Intelligent Design VS. Evolution (Be Convinced of the Truth)

[Hemoo]

For those who don't like Harun Yahya books and videos that refutes the evolution Theory.

here is a non-harun yahya Documentary that shows the weakeness of the main pillars and basis of the Evolution Theory.

this video discuss the Natural selection, chemical evolution and biochemical predestination.

in this video many scientists are talking, you will see the opinion of scientists in differnet scientific fields such as biology, molecular biology, chemistry, mathematics, biochemistry and science philosophy.

the conclusion of the video is that "Intelligent Design" is the strongest logical explanation of the creation.:thumbs_up

and as Charles Darwin himself say in his book "The origin of species", he said:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. :X

so stop being a fanatic who insists on believing in a false and weak Theories that is more than 150 years old, but follow what modern science say. (remember the structure of the DNA)

short description of the movie :
A thoughtful and well presented argument for a turn away from the dry/rationalist argument that the miracle of life is a "nothing but sequence of chances".

any way to download and watch the video:

1st way:
download this program

http://video.google.com/GoogleVideoPlayerSetup.exe (4.77MB)

then go to the video url and click download, the downloaded program will connect to the google site to download the video

here is the video url:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...25669588896670

2nd way:

here are another links to download the whole movie (gained using this site http://keepvid.com/)

Original link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670

›› Download Link ‹‹ (.avi - High Quality 400 MB)
›› Download Link ‹‹ (.flv - Flash Video 164 MB)
›› Download Link ‹‹ (.mp4 - iPod / PSP 177 MB)

ENJOY WATCHING
:)

[Trumble]

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Wikipedia

[Encolpius]

*cough*Flyingspaghettimonster*cough*

[Trumble]

You should be careful promoting the claims of the Turkish scientific charlatan "Harun Yahya" (real name, Adnan Oktar). Oktar is a college drop out who never studied science, accounting at least in part the wayward incompetence of his "scientific" writing.

While I agree 100% regarding Yahya, in fairness hemoo was trying to present an alternative for those who think as we do.

Of course, the video 'concludes' precisely what it commissioned to conclude and is therefore of little positive contribution to the debate. If anybody can find one that objectively considers both sides of the evolution v. ID argument, involving people from both 'sides' (particularly in direct debate) it might be more constructive. Even Yahya can seem convincing when only one side of the argument is considered which is unfortunately why so many people seem to take him seriously.

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

[ranma1/2]

*cough*Flyingspaghettimonster*cough*

Sauce be apun him...

Yes as we all know that the GFSM did create the world. And his nemisis teh FPU has tried to hide this from the world. Little known is the fact that insede the teapot is actually where this existence exists.

[ranma1/2]

I believe I can offer a reasoned argument as one who has spent their time studying the issues.

There is a standard debunked creationist claim that Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.




Eyup, that means 99.85 percent of researchers in biology and the life sciences support the theory of evolution. That's just in the US. In the rest of the developed world, it's more than 99.9 percent.

But how many scientitsts names steve support evolution?

[Hemoo]

i hope that you all have seen the documentary film, and i hope you think about what those scientists say.

see if what they say is true or false, and if it is scientifically makes sense.

and i will be glad to see your scientific critisism of this video because after all we are here to learn and seek the right knowledge. RIGHT ??

note that some of those scientists used to support the evolution theory,but now they know they were wrong.





wish to you a nice watching.

[ranma1/2]

I don't get what you're saying.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp

[MeMama]

I don't get what you're saying.

An atheist who argues online and doesn't know about Project Steve? Oh my, you're slacking. :p

[Trumble]

Try this one.

Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Miller is a Catholic, BTW.


I'd also recommend a book, Francis Collins' The Language of God (subtitled 'A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief'). I don't agree with Collins on everything but its well worth reading in that it shows a good case be made for theism without accepting ID (which he dismisses). Without pseudo-scientific drivel like ID, it's actually a far stronger case. Something for the theists to think about.

[MustafaMc]

i hope that you all have seen the documentary film, and i hope you think about what those scientists say.

see if what they say is true or false, and if it is scientifically makes sense.

and i will be glad to see your scientific critisism of this video because after all we are here to learn and seek the right knowledge. RIGHT ??

note that some of those scientists used to support the evolution theory,but now they know they were wrong.

May Allah reward you, Brother. This was an amazing video. For those with an inclination to believe in a Higher Power every additional bit of knowledge about our universe increases his faith. For the one inclined to disbelieve, no amount of proof is ever enough. I think Purest Ambrosia's signature says as much.

[Hemoo]

May Allah reward you, Brother. This was an amazing video. For those with an inclination to believe in a Higher Power every additional bit of knowledge about our universe increases his faith. For the one inclined to disbelieve, no amount of proof is ever enough. I think Purest Ambrosia's signature says as much.

may Allah reward you too brother

and i agree with what you said.

[MustafaMc]

While I agree 100% regarding Yahya, in fairness hemoo was trying to present an alternative for those who think as we do.

Of course, the video 'concludes' precisely what it commissioned to conclude and is therefore of little positive contribution to the debate. If anybody can find one that objectively considers both sides of the evolution v. ID argument, involving people from both 'sides' (particularly in direct debate) it might be more constructive. Even Yahya can seem convincing when only one side of the argument is considered which is unfortunately why so many people seem to take him seriously.

But the immediate point is - do you or anyone else want to refute the video?

[MeMama]

May Allah reward you, Brother. This was an amazing video. For those with an inclination to believe in a Higher Power every additional bit of knowledge about our universe increases his faith. For the one inclined to disbelieve, no amount of proof is ever enough. I think Purest Ambrosia's signature says as much.

Peace to you. :statisfie

But there are many people who believe (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) and also believe that evolution is correct. They believe that evolution was God's way of creation -- His choice in how to create the world and its people. I don't see why one has to choose between evolution and the Qur'an, because they can coexist quite easily.

[جوري]

Peace to you. :statisfie

But there are many people who believe (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) and also believe that evolution is correct. They believe that evolution was God's way of creation -- His choice in how to create the world and its people. I don't see why one has to choose between evolution and the Qur'an, because they can coexist quite easily.

Sharing 97% of your DNA with an Ape, 70% with a mouse or 50% with a banana hardly denotes you share a common ancestor or were manifest from the same glob of goo -- least of which if the only claim to fame is some fossil in a display case ( who is to say they aren't of species gone extinct with assertion?)... All the above percentages are actually true... (do you believe there is a good chance you have evolved from a banana?) --
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...t-bananas.html

There is a very specific way the Amino Acids form to make different genetic information. The genetic code is degenerate, more than one codon may code for the same amino acid, it is commaless, nonoverlapping, it is UNIVERSAL with the exceptions in mitochondria, mycoplasma and some yeasts... It isn't a matter of putting it in a centrifuge and seeing what comes out from beneath your supernatant-- wow we have some sugar, some phosphate, some, Adenine, Thymine, Uracil, Guanine, Cytosine, Purine, and Pyrimidine--formed in all of us creatures up to an including beetles thus we all share a common ancestor?-
please don't mistake commonalities to mean that we share a common ancestor. Even one or two amino acid differences, is enough to induce the most violent reaction by your immune system if it were to be introduced to your body.

Further with all the genetic engineering and expression vectors we have got at our disposal, it would be very easy for instance to introduce a plasmid into a bacteria thus enabling it to express something like insulin as opposed to growing it in the tissues of dead animals like pigs or cows or subsequently killing humans and extracting Insulin from their pancreas (you can see where that would be unethical) in spite of our similarities with these pigs and cows, Insulin grown in their tissue would still be rejected by your body in spite of the overwhelming similarities...

Imagine inducing human insulin to be expressed in bacteria? ( by the way this is actually how Insulin is manufactured in bacteria through the use of plasmids)... How difficult then would it be to play around with the genetic code and cause an entire population of apes to differentiate into humans? we can't use plasmids in humans of course but we can certainly use viruses, specifically retro-viruses manipulated with the DNA of interest or we can even use liposomes to bring the vectors of interest inside the cells...so why not? we do it to manufacture Insulin, we do it to be rid ourselves of deadly genetic DZ such as SCID, we can even make lab diamonds, don't we? something that takes ages in nature, can be made with ease in the lab-- Diamonds by the way can go back to graphite, which takes millions of years under inert atmosphere--if we were to apply the same scientific laws to humans could possibly mean at some point we too will degenerate back to the previous primordial soup from which we came---there is really no reason to progress forward as some suggest a better product from further evolution.. ask any chemist of this... I have minored in chemistry in my under graduate ages ago, and that was something very striking to me ( a diamond really isn't forever)
C(diamond) → C(graphite). it will satisfy the laws of thermodynamics by not becoming a more brilliant diamond but by becoming graphite--
if we were to apply the same laws of nature to us as a specie (humans) we'll devolve with the passage of time, not become a better specie-- (perhaps that is where atheism plays a role?) but I digress!
If it were just a matter of common ancestry that split and morphed, why with all this technology and I have demonstrated the ease of use albeit it in simple terms, that we can very much alter gene expression-- so why not, why are we not able to reproduce these evolutionary findings in the laboratory thus putting all doubt to rest?

let's talk about collagen a little see how many varieties can be from one general heading! the most abundant protein in the human body, it functions to organize and strengthen the matrix, basically connective tissue made from protein, no different than the protein you eat in a stake, in its making , from collagen Alpha chains translation on the rough endoplasmic reticulum, in the specific polypeptide of Gly-X-Y,( X, Y) being proline, hydroxyproline, and hydroxlysine, on to ER hydroxylation which occurs for specific residues, then on to the Golgi, for glycosylation of the pro-alpha chain, to the formation of procollagen, which are then exocytosed because they are too large to be worked on further inside the cell, think about it, it makes perfect sense... this couldn't make itself-- then specific peptidases cleave only the terminal regions, forming insoluble tropocolagen, which are then reinforced by covalent lysine-hydroxylysine cross linking to make these collagen fibrils, and from then we have multitudes of different types of this general heading, similar yet very distinct... no different than creation... (same component, different varieties) -- Type one in bone, tendon and fascia, type II, in cartilage, the virteous body, type III in blood vessels, type IV in basement membrane, type V in epiphyseal plate, and understand that any mal-function in any specific type would cause a completely different type of problem for instance a Type III malfunction would give you Ehlers-Danlos syndrome whereas a type IV gives you Alport's syndrome.

If you'd concede to the fact that every nucleated cell in the body has the capability of doing this process over and over, yet for some reason only fibroblasts are programmed to make collagen while say something like a beta cell though carries the entire genetic information-- codes for Insulin by a process not very un-similar to the collagen synthesis in its details and complexity, and if you'd like though it would be a complete waste of my time but I can go in its details if you'd like... I don't think anyone needs it really to appreciate the virtuoso, the engineer, the chemist , the aesthete, the anatomist, the physiologist that designed it all -- This isn't a matter of I am going to eat protein from an egg, and bam energy will transform it into 19 different types of collagen across all vertebrates

.. If evolution were the answer we'd all be having very successful Xenograft, (tissue from Apes) in fact they are the fastest rejected-- we don't match on HLA-DP , HLA-DQ. and HLA-DR and their numerous subclasses... if it were as easy as sharing some basic components, there would be no long lists awaiting a liver, or a kidney or a corneal transplant ....There would no reason on the simplest level for blood typing even amongst us as a specie.

I am not into using obscure terms, I have no interest in impressing you with confounders, or quoting you Herodes Atticus or talk above you in display of what I know that you don't, or even assume through my conclusions that my knowledge is superior to yours or that you are not my equal... those weren't the Qualities of prophet Mohammed PBUH --

whereas I agree with you that there is nothing in the Quran to argue against evolution, save the creation of man--I'll argue that these are simply the building blocks of our universe.. no different than your usage of 26 consonants to make a seemingly endless number of meaningful words.... I have used all 26 consonants in here and repeatedly, but hope that this composition makes sense to you in the end?--- Why would an engineer use a different formula to create another creature, when one works perfectly? already in the Quran it states [24. Surah An-Nur : Ayah 45]

"And Allah has created from water every living creature: so of them is that which walks upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet, and of them is that which walks upon four; Allah creates what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things." w/out going into too much detail of the verse, you can see we have in common.

An engineer will use concrete, brick , mortar, cement, and metal for a small hut as he would the tallest building-- but they don't magically make themselves. Energy doesn't create a building and then suddenly tons of little houses bud off its side and take different forms.

In closure--I really promised myself that I wouldn't be baited back into these sorts of debates as it has been discussed here AD nauseam under evolution/ under Atheism/ under creationist dealt a blow.. and frankly I don't enjoy the mannerism of some of the members here.

At the end of the day, it is nothing more than a sophisticated belief-- -- I am not impressed with a huge congregation upholding a summit to enforce a theory, admittedly I haven't watched the last video, but have a general idea what it would encompass-- and it can unravel with a few un-answered questions--

believing in evolution doesn't preclude the existence of an engineer to have set it all in motion.. Even though I have very strong doubt that evolution is how it happened, unless we wish to put a spin on adaptation to mean evolution.. seems like a simplistic conclusion to a very complex formula. it is merely a swap for some who think they can substitute a handy me down outfit from the salvation army for a fancy Salvatore Ferragamo, (if it doesn't look good, on you or fit you all that well, then it wouldn't matter who the label maker) even if it is an initiation right into the illuminati club, you won't feel comfortable in it!

It has nothing to do with being programmed to think a certain way, it has to do with what is in your heart, what is a symbiotic part of you, your innate need to find your reason for being.. the purpose of life, and why are you here, what are you for... life's long questions are a personal quest...its glory lies in its details and the trip one takes to get there... and it is incumbent upon each self to make that search, not to have it enforced by people who believe the use of sophisticated terminology can hide under lying fluff.
I wish you well on your quest...

peace and goodbye for a while...

[Trumble]

But the immediate point is - do you or anyone else want to refute the video?

Watch the video I linked to. It presents the other side of the story, and might at least explain why for some "no amount of proof is ever enough". 'Proof' is the wrong word, as usual, but the simple reason is that there is far too much evidence the other way.

On the subject of theories I tracked down one of the articles referred in the video; it's rather fun. Michael Behe is perhaps the most famous scientific proponent of Intelligent Design, and first formulated the ideas on 'irreducable complexity'.

Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified that ID was a scientific theory, and was not “committed” to religion. His cross examination by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.

Behe maintains that ID is science: “Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences.”

“You've got to admire the guy. It’s Daniel in the lion’s den,” says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. "But I can’t believe he teaches a college biology class."

New Scientist

It has nothing to do with being programmed to think a certain way, it has to do with what is in your heart, what is a symbiotic part of you, your innate need to find your reason for being.. the purpose of life, and why are you here, what are you for... life's long questions are a personal quest...its glory lies in its details and the trip one takes to get there... and it is incumbent upon each self to make that search, not to have it enforced by people who believe the use of sophisticated terminology can hide under lying fluff.

Well said.

[MustafaMc]

Peace to you. :statisfie

But there are many people who believe (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) and also believe that evolution is correct. They believe that evolution was God's way of creation -- His choice in how to create the world and its people. I don't see why one has to choose between evolution and the Qur'an, because they can coexist quite easily.

Yes, you are right. The point of the video was Intelligent Design guiding the process rather than random chance mutations and natural selection for directing evolution to explain the origin of all existing and future species.

[MustafaMc]

At the end of the day, it is nothing more than a sophisticated belief-- -- I am not impressed with a huge congregation upholding a summit to enforce a theory, admittedly I haven't watched the last video, but have a general idea what it would encompass-- and it can unravel with a few un-answered questions--

...

It has nothing to do with being programmed to think a certain way, it has to do with what is in your heart, what is a symbiotic part of you, your innate need to find your reason for being.. the purpose of life, and why are you here, what are you for... life's long questions are a personal quest...its glory lies in its details and the trip one takes to get there... and it is incumbent upon each self to make that search, not to have it enforced by people who believe the use of sophisticated terminology can hide under lying fluff.
I wish you well on your quest...

peace and goodbye for a while...

You make a good point that the theory of evolution without ID is a belief system. They seem to rely upon science and reject any theological explanation as some kind of anti-science. Funny thing is that I have heard no good explanation by non-ID evolutionists about how all of this managed to happen like the bacterial flagellum in the video.

[Trumble]

You make a good point that the theory of evolution without ID is a belief system. They seem to rely upon science and reject any theological explanation as some kind of anti-science.

Of course they do! There is nothing wrong with a theological explanation, as long as it is accepted that that is what is, and that it is not peddled as science. Nobody (well, not many people) object to ID and even creationism being taught as long as it is in theology/philosophy/religious studies classes and not science classes. Evolution without ID is NOT a 'belief system' it is a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories it is open to dispute, and even being junked should a better one come along. But ID is not it; it is NOT a scientific theory unless (as you can see in the quote I gave earlier) you redefine science to include it. That's fine, as long as you accept the consequences, those being that astrology (and spiritualism, and mysticism, etc, etc) are included as well, and hence that they have a 'right' to being taught as science as well.

Funny thing is that I have heard no good explanation by non-ID evolutionists about how all of this managed to happen like the bacterial flagellum in the video.

Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum

Evolution of the Bacterial Flagella

The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"

Evolving the Bacterial Flagellum Through Mutation and Cooption

"Bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex" (read it)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science

In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.

As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by “irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution.

As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.

First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peer reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. (2:8- 20 (Miller); P-854.23-854.32). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich admited that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type-III Secretary System, the Type-III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum, or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor. (38:12-16 (Minnich)). None of this research or thinking involves ID. (38:12-16 (Minnich)). In fact, Professor Minnich testified about his research as follows: “we’re looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other. And it’s a legitimate scientific inquiry.”

[ranma1/2]

You make a good point that the theory of evolution without ID is a belief system. They seem to rely upon science and reject any theological explanation as some kind of anti-science. Funny thing is that I have heard no good explanation by non-ID evolutionists about how all of this managed to happen like the bacterial flagellum in the video.

As others have said, evo without ID is not a belief system any more than the theory of gravity is a belief system.

[MeMama]

Sharing 97% of your DNA with an Ape, 70% with a mouse or 50% with a banana hardly denotes you share a common ancestor or were manifest from the same glob of goo

< snipped for space >

I wish you well on your quest...

peace and goodbye for a while...

I have heard it said, "With God, all things are possible." If God truly exists, why could He not have used evolution as a means of Creation? No matter how strange the concept is to you, surely God is powerful enough to have mastered it.

[جوري]

You make a good point that the theory of evolution without ID is a belief system. They seem to rely upon science and reject any theological explanation as some kind of anti-science.

Let's put it this way.. While working on my masters in Molecular biology I had to redo an experiment synthesizing CDNA from mRNA templates 11 times, just to have it complement the bases in single strand of choice of a messenger RNA. Every single time though, even though I concede, I was a novice! but in my defense was working on it with the chairman of the Dept. Dr. C. something always went terribly awry... At the end we almost gave up since a few nano-ml of Taq DNA Polymerase cost $40, that plus the costs of other equipments and chemicals needed for the whole process to take place ... just to get ONE strand complemented... Surprisingly there was a man (the chairman) with a couple of Doctorates who called out for G-D every time the experiment failed :D .

Imagine how many times "mother nature" or whomever people wish to attribute to all this glory painstaking task to get everything right, the very first time around, as I explained in earlier posts, just one mere enzymatic error in just the urea cycle, not heme metabolism, not collagen synthesis, not glycolysis, not fat storage, not cori cycle, not purine salave pathway, not in Electron transport chain, not pyruvate metabolism, not Gluconeogensis, not pentose phosphate pathway shunt, would lead to the demise of life we know it. People can't even memorize the enzymes or the pathway.. most I am willing to bet my bottom dollar don't even know which cycle goes before which... yet it works for them tirelessly, symbiotically, harmoniously everyday, round the clock... until illness befalls m and then people take notice.

What can I say.. if there is "no proof" there is no proof, we and the environment we live in are a billion perfect chances... ha what are the odds?... I am in awe...

:w: akhi

[جوري]

I have heard it said, "With God, all things are possible." If God truly exists, why could He not have used evolution as a means of Creation? No matter how strange the concept is to you, surely God is powerful enough to have mastered it.

Not a strange concept (NO)... just an unlikely one, given what I have explained earlier!... But you are right.. many of my colleagues believe evolution to be the handy work of G-D... To me it is full of Gaps a mere substitution...
I can theorize about a number of things as I have done with the "Diamonds aren't forever" episode --"to suggest that we as a specie will keep evolving for the better as evolution suggests and at some point be so brainy as to be rid ourselves of religion all together" is silly?... well I say, as chemistry suggests we could possibly devolve back to a primordial soup... I can't prove it... but so dictates chemistry ---isn't carbon after all the "backbone" of everything?
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=diamond

"It is interesting to note that while the sp3 bond of diamond is extremely strong, physically speaking, it is not the most energetically stable chemical bond that can occur between carbon atoms. The carbon-carbon bond with the most stable energy is instead the graphite bond. Hence all diamond crystals will in time convert to graphite, to the crystal structure with the optimal energy conditions. This transformation is very slow (on the order of millions of years), but the phrase "diamonds are forever" is clearly unjustified - if you wait long enough, you will find that your sparkling diamond in your engagement ring has turned into a dull slab of gray graphite. If you are not patient enough, then you can speed up the process by subjecting your ring to elevated temperature (around 1000 C), which will quickly transform your gem into graphite."


So why not? it is another scientific theory-- why is it not mentioned by "evolutionary" biologists? Maybe, I should start my own cult of "devolutionary" biology? :hmm:



Anyhow.. enough of this topic...



peace

[MeMama]

< snipped for space >

So why not? it is another scientific theory-- why is it not mentioned by "evolutionary" biologists? Maybe, I should start my own cult of "devolutionary" biology?

Peace PurestAmbrosia,

I find it hard to believe that is a theory of chemistry. At any rate, you can't just create your own scientific theory without proper research and experimentation, which has already been done with evolution for over a century.

It seems to me that you simply do not want to believe it, so therefore, you won't regardless of the facts at hand. That is your choice, and although I respect it, I have to say it is surely your loss in the extreme.

Peace and good wishes to you.

[جوري]

Peace PurestAmbrosia,

I find it hard to believe that is a theory of chemistry. .

Go ahead and ask any chemist http://chemistry.fas.nyu.edu/page/home

At any rate, you can't just create your own scientific theory without proper research and experimentation.

I didn't create it, it is a known fact ( and can be reproduced).. follow the link above and ask the dept. chair... it might not be knowledge readily available to lay-man, but a fact nonetheless!

which has already been done with evolution for over a century..

Actually it hasn't-- that is why it is called a theory!

It seems to me that you simply do not want to believe it,.

Would gladly believe it, if it were reproducible!

so therefore, you won't regardless of the facts at hand..

It isn't a fact-- it is a theory! just like us devolving back is a theory!

That is your choice, and although I respect it, I have to say it is surely your loss in the extreme..

Oh how so? I already have my doctorate, believing in evolution or not, hasn't impacted my life in the least..

Peace and good wishes to you.

and same to you =)

[جوري]

repeat post....

[جوري]

[QUOTE=hemoo;736231]For those who don't like Harun Yahya books and videos that refutes the evolution Theory.



[QUOTE]

That is actually pretty good... (7) parts on youtube.. I was wondering why the google link wasn't working (no bother) I thought it was a documentary by Harun Yahya, ( I skimmed over the "don't like" lol) thanks for the link...

One of my personal peeves with Darwinian "natural selection" is the following:

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation.

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

and here are a few cases when exactly the opposite of that happens

For how would the above explain "trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders" diseases like Myotonic dystrophy (DM), Huntington's disease (HD) and Fragile X syndrome (FRAXA) to name a few .... These mutations are caused by triplet repeats -- which have the tendency to expand beyond the normal range thus disrupting the normal functioning of the gene. It presents obviousely phenotypically and genotypically, and get progressivly worst with each generation... if generation A sarted off with 20 of say those CGG repeats, the next generation has 40 the next 80 or a hundred and so on... the impact of it is so great, somthing like Huntington's for instance which affects a man at 60, with the next generation will affect a man at 40, then his or her daughter at 25 and so on, and continues to be passed down, due to its autosomal dominant inheritence with a greater rate and more impact. I wonder how natural selection could attempt to explain such a happening... but to each his own...
Anyhow those are a few of my peeves of the holes in the theory, and whether my opinion is rejected or accepted, wouldn't affect my views one way or the other.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/...trinuc/f9.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=232056

peace!

[MustafaMc]

I have heard it said, "With God, all things are possible." If God truly exists, why could He not have used evolution as a means of Creation? No matter how strange the concept is to you, surely God is powerful enough to have mastered it.

Yes, you are correct that with God all things are possible. He could have easily used evolution to create the existing life forms and species. The issue is whether a Higher Power used Intelligent Design to direct the process or whether it all happened by chance with the most infinitesimal probability claimed to be a certainty given enough time. As a plant geneticist, I know enough about the intricacies of life that this claim of chance evolution is absurd to me.

[MustafaMc]

This was a good post to show the traditional evolutionist point of view.

All that is required is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of the competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that god(s) exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Yes, there is no physical evidence of God, but yet we believe. I don't see it as "prior commitment to dogma", but as to what is most logical to me.

At the heart of the debate lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective inferences drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. Science has come to realize the non-objectivity of creationist literalism, and has the integrity to recognize that evolution represents the best explanation of the biological diversity of life on this planet. I am glad to see that.
If one has opted for Theistic creationism little more needs to be said. As to whether an individual chooses to accept a naturalistic or theistic evolutionary view, science has no say in the matter. Science cannot substantiate what cannot be tested, directly observed, falsified, or has left no physical trace.

Yes, you concisely point out the limitations of science. Science can go only so far before it comes up empty with no answers to the really important questions such as "WHY?" Creationist and ID evolutionist arguments use either faith in Holy Books or logical conclusions based on objective data to point to a Creator. The Creation clearly shows the existence of a Creator to those with an inclination to believe - this is not reliance upon apriori dogma.

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer. If any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. They are trying to shift the burden of proof. Intelligent Design advocates are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims. The whole "irreducibly complex" argument is deeply flawed. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of. And those answers do very well.

I strongly disagree. The answers are completely inadequate and do not satisfy my mind.

[Trumble]

Yes, you are correct that with God all things are possible. He could have easily used evolution to create the existing life forms and species. The issue is whether a Higher Power used Intelligent Design to direct the process or whether it all happened by chance with the most infinitesimal probability claimed to be a certainty given enough time. As a plant geneticist, I know enough about the intricacies of life that this claim of chance evolution is absurd to me.

I don't see where 'chance' would be involved at all if God is invoked anywhere in the process.

Assuming, for sake of argument, that the evolutionary mechanism itself was designed by God, surely it would be perfect, i.e it must inevitably produce exactly what God wanted it to produce without the need for further intervention, and any 'chance' factors that might be involved He would have had perfect knowledge of beforehand.

If the mechanism itself is perfect, no subsequent tinkering in the form of 'intelligent design' would be necessary. Any occurance of same must demonstrate that the original design was not perfect, i.e that God did not create it.

[MustafaMc]

I don't see where 'chance' would be involved at all if God is invoked anywhere in the process.

Yes, that was my point.

Assuming, for sake of argument, that the evolutionary mechanism itself was designed by God, surely it would be perfect, i.e it must inevitably produce exactly what God wanted it to produce without the need for further intervention, and any 'chance' factors that might be involved He would have had perfect knowledge of beforehand.

If the mechanism itself is perfect, no subsequent tinkering in the form of 'intelligent design' would be necessary. Any occurance of same must demonstrate that the original design was not perfect, i.e that God did not create it.

You are making illogical assumptions that God created a process - He created and continues to create species of life, perhaps through the process of "evolution". To me the evolutionary theory is not perfect and chance factors can't explain the creation of new species from an original "common ancestor" without the direct intervention of a Creator. If God creates new species through so called evolutionary principles over a long or short period of time, His continued involvement in the process does not demonstrate its imperfection.

[Trumble]

Yes, that was my point.

Sorry, didn't express myself well. My point was simply that, to eliminate any need for chance, it is sufficient to assume that the evolutionary mechanism was designed by God. There is no requirement for Him to intervene in it subsequently.

You are making illogical assumptions that God created a process - He created and continues to create species of life, perhaps through the process of "evolution". To me the evolutionary theory is not perfect and chance factors can't explain the creation of new species from an original "common ancestor" without the direct intervention of a Creator. If God creates new species through so called evolutionary principles over a long or short period of time, His continued involvement in the process does not demonstrate its imperfection.

I don't see where I am being 'illogical'. If there is an evolutionary process, and there is a God, then directly or indirectly He must be responsible for its design. You seem to be saying that God's continued intervention is required not by the mechanism of evolution, but by our (necessarily imperfect) understanding of that mechanism, which makes no sense at all. Or to be accurate it only makes sense in the context that God is just as much a human construct as the theory of evolution, and while I might well subscribe to that I doubt very much that you do!

I am not saying that 'the evolutionary theory' is perfect. I am saying that if there is an evolutionary process at all it (as opposed to our current understanding of it), designed by God, it must be perfect. A perfect design would require no further intervention in the form of intelligent design. To me, the whole idea of ID is logically incoherent on theological and philosophical grounds, let alone scientific ones.

You have the following options;

1. Simple creationism.
   
2. A purely natural evolutionary process that did not and does not require a God, and that any 'gaps' in that theory are there solely because we don't understand it properly. Yet.
   
3. A perfect evolutionary process created by God to achieve His design that needs no further intervention. As God could design it not to require such intervention, why would He design it so it did? It's like designing a car engine you know will break down at regular intervals when you could design one that never does.
   
4. An evolutionary process designed by someone/something other than God, that God chooses to tinker with from time to time. I think we can forget that one as opening a huge theological can of worms.

ID falls in 'none of the above'. If God designed evolution itself, there surely is no need for 'intelligent design', and hence any 'theory' that includes it must be flawed?

[Hemoo]

to you who are convinced with evolution theory.

tell me what is this theory telling about the first kind of life that existed on earth, how this kind of life even existed?

how can something be created from nothing?

can you create something or anything from nothing in labs?

and as scientists in the video talked about the dna and its structure inwhich the DNA is like a huge DATAbase of information and instruction for the cells to act upon.

how did this information come to be formed ?

if you left your computer opened for millions of years even if there is a program wich generates random codes, what is the chances that this random codes will form an intelligent Operating system or even a dumb system like Windows ?

i think all that you must do is to study Statistics .... and Statistics will show you how far are you from the truth..

[Trumble]

tell me what is this theory telling about the first kind of life that existed on earth, how this kind of life even existed?

The theory of evolution is intended to provide an explanation of how species develop, not the origin of life.

[Hemoo]

The theory of evolution is intended to provide an explanation of how species develop, not the origin of life.

and this in my opinion is a big gap in the evolution theory, that can only be solved by the intelligent design.

because how can they build this whole complicated assumptions upon a thing that they don't even know what was it.

you must have the basis before you build your logic.

Edit: i just like to add what this professor of biology said :

The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.

(Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007)

[Trumble]

and this in my opinion is a big gap in the evolution theory, that can only be solved by the intelligent design.

It's not a 'gap' at all. It is outside the theory's remit. You are confusing 'intelligent design' (a quite specific concept) with creationism.

because how can they build this whole complicated assumptions upon a thing that they don't even know what was it.

If you mean the origin of life, it isn't built on it - see above.

Many 'evolutionists' are quite happy to accept that life itself was, or could have been, originally created by God. Accepting that does mean you have to accept 'intelligent design' - indeed I have argued in a previous post that accepting God as initial creator leads to a good reason to reject the idea of ID.

Schwartz is not stating that the evolution itself is a hypothesis as opposed to a theory. He is merely stating that particular evolutionary pathways cannot be 'proven', a fact that is self-evident even to dedicated 'evolutionists'. It is sufficient that the theory of evolution allows for and explains those pathways.

[Hemoo]

okay trumble, thanks for your polite reply

it is a good thing to have good speech manners as you do.

but i still have some gaps inside the evolution theory which makes me still deny it, may be i will post them later.

[MustafaMc]

Sorry, didn't express myself well. My point was simply that, to eliminate any need for chance, it is sufficient to assume that the evolutionary mechanism was designed by God. There is no requirement for Him to intervene in it subsequently.

For me evolution is not a self-sustaining system, but, if that is the mechanism the God uses to create new species, I believe that it requires continuous direction and intervention by a Higher Power. To go from a unicellular "common ancestor" to all exsting plant and animal life forms is too much for me to accept without the process being directed.

I don't see where I am being 'illogical'. If there is an evolutionary process, and there is a God, then directly or indirectly He must be responsible for its design. You seem to be saying that God's continued intervention is required not by the mechanism of evolution, but by our (necessarily imperfect) understanding of that mechanism, which makes no sense at all.

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me that evolution requires continuous intervention.

Or to be accurate it only makes sense in the context that God is just as much a human construct as the theory of evolution, and while I might well subscribe to that I doubt very much that you do!

You lost me there.

I am not saying that 'the evolutionary theory' is perfect. I am saying that if there is an evolutionary process at all it (as opposed to our current understanding of it), designed by God, it must be perfect. A perfect design would require no further intervention in the form of intelligent design. To me, the whole idea of ID is logically incoherent on theological and philosophical grounds, let alone scientific ones.

I have to disagree here. You are putting limitations on God by saying that if he created the process of evolution (as you understand it) then it would be "imperfect" to require His continued intervention. I don't see it that way.

Quran 27:64 Just think who originates creation and then repeats its production, and who gives you sustenance from the heavens and the earth? Is there another god besides Allah? Say: "Show us your proof if you are telling the truth!"

You have the following options;

1. Simple creationism.
   
2. A purely natural evolutionary process that did not and does not require a God, and that any 'gaps' in that theory are there solely because we don't understand it properly. Yet.
   
3. A perfect evolutionary process created by God to achieve His design that needs no further intervention. As God could design it not to require such intervention, why would He design it so it did? It's like designing a car engine you know will break down at regular intervals when you could design one that never does.
   
4. An evolutionary process designed by someone/something other than God, that God chooses to tinker with from time to time. I think we can forget that one as opening a huge theological can of worms.

ID falls in 'none of the above'. If God designed evolution itself, there surely is no need for 'intelligent design', and hence any 'theory' that includes it must be flawed?

Your insistence that a "perfect" evolutionary system would require no intervention beyond the creation of the process is forcing the Creator to fit your system. There are too many gaps in naturalistic evolution for me to accept at face value. I choose to believe that God fills in those gaps, while you seem to choose some as-yet-undiscovered-scientific explanation. That is the point that I have been trying to make about both being a belief system.

[Trumble]

For me evolution is not a self-sustaining system, but, if that is the mechanism the God uses to create new species, I believe that it requires continuous direction and intervention by a Higher Power. To go from a unicellular "common ancestor" to all exsting plant and animal life forms is too much for me to accept without the process being directed.
Yes, it makes perfect sense to me that evolution requires continuous intervention.

The point is not whether it is too much for you, but whether it is too much for God! You seem to think it beyond His power to design that perfect engine.

You lost me there.

Whatever 'gaps' there may be, they are only in our understanding of evolution. If evolution was designed by God there would be no gaps in reality, and hence no need to plug them with ID or anything else other than our complete understanding of the self-sustaining process. The idea only makes sense if one flawed human construct, evolution as we understand it, is patched up with another human construction, God, as opposed to seeking that complete understanding.

If continuous intervention is required, God must have designed it that way. For ID to be taken seriously, there needs to be a plausible explanation of why God would design evolution to need such intervention, and the only one I have seen so far seems to be purely to accommodate ID for it's own sake.

[MustafaMc]

The point is not whether it is too much for you, but whether it is too much for God! You seem to think it beyond His power to design that perfect engine.

You may be right. God could have created a self-sustaining evolutionary process, but I can't imagine how the creation of something advanced (humans) from something very basic (bacteria) could happen without direct intervention by a Higher Power. My knowledge of genetics and molecular biology, though not as great as some members of the forum, puts me in such awe of the creation that I can't imagine that it happened by naturalistic evolution without the intervention of a Creator. But then again God could have created the perfect process sort of like the process of photosynthesis whereby plants convert solar energy into stored chemical energy. You may be right that what may be the limiting factor is our own limited understanding of the process that takes us only so far - we have only as much knowledge as Allah has willed for us to have.

Whatever 'gaps' there may be, they are only in our understanding of evolution. If evolution was designed by God there would be no gaps in reality, and hence no need to plug them with ID or anything else other than our complete understanding of the self-sustaining process. The idea only makes sense if one flawed human construct, evolution as we understand it, is patched up with another human construction, God, as opposed to seeking that complete understanding.

That is IF God created the process in the manner you indicated. I don't see God as being a "human construction" rather the other way around, but then again that is from a religious point of view.

If continuous intervention is required, God must have designed it that way. For ID to be taken seriously, there needs to be a plausible explanation of why God would design evolution to need such intervention, and the only one I have seen so far seems to be purely to accommodate ID for it's own sake.

Yes, He could have designed the process to require His continuous intervention just as you propose that He created it as a self-sustaining one. Perhaps, you are the one limiting God by forcing Him to fit within your admittedly flawed theory.

I continue to be in awe of Allah's creation from the incomprehensible large expanding universe down to the transfer RNA that transports amino acids to messenger RNA linked with ribosomes to form proteins. Unless you put forward a more logical argument than I have heard, you will never convince me that all of this "just happened".

[Pygoscelis]

and this in my opinion is a big gap in the evolution theory, that can only be solved by the intelligent design.

This is what is commonly referred to as the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

Evolution doesn't theorize how it all started, so yes, it does leave a big gaping hole of uncertainty. But that doesn't mean you can just fill that hole with God, just because you have no other explanation. Just because you don't know how something works, doesn't mean the supernatural is involved.

[root]

Evolution doesn't theorize how it all started,

I agree with this 100%

so yes, it does leave a big gaping hole of uncertainty. But that doesn't mean you can just fill that hole with God, just because you have no other explanation.

If evolution is the study of change in alelle frequencies overtime then that is the area of study known as evolution. To ask how life started in the first place and/or it's origin then that is a completely different science altogether which includes theories from abiogenesis and/or panspermia. They are not part of the evolutionary theory and are theories by thier own right. However much the creationists like to get hung up on gaps, as for the origin evolution does not have one.

Kinds like revising your physics skills for an english test?

Just because you don't know how something works, doesn't mean the supernatural is involved.

Agree 100% creationist history is littered with "this system is so complex it could not have evolved", when they are proven wrong, they simply move to the next apparently too complex system. Creationists do always seem to be moving on with this respect.

[Hemoo]

well people, i hope you all have watched the Documentary Film because this is the main Purpose of this thread.

then you can post your criticism of the film, this way the thread will be more usefull.

[ranma1/2]

well people, i hope you all have watched the Documentary Film because this is the main Purpose of this thread.

then you can post your criticism of the film, this way the thread will be more usefull.

Fair enough.

I apologize if my critic is kinda random. I was grading papers while listening to the film.

A basic setup of who is who and where this conference of 14 people took place.
１９９３　pojaro dunes
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...ignhistory.htm

Micheal Behe
biochemist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Behe
irreducible complexity
Michael Denton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...eory_in_Crisis
Phillip Johnson
] professor of law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
Dean Kenyon;
evolutionary biologists. Chemistry alone not origin of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Kenyon
Paul Nelson
philosopher of biology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ne...creationist%29
William Debmski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski
Jonathan Wells
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonatha...gn_advocate%29

Video summary, review and occasional response.

10 minutes, suggests that a growing number of scientists challenge “aspects” of ToE,
Reply, no problem that’s normal for science. Of course the growing number part is suspicious. At this point I suggest looking at project steve.

10:30 Paul nelson admits natural selection is a real process.
Suggests it only works for small scale change. Roughly arguing there is no macro evo only micro.
My reply
Macro is the accumulation of these small scale changes, thus allowing for something’s great, great, great, great, great,……………………………….. offspring to be completely different. Evo implies gradual change, You will never see a duck give birth to a non duck under evo, but you will see a duck give birth to a slightly different duck from its parents..

13:40 behe suggests that evo is not the whole explanation for life.
18:15 and 21:30 suggests that scientists have not offered any detailed explanation for flagellum.
“ I’m curious what they mean be detailed, science has offered explanations.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreduc...mplex#Flagella
18:30 begins the argument of irreducible complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibly_complex
an example they give is the mouse trap.
And a good reply to the mouse trap argument.
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
of course IC ignores the fact that things can evolve with different functions that can later change to other functions as it is better at performing those newer functions.
Of course here are some ideas as to how the flagellum evolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
24:30 roughly goes over the idea of Co-option.
I would have been really disappointed if they left out co-optation.

30:00 Attacks evolution that it doesnt explain how life began.

Evolution does not discuss how life started but rather what happened after life began. Evolution tries to explain the diversity of life.
Some ideas of how life began.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansper...ted_panspermia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

35:00 Still discussing the creation of life and not evolution.
40:00 discusses the problems with genetic information. Still not discussing evo nor has the video given any evidence so far for intelligent design. The only thing they have done is use the god of the gaps argument at best.

51:00 goes back to the discussion of evolution ”somewhat”. The speaker complains that scientists don’t give the ID theory a chance. Why? Because they have 0 evidence. None, natta, zip, zero , zilch. Then they go back to origins of life.

53: Dembski tries to discuss how we determine whether things are designed. Pretty much just goes over man made objects.
56: tries to associate the criteria Dembski suggested for design with information and via that DNA.
1:00:00 suggests that ID is the best explanation for the “information” in DNA.
Information can be shown to exists all over the place without ID. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information . We as humans tend to see human design in things. That’s the only ID we have evidence of apart from what other animals create.



Over all
This video is just the god of the gaps argument.
We don’t understand how this was done so God did it. “were not even gonna think about what made god”

They provide no evidence for ID. They only say we don’t understand this so it must be created by ID.

They confuse the origin of life with the origin of the species and the diversity of life.

They confuse human sources of information with natural ones.

[ranma1/2]

So basically,

I see none of ID supporters ideas to have any evidence. The entire video was god of the gaps. We dont know how something workds so god did it.

They seem to confuse abiogenesis "origin of life"and evolution "origin of the species".

Even if we had a some sort of ID creator we would then have to figure out their origin.

Of course the main problem i have with the video is that they provide no evidence for ID what so ever. The closest they got was suggesting that DNA is information that can only be created by Intelliegence. The only examples of design they gave were of human creations that we can verify in general being human designs. They could give no example of any information that was not man made.

Ironically enough they then started to talk about SETI and the search for ETs. I wonder how that would effect their view on Humans being made special....

[maroon1]

tell me what is this theory telling about the first kind of life that existed on earth, how this kind of life even existed?[/QUOTE]

Science is improving day by day, don't expect that science will be able to answer every question you ask...

The first form of life was very simple, most life forms where unicellular, I would say that the first life form evolved from less complex molecules (non-living things that have less complex structure)

how can something be created from nothing?

What has this to do with evolution ??!! Evolution doesn't say that things comes from noting !!

If noting can come out of noting....then from where did god come from ? I can use the same logic against you.....

can you create something or anything from nothing in labs?

Read the above

and as scientists in the video talked about the dna and its structure inwhich the DNA is like a huge DATAbase of information and instruction for the cells to act upon.

how did this information come to be formed ?

Step by step from mutation and natural selection

if you left your computer opened for millions of years even if there is a program wich generates random codes, what is the chances that this random codes will form an intelligent Operating system or even a dumb system like Windows ?

Natural selection is not applied to computer programs, nature has no effect on computer programs.

Evolution is natural process that happens slowly, step by step, by mutation and natural selection. It can be derived (in theory) from physics......


.................

To make the story short, here's an example of how natural selection works.

At anytime, at any fecondation, some mutation most probably happens. That is why no one looks exactly half his mother and half his father, ANYWAY, most mutations are unnoticed, and many are ineffective (not every genetical modification leads to a morphological modification)

First let's take something as universally agreed. If we have a floor colored in brown, and we have 2 mice on it, one brown and one white. Also, we have a hawk peeking from 20 meters high. Which mouse would most probably be noticed? Of course the chance will not be 50-50. If we do that experiment 1000 times, we will notice that a very high number will show that the white mouse will be noticed instead of the brown one that is hardly to identify on the brown floor.

I guess no one will have an issue in accepting that in this case, the brown mouse has a better probability of survival.

Now let me go back to the example, once there was a forest of trees having light colored (white-grey) trunks, in that forest there were a type of butterflies that have one of the two colors white or black. They are the same type, except that mutation led to have a different colored type. Those butterflies usually rest on the tree trunks, and in that forest it has been seen that the white butterflies exceed the black ones in numbers at a VERY HIGH ratio, it makes sense, because they can blend in the color of the trunks very easily, while the black ones have a less survival chance because they can be easily perceived.

What happened later is that a fire occured in that forest, and the trees became covered with a black layer from the fire. Guess what happened in the time that came later? The population & rate of survival of the white butterflies went to almost ZERO, while the place became abundant of black butterflies.

This is ONE aspect of natural selection, it's a very slow behavior, and it is NOT voluntary. It just happened that there were 2 types of butterflies, but the one with the most favorable color remained and the other was on its way to extinct (in that area).

[maroon1]

You may be right. God could have created a self-sustaining evolutionary process, but I can't imagine how the creation of something advanced (humans) from something very basic (bacteria) could happen without direct intervention by a Higher Power.

My friend, Evolution happens slowly step by step. It is just like a person climbing a huge mountain, he would climb the mountain step by step, then you will suddenly see him on the top of the mountain. Evolution works in the same way...and humans, monkeys, elephants and all those complex creatures are the result of billions of years of evolution.

could happen without direct intervention by a Higher Power.

This what religious people always say when they don't find an explanation to a phenomena......

[MustafaMc]

My friend, Evolution happens slowly step by step. It is just like a person climbing a huge mountain, he would climb the mountain step by step, then you will suddenly see him on the top of the mountain. Evolution works in the same way...and humans, monkeys, elephants and all those complex creatures are the result of billions of years of evolution.

Give me a single example where even a single point mutation that caused the substitution of a single nucleic acid in a strand of DNA that resulted in the substitution of a single amino acid of the polypeptide chain made the resulting 3-dimensional protein more efficient than the original form. The example that you gave about black and white butterflies (actually moths I think) is showing how natural selection exploits variability that already exists. We see the same thing with insecticide resistance in insects and herbicide resistance in weeds. The use of pesticides did not make the mutations rather they selected for survival of individuals with resistance genes.

Take the example of 3 bricks lying on the floor. How many times would you have to throw them up in the air for them to come down standing on end and stacked small end to small end 1 after the other like this:

[]
[]
[]

This extremely low probability bit with enough time guarantees its certainty just doesn't fly.

[MustafaMc]

The first form of life was very simple, most life forms where unicellular, I would say that the first life form evolved from less complex molecules (non-living things that have less complex structure)

So, all of the components of a single living cell came together by chance - yeah, right.:rollseyes

What has this to do with evolution ??!! Evolution doesn't say that things comes from noting !!

If noting can come out of noting....then from where did god come from ? I can use the same logic against you.....

Allah is outside of our ability to understand.

Read the above


Step by step from mutation and natural selection

Natural selection is not applied to computer programs, nature has no effect on computer programs.

Evolution is natural process that happens slowly, step by step, by mutation and natural selection. It can be derived (in theory) from physics......

.................

To make the story short, here's an example of how natural selection works.

At anytime, at any fecondation, some mutation most probably happens. That is why no one looks exactly half his mother and half his father, ANYWAY, most mutations are unnoticed, and many are ineffective (not every genetical modification leads to a morphological modification)

No, mutations don't explain why offspring don't appear as "half his mother and half his father". This is simple genetic recombination through sexual reproduction - AAbb (mother) X aaBB (father) > AaBb (offspring).

[ranma1/2]

So, all of the components of a single living cell came together by chance - yeah, right.:rollseyes


Allah is outside of our ability to understand.

No, mutations don't explain why offspring don't appear as "half his mother and half his father". This is simple genetic recombination through sexual reproduction - AAbb (mother) X aaBB (father) > AaBb (offspring).

So lets here one and all. Put down those dirty books and forget about the world and repeat after me.

God did it.

No need to understand things, God did it.

That darn Yawn of yours is caused by satan.

etc.. etc.. etc..

god did it.

[wilberhum]

So lets here one and all. Put down those dirty books and forget about the world and repeat after me.

God did it.

No need to understand things, God did it.

That darn Yawn of yours is caused by satan.

etc.. etc.. etc..

god did it.

If you have a three letter answer for everything, :playing:
it seams total lack of knowledge about every thing follows. :uuh:

[Pygoscelis]

So lets here one and all. Put down those dirty books and forget about the world and repeat after me.

God did it.

No need to understand things, God did it.

That darn Yawn of yours is caused by satan.

etc.. etc.. etc..

god did it.

MY god did it.

[جوري]

[QUOTE ]

maroon

My friend, Evolution happens slowly step by step. It is just like a person climbing a huge mountain, he would climb the mountain step by step, then you will suddenly see him on the top of the mountain. Evolution works in the same way...and humans, monkeys, elephants and all those complex creatures are the result of billions of years of evolution.

[/QUOTE]

I think these two rather long and well researched papers on evolution from a 'statistical physics', as well as the 'probability of randomly assembling a primitive cell on earth are an excellent measure of the 'step by step' process you speak of and seek? but in the way of conforming with modern principles and methods used in science rather than the awkward and bumpkinly vernacular account of various members...
Both authors have no interest in proving 'intelligent design' or G-d so to speak ( your inferences are your own!).. just plainly, the possibilities and improbabilities by means of modern science!...
I think it is better to read something worth while than deal in the usual pedantic rant which some members are only so and well equipped at disgorging! .. I don't know that I can handle another sharp rejoinder from the regular three stooges! :sarcasm smiley:

peace
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf

[Trumble]

Question for any creationists and ID fans who have read Melkikh's article (confession... the math rather passed me by; I'll take his word it!);

Do you consider it possible that God could have designed the "mechanism of deterministic evolution" Melkikh suggests, i.e by establishing the properties of proteins and nucleotides that predetermine the species possible? If so, would you accept that, logically, having done so there would be no need for subsequent intervention by God in the evolutionary process?

[جوري]

^^^ a petitio principii-- what is the point of this?

[Trumble]

^^^ a petitio principii-- what is the point of this?

No it isn't. Please read more carefully.

[جوري]

No it isn't. Please read more carefully.

I know you seek some sort of conclusion from this ( or I assume) I just would like to know what it is in advance-- That we are Petri dishes to a creator derelict in his duties ?

peace!

[Trumble]

That we are Petri dishes to a creator derelict in his duties ?

Hehe... no. Not exactly. :D

I've said before that I'm puzzled as to why people are so reluctant to dismiss the theory of evolution (accept in the case of man; I know there is a Qur'anic reason for that) when I see no reason that, if there is a God, the evolutionary mechanism itself could not be His creation. The argument repeated ad infinitum is that such and such could not have happened by 'chance', but if God 'designed' evolution no 'chance' is involved. If evolution is a reality, but the process was designed by God, then there is no reason why that mechanism alone should not be sufficient to create whatever species God wanted created... indeed assuming the usual properties assigned to God it is illogical that anything else (such as subsequent intervention) would be necessary. I think it just comes down to the automatic (but incorrect) association of evolution with atheism made by some posters - indeed one or two even seem to think 'evolutionist' and 'atheist' are synonyms!

I find Melkikh's article of particular interest as it puts a little 'meat on the bones' of the idea that the evolutionary mechanism could have been designed and what such a design might actually require in practical terms - although he does not suggest divine design himself, of course. I was just curious to see if something more concrete might have made people more receptive to the idea.

[InToTheRain]

A rational mind would lead to belief in God.

an Imaginative mind would lead to the belief in evolution :D

Im sure even as athiests undertand that if a plate has no chance of breaking perfectly in half; no matter how many times you smash it on the floor hoping it would. Therefore its quite rational to think that the earth and all things around us which has a far more complicated mechanism and origin has no chance of being the way it is without predetermined processes to facilitate its current design.

In my opinion, I believe no matter what the evidence is provided for or against the existence of God it cana never be 100% proof without a considerable shadow of a doubt because Life is a test and Allah(SWT) has given us freedom of choice to follow him or not; by giving undeniable proof that objective would be defeated as we would have no choice but to aknowledge him and obey his commands. Thus to maintain the purpose of the test and freedom of choice Allah(SWT) with his superior wisdom has made a balance such tht we can do as we please while leaving guidance or those who seek it.

[wilberhum]

Therefore its quite rational to think that the earth and all things around us which has a far more complicated mechanism and origin has no chance of being the way it is without predetermined processes to facilitate its current design.

But you assume the current condition is by design. You assume that all of this is the product of a multi billion year plan.
I assume that we are the result of billions of billions of random chances.

I believe no matter what the evidence is provided for or against the existence of God it cana never be 100&#37; proof without a considerable shadow of a doubt because Life is a test and Allah

See my signature.

[جوري]

Hehe... no. Not exactly. :D

ok ...:p

I've said before that I'm puzzled as to why people are so reluctant to dismiss the theory of evolution (accept in the case of man; I know there is a Qur'anic reason for that)

I am afraid you have lost me there [dismiss it, but accept it in man?] :confused:

when I see no reason that, if there is a God, the evolutionary mechanism itself could not be His creation. The argument repeated ad infinitum is that such and such could not have happened by 'chance', but if God 'designed' evolution no 'chance' is involved.

If evolution is a reality, but the process was designed by God, then there is no reason why that mechanism alone should not be sufficient to create whatever species God wanted created... indeed assuming the usual properties assigned to God it is illogical that anything else (such as subsequent intervention) would be necessary. I think it just comes down to the automatic (but incorrect) association of evolution with atheism made by some posters - indeed one or two even seem to think 'evolutionist' and 'atheist' are synonyms!

I find Melkikh's article of particular interest as it puts a little 'meat on the bones' of the idea that the evolutionary mechanism could have been designed and what such a design might actually require in practical terms - although he does not suggest divine design himself, of course. I was just curious to see if something more concrete might have made people more receptive to the idea.

What you propose is a tentative insight into the natural world; based on an a priori judgment ... you can not beyond a reasonable doubt verify certain aspects of it as true-- and if indeed true it wouldn't explain certain other facts or phenomena in the natural world. Such as those propositioned in the afore enclosed articles -- The physics and probability of these chance evolutionary encounters coming together, assembling a primitive cell from which all else ricocheted perfectly hence forth into the right direction so to speak! ...
Essentially what we are all doing is hypothesizing!.. I don't know or assume to know what G-D's plan is (from an evolutionary or a creation perspective) outside the confines studied and established by Islamic jurisprudence to further agree or disagree with what you have just proposed.... And certainly my religion or beliefs wouldn't be brought down to partial ruins if any of the hypothesis you propose or that are taught conventionally were to one day be proven as facts.
Atheist or not, everyone on some level has to agree that something very chimerical has happened at one point to give us this positive cascade.. a shower of perfect life favoring events.. irrespective of whom wants to label it what--- matter, energy interactions, or G-D!....
Something very fantastic and out of the ordinary has happened and continues to happen within ourselves and the universe, though most people go about without heed to cause or consequence...

peace!

[Malaikah]

Question for any creationists and ID fans who have read Melkikh's article (confession... the math rather passed me by; I'll take his word it!);

Do you consider it possible that God could have designed the "mechanism of deterministic evolution" Melkikh suggests, i.e by establishing the properties of proteins and nucleotides that predetermine the species possible? If so, would you accept that, logically, having done so there would be no need for subsequent intervention by God in the evolutionary process?

Hey, I didn't read the article, hope that doesn't effect my answer though. :X

Evolution happens through mutations, right? Mutations occur randomly (though directed by God, in my belief) and they escape the cells repair mechanisms, so they might to some extent be reflective of the cells bias in being able to correct mutations but not others, but overall I think that "subsequent intervention by God" would still be needed to direct the type of mutations that happen.

[MustafaMc]

I've said before that I'm puzzled as to why people are so reluctant to dismiss the theory of evolution (accept in the case of man; I know there is a Qur'anic reason for that) when I see no reason that, if there is a God, the evolutionary mechanism itself could not be His creation. The argument repeated ad infinitum is that such and such could not have happened by 'chance', but if God 'designed' evolution no 'chance' is involved. If evolution is a reality, but the process was designed by God, then there is no reason why that mechanism alone should not be sufficient to create whatever species God wanted created... indeed assuming the usual properties assigned to God it is illogical that anything else (such as subsequent intervention) would be necessary. I think it just comes down to the automatic (but incorrect) association of evolution with atheism made by some posters - indeed one or two even seem to think 'evolutionist' and 'atheist' are synonyms!

I understand that your point is if God created the process of evolution, then there is no need form Him to continually direct and tweak the process because it does what it was supposed to do. Of course, if God made the process, it has to be perfect and return the intended result all by itself.

Please, humor me and allow the use of an analogy. Suppose that I have a brand new red Ford Mustang that runs perfectly and I want to go to the the mall to buy my wife some perfume. I get in the driver seat, start the engine, put the automatic transmission in gear, turn the radio to my favorite station, and then recline the seat to rest while my new car takes me to the mall and parks close to the entrance so I don't have far to walk. What is the probability that the car will actually make it to the mall without me "directing" the trip by changing the gear selector from reverese to drive, making a left turn out of my driveway, traversing all the curves to the next turn and finally turning right into the mall parking lot and finding an open parking space? There may come a time when this is a poor analogy, but today what do you imagine the probability is of my car getting to the mall all by itself? Given an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of cars, will even one of them only one time do as I want it to do?

I find Melkikh's article of particular interest as it puts a little 'meat on the bones' of the idea that the evolutionary mechanism could have been designed and what such a design might actually require in practical terms - although he does not suggest divine design himself, of course. I was just curious to see if something more concrete might have made people more receptive to the idea.

Actually, you missed the central point or word - deterministic as opposed to casual.

de·ter·min·ism
1 a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws b : a belief in predestination
2 : the quality or state of being determined

versus

ca·su·al
1 : subject to, resulting from, or occurring by chance

Quoting from the article:

"Thus, the probability that mutated nucleotides prove to be exactly the ones needed for formation of a new species is vanishingly small: new species of organisms could not appear due to undirected mutations."

"Thus, species could not appear due to undirected mutations. Therefore, a considerable part of mutations and operations of the horizontal transport of genes are directed to creation of new organisms a priori adapted to new ecological conditions. In this case, the very mechanism of evolution changes drastically: it turns from casual to determined."

"The structure and chemical properties of nucleotides, amino acids and other substances essential for life are such that changes in the genome, which lead to appearance of new species, becomes controllable. The formation of new species represents a deterministic process approaching the morphogenesis."

Bottom line is that the author was making a strong case against random mutations as the source for the genetic variability needed for natural selection to act upon. By saying that new species could not appear due to undirected mutations, he is making the case that the mutations are controlled or directed to drive the evolutionary process for a new, predetermined (designed) species to fit into a niche. Although he does not say who or what is directing the process, we believers call this entity God or Allah.

[MustafaMc]

Question for any creationists and ID fans who have read Melkikh's article (confession... the math rather passed me by; I'll take his word it!);

Do you consider it possible that God could have designed the "mechanism of deterministic evolution" Melkikh suggests, i.e by establishing the properties of proteins and nucleotides that predetermine the species possible? If so, would you accept that, logically, having done so there would be no need for subsequent intervention by God in the evolutionary process?

It seems that you paraphrased part of the conclusion in his article:

"The structure and chemical properties of nucleotides, amino acids and other substances essential for life are such that changes in the genome, which lead to appearance of new species, become controllable. The formation of new species represents a deterministic process approaching the morphogenesis."

The point is that the the properties of proteins and nucleotides are such that the process of changes in the genetic blueprint becomes controllable. Controllabe/deterministic is contrary to random/casual. This article is calling for a paradigm shift in scientific thinking about evolution. Another way of saying it is deterministic Intelligent Design Evolution vs random Naturalistic Evolution.

[جوري]

Please, humor me and allow the use of an analogy. Suppose that I have a brand new red Ford Mustang that runs perfectly and I want to go to the the mall to buy my wife some perfume. I get in the driver seat, start the engine, put the automatic transmission in gear, turn the radio to my favorite station, and then recline the seat to rest while my new car takes me to the mall and parks close to the entrance so I don't have far to walk. What is the probability that the car will actually make it to the mall without me "directing" the trip by changing the gear selector from reverese to drive, making a left turn out of my driveway, traversing all the curves to the next turn and finally turning right into the mall parking lot and finding an open parking space? There may come a time when this is a poor analogy, but today what do you imagine the probability is of my car getting to the mall all by itself? Given an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of cars, will even one of them only one time do as I want it to do?
.

:sl:
Sobhan Allah when I read that I thought if only one would consider an event in one tiny cell made to ensure a functional protein one that must contain 130 amino acid residues.. after the painstaking task of transcription we end up with a mRNA that contains both introns and exons.. this type of RNA would be called pre-RNA or HetroNuclear RNA, it must be processed to mature mRNA by post-transcriptional modification which includes 5' methyl guanisine capping and the addition of a 3' poly A tail and splicing only the exons that contain the proper nucleotide, base pair it all in the CORRECT order to result in an appropriate FUNCTIONAL protein, the introns would excised before translation by splicer protein.. Anything non-functional would be recognized and removed... and this happens round the clock in all cells which carry out different function, each in an of itself carrying the entire genetic code and is programmed to perform its specific function. a beta cell will produce its insulin a fibroblast its collagen, though each having the ability to basically do anything it wants... contrast that with any human run factory, have you known a factory to function on its own accord round the clock even the death of its members is programmed so that nothing is disorderly under normal physiological conditions? Have you known a factory to function at all with no staff and no management, and no end product for no apparent reason?
Sometimes I get weary having to write that which should be obscenely obvious even to someone suffering extreme form of myopia. Certain times when I have a lucid to myself moment, I feel rather glad we have such refractory beings in our midst who pose such derisory and preposterous comments and observation to the world around them.. It makes for a special gift for the rare few who choose to reflect!..
:w:

[Trumble]

Please, humor me and allow the use of an analogy. Suppose that I have a brand new red Ford Mustang that runs perfectly and I want to go to the the mall to buy my wife some perfume. I get in the driver seat, start the engine, put the automatic transmission in gear, turn the radio to my favorite station, and then recline the seat to rest while my new car takes me to the mall and parks close to the entrance so I don't have far to walk. What is the probability that the car will actually make it to the mall without me "directing" the trip by changing the gear selector from reverese to drive, making a left turn out of my driveway, traversing all the curves to the next turn and finally turning right into the mall parking lot and finding an open parking space? There may come a time when this is a poor analogy, but today what do you imagine the probability is of my car getting to the mall all by itself? Given an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of cars, will even one of them only one time do as I want it to do?

It's a feeble analogy now. Sticking with it for a moment, unlike the designers of the Ford Mustang, God must be able to design a car that not only runs perfectly but allows you to tell it to go to the mall, drives you there in perfect safety (just like everyone else on the road) and wakes you up when you get there. The only thing 'directing' the trip would be the car itself, according to pre-programmed information (which actually is a reasonable analogy with Melkikh). If God designed the car, He would not subsequently be needed to turn the wheel and shift gear unless for some reason He chose a sub-optimal design.

Actually, you missed the central point or word - deterministic as opposed to casual.

Actually, I did nothing of the sort.

The point is that the the properties of proteins and nucleotides are such that the process of changes in the genetic blueprint becomes controllable. Controllabe/deterministic is contrary to random/casual. This article is calling for a paradigm shift in scientific thinking about evolution. Another way of saying it is deterministic Intelligent Design Evolution vs random Naturalistic Evolution.

An interesting interpretation, but not Dr Melkikh's! He is suggesting an alternative to intelligent design as a solution for the problem he perceives, (as is made clear here) suggesting both the nature of the 'molecular machine' and the source of it's data.

"The problem is that the Darwin mechanism of the evolution (a random process) cannot explain the known rate of the species evolution. In accordance with the very first estimates, the total number of possible combinations of nucleotides in the DNA is about 4^(2 * 10^9) (because four types of nucleotides are available, while the number of nucleotides in the DNA of higher organisms is about 2*10^9). This figure is much larger than the number of all organisms, which have ever lived on Earth. Therefore, the evolution was not random. [...] From the viewpoint of the theory of random evolution, all genes are equal (no more or less important genes may exist), because all of them appeared by random mutations. In this case, an organism cannot know beforehand which genes it will need in the distant future. Thus, either a molecular or some other machine exists deciding on further evolution. However, such a machine will require certain reference samples for its operation establishing what is and what is not important for an organism. Or this machine [or Intelligent Designer] does not exist and, then, it is impossible to make a decision. There is no criterion to confirm that a set of nucleotides is the best one in a given situation."

Out of interest, HERE is the only peer review of the article I could find.

You have an interesting idea here, but I'm afraid that your analysis is quite unsound. It is unfortunate that you did not present a derivation for your first equation, which you rely upon to refute the possibility of Darwinian evolution. If there were a derivation one could point with more certainty as to where you went wrong. Here, however, are some thoughts.
As a subsidiary matter, there are other modes of mutation than nucleotide substitution, e.g., transposons, and chromosomal alterations. It may well be that nucleotide substitution, although important for genetic drift, is relatively unimportant as a mechanism for macroevolution. However the restriction to nucleotide substitution is not a critical source of error.

There is no appeciation of population dynamics and a misunderstanding of the nature of niches and their role in evolution.

The notion of a potential well as the maximum number of nucleotides that change before a species (or members of a species) become another species is interesting and may even be of some statistical utility. However the simple fact is that there is no such single numbers. In some cases different species can be separated by a handful of genomic differences. Contrariwise the members of a single species can have substantial differences in their genomes. It all depends on which genes are affected and in what way.

The crucial error may be a probability theory fallacy, that of calculating an a priori probability of some particular result and than claiming that the resulting small number means that the possibility of any change is remote. I suspect that the route that you took to get there is a belief that speciation and niche change are equivalent. This is not at all true. The number of potential species that could evolve from a given species is immense, and is vastly larger than the number of niches those potential species could occupy. For that matter it can happen that a given species can change niches.

That the paper's argument against the possibility of Darwinian evolution is fallacious is scarcely surprising. After all, Darwinian evolution has been exensively observed and studied both in the laboratory and in nature.

In the second part of your paper you introduce the idea of elementary particles having a complex inner structure. There is no particular experimental evidence for this notion, nor is there any place for such structures in current theory. Indeed, the experimental results that seem to rule out "no hidden variables" militate against the idea. Be that as it may, the idea is an interesting speculative possibility. More substance is required, however, for it to be more than handwaving. The notion of particle inner structure driving evolution is somewhat less plausible.

Sorry, nice try, but it doesn't fly.

[Abdul Fattah]

Oh my I can't believe I missed out on this movie so long, subhanAllah these computersimulations are beatifull. I'd like to see root defend abiogensis and the chemical evolution of proteins by meteors hitting earth after watching this video.

[root]

Oh my I can't believe I missed out on this movie so long, subhanAllah these computersimulations are beatifull. I'd like to see root defend abiogensis and the chemical evolution of proteins by meteors hitting earth after watching this video.

What video?

[vpb]

A human is a level above animals, because he can believe in the unseen. How? bc we have the intelligence to discuss about something we haven't seen and come to the conclusion that it exists. Use our intellect. while animals believe only on things that their senses can feel. Indeed if a person rejects the belief on things which can't be seen has come on the same level with the animal, and has the same level of intelligence as i.e. a donkey.

The greatest stupidity is to say "No it doesn't exist" about something that you dont have knowledge of.

[Abdul Fattah]

What video?

Hi root,
The one of the opening post.

[ranma1/2]

A human is a level above animals, because he can believe in the unseen. How? bc we have the intelligence to discuss about something we haven't seen and come to the conclusion that it exists. Use our intellect. while animals believe only on things that their senses can feel. Indeed if a person rejects the belief on things which can't be seen has come on the same level with the animal, and has the same level of intelligence as i.e. a donkey.

The greatest stupidity is to say "No it doesn't exist" about something that you dont have knowledge of.

humans are no more above other animals than hippos are above us.
Other animals have been shown to have intellegence and we have discussed this in other threads. And I can think of many ways that animals exceed humans. It seems to be a very arbitray choice to pick intel over other aspects. I would think animals could be considered better since they arent as self distructive as humans are. They kill in general for survival. Humans do it for greed, power, jealousy etc.... of course im sure other animals may do these as well but humans excel at it.

[MustafaMc]

It's a feeble analogy now. Sticking with it for a moment, unlike the designers of the Ford Mustang, God must be able to design a car that not only runs perfectly but allows you to tell it to go to the mall, drives you there in perfect safety (just like everyone else on the road) and wakes you up when you get there. The only thing 'directing' the trip would be the car itself, according to pre-programmed information (which actually is a reasonable analogy with Melkikh). If God designed the car, He would not subsequently be needed to turn the wheel and shift gear unless for some reason He chose a sub-optimal design.

Sounds like "Intelliegent Design" just got surpassed by "Super Intelligent Design". Or do you still contend that the evolutionary process is a result of random mutations and natural selection without the involvement of a Higher Power?

[vpb]

humans are no more above other animals than hippos are above us.
Other animals have been shown to have intellegence and we have discussed this in other threads. And I can think of many ways that animals exceed humans. It seems to be a very arbitray choice to pick intel over other aspects. I would think animals could be considered better since they arent as self distructive as humans are.

so you think you are on the same level as a donkey??? ;D
would you have a problem from now on if I call you a donkey since "we are the same" ???

hmmm, I wonder why NONE of the animals managed to go to space or build a computer...hmmmmm

They kill in general for survival. Humans do it for greed, power, jealousy etc.... of course im sure other animals may do these as well but humans excel at it.

yes, this exactly proves that humans are above animals. bc animals only live an animal life, while humans live either to satisfy their desires which leads to hell, or obey Allah swt which leads to paradise.

[ranma1/2]

so you think you are on the same level as a donkey??? ;D
would you have a problem from now on if I call you a donkey since "we are the same" ???

hmmm, I wonder why NONE of the animals managed to go to space or build a computer...hmmmmm

yes, this exactly proves that humans are above animals. bc animals only live an animal life, while humans live either to satisfy their desires which leads to hell, or obey Allah swt which leads to paradise.

well to be honest i know many a person that are Asses. :)
Now being all superior and such you can swim underwater without hodling your breath right? you can outrun a lion? you can fly? other animals have advantages that are beyond you. You only pick intel since its the one thing we might excel at over other animals.

Then again as stated before. Other animals cant destroy on the level we can. In that aspect i see other animals as better than us.

[Trumble]

Sounds like "Intelliegent Design" just got surpassed by "Super Intelligent Design". Or do you still contend that the evolutionary process is a result of random mutations and natural selection without the involvement of a Higher Power?

I never have contended that. I don't rule out a "Higher Power" of some sort being responsible for the evolutionary mechanism itself, only that that mechanism would need tinkering with afterwards. ID, which suggests just such tinkering, is incoherent with the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God. In which case, if one exists, the other cannot exist. Therefore if God exists, ID cannot.

hmmm, I wonder why NONE of the animals managed to go to space or build a computer...hmmmmm

Perhaps they had no need to do so? Whales and dolphins are considered quite bright as animals go.. what need would they have to go into space or build a computer? They can swim far faster than we can walk. Food is all around them. They have no need of shelter. They can communicate unaided across vast distances. And of course, lets think what else they and NONE of the animals have managed to do. Kill millions of their fellows in ideological and religious disputes. Build atom bombs. Create global warming with their pollution. Kill off large numbers of other species in the belief they are are somehow 'special' and entitled to use the world and its resources as they see fit? Hmmm......

[root]

Hi root,
The one of the opening post.

I watched it all. All it represented was the smudging of evolution & the origins of life which we all agree are two differing entities, the rest was just Behe of the discovery institute and his emty box.

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/...ublished.shtml

No talk of abiogenesis nor panspermia at all other than in the context of the theory of evolution...........

Diisapointed so i am.

[MustafaMc]

I never have contended that. I don't rule out a "Higher Power" of some sort being responsible for the evolutionary mechanism itself, only that that mechanism would (not?) need tinkering with afterwards. ID, which suggests just such tinkering, is incoherent with the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God. In which case, if one exists, the other cannot exist. Therefore if God exists, ID cannot.

I am sure that you understand what you are trying to say, but I am having major difficulty in understanding why you think that ID evolution is incompatible with an omnipotent God.

It has been 14 years since I minored in molecular biology, but I still have some understanding of developmental biology and gene expression. During the development of an individual from a single fertilized egg (>zygote) different genes are expressed in space and time even though all living cells of that individual are genetically identical. This process apparently occurs according to an extremely fine-tuned, pre-programmed plan that was set at the moment of fertilization. Initially, the zygote appears to be just a glob of undifferentiated cells, but there comes a time when one cell or set of cells is set to become a specific organ or appendage while others are set to become other organs. From what I remember, the position that cells occupy in the zygote relative to other cells determines the unique expression of specific regulatory genes that subsequently turn on some genes and turn off others. The process continues such that the organism starts to take some shape but with an amazing similarity between the embryos of different classes, orders, families, genera, and species. As the individual further differentiates, the fetuses of different taxonomical classifications start to become distinct from other organisms such that a hippo fetus becomes distinguishable from a human one. At birth most individuals of each species look and act pretty much the same as other individuals of the same species. Even though there are obvious differences such as black and white, male and female, how much and color of hair, length and weight, the full development of the individual continues long after birth.

All of this discourse was meant as an analogy with evolution. I have some understanding of how the genetic potential of an individual is set at fertilization and apparently doesn't need the continued direct intervention of God to become realized. I personally believe that God created the biological process and that He does not need to direct the division and differentiation of each and every cell in each and every individual that has ever existed. (Note: God's involvement in individual development can neither be proven nor disproven.)

If I understand you correctly, you believe the same way about the evolutionary process. That IF God was involved in the development of all new species that has ever existed, the fullest extent of that involvement could have been no more than the creation of the evolutionary mechanism. The following definition is also my understanding of naturalistic evolution. Is there an essential element that is missing?

Wikipedia
A species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another. However, when a species is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and the selection of different traits by different environments cause the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of new species. The similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.

Genetic mutation is the fundamental source for genetic variation that ultimately yields new species. How can a destructive process (mutation) be the cornerstone in a creative mechanism (evolution) that has yielded all existing and extinct species from a single unicellular organism without a Higher Power (God) directing the process? Whether God designed the perfect species-creating process (evolution) or personally created each and every species that has ever existed (creation), what is the point of trying to prove one over the other? Why are you so adamant in trying to prove that God does not direct the creation of new life forms?

[Trumble]

I am sure that you understand what you are trying to say, but I am having major difficulty in understanding why you think that ID evolution is incompatible with an omnipotent God.

I can't make it any clearer, I'm afraid. I think you may be having difficulty because you seem to think I am making some sort of scientific argument. I am not, I am making a purely philosophical argument.

Whether God designed the perfect species-creating process (evolution) or personally created each and every species that has ever existed (creation), what is the point of trying to prove one over the other?

Exactly! What is the point of trying to prove one over the other? But it isn't me trying to do that, it's the creationist contingent who insist of doing it. Those two are the only logically coherent options, I have demonstrated that ID is not (although obviously not to your satisfaction).

The point is that the first option is wholly compatible with Darwinian evolution while the second is totally incompatible with it. But both options are equally compatible with the existence of God ('Darwinism' does not equal 'atheism'), so why do so many people insist on denying that evolution by natural selection exists?

[MustafaMc]

I can't make it any clearer, I'm afraid. I think you may be having difficulty because you seem to think I am making some sort of scientific argument. I am not, I am making a purely philosophical argument.



Exactly! What is the point of trying to prove one over the other? But it isn't me trying to do that, it's the creationist contingent who insist of doing it. Those two are the only logically coherent options, I have demonstrated that ID is not (although obviously not to your satisfaction).

The point is that the first option is wholly compatible with Darwinian evolution while the second is totally incompatible with it. But both options are equally compatible with the existence of God ('Darwinism' does not equal 'atheism'), so why do so many people insist on denying that evolution by natural selection exists?

Perhaps you can see why I reject natural selection (NS) evolution if we make an analogy between the development of a single human from a fertilized egg with the evolution of the human species from a single unicellular common ancestor. We can use our imagination to see that as we developed in our mother's womb, each of us went through a mini-evolution within only 9 months. The difference with NS evo is that the entire blueprint for an individual is contained within that fertilized egg and it exists in the perfect incubatory environment to become realized. In the common ancestor there was not a complete blueprint for the development of each and every species. The simple act (according to NS evo) of going from a unicelluar prokaryotic organism such as a bacterium to a complex eukaryotic organism with bilateral symmetry is too complex to have happened without a Creator. Take the Mona Lisa painting as an example. If, rather than da Vinci painstakingly applying the paint to the canvas with a brush, what would the painting have looked like if he used his fingers instead and was blindfolded? How many times would he have to repeat the process for it to come out like the one in the museum? Just as this is an impossibility so too do I see undirected NS evo as the means for the origin of species.

Take the single globular protein hemoglobin that is essential for all multicellular animals. This protein is composed of 4 protein subunits each with a heme group containg iron. The sole purpose for hemoglobin is to transport oxygen from the lungs throughout the body and to return carbon dioxide from throughout the body back to the lungs for expulsion.

Wikipedia
Hemoglobin (Hb) is synthesized in a complex series of steps. The heme portion is synthesized in a series of steps which occur in the mitochondria and the cytosol of the immature red blood cell, while the globin protein portions of the molecule are synthesized by ribosomes in the cytosol. ... Mutations in the genes for the hemoglobin protein in humans result in a group of hereditary diseases termed the hemoglobinpathies, the best known of which is sickle-cell disease.

To my knowledge, there is no hemoblobin in any unicellular organism. The construction of a single protein unit of hemoglobin cannot evolve without a Creator. We see that mutations don't create a better hemoglobin rather they yield a less functional one that renders the individual less, not more, fit than the unmutated one. My understanding of science renders NS evo as completely illogical and statistically impossible. I stand back, look at the creation and say, "Glory to Allah the Creator of all that exists!"

[ranma1/2]

it would seem you have no understanding of NS or EVO.

[MustafaMc]

it would seem you have no understanding of NS or EVO.

Well, since you apparently do have a thorough understanding of naturalistic evolution, then put forth an explanation that I can understand.

Start with a common ancestor and explain how each major species came to exist. Do so in your own words without pasting an evo website and telling me to go read for myself.

[جوري]

Actually wilbur, since you are here to set a courageous example, please explain to us how the process of evolution advanced so as to let the following occur-- DNA replication requires a high degree of fidelity in order to preserve the genetic code in daughter cells and prevent lethal mutations. This high fidelity is accompanied by 3' to 5' proof reading exonuclease activity of DNA which removes one nucelotide at a time from the end of a DNA chain. Yet there is just one enzyme specifically which executes the process from the 5' to 3' position to allow exonuclease acitvity which facilitats, or I should rather say functions to remove the RNA primer, which enzyme is that? and how did it evolve sentience to be aware of its very specific function? further why would a process that works hard to maintain that high fidelity allow at some point for many a random mutation whose very nature, we are not quite sure of to allow for this 'budding' so to speak from a primogenitor into such things as butterflies, and rabbits, fishes and trees, lizards and humans, stars and glaxies, lakes and mountains etc etc etc..

You want to live a G-D free life by all means, no one is imposing any sort of philosophical or theological life style on you, and I rather think it a relief, since being religious takes devotion and cultivation that is in and of itself remarkable and life long to perfect-- you are welcome to be what you are-- but again enough with the embarrassingly cheesy one liners, since you can't beyond a shadow of a doubt explain just one minute wonder of life. Even with the help of your little buddy using references to a website, none of you can integrate appositely the material which you so like to drop as if a famous celebrity, to be in concert with the debate at hand.

Truly this is the new form of opium for the unlearned to hide in their false pretenses!

[ranma1/2]

Edit: I already told you, no arguing by links.
and please try not to get to offensive when posting. attacking the arguments should be sufficient, no need to attack the arguer.

[جوري]

Well, since you apparently do have a thorough understanding of naturalistic evolution, then put forth an explanation that I can understand.

Start with a common ancestor and explain how each major species came to exist. Do so in your own words without pasting an evo website and telling me to go read for myself.

:sl:
Watch out akhi, here comes the dull blade of the butter knife.. are you feeling the ingenuity of that piercing criticism? Almost leaves you at a loss for word... Thank God for the atheistical presence on this board.. without them we'd be all cloudy and confounded...

:w:

[MustafaMc]

MustafaMc:
Well, since you apparently do have a thorough understanding of naturalistic evolution, then put forth an explanation that I can understand.

Start with a common ancestor and explain how each major species came to exist. Do so in your own words without pasting an evo website and telling me to go read for myself.

which major species? do you have a lists?

bacteria - E.coli
plant - rose
insect - ant
bird - eagle
fish - piranha
animal - human

and why dont you want to learn?

But I do want to learn. I have explained in my own words how we develop from a single fertilized zygote to a mature human. Why can't you do the same even in simplistic terminology how evo gave us each species from a common ancestor? Perhaps, you don't want to embarass yourself.

as for going from a step by step explaination i wont bother.

In other words you CAN"T even provide a simple logical explanation for how naturalistic evolution works, but I am not surprised.

You wont read and its unimportant if you cant even read the basics.

But I will read what YOU write, not what you wholesale cut and paste.

SO... go to berkley or talk origin. Read.
Thats all im gonna bother with your posts.

Why, oh why, am I not surprised by your response? See my message above.

Since you can't explain how natural evolution gave us the species, how is your belief in the god called evolution different from my belief in the one God, Allah? You offer no more than evolution did it. How is that different from me saying that Allah created each species?

[ranma1/2]

bacteria - E.coli
plant - rose
insect - ant
bird - eagle
fish - piranha
animal - human

But I do want to learn. ...
But I will read what YOU write, not what you wholesale cut and paste.
...
Since you can't explain how natural evolution gave us the species, how is your belief in the god called evolution different from my belief in the one God, Allah? You offer no more than evolution did it. How is that different from me saying that Allah created each species?

if you want to learn the read, it doesnt matter if its a cut and paste, a link or some other valid source. I sincerly doubt you want to or you would.

you want to know how natural evo gave us a variety in the species. Simple.
imperfect replication plus selection creates the variety. "a very very very basic explanation" NOw go read.

[vpb]

Now being all superior and such you can swim underwater without hodling your breath right?

with our intelligence we have achieve to stay underwater :) (ie. submarine, breathing tools etc.).

you can outrun a lion?

yes, just let me take a motorcycle.

you can fly?

Yes I can. I just get on the plane.

You only pick intel since its the one thing we might excel at over other animals.

You can't make comparisons with things you just made. Would computer be a level above us just bc they can perform calculations? of course not.
We will always be a level above animals, technology, since we can control them. That is the thing that you measure the levels, it is the control, the power to control something else, and it's not by the abilities. Should we count a tank as something a level above us, just bc it is made from metal? it's a useless comparison.

Now being all superior and such you can swim underwater without hodling your breath right? you can outrun a lion? you can fly? other animals have advantages that are beyond you. You only pick intel since its the one thing we might excel at over other animals.

Then again as stated before. Other animals cant destroy on the level we can. In that aspect i see other animals as better than us.

2:30. Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."

Perhaps they had no need to do so? Whales and dolphins are considered quite bright as animals go.. what need would they have to go into space or build a computer? They can swim far faster than we can walk. Food is all around them. They have no need of shelter. They can communicate unaided across vast distances. And of course, lets think what else they and NONE of the animals have managed to do. Kill millions of their fellows in ideological and religious disputes. Build atom bombs. Create global warming with their pollution. Kill off large numbers of other species in the belief they are are somehow 'special' and entitled to use the world and its resources as they see fit? Hmmm......

Perhaps they had no need to do so? Whales and dolphins are considered quite bright as animals go.. what need would they have to go into space or build a computer? They can swim far faster than we can walk. Food is all around them. They have no need of shelter. They can communicate unaided across vast distances. And of course, lets think what else they and NONE of the animals have managed to do. Kill millions of their fellows in ideological and religious disputes. Build atom bombs. Create global warming with their pollution. Kill off large numbers of other species in the belief they are are somehow 'special' and entitled to use the world and its resources as they see fit? Hmmm......

Yep :)

[ranma1/2]

with our intelligence we have achieve to stay underwater :) (ie. submarine, breathing tools etc.).
yes, just let me take a motorcycle.

Yes I can. I just get on the plane.

You can't make comparisons with things you just made. Would computer be a level above us just bc they can perform calculations? of course not.
We will always be a level above animals, technology, since we can control them. That is the thing that you measure the levels, it is the control, the power to control something else, and it's not by the abilities. Should we count a tank as something a level above us, just bc it is made from metal? it's a useless comparison.

2:30. Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."


Yep :)

so mohamad could outrun lions on his bike? no. ang id you go back a 2000, 1000 years ago we were not as technologically advanced so your resort to technology fails. Not to mention what you could do. Cna you build a bike or sub or plane from scratch.

Also it seems that you are making the might makes right argument.

and my comparision works. im not sure what your comment ment though.
Humans are good at what we have adapted at. We have many flaws and suck at many things other animals excell at.

Take 1 year old lion and a 1 year old baby and see who lives.

etc. etc.. etc..
You still havent commented on how superior we are at killing each other for no good reason as opposed to other animals.


Fact is. We are not any more "special" than a toad.

[vpb]

You still havent commented on how superior we are at killing each other for no good reason as opposed to other animals.

if you believe the concept of day of judgement, and intelligence of humans, and the evil (ie. shaytan) that affect humans you will understand why humans do bad things.

It is only humans that break the law of Allah swt , bc of the arrogance, where we have come to the point that people like you deny existence of God, and the natural thoughts of a human.

I hope you are not among the people who Allah has stamped their hearts, and will always be on the side of disbelief.

Fact is. We are not any more "special" than a toad.

I don;t know what to say. You just showed me the level of your thinking :).

La hawla wa la quwatta illah billah.

[Encolpius]

I'm waiting for the old "Darwin was a racist" straw man to rear its ugly head here.

[ranma1/2]

if you believe the concept of day of judgement, and intelligence of humans, and the evil (ie. shaytan) that affect humans you will understand why humans do bad things.

It is only humans that break the law of Allah swt , bc of the arrogance, where we have come to the point that people like you deny existence of God, and the natural thoughts of a human.

I hope you are not among the people who Allah has stamped their hearts, and will always be on the side of disbelief.

I don;t know what to say. You just showed me the level of your thinking :).
La hawla wa la quwatta illah billah.

I do not belive in a day of judgement. Nor a actual good or evil. "perhaps you could give me your opinion". I believe good and evil are subjective.
As for anys "laws" of any god. the good ones we dont need to be told since society helps with those and there are quite a few bad ones that i just disagree with.
and why would a god stamp someones heart?