PDA

View Full Version : Another scientific fact that killed the Bible



Philosopher
06-19-2007, 01:39 AM
Retroviruses randomly themselves almost anywhere on the DNA. When the DNA replicates, it replicates with the virus because that virus is now part of the DNA. Humans and chimpanzees share many of the same retroviruses in the exact same locations on the genome. The odds of a retrovirus inserting itself into any one shared portion of DNA between humans and chimps is 1 in 3,000,000,000.

For it to insert itself on the exact same spot in both chimpanzees and humans, if we didn't share a common evolutionary ancestor, the odds would have to be 1 in 3,000,000,000^2, or one 1 in 9,000,000,000,000,000,000. It would also have to happen multiple times. For it to happen twice, the oods would have to be 1 in 3,000,000,000^4 which is just too large to type. Yet, it happens more than twice.

In fact, just googling, I found over 100 shared retrovirus locations with chimps and humans. For these not to be a product of common evolutionary ancestors, the odds are 1 in 3,000,000,000^200. That number is so huge that I don't even think it has a name.

Basically, for humans and chimps to share just 1 common retrovirus location, 18,000,000,0000,000,000,000 retroviruses would have to insert themselves. To share over 100 locations, 3,000,000,000^200 times 2 retroviruses would have to insert themselves. Our DNA would be nothing but retroviruses.

The odds of chimps and humans not sharing a common ancestor are thus astronomical.

The Bible says that humans were created out of dirt. However, dirt doesn't catch retroviruses because it doesn't have any DNA. So, the Bible is fiction.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Abdul Fattah
06-19-2007, 02:03 AM
Actually recent studies have showed that retroviri don't insert random at all.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1128010951.htm
extract:
A human DNA-associated protein called LEDGF is the first such molecule found to control the location of HIV integration in human cells, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. This study, published in this week's early online edition of Nature Medicine, describes the first clear target for modulating where viruses insert into the human genome, which has implications for better design of gene-therapy delivery. Retroviral vectors are often used to introduce therapeutic genetic sequences into human chromosomes, such as in the delivery of Factor VIII for hemophilia patients.

So that completely decimates those unprobable odds.
Reply

glo
06-20-2007, 07:14 PM
I can't get my head around your thinking, Philosopher ...

Impressive as your scientific approach may be, I fail to see what it has to do with Genesis.
The Bible is not a science book! I never will be. And it has never claimed to be ...

Peace
Reply

wilberhum
06-20-2007, 07:29 PM
Originally Posted by glo
I can't get my head around your thinking, Philosopher ...

Impressive as your scientific approach may be, I fail to see what it has to do with Genesis.
The Bible is not a science book! I never will be. And it has never claimed to be ...

Peace
I think it is sad when anyone tries to make a holy book a science book. :exhausted

If god had anything to do with these books, and I don’t think he did, surly he did not intend them to be a science books. :skeleton:
Reply

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

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Trumble
06-20-2007, 08:13 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
I think it is sad when anyone tries to make a holy book a science book.
I don't think its "sad" but I'm always puzzled why anybody bothers.

The muslim approach seems to be taking something that makes perfect sense in the established context and replacing it with something that makes no sense whatsoever in the same context just because it bears a (very) vague resemblance to something somebody spotted in Scientific American . Bafflingly, this is thought to give the Qur'an more credibility rather than less.

The fundamentalist Christian approach is rather less subtle; it just involves pretending the actual science doesn't exist and declaring what is in Genesis IS the science. Next thing you know somebody is putting up creationist theme parks where waxwork happy human children frolic joyfully at the feet of their (presumably vegetarian) dinosaur contemporaries. And I'm not taling about Barney.

Both are crazy, IMHO. Neither religion needs propping up with such obvious nonsense.
Reply

snakelegs
06-20-2007, 08:17 PM
i don't believe in the bible but i am always amazed that some atheists are such devotees.
Reply

Malaikah
06-23-2007, 02:07 AM
Originally Posted by glo
Impressive as your scientific approach may be, I fail to see what it has to do with Genesis.
The Bible is not a science book! I never will be. And it has never claimed to be ...
He is trying to prove creation didn't happen and that we are evolutionarily related to apes.

The thing I don't understand is why he spared Judaism and Islam, since they also believe in creation.
Reply

ranma1/2
06-23-2007, 04:29 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
He is trying to prove creation didn't happen and that we are evolutionarily related to apes.

The thing I don't understand is why he spared Judaism and Islam, since they also believe in creation.
Assuming he is american, i think its becuase of the christian power that that is his main target.
Reply

Eric H
06-23-2007, 05:01 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Philosopher;

If there is no God then something had to have no beginning; or something had to come from nothing before the universe could come into existence.

Life had to come from no life, and branch out into several million species of plant and animal life sharing much of their DNA.

Then your odds become even more astronomical, meaningless and impossible.

Just my beliefs.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
Reply

MuhammadRizan
06-23-2007, 05:14 AM
SALAM.

I'm surely not a scientist..may i ask question?

1.why are not all apes evolve into human?
2.apes evolve from what?
Reply

Eric H
06-23-2007, 05:16 AM
Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

Assuming he is american, i think its becuase of the christian power that that is his main target.
I think you have highlighted a real problem for God. Could you imagine the abuse of power by some people if 90 percent of the world was Catholic? I am a Catholic and sense the church has had too much power for much of its history.

I sense that God has a very real purpose to allow so many religions to help keep in check man’s need for ultimate power and control.

In the spirit of striving for greater interfaith friendship

Eric
Reply

Joe98
06-23-2007, 08:01 AM
Originally Posted by MuhammadRizan

1.why are not all apes evolve into human?
2.apes evolve from what?

Horses and zebra have a common anscestor but they evolved along different branches.

Cats and lions have a common anscestor but they evolved along different branches.
Reply

Strzelecki
06-23-2007, 08:11 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
i don't believe in the bible but i am always amazed that some atheists are such devotees.
Agreed.
If you don't believe in it, that's fine and all. But why devotre your life to debunking something that has no influence or impact on you. Soooo illogical.
Originally Posted by MuhammadRizan
1.why are not all apes evolve into human?
The theory is that Apes didn't evolve into Humans. Both evolved from a common animal. :)
Reply

Trumble
06-23-2007, 08:35 AM
Originally Posted by MuhammadRizan
1.why are not all apes evolve into human?
2.apes evolve from what?
One reason is that in some environments apes would have been (and in our 'natural' condition, still are) rather more successful at surviving than humans. Take a rainforest, for example; not only is much of the food in the trees, but so is your best chance of escape from predators. Apes are much better at moving in rainforest than humans.

The apes evolved along parallel paths, not the same one leading inevitably to 'human'. Man did not evolve from the chimpanzee or gorilla, both evolved from a common ancestor. Your question involves an assumption that humans are always somehow 'better' than apes, and that isn't true. We may be 'smarter', but tell that to the ape sitting laughing in the tree while the tiger sinks its teeth in your leg!
Reply

glo
06-23-2007, 08:39 AM
Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;



I think you have highlighted a real problem for God. Could you imagine the abuse of power by some people if 90 percent of the world was Catholic? I am a Catholic and sense the church has had too much power for much of its history.

I sense that God has a very real purpose to allow so many religions to help keep in check man’s need for ultimate power and control.

In the spirit of striving for greater interfaith friendship

Eric
Greetings, Eric

Sadly, it is a human weakness to use power for one's own purposes and gain - inside and outside of religion. History proves it ... :-[

Those who follow God, however, should have an insight into His purpose and will for his creation, and therefore have a greater responsibility than those who don't believe in God.
If all who claim to 'follow God' really put God at the centre of their hearts and lives, they should not desire to abuse power for their own gain!

We may look to other religions or denominations for blame, but actually the responsibility to put God first lies with each and everyone of us individually.

God is always ready to guide us in his ways ... but are we willing to
1. listen, and
2. obey???
Reply

MuhammadRizan
06-23-2007, 11:28 AM
salam.

Horses and zebra have a common anscestor but they evolved along different branches.

Cats and lions have a common anscestor but they evolved along different branches.
One reason is that in some environments apes would have been (and in our 'natural' condition, still are) rather more successful at surviving than humans. Take a rainforest, for example; not only is much of the food in the trees, but so is your best chance of escape from predators. Apes are much better at moving in rainforest than humans.

The apes evolved along parallel paths, not the same one leading inevitably to 'human'. Man did not evolve from the chimpanzee or gorilla, both evolved from a common ancestor. Your question involves an assumption that humans are always somehow 'better' than apes, and that isn't true. We may be 'smarter', but tell that to the ape sitting laughing in the tree while the tiger sinks its teeth in your leg!
Hmm..my apologies..well you Know, all my understanding about evolution are from those "apes evolving into homo sapiens" picture.

and i studied in religious school so i've been bz learning arabic an memorizing quran, and other field of islamic knowledge,eventhough science also been thought (by Christian American teacher!) in school..

but, yeah i always fell asleep during class..:D

But do you mind i'm asking more questions?:phew

1-if i'm asking horse and zebra ancestor evolve from what, and then from what,and then from what, and then from what, and then from what, and then from what,and then from what, and then from what, and then from what, and then from what...are we going to reach some point "from nothing"..or science have other explanation?.

2-same question to about Human and apes ancestor.

:omg:
Reply

ranma1/2
06-25-2007, 04:32 AM
Originally Posted by MuhammadRizan
salam.





Hmm..my apologies..well you Know, all my understanding about evolution are from those "apes evolving into homo sapiens" picture.

and i studied in religious school so i've been bz learning arabic an memorizing quran, and other field of islamic knowledge,eventhough science also been thought (by Christian American teacher!) in school..

but, yeah i always fell asleep during class..:D

But do you mind i'm asking more questions?:phew

1-if i'm asking horse and zebra ancestor evolve from what, and then from what,and then from what, and then from what, and then from what, and then from what,and then from what, and then from what, and then from what, and then from what...are we going to reach some point "from nothing"..or science have other explanation?.

2-same question to about Human and apes ancestor.

:omg:
eventually you will get to the initial life. "and those lines will merge."
How that life began is a question for abiogenesis.
Reply

ranma1/2
06-25-2007, 05:32 AM
Originally Posted by MuhammadRizan
SALAM.

I'm surely not a scientist..may i ask question?

1.why are not all apes evolve into human?
2.apes evolve from what?
1. evolution does not work that way.
2. other creatures and down the line you get to a common ancestor for other creatures.

Evolution does not have a specific goal.
It allows for splits.
Those splits can survive if they can find a nitch.
We are not in the same nitch as other apes. Thus we and other apes still live.
Reply

ranma1/2
06-25-2007, 05:35 AM
Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Philosopher;

If there is no God then something had to have no beginning; or something had to come from nothing before the universe could come into existence.

Life had to come from no life, and branch out into several million species of plant and animal life sharing much of their DNA.

Then your odds become even more astronomical, meaningless and impossible.

Just my beliefs.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
at some point life had to come from no life. But we are not talking about man coming from clay "thats the bible" but simple life coming from nonlife.

as for the begining of the universe, thats a whole nother ball of ear wax.
Reply

MuhammadRizan
06-25-2007, 09:53 AM
salam.

eventually you will get to the initial life. "and those lines will merge."
How that life began is a question for abiogenesis.
can you explain this in simpler english, i dont understand...:hiding:

at some point life had to come from no life
:nervous: How science define Life?
Reply

ranma1/2
06-25-2007, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by MuhammadRizan
salam.



can you explain this in simpler english, i dont understand...:hiding:



:nervous: How science define Life?
OK Imagine a tree. It has leaves and branches. Each leaf could be a species.

So take the leaf back to a twig back further to a branch back further to a main branch back further to the main part of the tree.

you look back from where you came and you see branchs and branches and branches. all splitting and splitting.

As for life.
That goes inot many aspects.

For asimple explaination.
Lets say life is something that replicates.

So once self replicating molcules occured you had the begining of life.

of course thats not a scientific def but its a rough one.
Reply

MuhammadRizan
06-25-2007, 11:49 AM
salam,

OK Imagine a tree. It has leaves and branches. Each leaf could be a species.
So take the leaf back to a twig back further to a branch back further to a main branch back further to the main part of the tree.
you look back from where you came and you see branchs and branches and branches. all splitting and splitting.
Hmm..i see..so actually we're 'Leaf' or another 'Branch' of life or species.

so scientist already found the 'Tree'..right?
Reply

Trumble
06-25-2007, 01:19 PM
Originally Posted by MuhammadRizan

can you explain this in simpler english, i dont understand...
Abiogenesis is the creation of life from non-living matter; the associated question being where life itself came from in the first place. It is important to realise that abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not explain it, nor does it attempt to. They are two different things. It is quite possible to accept evolution while believing that God was responsible for abiogenesis, and a great many people do, usually believing that God was also responsible for the design of the evolutionary mechanism.

:nervous: How science define Life?
From Wiki,

"Life is a multi-faceted concept. Life may refer to the ongoing process of which living things are a part; the period between the birth (or a point at which the entity can be considered to be living) and death of an organism; the condition of an entity that has been born (or reached the point in its existence at which it can be established to be alive) and has yet to die; and that which makes a living thing alive."

It's not an easy thing to define (yet everybody knows what it is!)


so scientist already found the 'Tree'..right?
Nope, and that fact is frequently cited as some sort of 'disproof' by creationists. It isn't, of course.. if your feet are surrounded by dead leaves and twigs and a branch or two drops on your head most sensible people would deduce the existence of the tree even if they yet hadn't yet spotted it and catalogued every aspect of its biology and history!
Reply

Eric H
06-25-2007, 03:28 PM
Greetings and peace be with you ranma,

as for the begining of the universe, thats a whole nother ball of ear wax.
Ah ha!!! I understand now, a ball of ear wax is the seed that created the universe and all life. It always existed it had no beginning, and nothing made it.

Perfection, absolute joy, at long last the theory of everything, my search has ended.:thumbs_up

Eric
Reply

MuhammadRizan
06-26-2007, 05:20 AM
Salam.

Abiogenesis is the creation of life from non-living matter; the associated question being where life itself came from in the first place. It is important to realise that abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not explain it, nor does it attempt to. They are two different things. It is quite possible to accept evolution while believing that God was responsible for abiogenesis, and a great many people do, usually believing that God was also responsible for the design of the evolutionarymechanism.
Hmm..i've read about this in the Noble Quran..

[010:004] To Him will be your return- of all of you. The promise of God is true and sure. It is He Who beginneth the process of creation, and repeateth it, that He may reward with justice those who believe and work righteousness; but those who reject Him will have draughts of boiling fluids, and a penalty grievous, because they did reject Him

[010:034] Say: "Of your 'partners', can any originate creation and repeat it?" Say: "It is God Who originates creation and repeats it: then how are ye deluded away (from the truth)?"

[027:064] Or, Who originates creation, then repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth? (Can there be another) god besides God? Say, "Bring forth your argument, if ye are telling the truth!"

but i thought science disagree with this.. but they even have a theory about this...something new for me.

[021:030] Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

this is my opinion of course..All living thing on earth seems to be originate from the same Non living thing and then evolve, but origin and creation of Adam(human) is separated from this eventhough Human also created from Non living subtance=clay..it's agreeable in science right?

[006:002] He it is created you from clay, and then decreed a stated term (for you). And there is in His presence another determined term; yet ye doubt within yourselves!

[015:026] We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape;

015:028] Behold! thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man, from sounding clay from mud moulded into shape;

[032:007] He Who has made everything which He has created most good: He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay,

[037:011] Just ask their opinion: are they the more difficult to create, or the (other) beings We have created? Them have We created out of a sticky clay!

[007:011] It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who bow down.

and of course Allah himself will give life to any living thing, without Him Non living matter will never became to life, He start the Beginning of life and creation.

[002:028] How can ye reject the faith in God?- seeing that ye were without life, and He gave you life; then will He cause you to die, and will again bring you to life; and again to Him will ye return.

i thougt fell asleep during science class making me difficult to understand origin of creation--but actually it's in the quran.

if we separated God intervention in Abiogenesis, science will have other explanation right? what is it?
Reply

Muslim Knight
06-26-2007, 05:27 AM
Originally Posted by MuhammadRizan

if we separated God intervention in Abiogenesis, science will have other explanation right? what is it?
The life-giving Allspark. Eh, no. That is for Transformers.
Reply

Trumble
06-26-2007, 07:01 AM
Originally Posted by MuhammadRizan
but i thought science disagree with this.. but they even have a theory about this...something new for me.
I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't say God being responsible for abiogenesis was a scientific theory - it is not. I just said that many people believe God was responsible, the essential point being that that belief in no way contradicts acceptance of evolutionary theory.


It is He Who beginneth the process of creation, and repeateth it
Or, Who originates creation, then repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth?
Those verses could be interpreted either in that way, or as purely creationist, don't you think?


if we separated God intervention in Abiogenesis, science will have other explanation right? what is it?
There are several hypotheses, try the Wiki article. You might find the note on 'clay theory' particularly interesting!
Reply

MuhammadRizan
06-26-2007, 10:03 AM
salam.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't say God being responsible for abiogenesis was a scientific theory - it is not. I just said that many people believe God was responsible, the essential point being that that belief in no way contradicts acceptance of evolutionary theory.
No No..maybe it's because my english is not so good.

i understand u'r telling me that if scientist want to find the origin of life, they have to agree that at some point, life will start from no life even they will not put God in that theory.

Well yeah i'm just typical Muslim, i believe in God, and now i also found science theory confirmed by God in Noble Quran, i supposed you understand what i'm thinking right now:D

It is He Who beginneth the process of creation, and repeateth it
Or, Who originates creation, then repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth?
in this verse Allah actually debunking all those disbeliever and hypocrites that mocking Muhammad when he told them that some day we all will be resurrected after death and face the judgement day.

they say something like this" watta hell is wrong with you Muhammad? r u crazy or sumtin'?, how on earth we're going to be resurected physically when our body decay and become dust"

So Allah said He created us from clay in the beginning and what make u think he cannot do it again.:) :thumbs_up

Clever answer i think:)
Reply

ranma1/2
06-26-2007, 01:17 PM
Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you ranma,



Ah ha!!! I understand now, a ball of ear wax is the seed that created the universe and all life. It always existed it had no beginning, and nothing made it.

Perfection, absolute joy, at long last the theory of everything, my search has ended.:thumbs_up

Eric
IM pretty sure there is a creation myth where the creation of everything was from the um... "male stuff" not usre which onethough...
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-26-2007, 01:35 PM
There has been a creation myth for pretty much everything.

My personal favourite is that the earth is perched upon a giant turtle. I don't recall the origin of this one though but its famous because of the following interchange the philosopher had with a questioner that went something like this:

"What is beneath the turtle that holds up the world?"

"Another Turtle, even bigger and stronger"

"And what is beneath that turtle?"

"Another"

"And beneath that?"

"Its turtles all the way down"
Reply

MuhammadRizan
06-26-2007, 02:20 PM
and when the turtle move, there will be an earthquake too lol
Reply

Eric H
06-26-2007, 03:15 PM
Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

IM pretty sure there is a creation myth where the creation of everything was from the um... "male stuff" not usre which onethough
People of all faiths may have trouble defining God, but God the creator of all that is seen and unseen does exist.

No proof.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
Reply

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

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 02:33 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-11-2010, 02:05 PM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-30-2010, 07:14 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-14-2007, 06:13 AM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-08-2006, 06:22 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!