter how many arguments I bring. In the end of the day, both rely on belief (or disbelief in your case). In teh end of the day, the reason universal common descent sounds reasonable to you regardless of all the missing links, regardless of the lack of mechanistic theorys, regardless of all the hypothesis is simply because it's easyer for you to accept this. You don't believe in God (creation), so therefor it's more reasonable that one chain of species evolved into teh current number of species rather then assuming that several difrent species evolved into the current number of species. So the very base of your acceptance of this theory is because you don't believe in God. If you'd believe in God, you would argue that it is firly easy for GOd to split the moon, and you'd have no problem with accepting it. You can debate it as much as you want in the end of the day, our difrence in preferance is caused by personal convincion. Not by proofs or not because one is more "logical" then the other.

Truth is, you don't want to accept your 249,000th grandparent was an ape like primate because that makes you an animal just like the rest of life and suddenly, your uniqueness as man being seperate from the animal kingdom dissapears in a puff of smoke.
You couldn't be more wrong, I absolutely don't need my descent to establish myself as "special". Wheter I am considered part of the animal kingdom or not makes lil difrance to me. I told you I can see Islam and evolution go hand in hand perfectly. The reason I won't accept universal common descent is just because it has way to many gaps in it. Nothing more, nothing less. If tommorow you'd show me mechanistic theories filling the gaps, showing which processes took place, fine I'll accept it. And you know what? It will make absolutely NO difrence in my belief. It will make absolutely no difrence in my day to day life. I do not have a hidden agenda. I do not "NEED" this hypothesis to be false. I can live with it perfectly. It wouldn't require me to take a single step back in faithfullness or belief.

Tell me, who is the one here that should question his (dis) beliefs if his point of view were proven wrong? Who has everything to loose and everything at stake here?
Reply

root
08-23-2006, 09:45 PM
Hi Steve,

OK, you have raised many points that I would like to address. Firstly, I would like to address "Natural Selection" as a driving force within evolution so for now I will comment on this so we can go through your points over time.


Well then they should make that distinction because there's a big difrence between some species sharing a common ancester and all species sharing a common ancestor. I was refering to the universal ancestor, so your comment was irrelevant. You just can't let it go can you? You're not even defending your theory. Yuo're just desperatly trying to defend your comment what's the point of that when I already stated you misinterpreted it?
It's always "Interesting" when non scientific people start advising science what they should and should not differentiate from. Irrespective, we all have MRCA's (Most recent common ancestors) and CA's (Common Ancestors).

Look I explained you this a thousand times. Ask any biologist he'll agree. Natural selection hapens AFTER the apearance of a new specie. First you need to have an evolved specie, then it can overpopulate through natural selection. That makes natural selection a secundairy force in evolution, not a driving force. What they meant in this article is that natural selection does have an effect they had a lousy choice of words by saying it's a driving force. What they meant is that it can steer evolution to a certain direction. But natural selection does not cause new DNA. get your cause and effect right.
OK, that is exactly what I have done. Let's wait and see what they say eh!

I will return when I get the responses.
Reply

root
08-30-2006, 08:07 PM
Hi Steve,

OK, after making several enquiries in order to be absolutely sure of my statements I would like to challenge your opinion on the role of "Natural Selection" with evolution. The reason is because these debates can spiral away from the main issues and become quite lost leaving misconceptions in reference to evolution prevalent.

Here is an example, of what you are saying that is a BIG misconception with the theory of evolution.

Steve - Well Joe, that's not evolution, that's survival of the fitest. Evolution is the theory that a specie can mutate into a whole difrent one. Wulf to dog, lion to cat, but if you throw in common descent also fish to horse.
Steve - Once a specie mutates it has evolved into a difrent specie. So technically evolution is only the mutation, and natural selection is what happens after the evolution.
Steve - Just as the open tab is responsible for the running water, so is the mutation responsible for the evolution. And natural selection is like the curvature of your hand that dictates in what direction the water will flow by being favouring certain mutants over others.
]Steve - No, I said mutation gives new material for recombination and variation. Not the other way around. Stop twisting my words. Here read it again:
The above quotes are only from this thread, on numerous occassions you have also stated many times that Evolution cannot occur without mutation and survival of the fittest can't be a driving force in evolution. Here I would like to bring both those issues to bear.

Firstly, I want to show you the effects of Evolution on a species that "Natural Selection" is acting upon without any mutational changes:

Darwin's Finches

Of course, this is evolution by "genetic recombination + Natural Selection = Evolution". Additionally you also have "Genetic mutation + Natural selection = Evolution.

So to clarify, natural selection is a driving force of evolution & hopefully we may put any idea that it is not firmly out of our minds. Incidently, here is a reply to your challenge as I asked a Biologist:

he's wrong.

basically, random mutations create variability, and natural selection (broadly speaking) weeds out the crappy varients and promotes the spread of the good varients.

what he seems to be inplying is that mutation is the driving force behind evolution; however, mutation on it's own would not give evolution, it would just give variation and a degredation of genetic information over time... things would get less complex generation after generation, till they became unviable.

mutation + some kind of selection process = evolution. hence, natural selection is a driving force behind evolution.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-31-2006, 12:19 AM
Originally Posted by root
basically, random mutations create variability, and natural selection (broadly speaking) weeds out the crappy varients and promotes the spread of the good varients.

what he seems to be inplying is that mutation is the driving force behind evolution; however, mutation on it's own would not give evolution, it would just give variation and a degredation of genetic information over time... things would get less complex generation after generation, till they became unviable.

mutation + some kind of selection process = evolution. hence, natural selection is a driving force behind evolution.
Wait a minute isn't this EXACTLY what I've been saying all along? Namely that mutation is the only factor for providing new DNA, and natural selection only stepping in once the mutated DNA is already present!

That means that mutation is what causes new specie, and natural selection decides which one of those new specie actually survive. Sure natural selection does have a saying in which way things turn out, but this is where the comparison comes in that you yuorself just quoted.

Mutation creates new material like an open tab pooring water on the back of your hand.
Natural selection guides the evolution like the curvature of your hand guides the flow of teh water.

The curvature of your hand does not CAUSE flowing water. To call it a driving factor is decieving.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
08-31-2006, 01:02 AM
Man I dont understand why someone could think somethin would start on its own....no offense to any1. I mean everything has a start and an end, a creator, and even a process has to have someone to have started it...! Im not gunna say somethin like "one day i was sittin in my room and the ball started rolling...!" ok maybe thats a bad example...
Well i didnt look through all the pages....so if some1 answered this...tell me :p
Reply

Joe98
08-31-2006, 01:44 AM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
.....somethin like "one day i was sittin in my room and the ball started rolling...!"

This is a very good example.

We athiests start by saying "I don't know the reason". Religious people will say "God did it".

Give people a day, a year or 100 years and we will find the reason. Religious people can then pin one less thing on God but will not stop them believing in God.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
08-31-2006, 01:47 AM
But u r kinda agreeing that there must have been a creator. I mean even to create a process... u need someone or something to start it...
I thought that example was crappy...i guess its not...:? lol
Reply

D.Y.R#7XTRUST
01-26-2007, 10:13 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
In looking at the basis of life as being a purely chemical reaction. It does make logical sense. Looking at the common chain molecules such as the COH chains and the nitrated hydrocarbons with the addition of Nitrogen. It would be easy to believe that a complex chemical reaction could resemble what we know as life.

Now I just can not understand that if it is so easy for such "life like" molecules to develope in the Carbon chains, why don't we have living organisisms here on earth, that are based on the Sulpher and/or the silicon chains. Both form chains as complex as the carbon chains and some of the molecules appear to be self replicating. I am just curious as to why we do not have any random life forms running around, based on those chains.

Some how it seems there is a factor that seperates chemical reaction from life and that factor does not seem to be random or accidental.
Whilst a glance at the periodic would seem to indicate that sulphur based chemistry or silicon based chemistry would both be suitable for life because - based purely on valency - they can form similar chains to carbon, you are forgetting that the conditions needed for these to form are very different due to the difference in reactivity and mass between carbon, sulphur and silicon.

Take silicon, for example.

Because of the large size and high mass of a silicon atom, silanes (the silicon based equivalent to hydrocarbons) are very unstable and decompose rapidly when exposed to water.

Similarly, whereas carbon dioxide is gaseous at the temperatures found on Earth, the silicon equivalent - silicon dioxide (i.e. quartz) - is resolutely solid in those condition. It is obviously much more difficult for a creature to breathe quartz than it is to breathe carbon dioxide.

There are similar problems with sulphur.

Because of its high reactivity, sulphur suffers from the same problem as silicon, in that its chain compounds are unstable.

Interestingly, though, sulphur can - in the right conditions - be used as a replacement for oxygen (rather than a replacement for carbon). There are species of bacteria that live in thermal vents that take advantage of this.
Reply

D.Y.R#7XTRUST
01-27-2007, 05:06 AM
How could one rebuttal the above? Considering we all believe in a God.
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-30-2007, 01:52 PM
DIdn't they find sulphur based life deep in the ocean few years ago? Or was it silicon? I know it was something other than carbon and it was a major find at the time. Did this turn out to be a hoax? I don't remember much about it but do vaguely recall this in the science literature.
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-30-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally Posted by Joe98
This is a very good example.

We athiests start by saying "I don't know the reason". Religious people will say "God did it".

Give people a day, a year or 100 years and we will find the reason. Religious people can then pin one less thing on God but will not stop them believing in God.
I like the way Joe put this. Evolutionists are not at all certain how life itself came to be. They don't claim to know. Creatoinists fill the gap of knowledge with God. Classic case of God of the Gaps.

I think the only reason the religious in the US are anti-evolution is because it appears to contradict the Gensis story. But maybe Adam and Eve were prokaryotes and the garden of eden was a puddle and evolution and genesis can coexist! :)
Reply

IceQueen~
01-30-2007, 02:01 PM
What about the big bang? that proves that there was a point when there was nothing ex nihilo
infinite regression is therefore absurd (its absurd anyway even without the big bang)
and so that can not be used to explain the 'beginning'...
everything that happens is a process of cause and effect and so if we look back in time to the big bang- something had to be there already that caused it- something out of the dimensions of space and time- this is what theists call 'God'
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-30-2007, 02:52 PM
Originally Posted by IceQueen~
What about the big bang? that proves that there was a point when there was nothing ex nihilo
infinite regression is therefore absurd (its absurd anyway even without the big bang)
and so that can not be used to explain the 'beginning'...
everything that happens is a process of cause and effect and so if we look back in time to the big bang- something had to be there already that caused it- something out of the dimensions of space and time- this is what theists call 'God'
Too many unknowns and too many specific claims arising therefrom. Too much God in those Gaps. Must we invent stories to fill the gaps in our knowledge? It is really so painful for us all to admit that we simply don't know?
Reply

IceQueen~
01-30-2007, 02:57 PM
Is it really so painful for you to admit God exists?
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-30-2007, 03:21 PM
Originally Posted by IceQueen~
Is it really so painful for you to admit God exists?
I don't lie well. If I said God exists I'd ironically be "sinning" :D
Reply

Trumble
01-30-2007, 07:51 PM
Originally Posted by IceQueen~
What about the big bang? that proves that there was a point when there was nothing ex nihilo
Actually, it doesn't. Plank time. We don't even know if creation ex nihilo was required, and hence assuming that it was is no sensible base for arguing for the existence of God.. particularly as that solution still leaves the same question nobody can ever answer, accepting "everything that happens is a process of cause and effect", what caused God? There have been answers, of course, usually denying God needed a cause, but they can be easily challenged philosophically if not disproven any more than they can be proven.

According to the Big Bang theory nothing is known about the universe at time=0, though it is presumed that all fundamental forces coexisted and that all matter, energy, and spacetime expanded outward from an extremely hot and dense singularity. One planck time after the event is the closest that theoretical physics can get us to it, and at that time it appears that gravity separated from the other fundamental forces.
For the record, and hopefully without giving any offence to anybody, I personally agree with Pygoscelis at least partially. While ideas of the monotheistic God certainly can direct some in the direction of 'reality', particularly in their more mystical forms, the formalisation of God and His acts/properties is essentially just a sophisticated story conceived and developed over many centuries as an attempt to fill various knowledge gaps.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-18-2011, 05:34 PM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 11:38 AM
  3. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-23-2007, 07:49 PM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 06:30 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-16-2006, 12:37 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!