Allah and Camouflage...(Atheists!!,Agnostics!! and seculars!!)

[Makky]

Peace be upon those who Follow the truth.
may Guidance be to those who search the Truth


In-sha'-Allah in this Thread Atheists, Will be exposed..Those among them who really search the truth will say nothing but confess Allah's existence. and those whom their hearts are full of arrogance haughtiness will just appear that they are just arguing.

This is an invitation to the greatest Atheists ( :D no Atheist is great ) in the world to debate here in this thread

this is a serious Challenge

I want the Mods. here to keep an eye on these thread

My Requests are :

1- Stopping All the side debates and the tree-arguments.
2- (if needed) Stopping comments of the forum members who are not involved in the debate (again if needed).
3-deleting posts that might crowd the thread.

------------------------------------------------
I will start in the name of Allah by posting Few photos and asking Atheists few questions.
------------------------------------------------
the questions are clear and simple so i wish the answers will be the same..
------------------------------------------------

Camouflage

Camouflage became an essential part of modern military tactics after the increase in accuracy and rate of fire of weapons at the end of the 19th century.In nature it was found that some living things have the ability to blend into their environment or conceal their shape; for prey animals to avoid predators and for predators to be able to sneak up on prey.

one of the amazing differences between Camouflage as a modern military tactic and Camouflage in nature is that human being use camouflage to blend into the surrounding, while in nature some animals and insects bodies are already camouflaged..

The leaf insect is our first example:

Look at this leaf!!! Look at those red spots and areas as if its a drying leaf

what about this dry leaf

could you imagine that this is an insect

a ribbed leaf?!?!

Sub7an Allah

Questions
1- Did this insect look at the mirror when it was born?
2-Does it know what the word camouflage means?
3-Even if it knows, could it draw a shap of leaf on its back a full detailed leaf even with ribs and dry spots?

Atheists!...Answer!

[جوري]

Sobhan Allah... I didn't see this insect before... fascinating

It is He who sends down water from the sky. From it you drink and from it come the shrubs among which you graze your herds. And by it He makes crops grow for you and olives and dates and grapes and fruit of every kind. . There is certainly a sign in that for people who reflect. He has made the night and the day subservient to you, and the sun, the moon and the stars, all subject to His command. There are certainly signs in that for people who use their intellect. And also the things of varying colors He has created for you in the earth. There is certainly a sign in that for people who pay heed. It is He who made the sea subservient to you so that you can eat fresh flesh from it and bring out from it ornaments to wear. And you see the ships cleaving through it so that you can seek His bounty, and so that perhaps you may show thanks. He cast firmly embedded mountains on the earth so it would not move under you, and rivers and pathways so that perhaps you might be guided, and landmarks. And they are guided by the stars. Is He Who creates like him who does not create? So will you not pay heed? (Surat an-Nahl: 10-17)

For men and women of understanding, everything around them is a sign of this creation.
sorry I am not an Atheist/agnostic or a secular though, but did enjoy your post....
:w:

[Woodrow]

:sl:

Quite interesting. Even stranger a scholar that comes to help me every day has just left. On many days when he comes to visit with me we have a social visit. Today my grandson(age 8) wanted to be part of our conversation. so today we had a long discussion about the animals and how nicely each one fit into its own niche and is perfectly designed to live the life it was created for.

That Leaf mantis is a perfect example.

[Makky]

For men and women of understanding, everything around them is a sign of this creation.
sorry I am not an Atheist/agnostic or a secular though, but did enjoy your post....
:w:

All people are welcome to POST

it seems that Atheists aren't brave enough to answer these questions

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

[IbnAbdulHakim]

interesting... i also cant wait to see the responce. Whilst there is indeed an explenation for everything, the root of every explenation is without a doubt Allah.

[ranma1/2]

Questions[/B]
1- Did this insect look at the mirror when it was born?
2-Does it know what the word camouflage means?
3-Even if it knows, could it draw a shap of leaf on its back a full detailed leaf even with ribs and dry spots?

Atheists!...Answer!

Thanks for the invite.
Your questions seem to be for evolutionists and not just atheists.
All 3 questions seem to be under the concept that animals can control how they look by desire. Evolution does not work that way. I would recommend reading about evo. Berkeley has a reasonably simple site.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

But just to give a basic explanation.
This camoflage was created through the process of natural selection. The insects that could blend in some had an advantage and were less likely to be eaten.
These advantages did not start out as a leaf but in steps. Essentially a insect that had 1% camo had a slight advantage over one that had 0%.
One that had 2% was slightly better than one that had 1% etc...

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ yes but ranma the fact that animals have no free will and yet know perfectly how to utilize their comoflouge is indeed miraculous, dont you think so?

[nebula]

hey athiest

do u know evolution is completely false?

The design of the alveoli in our lungs is at a perfect state IF it was any different
from what it is now then we would not be able to breath at all. Therefore the alveoli cannot evolve due to evolution. It was made once and it hasn't changed.

please get your facts right

[ranma1/2]

^ yes but ranma the fact that animals have no free will and yet know perfectly how to utilize their comoflouge is indeed miraculous, dont you think so?

could you explain what you mean by free will? TO my knowledge they have free will as much as we do. And behavior is also a part of evo. Nothing special about it. Once again. Those creatures that would act in a certain way even if only at 1% might have had an advantage over those that didnt.

what behavior are you talking about anyway?

[nebula]

[QUOTE=nebula;785025]

do u know evolution is completely false?

The design of the alveoli in our lungs is at a perfect state IF it was any different
from what it is now then we would not be able to breath at all. Therefore the alveoli cannot evolve due to evolution. It was made once and it hasn't changed.

He didn't have anything to say to my post aye?

[Woodrow]

If we are to look at life as a continuous process of advancing towards a perfect life form. Than life on earth has gone in the wrong direction. For simple existance and the certainty of the spread of gametes, the amoeba is probably the ideal life form. It is virtually indestructible, Perfectly adapted for life in nearly every climate condition, able to remain dormant for an indefinite period of time if climate changes require. Is asexual for reproduction and has no need to seek out others of it's kind.

When thinking in terms of life and only life, everything beyond the amoeba is a reduction in certainty for preservation of the species.

They was no need for life to advance beyond unicellular level. Must be some pupose in us other than mere preservation and distribution of gametes.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

could you explain what you mean by free will? TO my knowledge they have free will as much as we do. And behavior is also a part of evo. Nothing special about it. Once again. Those creatures that would act in a certain way even if only at 1% might have had an advantage over those that didnt.

what behavior are you talking about anyway?

they dont know right from wrong, no intellect whatso ever.

without intellect how can one have free will?

they act on base insticts, yes we see the occasional elephant mother defending its young and birds defending their eggs but again this is paternal instinct. No animals have free will, they act on base insticts, but where do these instincts come from...

[ranma1/2]

do u know evolution is completely false?

The design of the alveoli in our lungs is at a perfect state IF it was any different
from what it is now then we would not be able to breath at all. Therefore the alveoli cannot evolve due to evolution. It was made once and it hasn't changed.

He didn't have anything to say to my post aye?

Evidence?
As for our alveoli, they have evolved as they have evolved. IT sounds as if you are going after behes irriducibly complex idea. We call the organs that primarily exchange air to blood in the majoritiy of mammals alveoli. There are similar but different structures in other creatures. So that argument if refuted. Not to mention the disease associtated with these structures seem to mean these structures are not perfect.

Now whats with the hostility im getting from you, the thread poster and PA?

[ranma1/2]

If we are to look at life as a continuous process of advancing towards a perfect life form. Than life on earth has gone in the wrong direction. For simple existance and the certainty of the spread of gametes, the amoeba is probably the ideal life form. It is virtually indestructible, Perfectly adapted for life in nearly every climate condition, able to remain dormant for an indefinite period of time if climate changes require. Is asexual for reproduction and has no need to seek out others of it's kind.

When thinking in terms of life and only life, everything beyond the amoeba is a reduction in certainty for preservation of the species.

They was no need for life to advance beyond unicellular level. Must be some pupose in us other than mere preservation and distribution of gametes.

Evolution is not goal oriented so its not heading toward a "perfect" form. But it allows for "improvement" through mutation and weeding out those less fit through selection.

Asexual reproduction for instance has a main drawback in that you can not easily adapt, all mutations must come from your line. Were as if you sexually reproduce you can then have multiple sources of dna that can have all types of mutations that allow for greater selection and adapatation.

And there is no need for life. However ignoring that, through the process of evo, those forms that can reproduce quicker will more likely dominate a gene pool. So need in not needed. Just a process.

[ranma1/2]

they dont know right from wrong, no intellect whatso ever.

without intellect how can one have free will?

they act on base insticts, yes we see the occasional elephant mother defending its young and birds defending their eggs but again this is paternal instinct. No animals have free will, they act on base insticts, but where do these instincts come from...

Can you clarify what you mean by intellect or intelligence?
Some animals have been shown to posses intellect "intelligence". This varies to one degree or another but it is defintily shown. How does intellect effect free will? And to what degree of intelligence must you have inorder to have your version of free will? And what does knowing right and wrong have to do with free will? How can you show me you have free will?
And please give a better description of free will. To me its the ability to choose and to choose differently. If there is a all knowing being then you do not have the ability to choose differently since everything is then predetermined. You can not choose differerntly.

[ranma1/2]

back ot the thread topic,

If as woodrow said everything is perfectly designed then why are the majority of species that have lived on this planet extinct?

[nebula]

ranma you make absolutley no sense you know that?

your just here to argue you completely disagree with anything that is said to you? what is the point of you being here?

[Keltoi]

Speaking strictly about animals, you see these different kinds of "camo" all across the natural world. White rabbits in snowy country, green snakes in the jungle, etc. They obviously have an advantage over those creatures that do not have this "camo". Does this mean those without "camo" are inferior? Were they a less "perfect" creation? I think there is enough evidence out there to suggest animals do indeed flourish or diminish because of natural selection. Personally, I don't see why natural selection, either pro or con, should determine whether or not there is a divine root to all creation.

[AB517]

hey athiest

do u know evolution is completely false?

The design of the alveoli in our lungs is at a perfect state IF it was any different
from what it is now then we would not be able to breath at all. Therefore the alveoli cannot evolve due to evolution. It was made once and it hasn't changed.

please get your facts right

well ... this is not true.

Incomplete ... yes. False ..not hardly.

I believe God created the universe and evolution is clearly one of his many wonderous methods. Not the only one to be sure.

what are you afraid of?

Love that first post tho ... my bread and butter argument is that one you used ... how do animal "JUST KNOW" to do this or that.

Great post.

[snakelegs]

well, i'm agnostic and not atheist. for the greatest part of my life i never concerned myself with whether or god existed or not, though i have never been an atheist.
a couple of decades ago i began to study nature and the more i learned the more i have come to believe there is indeed a god. it is largely due to these discoveries and the awe i felt each time i learned something new.
the insect you have shown is just one of the many things that have led me to this conclusion. there is also a form of mimicry where animals look just like a venemous species in the same area. it is truly incredible and very humbling when you study stuff like habitat niches. almost every new thing i learn - it is all so awesome.
when you look at life in the desert - it is so fragile and at the same time so tough to survive those conditions...there are seeds that lay beneath the surface waiting, sometimes for years, for just the right conditions to sprout.

[snakelegs]

Speaking strictly about animals, you see these different kinds of "camo" all across the natural world. White rabbits in snowy country, green snakes in the jungle, etc. They obviously have an advantage over those creatures that do not have this "camo". Does this mean those without "camo" are inferior? Were they a less "perfect" creation? I think there is enough evidence out there to suggest animals do indeed flourish or diminish because of natural selection. Personally, I don't see why natural selection, either pro or con, should determine whether or not there is a divine root to all creation.

i see no inherent reason for conflict either.

[snakelegs]

no intellect whatso ever.

what???!!!! are you implying that my tarantula, maude, has no intellect?? how dare you! :raging: :raging: :skeleton:

[Malaikah]

But just to give a basic explanation.
This camoflage was created through the process of natural selection. The insects that could blend in some had an advantage and were less likely to be eaten.
These advantages did not start out as a leaf but in steps. Essentially a insect that had 1% camo had a slight advantage over one that had 0%.
One that had 2% was slightly better than one that had 1% etc...

I actually have no problem with this explanation. Rather it is the reasoning that such remarkable evolution could happen without divine guidance that I find hard to swallow.

That is the most amazing insect I have ever seen! Subhanallah!

[ranma1/2]

I actually have no problem with this explanation. Rather it is the reasoning that such remarkable evolution could happen without divine guidance that I find hard to swallow.

That is the most amazing insect I have ever seen! Subhanallah!

So are you a theistic evolutionists then?

The general problem that I have with the "divine" guidance idea is that their is no evidence for it, natural selection seems to work fine and you would need a divine guider for the creation of the divine guider etc...

It seems to me to be basic default answer of god did it and that real answers nothing. With each discover god tends to shrink and shrink and shrink. Many years ago lightning, gravity, natural disaters etc... were believed to be caused by god, these days we know better.

[Malaikah]

You might think so, but for me, the more we discover, the more it is clear that the universe must have had a creator.

Like your example... lets say lightning. Yeh, I guess lightning would have been amazing to people back in the days when they didn't understand it. But now that we understand how it works, we have even more reason to be amazed by it, with all the transferring of electrons and trying to understand the atom and all.

The point is, just because we might understand how something works, doesn't mean we are some how no longer in need of God.

I would love to see a human just try to create something out of nothing.:rollseyes

[Trumble]

In-sha'-Allah in this Thread Atheists, Agnostics Will be exposed..Those among them who really search the truth will say nothing but confess Allah's existence. and those whom their hearts are full of arrogance haughtiness will just appear that they are just arguing.

You have to admire an optimist! :) But... I just don't see the point of this thread. Why do you think giving what many would consider a classic example of natural selection as an example would convince anyone it was wrong!

I actually have no problem with this explanation. Rather it is the reasoning that such remarkable evolution could happen without divine guidance that I find hard to swallow.

Exactly, and that's the only force of your (Makky's) argument. To someone who believes in God already it is obviously a very convincing one. But to an atheist it's a total dead duck. It doesn't even have anything to do with the specifics of the science.

You are saying that something as remarkable as this insect undoubtably is could not have come about by evolution/natural selection, not because there isn't a scientific explanation (there is; as I said it's classic case) but because it is so improbable that explanation could work well enough in practice to produce the result we see in the photos. OK, so what is the solution you suggest to an atheist? To explain this remarkable insect it is necessary to conjour up something far more remarkable that any insect, every insect put together or indeed the whole planet put together - God. To the atheist, therefore, your argument reduces simply to "explaining a remarkable thing by introducing the idea of a far more remarkable thing" whereupon Occam's Razor kills it stone dead. Or in other words, it will be very convincing to believers (who already believe in God, obviously) but totally unconvincing to atheists.

[ranma1/2]

or as Dawkins said.
God the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit.

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

[Dave2]

This is just the design argument, and educated atheists are well familiar with it. The most important examination of this argument (perhaps the best) was in David Hume's Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. Some of the more serious objections from Hume's discussion:

* Even if the argument is successful, it doesn't justify theism (certainly not 'tawhid'). It's consistent with a polytheism of mortal and imperfect gods. It's even consistent with some sort of designing force that resembles a mind only in some very remote way. And in fact, the argument might give more support to polytheism than to monotheism, given that our experience typically involves teams of designers.

* Comparing the designer hypothesis with a no-designer alternative, it's not clear that the first is any better than the second. After all, any designer will be just as amazingly well-ordered as the universe it designed. And if we say that the designer is somehow self-ordering, then we might as well say that the universe is somehow self-ordering. So there's no gain in positing a designer: we're stuck with exactly the same problems as before.

* The design argument is based on the principle that amazingly well-ordered things come only from design. But this principle isn't self-evidently true, so we must ask if it is supported by the evidence. And when we look at the evidence, taking our experience and observations as a guide, we find that there is lots of amazingly well-ordered stuff in the universe that comes from purely natural processes, not (as far as we know) from design. Perhaps all this stuff ultimately comes from design, of course, but the key principle driving the argument remains unsupported by the evidence. (Perhaps the reason we find the principle plausible is that we have a natural tendency to anthropomorphize nature). In the end, the evidence gives no support for the 'designer' hypothesis over the 'natural process' hypothesis.

These are general problems with any design argument. As for the particular argument mentioned in this thread, it points to adaptations in organisms. And that is (of course) well explained by evolutionary biology in terms of purely natural processes, without any need to bring in supernatural forces.

[guyabano]

[QUOTE=nebula;785035]

do u know evolution is completely false?

The design of the alveoli in our lungs is at a perfect state IF it was any different
from what it is now then we would not be able to breath at all. Therefore the alveoli cannot evolve due to evolution. It was made once and it hasn't changed.

He didn't have anything to say to my post aye?

What are you blabbering here, hey muslim

referring to your own way of calling people

hey athiest

If you like to speak about loungs and cells, better inform yourself first before you speak. Nothing is more imperfect as a human body. Did you know, that Oygen is needed to breathe but also is THE element, which makes us slowely die, as it is the main responsible for cell splitting and oxydation?

Now back to topic. This shape of this insect is just the result of million of years of evolution and mutation, nothing more. There is nothing miracle !

[IbnAbdulHakim]

How does intellect effect free will? And to what degree of intelligence must you have inorder to have your version of free will?

we all make choices you see, left or right, to attack or not, to abstain or not, we make choices even if we wish to live or not. Tell me have you ever heard of an animal to commit suicide? you see they act on insticts, some might have a certain level of intelligence but again this is not a great degree of intelligence at all, i think God in all his wisdom has greatly limited their intelligence, this is the same reason i think God will not send them to either of hell of heaven.

And what does knowing right and wrong have to do with free will? How can you show me you have free will?

thats simple, i reflected and pondered over creation and came to the conclusion that there is indeed a creator who deserves our worship. Now if i never had freewill i would never even ponder over it but be forced to act on my base instincts and nature, and perhaps be pulled around like a puppet on strings (speaking metaphorically of course). If you want an example of me using my freewill then i chose to come to work, i chose to get on the bus instead of walking, i make choices...

And please give a better description of free will.

i have attempted to give good examples in the answer above, im sorry if it didnt help

To me its the ability to choose and to choose differently.

yeah same here :), you see i dont think Animals can make choices like this... isnt it a fact that every animal has a certain nature, and thus can be predicted? but can you name one human that can be predicted? for example we can easily throw a meat and expect a dog to pounce on it, walk into a lions cage and dont expect to come out alive etc

If there is a all knowing being then you do not have the ability to choose differently since everything is then predetermined.

see you do not realise the difference between knowledge and freewill, im going to try to explain it clearly so forgive me if i fail in this:

knowledge - Knowing everything that will happen before it even happens.
freewill - making choices, deciding your own fate based on your actions.
so if by predetermined you mean that Allah knows everything that will happen, then that is indeed his knowledge or how would he be fit to be God? But at the same time its only OUR CHOICES he knows you see, that in no way robs us of our choices...

if i told you to pick between toast or crumpet knowing you will pick toast, have i robbed you of your free-will?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

what???!!!! are you implying that my tarantula, maude, has no intellect?? how dare you! :raging: :raging: :skeleton:

lol forgive me :hiding:

im sure your tarantula's really smart :D

[ranma1/2]

we all make choices you see, left or right, to attack or not, to abstain or not, we make choices even if we wish to live or not. Tell me have you ever heard of an animal to commit suicide? you see they act on insticts, some might have a certain level of intelligence but again this is not a great degree of intelligence at all, i think God in all his wisdom has greatly limited their intelligence, this is the same reason i think God will not send them to either of hell of heaven.

Animals have been known to purposefully stop eating when a mate or a companion dies or disappers. so yes i would say that they can commit suicide. Other animals such as apes can produce basic tools. Pandas can use each other to boost.
and what reason would god limit their INT and why wont he send them to heaven or hell? I personally liked to think all dogs would go to heaven when i was a kid.

thats simple, i reflected and pondered over creation and came to the conclusion that there is indeed a creator who deserves our worship. Now if i never had freewill i would never even ponder over it but be forced to act on my base instincts and nature, and perhaps be pulled around like a puppet on strings (speaking metaphorically of course). If you want an example of me using my freewill then i chose to come to work, i chose to get on the bus instead of walking, i make choices...

So how do we know that your not a very complicated computer program that is programed to think it has free will but in fact is just following a program? You could ponder over it as a basic program. We see programs today that can try to solve problems. What if every single instance of your life is controlled so you are made to choose and act the way you do. etc..
But back to my question. what does free will have to do with right and wrong and what is right and wrong.

yeah same here :), you see i dont think Animals can make choices like this... isnt it a fact that every animal has a certain nature, and thus can be predicted? but can you name one human that can be predicted? for example we can easily throw a meat and expect a dog to pounce on it, walk into a lions cage and dont expect to come out alive etc

I think certain animals can and do. Humans can be expected to pick up a money bill on the ground if they see one. They may not as well. Lions may or may not attack you. Ive seen many a video with wild cats roosting on cars with open sunroofs. You would think that if they were only driven by the though of food they might jump in and enjoy the free meal, but no they dont. Instead they use it as a perch. They have learned. They can learn and that is a important matter.

Now in general i think what scientists normally do to test if a creature has a identity of self is they use a mirror test. many mammals pass the test. Dolphins and many apes to name a few.

see you do not realise the difference between knowledge and freewill, im going to try to explain it clearly so forgive me if i fail in this:

knowledge - Knowing everything that will happen before it even happens.
freewill - making choices, deciding your own fate based on your actions

If your actions are already determined then at best you have the illusion of free will.

so if by predetermined you mean that Allah knows everything that will happen, then that is indeed his knowledge or how would he be fit to be God? But at the same time its only OUR CHOICES he knows you see, that in no way robs us of our choices...

if i told you to pick between toast or crumpet knowing you will pick toast, have i robbed you of your free-will

If you new as god new i would do it then i could not have chosen differntly.
So am I able to choose differently? No i am not. Of course you dont know 100%, i could change my mind, i could act differently etc.. a freak meteor could strike the crumpet etc...

[IbnAbdulHakim]

lol, interesting.


i feel like researching on the nature of animals now, lol thanks for the discussion :)


but i must say ranma, that even if a person can predict with a 100% certainty the events to take place, that does not take away free-will... the restriction is only in your mind...

[guyabano]

Now in general i think what scientists normally do to test if a creature has a identity of self is they use a mirror test. many mammals pass the test. Dolphins and many apes to name a few.

I saw recently in TV, also crow's are very intelligent and have the knowledge about how to use tools to fish worms.
They also made an experiment with a crow. A scientist glued a yellow spot on her throat, and when the crow stand in front of the mirror, she really start to wiggle and move in order to get rid of this yellow spot. The crow really recognized herself in the mirror.

A good example for the perfection of evolution is the cockroach. Yes, indeed, the cockroach didn't change its physical appearance anymore since at least 1 million of years. It reached its perfection as a creature for its needs. It's a survivor, and it will even survive mankind, and who knows, will still be there, when a new civilisation will arise on this planet.

If cockroaches would know to speak, what would they tell us... ?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

lol, interesting guyabano, what are the physical charasterics of a cockroach? your making me curious.

and also just what tools to crows use :?

[guyabano]

lol, interesting guyabano, what are the physical charasterics of a cockroach? your making me curious.

and also just what tools to crows use :?

Well, about the crow, see it here !


Out of Wikipedia:

The earliest cockroach-like fossils are from the Carboniferous period between 354–295 million years ago

And they still exist today !!

Read all about here and also interesting info here

[Nerd]

I think we have all side-tracked from the topic, let me restate the questions..

1- Did this insect look at the mirror when it was born?

2-Does it know what the word camouflage means?

3-Even if it knows, could it draw a shape of leaf on its back a full detailed leaf even with ribs and dry spots?

Its either God or Nature which made this fantastic creature... if it is indeed evolution: would someone care to give exact details as from which insect this creature evolved from? even better if someone would be kind enough to trail it back to the first insect or cell from which it evolved and give a detailed description of the steps involved...

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Well, about the crow, see it here !

i feel like ive seen this video in a documentary lol its really interesting!! :)

Out of Wikipedia:


And they still exist today !!

Read all about here and also interesting info here

whoah thats interesting... thanks!!

[guyabano]

I think we have all side-tracked from the topic, let me restate the questions..

1- Did this insect look at the mirror when it was born?

2-Does it know what the word camouflage means?

3-Even if it knows, could it draw a shape of leaf on its back a full detailed leaf even with ribs and dry spots?

Its either God or Nature which made this fantastic creature... if it is indeed evolution: would someone care to give exact details as from which insect this creature evolved from? even better if someone would be kind enough to trail it back to the first insect or cell from which it evolved and give a detailed description of the steps involved...

Well, even an insect has a basic intelligence and can understand that when it's hiding, it can get better to food. Camouflage is something very common in Fauna as well as terrestrial and aquatical.
Note well, that this insect didn't do this mutation within a few years. It took him millions of years to mutate to what it is today.

See here for more info

[Nerd]

People accept evolution without solid evidence. "Millions of years" of evidence which should have cumulated is simply not there... Well if scientist can rest in peace after merely speculating that all species evolved from a single cell and stating its impossible to show each step through which they passed through cause its happened over millions of years... Why is it so hard of us to believe that a God created them?

well than again some people would be happier saying the chair they are sitting on did indeed came to being without a creator (carpenter)

[Nerd]

Note well, that this insect didn't do this mutation within a few years. It took him millions of years to mutate to what it is today.

would you you be kind enough to give the evolutionary steps through which this creature came to being?

[ranma1/2]

People accept evolution without solid evidence. "Millions of years" of evidence which should have cumulated is simply not there... Well if scientist can rest in peace after merely speculating that all species evolved from a single cell and stating its impossible to show each step through which they passed through cause its happened over millions of years... Why is it so hard of us to believe that a God created them?

well than again some people would be happier saying the chair they are sitting on did indeed came to being without a creator (carpenter)

People accept evolution because there is a ton of evidence. Fossils and dna being the primary ones. Please read about evolution. I have recommended this site many a time so please go to berkley and read about evolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

and a more direct one of evidence.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...hp?topic_id=46

[guyabano]

Why is it so hard of us to believe that a God created them?

This question is easy to answer: Because it was not 'God' ! It was Nature !!

[IbnAbdulHakim]

This question is easy to answer: Because it was not 'God' ! It was Nature !!

nature cant function without a controller...

[guyabano]

would you you be kind enough to give the evolutionary steps through which this creature came to being?

You ask me this question knowing well, I cannot answer it to you. I'm not an expert in this domain. Anyway, whatever I will show you up, you would not believe it and dig deeper and deeper till I would give up.

I guess it is so hard to proove you the geneologicial tree from this insect as much as you will be able to proove me the existance of God, because both of us have already made up our minds. Isn't it?

[guyabano]

nature cant function without a controller...

errmmm, Nature can exist without humans, but humans cannot exist without Nature, so all in all, a God is also not needed. Nature can still exist, same as the rest of the universe

[ranma1/2]

nature cant function without a controller...

evidence? and what do you mean by function and controller?
Last i checked nature works quite nicely without any guide. Or did you mean the IPU? well we all know IPU is actually behind the lines controlling everything.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

why do people rely so much on the tangible..


do you not realise that when killing an innocent human being a deep feeling strikes the heart,

do you not realise that when stealing/fornicating etc for the first time causes such huge displeasure to the heart.


the one who controls these feelings controls nature...


whats IPU :?

[guyabano]

whats IPU :?

Sorry, mistype IMO

(I really missed to hit the right keys)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Sorry, mistype IMO

(I really missed to hit the right keys)

lol :) no look at ranma's post, he mentioned IPU...

[guyabano]

lol :) no look at ranma's post, he mentioned IPU...

ok, I shut ok. It's my fault, one eye on my work (I'm in office) and one eye on the forum :D

[IbnAbdulHakim]

ok, I shut ok. It's my fault, one eye on my work (I'm in office) and one eye on the forum :D

lolll yeah thats how i am aswell :D

[Nerd]

You ask me this question knowing well, I cannot answer it to you. I'm not an expert in this domain. Anyway, whatever I will show you up, you would not believe it and dig deeper and deeper till I would give up.

I am only seeking Solid evidence for your claim that the creature we are discussing did in fact evolve :)

Because its really hard for Atheists, Muslims and let's say Human beings to accept things without EMPIRICAL PROOF, especially in this age and time of Science

[Trumble]

I think we have all side-tracked from the topic, let me restate the questions..

1- Did this insect look at the mirror when it was born?

2-Does it know what the word camouflage means?

3-Even if it knows, could it draw a shape of leaf on its back a full detailed leaf even with ribs and dry spots?

I think the questions quoted above have been ignored as they are irrelevant to the issue Makky raised before presenting them, but the answers are, of course, 'no', 'no' and 'no'. But neither evolution or creationism, or anything in between, requires them to be 'yes'.

Its either God or Nature which made this fantastic creature... if it is indeed evolution: would someone care to give exact details as from which insect this creature evolved from? even better if someone would be kind enough to trail it back to the first insect or cell from which it evolved and give a detailed description of the steps involved

Nobody knows the 'exact details', as every evolutionary scientist will happily admit. Unfortunately fossil evidence, by its very nature, is not available regarding every one of millions of species that evolved into millions of other species, and even if it was it would take centuries of time and effort to piece it all together. The thing is, though, that doesn't weaken the case for evolution in the slightest. The basic mechanism is understood (or at least we have a strong theory that fits the vast amount of evidence that is available, with no plausible scientific alternatives at present) and filling in the gaps (especially with God - which is what ID does) is not required.

You say that "its either God or Nature which made this fantastic creature". Why are you so quick to assume them to be mutually exclusive.. if there is a God surely He would be responsible for 'nature'? What would you consider wrong with this argument, for example:

(assumed for sake of argument); God created the universe.

(ditto); God was responsible for the first spark of life.

God designed the mechanism of evolution. Being omniscient and omnipotent he designed that mechanism to produce exactly what he wanted produced when he wanted it. From that first microbobe, evolution, designed by God, has been happily chuntering along with God (obviously) knowing the results.. including the creation of man, from the word go.

Why is that somehow less acceptable than the idea either that evolution doesn't exist (creationism) or that it does, but God - presumably not having managed to get it right in the first place - has to tinker with it from time to time (intelligent design)? It seems to come down to no more than some 19th century revulsion at the idea our ancestors may have been monkeys! Evolution/natural selection and theism are NOT incompatible, but it seems to me the false assumption that they are is why we see the persistent refusal by some to reject the vast balance of scientific evidence for the former in favour of the latter which is supported by no scientific evidence at all. "Irreducable complexity" has been pretty much shot-down completely, but creationist websites won't tell you that. 'God of the gaps' is feeble, both as philosophy and as science.

[Nerd]

You say that "its either God or Nature which made this fantastic creature". Why are you so quick to assume them to be mutually exclusive..

Good point Trumble... I guess I was in a haste to jump to that conclusion... evolution can very well be a mechanism that God placed.

[ranma1/2]

why do people rely so much on the tangible..


do you not realise that when killing an innocent human being a deep feeling strikes the heart,

do you not realise that when stealing/fornicating etc for the first time causes such huge displeasure to the heart.


the one who controls these feelings controls nature...


whats IPU :?

1. what do you mean?
2. not everyone. but in general i would say that "feeling" deals with empathy.
3. not everyone. once again empathy for the stealing. and i never had any displeasure of the heart when i had sex for the first time.
4. IPU=Invisible Pink Unicorn.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ Ranma, your telling me you felt no stinging in the heart whatso ever?

tell me how was your lifestyle before you did it the first time ?

was it full of sin?

perhaps your heart was already stone... to feel such things..

[ranma1/2]

^ Ranma, your telling me you felt no stinging in the heart whatso ever?

tell me how was your lifestyle before you did it the first time ?

was it full of sin?

perhaps your heart was already stone... to feel such things..

Why should i have a "stinging in my heart" from having sex?
I felt something but it wasnt a stinging. ;)

I myself have led a very "good" life. As for sin, i dont believe in it and it is in general a very vauge concept. For clarity on my part. I in general describe good actions as being selfless and bad as being selfish. Typical mono theists gods seem to be very selfish beings.
Good fosters thinking and understanding, bad doesnt.

[Makky]

Brothers and sisters! we need to pause secondary arguments

Jazakum Allahu khairan and thanks in advance for your help in organizing this thread.

I'm just reminding you with the origional post and questions :

Questions
1- Did this insect look at the mirror when it was born?
2-Does it know what the word camouflage means?
3-Even if it knows, could it draw a shap of leaf on its back a full detailed leaf even with ribs and dry spots?

ranma1/2 ,Trumble ,Dave2 and guyabano and any other Atheists are welcome to answer,comment and ask


...

[ranma1/2]

Brothers and sisters! we need to pause secondary arguments

Jazakum Allahu khairan and thanks in advance for your help in organizing this thread.

I'm just reminding you with the origional post and questions :

ranma1/2 ,Trumble ,Dave2 and guyabano and any other Atheists are welcome to answer,comment and ask
...

these questions have been answered.

1- Did this insect look at the mirror when it was born?
no
2-Does it know what the word camouflage means?
no
3-Even if it knows, could it draw a shap of leaf on its back a full detailed leaf even with ribs and dry spots?
no.

These questions have nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution does not have a goal. these creatures were evolved over time and i answered you question in my initial posts i believe. Could you please reply to our posts?

[Malaikah]

4. IPU=Invisible Pink Unicorn.

If it is invisible, how can it have colour?

Anyway, unicorns are white. :blind:

[ranma1/2]

If it is invisible, how can it have colour?

Anyway, unicorns are white. :blind:

;)

ah but it is pink and invisible. It is part of its nature.

And i have seen pink unicorns. ;)

[AB517]

;)

ah but it is pink and invisible. It is part of its nature.

And i have seen pink unicorns. ;)

Hey rama.

In regards to your sig. What truth are you looking for.
Look past religions ... they can't hold it all.
Look past science .... it can't know it all.

look to find a spiritual person ... not a totaly religous one.
They are the ones who are the more 'universal' religous people.
(do you follow)

Look to those that felt inifinty and are changed by it.
I had to hunt for a spiritual person before I settled into a religion. religions are rituals, much like a road map, to guide you to that which you are looking.

In the silent momments, between thaught, it will come. Like Gravity it pulls everthing together ... links all that is seen and unseen.

I do not know what it is ... but it is very loving and extremely powerful.

[Makky]

these questions have been answered.

1- Did this insect look at the mirror when it was born?
no
2-Does it know what the word camouflage means?
no
3-Even if it knows, could it draw a shap of leaf on its back a full detailed leaf even with ribs and dry spots?
no.

These questions have nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution does not have a goal. these creatures were evolved over time and i answered you question in my initial posts i believe. Could you please reply to our posts?

In the Name of Allah the creator of All seen and non seen

In my initial post i didn't invite the evolutionists or even mention the word evolution.. But i know that Atheists ( most of them) depends on the theory of evolution to explain this life..
and it seems that you believe in the theory of evolution because in your posts you use the expressions ( natural selection and mutation )

My Question now is :
Do you have any other explanation to our 1st case (the leaf insect)?

brothers and sisters we are still pausing sidetrack and secondary debates..please be patient..Step by Step and point by point..thanks in advance for allowing us to organize the thread

[wilberhum]

My Question now is :
Do you have any other explanation to our 1st case (the leaf insect)?

That is like asking you if you "have any other explanation to our 1st case" except for god. :D
Or asking what is the answer to (1 + 1) other than 2. :skeleton:

[Makky]

That is like asking you if you "have any other explanation to our 1st case" except for god. :D
Or asking what is the answer to (1 + 1) other than 2. :skeleton:

there are some Atheists who even don't believe in the theory of evolution..that why i want to get sure if ranma1/2 has any other explanation

[wilberhum]

there are some Atheists who don't believe in the theory of evolution..that why i want to get sure if ranma1/2 has any other explanation

There are some theists that beleve in evolution. :D
Evolution is not a religion. :skeleton:

[Dave2]

I don't mean to be harsh, but it should be clear to any educated person that the insect in question is the product of evolutionary mechanisms. Now, don't get me wrong, this doesn't show that atheism is true. Perhaps there is a God who is ultimately responsible for everything, including the development of life on earth. Perhaps evolution itself is so remarkable that it could have only come from a designer. That's a possibility and it shouldn't be ruled out (not without further discussion of design arguments in general).

But nevertheless the insect and its remarkable adaptations are the result of evolution. That is a scientific fact. Of course, people in the USA often reject evolution, but that's an embarrassment to the nation, not something to be celebrated or encouraged.

[ranma1/2]

Hey rama.

In regards to your sig. What truth are you looking for.
Look past religions ... they can't hold it all.
Look past science .... it can't know it all.

look to find a spiritual person ... not a totaly religous one.
They are the ones who are the more 'universal' religous people.
(do you follow)

Look to those that felt inifinty and are changed by it.
I had to hunt for a spiritual person before I settled into a religion. religions are rituals, much like a road map, to guide you to that which you are looking.

In the silent momments, between thaught, it will come. Like Gravity it pulls everthing together ... links all that is seen and unseen.

I do not know what it is ... but it is very loving and extremely powerful.

off topic since we were requested to stay on topic. but...
my sig was comment on how frequntly in religions people proclaim absolute truth is their truth. now back to topic.

[asadxyz]

;)

ah but it is pink and invisible. It is part of its nature.

And i have seen pink unicorns. ;)

Peace.
Invisible and Pink ???????
Does it show disintegration of mind or depth of knowledge ?? Is this the way the atheists think ?

[ranma1/2]

In the Name of Allah the creator of All seen and non seen

In my initial post i didn't invite the evolutionists or even mention the word evolution.. But i know that Atheists ( most of them) depends on the theory of evolution to explain this life..
and it seems that you believe in the theory of evolution because in your posts you use the expressions ( natural selection and mutation )

My Question now is :
Do you have any other explanation to our 1st case (the leaf insect)?

there is no other current accepted scientitfic explaination.
As i stated earlier the IPU could have done it. Same with the GFSM.

[ranma1/2]

I don't mean to be harsh, but it should be clear to any educated person that the insect in question is the product of evolutionary mechanisms. Now, don't get me wrong, this doesn't show that atheism is true. Perhaps there is a God who is ultimately responsible for everything, including the development of life on earth. Perhaps evolution itself is so remarkable that it could have only come from a designer. That's a possibility and it shouldn't be ruled out (not without further discussion of design arguments in general).

But nevertheless the insect and its remarkable adaptations are the result of evolution. That is a scientific fact. Of course, people in the USA often reject evolution, but that's an embarrassment to the nation, not something to be celebrated or encouraged.

atheism is true? atheism is true, i dont believe in a god or gods. As for wether any creator or gods exists that is another matter.

of course if evo was created by a designer then who made the designer..

[Dave2]

ranma1/2, I'm also an atheist. I was just saying that evolutionary biology by itself doesn't settle the issue.

[Trumble]

Peace.
Invisible and Pink ???????
Does it show disintegration of mind or depth of knowledge ?? Is this the way the atheists think ?

No, it just shows that the whole 'smiley' thing seems to have completely passed you by..

[Makky]

But nevertheless the insect and its remarkable adaptations are the result of evolution. That is a scientific fact. Of course, people in the USA often reject evolution, but that's an embarrassment to the nation, not something to be celebrated or encouraged.

there is no other current accepted scientitfic explaination.

So you both are Atheists and You both believe in the evolution theory. could you explain to us what happened to the 1st unicellular organizm to be after millions of years a leaf insect

so the Question is:

Regarding That a unicellular organizm reproduces by Division asexually while the leaf insect reproduces sexually, could you explain to us HOW its possible scientifically For a unicellular organism to mutate to be a multicellular organism?



Note:
We are Discussing here to display facts for the all..so no one post a link and say : read this you wil understand.

brothers and sisters we are still pausing sidetrack and secondary debates..please be patient..Step by Step and point by point..thanks in advance for allowing us to organize the thread

.

[glo]

There are some theists that beleve in evolution. :D
Evolution is not a religion. :skeleton:

I always thought Islam had no problem with the concept of evolution ... only with the evolution of humans ... but perhaps I remember wrongly ...

[Woodrow]

I always thought Islam had no problem with the concept of evolution ... only with the evolution of humans ... but perhaps I remember wrongly ...

Your memory is correct. But, there may be some Muslims who do view any thing with the word evolution as erroneous.


There does seem to be some disagreement over how evolution is defined. I would say that many if not most Muslims Including my self, see no problem with evolution when it is in terms of divine intervention. However, random evolution is a different story and often that is what many think of when evolution is mentioned.

[Trumble]

There does seem to be some disagreement over how evolution is defined. I would say that many if not most Muslims Including my self, see no problem with evolution when it is in terms of divine intervention. However, random evolution is a different story and often that is what many think of when evolution is mentioned.

I am not aware of any disagreement, at least in scientific terms. In what way is evolution "in terms of divine intervention" supposed to be different from "intelligent design" or "creationism"?

[Woodrow]

I am not aware of any disagreement, at least in scientific terms. In what way is evolution "in terms of divine intervention" supposed to be different from "intelligent design" or "creationism"?

Actually I should have said Intelligent design. Which is only through divine intervention. and so is creationism.

There should be no difference between Intelligent design and creationism, however there sees to be disagreement over definitions. Neither need deny evolution as both should be able to see evolution as a means of directed guided formation and not random.

Evolution has become a bad word with negative connotations that do not always show what is meant by evolution.

[Makky]

I am not aware of any disagreement, at least in scientific terms. In what way is evolution "in terms of divine intervention" supposed to be different from "intelligent design" or "creationism"?

Trumble! you are an evolutionist,, why don't you share us answering the Questions ?!

[Makky]

because of the complete lack of proof that a god exist....and no.....looking at the world is not enough because there are easily natural ways to explain everything...also because of the fact that allah would send someone to hell for simply saying he doesent exist....its really dumb imho.

I found this Quote in another thread... OK why don't you come to this thread and show us your muscles?

Answer the Questions if you can?!

[Makky]

3 Days and no one of The Atheists want to answer

I'm posting the last Question again..Maybe the didn't see it

But nevertheless the insect and its remarkable adaptations are the result of evolution. That is a scientific fact. Of course, people in the USA often reject evolution, but that's an embarrassment to the nation, not something to be celebrated or encouraged.

there is no other current accepted scientitfic explaination.

So you both are Atheists and You both believe in the evolution theory. could you explain to us what happened to the 1st unicellular organizm to be after millions of years a leaf insect

so the Question is:

Regarding That a unicellular organizm reproduces by Division asexually while the leaf insect reproduces sexually, could you explain to us HOW its possible scientifically For a unicellular organism to mutate to be a multicellular organism?



Note:
We are Discussing here to display facts for the all..so no one post a link and say : read this you wil understand.

brothers and sisters we are still pausing sidetrack and secondary debates..please be patient..Step by Step and point by point..thanks in advance for allowing us to organize the thread

.

[ranma1/2]

3 Days and no one of The Atheists want to answer

I'm posting the last Question again..Maybe the didn't see it

your attitude could be part of it. if you perhaps were less hostile we might bother.
Now what does it matter? Lets say i thought aliens did it would that help?

We have replyed to many of your questions and you ahve not replyed back. Please do most of us dont care for one sided dialogues. Also did you check the berkley link?
It should answer many of your questions. Also wikipedia and google are your friends.

heres a 3 sec search "has a little to do with computers as well"
http://evolutionofcomputing.org/Mult...llularity.html

[Malaikah]

I always thought Islam had no problem with the concept of evolution ... only with the evolution of humans ... but perhaps I remember wrongly ...

That is true. :) But I think many Muslim don't actually know that lol. :giggling:

Everyone seems to think Allah directly created animals, although there is no evidence (as far as I know- and this view is supported by people of knowledge) that suggests any thing other than humans were created directly and completely.

Perhaps evolution itself is so remarkable that it could have only come from a designer.

That is exactly the position I prefer to take!

[Makky]

A clever way to escape

your attitude could be part of it. if you perhaps were less hostile we might bother.
Now what does it matter? Lets say i thought aliens did it would that help?

where is your questions?..You didn't answer the main question..

We have replyed to many of your questions and you ahve not replyed back. Please do most of us dont care for one sided dialogues. Also did you check the berkley link?
It should answer many of your questions. Also wikipedia and google are your friends.

2 Quotes : NO Comment!!!!!!

Note:
Makky:
We are Discussing here to display facts for the all..so no one post a link and say : read this you wil understand.

ranma1/2:
heres a 3 sec search "has a little to do with computers as well"
http://evolutionofcomputing.org/Mult...llularity.html

[ranma1/2]

A clever way to escape




where is your questions?..You didn't answer the main question..



2 Quotes : NO Comment!!!!!!

we are here for a discussion. you obviously are not here to learn so what is the point of your questions? I can answer your question however i want. Links seem to be fine for me if they provide answers. Of course you are not interested in answers.

[Makky]

we are here for a discussion. you obviously are not here to learn so what is the point of your questions? I can answer your question however i want. Links seem to be fine for me if they provide answers. Of course you are not interested in answers.

I started this thread to display the truth for all ...All answers should be specific...What if i told you the evidence of Allah's existance is in this or that book and you replied : my proof there is no God is in that book or this link...what will be the benfiets of this discussion ..or even would you call it a discussion??!!

Please Ranma1/2 be specific and write your answers and don't post links please..I consider posting links a point of weakness and a good way to pretend that you have answers for each question..

[ranma1/2]

I started this thread to display the truth for all ...All answers should be specific...What if i told you the evidence of Allah's existance is in this or that book and you replied : my proof there is no God is in that book or this link...what will be the benfiets of this discussion ..or even would you call it a discussion??!!

Please Ranma1/2 be specific and write your answers and don't post links please..I consider posting links a point of weakness and a good way to pretend that you have answers for each question..

your discussion is worthless. you asked a question, we answered it. You did not reply.

the links i have given you are so you can educate yourself on evolution which you are obviously ignorant on. Evolution has been supported by evidence and science. Your book is supported by your book. Thats it.
Now if you care to actually ask for the purpose of learning rather than stupid strawmen and pratt arguments we mighttake you seriously.

But as long as you are willfully non interested in learning about science there is no point to this discussion.

[wilberhum]

I started this thread to display the truth for all ...All answers should be specific...What if i told you the evidence of Allah's existance is in this or that book and you replied : my proof there is no God is in that book or this link...what will be the benfiets of this discussion ..or even would you call it a discussion??!!

Please Ranma1/2 be specific and write your answers and don't post links please..I consider posting links a point of weakness and a good way to pretend that you have answers for each question..

No Makky, you started this thread to prove you are right and every one else is wrong.

What if, what if, lets not speculate what would happen if what if happened.

There is no proof. There never has been and I assume that there never will be.
As ranma1/2 said:

Evolution has been supported by evidence and science.

And no, it is not proof. But it is the best of our knowledge.
Have a good read. Educate your self.

[Makky]

your discussion is worthless. you asked a question, we answered it. You did not reply.

the links i have given you are so you can educate yourself on evolution which you are obviously ignorant on. Evolution has been supported by evidence and science. Your book is supported by your book. Thats it.
Now if you care to actually ask for the purpose of learning rather than stupid strawmen and pratt arguments we mighttake you seriously.

But as long as you are willfully non interested in learning about science there is no point to this discussion.

ranma1/2 you forced me to expose you and uncover you ignorance..I could post this post before , i was waiting that you might change your opinion. I don't know why you are closing all the doors facing you in the way to your salvation.

I'm sorry...
-------------

Brothers and sisters
my Question was

so the Question is:

Regarding That a unicellular organizm reproduces by Division asexually while the leaf insect reproduces sexually, could you explain to us HOW its possible scientifically For a unicellular organism to mutate to be a multicellular organism?



Note:
We are Discussing here to display facts for the all..so no one post a link and say : read this you wil understand.

His reply which he considers it an answer :

heres a 3 sec search "has a little to do with computers as well"
http://evolutionofcomputing.org/Mult...llularity.html

1-the website domain name is: evolution of computing .org , guess what it is talking about?!?
2-this is a paragraph from the link he posted

Parallels in the evolution of multicellular computing

In the world of computing, the evolution toward multicellularity began when PCs were used as terminals to mainframes in place of dedicated terminals. As more “smarts” or software function migrated from the mainframe to the PC terminals, the interaction between client and server became richer and more varied. Then, with the emergence of the Internet, the central role of the mainframe was eclipsed. Today we see loosely organized general-purpose computers in web communities, P2P networks, and ad hoc grids such as SETI at home. These loosely organized communities are comparable to biofilms. Some Grid architectures are more formal and specialized and therefore are more analogous to small Metazoa such as the hydra or perhaps small jellyfish. In any case, we now see at least some aspects of all four principles already at play. Specialization becomes more common. Polymorphic messaging, especially in Service Oriented Architectures (SOA), Web Services, and Web 2.0 mashups grows rapidly. New and interesting stigmergy structures abound. And the beginnings of apoptosis mechanisms are showing up.

Will computing require additional, or different basic principles? We cannot yet know. But the fact that the same four principles seem to be already emerging in the rather different world of multicellular computing suggests that these are a good set of organizing principles.

^^^ no comment ,lol

3-Do you find any answer to the question in the following , do you even find the words asexual or sexual reproduction?!

Conventional wisdom asserts that the primary benefit of multicellularity, hence presumably what drove its evolution, is the division of labor, or specialization, provided by differentiated cells. (see Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmáry, E. The Major Transitions in Evolution, 1995). But differentiation arose slowly. Prior to the emergence of differentiation there was a more temporary form of specialization in biofilms; there was polymorphic messaging between genetically identical cells (e.g., quorum sensing); there was apoptotic behavior; and there was stigmergy. So it is difficult to argue what the "primary" benefit might have been.

The transition from single-cell to multicellular life did not happen in one evolutionary leap. We do not know with much precision when and how the strategies arose that support today's multicellular organisms nor what alternatives were tried and failed. All we know is that what we see today survived the test of time.
From our current perspective it appears that multicellular life evolved from single cells in two stages. First, single cell organisms evolved the ability to form loose cooperative communities, called biofilms, that can perhaps be thought of as “training wheels” for multicellular life. Perhaps the earliest colony bacteria were the cyanobacteria that evolved more than three billion years ago. Their fossil remains are visible today because these colonies secreted a thick gel as protection from solar radiation unattenuated by (then nonexistent) atmospheric ozone. This gel, in turn, trapped sand and debris from the surf which, together with lime secreted by the bacteria, formed the beautiful patterns of the Stromatolite fossil reefs visible in Australia (see image at left). These structures vary in size from twig-size to semi-truck size. Biofilms remain common today. Present-day examples of biofilms include slime mold, dental plaque, films on rocks in streams and many more.

The need for four key principles of multicellularity
Perhaps one billion years ago true multicellular organisms formed – plants, animals, and fungi – known generically as Metazoans. All cells in a Metazoan organism share the same DNA. As the organism develops, the cells specialize by sequestering and permanently silencing much of their DNA according to developmental genetic programs. Some organisms have multiple stages of stable forms, e.g., insects that exhibit larval, pupae, and adult forms. But these developmental stages all involve programmed cell differentiation. For most cells (stem cells being the exception) differentiation and the resulting cell specialization, is dramatic and irreversible.


While the full complement of genes and DNA control sequences in the multi-cellular genome is far more complex than that of single cell organisms, any given type of cell – and there are about 250 different types in humans – is functionally much simpler. That is, specialization and differentiation during the evolution of multicellularity lowers the complexity of individual cells. Each differentiated cell type expresses (i.e., makes the proteins coded for) only a few percent of the 25,000 total human genes. For example, all cells in the body have the gene for hemoglobin, but only red blood cells express it. Along with this specialization, the cells had to send messages to each other without passing DNA. They also had to cooperate to develop their "body," which is a stigmergy structure. And they had to develop apoptosis to remove cells that had outlived their usefulness or become dangerous. Without all four of those principles, true multicellularity would not work.


Might a different set of basic multicellular principles have worked just as well? Possibly. A few small differences in the early stages might have given rise to other principles. But, if so, we cannot know what they might have been.

the comments of our Brothers and sisters are welcome

[wilberhum]

ranma1/2 you forced me to expose you and uncover you ignorance..

Poor young Makky, it is not ranma1/2 you are exposing. :hmm:

[Makky]

Poor young Makky, it is not ranma1/2 you are exposing. :hmm:

I understand why are you acting like that , If ranma1/2 or even you have something to prove scientifically I'm prety sure you wont hesitate to post it, but it is the fact that you really don't have an answer


the Question again For any Atheist or evolutionist:
Regarding That a unicellular organizm reproduces by Division asexually while the leaf insect reproduces sexually, could you explain to us HOW its possible scientifically For unicellular organisms to mutate to be multicellular organisms that have 2 kinds of complementary genital organs matching together inorder to reproduce sexually



.

[ranma1/2]

ranma1/2 you forced me to expose you and uncover you ignorance..I could post this post before , i was waiting that you might change your opinion. I don't know why you are closing all the doors facing you in the way to your salvation.

I'm sorry...
-------------

Brothers and sisters
my Question was



His reply which he considers it an answer :



1-the website domain name is: evolution of computing .org , guess what it is talking about?!?
2-this is a paragraph from the link he posted


^^^ no comment ,lol

3-Do you find any answer to the question in the following , do you even find the words asexual or sexual reproduction?!




the comments of our Brothers and sisters are welcome

my reply gave some possible ideas of how cells became multicellular, i also admittted that the article also spoke about computers. Sexuality had nothign to do with your question. The article gave some possiblitites.

Now if you keep on this "proof" nonsense.
Why dont you prove that I am not god.

[جوري]

Why dont you prove that I am not god.

Would love to come to NY and bring a gun!

[ranma1/2]

Would love to come to NY and bring a gun!

So you cant prove im not god?

[جوري]

So you cant prove im not god?

Are you dense? we have lost a great member today as well as his family and the community he served, yet riffraff like you continue to thrive, offer and contribute absolutely nothing. Right now I am in no mood for Bull$hit.
as they say in Arabic I'ti'ey sharii!

[ranma1/2]

Are you dense? we have lost a great member today as well as his family and the community he served, yet riffraff like you continue to thrive, offer and contribute absolutely nothing. Right now I am in no mood for Bull$hit.
as they say in Arabic I'ti'ey sharii!

lost a great member?
Im personally glad that one person has used their mind. If you consider it a lost thats for you. Personally i just see someone trying to question and learn.
I encourage people to be skeptical and to want to learn why.
Dont believe in evo, fine, be skeptical. Just try to learn. See a flaw , learn about it. But the worst thing you can do is stop thinking.

God has always been shrinking.
god use to control everything.
people feared the wrath of god in famine and weather.
disease etc. had been seen to be caused by god..etc...
your god has gotten smaller and smaller.

[جوري]

lost as in passed away you fool.. DIED...only you can be glad because you are sick!...think before you yap! I don't think you can comprehend simplest of sentiment let alone engage in a debate. I hope they give you the boot soon... I am so not in the mood to tango with words with your ilk... just take a hike!

[جوري]

A mod should close this thread.. it has lost all value!..

[ranma1/2]

A mod should close this thread.. it has lost all value!..

This is gonna be scary , I agree with you.
Except this thread has had no value to start with.
Of course I hate it when mods close threads.
If you dont want like the thread then ignore it.

[جوري]

I dislike your posts, not the thread!
you are crass, vulgar, and I don't think you have an ounce of humanity about you!

[ranma1/2]

I dislike your posts, not the thread!
you are crass, vulgar, and I don't think you have an ounce of humanity about you!

im sure you dislike my posts, although this is not my thread.
How am i vulgar? you are the one constantly making personal attacks on other members. You are the one that always tries to get a thread closed that you disagree with it.

[جوري]

I don't read your "threads" to try to get them closed, please don't give yourself this phony sense of importance and grandiosity! And I know this isn't your thread, hence I stated, I like the thread, I dislike your posts [ you say nothing of substance on any level, (scientific, technological, theological or philosophical)] if I wanted a superficial and fuzzy insight to any topic I'd rather tune in to entertainment tonight than read your gabble!... indeed I wish to see threads with this level of degeneration, posts that are unrestrained by common sense or morality closed... What is the point of keeping them really? tallying up the post count? or taking up web space? or an egoistical competition for vulgarity?
I simply don't want to engage you beyond this point, I haven't for a while and I plan to go on that same path... What you and your ilk think or feel is utterly inconsequential to me, I believe a soberly insight here is often misconstrued for sinister criticism.. which ever your view it is probably richly deserved in my humble opinion!
lastly once you refrain from the usual jejune responses, with posts whose contents include such terms as "constant, always or never" can you possibly then see what else is crass and vulgar about them.

[guyabano]

I understand why are you acting like that , If ranma1/2 or even you have something to prove scientifically I'm prety sure you wont hesitate to post it, but it is the fact that you really don't have an answer


the Question again For any Atheist or evolutionist:
Regarding That a unicellular organizm reproduces by Division asexually while the leaf insect reproduces sexually, could you explain to us HOW its possible scientifically For unicellular organisms to mutate to be multicellular organisms that have 2 kinds of complementary genital organs matching together inorder to reproduce sexually
.

As stated already a few times, you are not looking for answers (as they were given already many times) but you just want to expose everybody who has not the same believings than you! That is the only reason why you started this thread.
As some before mentionned already: Start to read and educate yourself. Thats why you have internet. There is all what you need to know, or in your precise case, what you DON'T WANT TO KNOW/ACCEPT.
There are MILLIONS of links about science and evolution on the WWW.

This thread should really be closed now!

[Makky]

As stated already a few times, you are not looking for answers (as they were given already many times) but you just want to expose everybody who has not the same believings than you! That is the only reason why you started this thread

Yes I'm not looking for answers because there is no answers , The Greatest evolutionist is not able to prove the 1st step in this theory..
and Yes I want to expose everybody who has not the same believing than me , not because its my OWN belief -I'm but A slave In My God's universe- but because the Truth is what I and muslims believe in ...So yes my goal here is to expose evolutionists like you...

As some before mentionned already: Start to read and educate yourself. Thats why you have internet. There is all what you need to know, or in your precise case, what you DON'T WANT TO KNOW/ACCEPT.
There are MILLIONS of links about science and evolution on the WWW.

I don't know how old you are , i started reading about evolution when i was about 16years old..and i studied it about 9 years ago , maybe at this time you were playing with toys i don't know, i'm not sure.

There are MILLIONS of links about science and evolution on the WWW.

I feel so good when evolutionists like you post links or refer to internet..I'm glad to see your disability to answer..

This thread should really be closed now

I know why you want it to be closed , its not you only , but all the evolutionists here :D

This is a private Question for you

you said :

you are not looking for answers (as they were given already many times)

take yourtime to find those answers that where given many times, you can use the keys : ctrl+c to copy and the keys ctrl+v to paste

the main Question was :

the Question again For any Atheist or evolutionist:
Regarding That a unicellular organizm reproduces by Division asexually while the leaf insect reproduces sexually, could you explain to us HOW its possible scientifically For unicellular organisms to mutate to be multicellular organisms that have 2 kinds of complementary genital organs matching together inorder to reproduce sexually

[Makky]

my reply gave some possible ideas of how cells became multicellular, i also admittted that the article also spoke about computers. Sexuality had nothign to do with your question. The article gave some possiblitites.

Now if you keep on this "proof" nonsense.
Why dont you prove that I am not god.

Poor Ranma1/2 , your disability to answer or to prove the 1st step in this theory is base on the impossibility of the existance of any scientific mechanism to explain the existance of sexual pairs..

Your disability is based on the underlined part of the question


the Question again For any Atheist or evolutionist:
Regarding That a unicellular organizm reproduces by Division asexually while the leaf insect reproduces sexually, could you explain to us HOW its possible scientifically For unicellular organisms to mutate to be multicellular organisms that have 2 kinds of complementary genital organs matching together inorder to reproduce sexually

Allah says in the Qur'an: Glory to Allah, Who created in pairs all things that the earth produces, as well as their own (human) kind and (other) things of which they have no knowledge. (36/36)

Allahu Akbar

[guyabano]

Hold on, I will get you an answer soon !

And btw... Allah says... hmmmm, remember me the movie 'Die hard 3'...Simon says...

Can you proove, that Allah said that? Of course not, you just assume it !

[Makky]

Hold on, I will get you an answer soon !

lol

this is the 3rd time to edit your post...calm down ..take it easy

[guyabano]

Here is all what you need to know and this explains why what you call 'asexual cells' split:

The cell

The cell theory, first developed in 1839 by Schleiden and Schwann, states that all organisms are composed of one or more cells; all cells come from preexisting cells; all vital functions of an organism occur within cells, and cells contain the hereditary information necessary for regulating cell functions and for transmitting information to the next generation of cells.

There are two types of cells, eukaryotic and prokaryotic. Prokaryotic cells are usually singletons, while eukaryotic cells are usually found in multi-cellular organisms. Prokaryotic cells lack a nuclear membrane so DNA is unbound within the cell, eukaryotic cells have nuclear membranes.

All cells, whether prokaryotic or eukaryotic, have a membrane, which envelopes the cell, separates its interior from its environment, regulates what moves in and out, and maintains the electric potential of the cell. Inside the membrane, a salty cytoplasm takes up most of the cell volume. All cells possess DNA, the hereditary material of genes, and RNA, containing the information necessary to build various proteins such as enzymes, the cell's primary machinery. There are also other kinds of biomolecules in cells.

All cells share several abilities[5]:

* Reproduction by cell division (binary fission, mitosis or meiosis).
* Use of enzymes and other proteins coded for by DNA genes and made via messenger RNA intermediates and ribosomes.
* Metabolism, including taking in raw materials, building cell components, converting energy, molecules and releasing by-products. The functioning of a cell depends upon its ability to extract and use chemical energy stored in organic molecules. This energy is derived from metabolic pathways.
* Response to external and internal stimuli such as changes in temperature, pH or nutrient levels.
* Cell contents are contained within a cell surface membrane that contains proteins and a lipid bilayera.

Cell division is a process by which a cell, called the parent cell, divides into two cells, called daughter cells. Cell division is usually a small segment of a larger cell cycle. In meiosis however, a cell is permanently transformed and cannot divide again.

For simple unicellular organisms such as the Amoeba, one cell division reproduces an entire organism. On a larger scale, cell division can create progeny from multicellular organisms, such as plants that grow from cuttings. Cell division also enables sexually reproducing organisms to develop from the one-celled zygote, which itself was produced by cell division from gametes. And after growth, cell division allows for continual renewal and repair of the organism.

The primary concern of cell division is the maintenance of the original cell's genome. Before division can occur, the genomic information which is stored in chromosomes must be replicated, and the duplicated genome separated cleanly between cells. A great deal of cellular infrastructure is involved in keeping genomic information consistent between "generations".

Can be read here and here !

Now don't tell me, the question hasn't been answered !

And for add. info, this is a very nice reading to explain you a lot of questions you might have: http://www.scribd.com/doc/1016/Life-...irth-to-death/

[Makky]

I'm sure that evolutionists who studied biology would blame you for this ( copy-paste ) reply.

well I have many points to Show now.

1st point

my private Question for you was : to show me where the answers were stated previously in this thread , but your answer was an essay from a new link..this means that all Atheist's replies werenot prsuading you and you didn't consider them a valid answer to be posted by you, this is a sign that i should thank you for.. also this means that you were just posting fanatically when you stated that they answered me ..you are now assertting that they didn't answer , you are now asserting that they couldn't answer..


2nd point

Here is all what you need to know and this explains why what you call 'asexual cells' split:

The cell

The cell theory, first developed in 1839 by Schleiden and Schwann, states that all organisms are composed of one or more cells; all cells come from preexisting cells; all vital functions of an organism occur within cells, and cells contain the hereditary information necessary for regulating cell functions and for transmitting information to the next generation of cells.

There are two types of cells, eukaryotic and prokaryotic. Prokaryotic cells are usually singletons, while eukaryotic cells are usually found in multi-cellular organisms. Prokaryotic cells lack a nuclear membrane so DNA is unbound within the cell, eukaryotic cells have nuclear membranes.

All cells, whether prokaryotic or eukaryotic, have a membrane, which envelopes the cell, separates its interior from its environment, regulates what moves in and out, and maintains the electric potential of the cell. Inside the membrane, a salty cytoplasm takes up most of the cell volume. All cells possess DNA, the hereditary material of genes, and RNA, containing the information necessary to build various proteins such as enzymes, the cell's primary machinery. There are also other kinds of biomolecules in cells.

All cells share several abilities[5]:

* Reproduction by cell division (binary fission, mitosis or meiosis).
* Use of enzymes and other proteins coded for by DNA genes and made via messenger RNA intermediates and ribosomes.
* Metabolism, including taking in raw materials, building cell components, converting energy, molecules and releasing by-products. The functioning of a cell depends upon its ability to extract and use chemical energy stored in organic molecules. This energy is derived from metabolic pathways.
* Response to external and internal stimuli such as changes in temperature, pH or nutrient levels.
* Cell contents are contained within a cell surface membrane that contains proteins and a lipid bilayera.

Cell division is a process by which a cell, called the parent cell, divides into two cells, called daughter cells. Cell division is usually a small segment of a larger cell cycle. In meiosis however, a cell is permanently transformed and cannot divide again.

this long Qoute is saying nothing about the evoultion theory or mutation ,
I don't know why did you post all this long essay? do you want people to get bored to give up reading?

what in the privious qoute is only talking about the cell division an how unicellular organisms reproduce , and multicellular organisms and how they grow and repair..

the existance of unicellular and multicellular and that unicellular organisms reproduces by division were stated in the Question

see:

the Question again For any Atheist or evolutionist:
Regarding That a unicellular organizm reproduces by Division asexually while the leaf insect reproduces sexually, could you explain to us HOW its possible scientifically For unicellular organisms to mutate to be multicellular organisms that have 2 kinds of complementary genital organs matching together inorder to reproduce sexually

Did I ask you to explain the division process and to categorize cells types.. all the readers know there are unicellular and multicellular organisms , Its very clear that you are wasting time and covering your disability to answer


3rd point

For simple unicellular organisms such as the Amoeba, one cell division reproduces an entire organism. On a larger scale, cell division can create progeny from multicellular organisms, such as plants that grow from cuttings. Cell division also enables sexually reproducing organisms to develop from the one-celled zygote, which itself was produced by cell division from gametes. And after growth, cell division allows for continual renewal and repair of the organism.

The primary concern of cell division is the maintenance of the original cell's genome. Before division can occur, the genomic information which is stored in chromosomes must be replicated, and the duplicated genome separated cleanly between cells. A great deal of cellular infrastructure is involved in keeping genomic information consistent between "generations".

where is the evolution theory ? I'll tell you what this qoute is talking about , Guyabano! at 1st i must tell you what does zygote means , zygote is a cell that is the result of fertilization all human beings for example were zygotes before , the zygote is a one cell formed by the merging of 2 cells ( usually but not always 1 sperm and 1 ovum). this one cell starts to divide to form organs bones nerves etc.

its a scientific fact that all multicellular organisms were zygotes , also its a scientific fact that we human beings got repaired by cellular division , if someone had a cut in his body he doesn't ask his parents to give him fertilized cells to heal his wound :D , but cells surrounding the cut divides to form more cells to cover the wound again. this is simillar in plants when you cut a branch

now look again to the red words in your quote and for sure you will understand :D


4th point

now after my explanation i'm pretty sure that you want to edit this following qoute:

Now don't tell me, the question hasn't been answered !

and you will agree with me that you didn't answer the question

[root]

Peace be upon those who Follow the truth.
may Guidance be to those who search the Truth

SNIP

Camouflage became an essential part of modern military tactics after the increase in accuracy and rate of fire of weapons at the end of the 19th century.

Actually this is not true so your debate opens with a falsehood. Not a good start, FYI, camouflage became an essential part of modern military tactics when weapons switched to fully cased ammunition which cleared the battlefield of heavy smoke which is why armies did not use camouflage in the first place because it was so smoky u could not see the enemy literally metres ahead of u. Accuracy, was a bonus but not the cause for camouflage

In nature it was found that some living things have the ability to blend into their environment or conceal their shape; for prey animals to avoid predators and for predators to be able to sneak up on prey.

wehey, I could agree with u here.

one of the amazing differences between Camouflage as a modern military tactic and Camouflage in nature is that human being use camouflage to blend into the surrounding, while in nature some animals and insects bodies are already camouflaged..

Agreed. we are going well

The leaf insect is our first example:

SNIP

Questions
1- Did this insect look at the mirror when it was born?

Probably not.

2-Does it know what the word camouflage means?

Probably not

3-Even if it knows, could it draw a shap of leaf on its back a full detailed leaf even with ribs and dry spots?

Probably not

Atheists!...Answer!

I have. what's your point?

[guyabano]

and you will agree with me that you didn't answer the question

Nope, I fully answered. There are many specific words in this text, but you said, copy/paste was allowed. Don't go now deeper and at least admit, people were able to answer your question.

[Makky]

Nope, I fully answered. There are many specific words in this text, but you said, copy/paste was allowed. Don't go now deeper and at least admit, people were able to answer your question.

I didn't expect that you will continue like that?

If you want to prove then mention one word only from the follwoing words in your essay
1- evolution
2-mutation
3-natural selection
---------------
those 3 words are almost the basic words in the theory of evolution
--------------
you wont find them in you essay
-------------
your essay isn't talking about the theory of evoulution at all
------------
poor guyabano , try again



Root you are welcome

[wilberhum]

There is pattern that has developed here.

Makky asks a question,
But he already has deterred that there is only one valid answer.
He demands an answer.
Any answer other than god is proclaimed inadequate.

You can not provide answers to someone who knows everything. :-\

[Makky]

There is pattern that has developed here.

Makky asks a question,
But he already has deterred that there is only one valid answer.
He demands an answer.
Any answer other than god is proclaimed inadequate.

You can not provide answers to someone who knows everything. :-\

Wilber!

If you have an evidence of what you are saying then mention any valid answer among those weak replies..then lets discuss it.

be specific! all what you said has no evidence.

[wilberhum]

Wilber!

If you have an evidence of what you are saying then mention any valid answer among those weak replies..then lets discuss it.

be specific! all what you said has no evidence.

The answer I come up with is not god. So to you, it is by default, invalid.
Pointless. :hiding: It is like having a discussion with a wall. :confused:

[Makky]

The answer I come up with is not god. So to you, it is by default, invalid.
Pointless. :hiding: It is like having a discussion with a wall. :confused:

I didn't ask Who?

how come your answer its not GOD?

[wilberhum]

I didn't ask Who?

how come your answer its not GOD?

Because, I find the answers in natural processes.

Now your next question will be "What are those Natural Processes?".
Don't bother. You have received answers, but since they aren’t god, you don't accept them.
:muddlehea
Your interest in not in receiving or giving knowledge. Your only interest is attempting to prove god is the answer. :thumbs_do

An impossible task and I am not your pawn. :playing:

[Makky]

Because, I find the answers in natural processes.

Now your next question will be "What are those Natural Processes?".
Don't bother. You have received answers, but since they aren’t god, you don't accept them.
:muddlehea
Your interest in not in receiving or giving knowledge. Your only interest is attempting to prove god is the answer. :thumbs_do

An impossible task and I am not your pawn. :playing:

Wilber...its not a problem for me to skip this Question to discuss the next Questions,, Didn't you notice that we haven't discussed yet the leaf insect itself.. there is a chain of Questions until we reach the leaf insect itself..But the debaters are weaker than I was expecting .though i know that this Question has no answer but at least i was expecting a higher level of debaters..at least Fair ones.

[wilberhum]

Wilber...its not a problem for me to skip this Question to discuss the next Questions,, Didn't you notice that we haven't discussed yet the leaf insect itself.. there is a chain of Questions until we reach the leaf insect itself..But the debaters are weaker than I was expecting .though i know that this Question has no answer but at least i was expecting a higher level of debaters..at least Fair ones.

I am not your pawn.

By-By Makky.

[Makky]

I have. what's your point?

Welcome Root!

the pending Question is the 3rd one in this thread.. you answered the 1st group, and you don't need to answer the 2nd Question as its clear that you are an evolutionist Atheist , the third Question is :

the Question again For any Atheist or evolutionist:
Regarding That a unicellular organizm reproduces by Division asexually while the leaf insect reproduces sexually, could you explain to us HOW its possible scientifically For unicellular organisms to mutate to be multicellular organisms that have 2 kinds of complementary genital organs matching together inorder to reproduce sexually

[Makky]

I am not your pawn.

By-By Makky.

Ok wilber its up to you, but it seems that you don't read my posts carefully

bye :D

[guyabano]

Welcome Root!

the pending Question is the 3rd one in this thread.. you answered the 1st group, and you don't need to answer the 2nd Question as its clear that you are an evolutionist Atheist , the third Question is :

Now, this will definetely answer it. And please, read it carefully and conciencely as it is the exact answer to your question. It is just a matter if you will understand it. I forwarded this question to a Professor in science who I know.

He said:

During evolution, some unicellular organisms improved survival via symbiosis (each cell did something that improved the survival or another). For example, one cell mutated to produce a metabolic product needed by the other...and vice versa. So the first change...as a result of mutations occuring within individual cells...was the generation of multicellular colonies. Pond scum and tube worms are living examples. Over a great deal of time and many, many mutations, subcolonies of cells within the larger colony develped, each specializing in some new function that benefited the colony as a whole. This marked the beginning of tissues and eventually, organs. Replacement of cells subcolonies was via mitosis...or simple cell division (full 2 copies of DNA)....which yields clones of identical cells.

Sexual reproduction at the celluar level only requires 2 things: 1) a single copy of of the genomic DNA and 2) transfer of this to another cell with a single copy of genomic DNA. A simple mutation in DNA synthesis in one subcolony of cells would have created the precursors of "eggs" and "sperm" by this process which we call "meiosis". And as for transfer mechanisms...there are MANY different kinds in unicellular organisms. Bacteria routinely transfer DNA-containing plasmids to other bacteria.

So...meiosis is the fundamental mechanism of sexual reproducton which is...at the DNA level...simply DNA "recombination". Two single copies of DNA recombine to form the full complement. Recombining DNA provides survival value by passing on useful mutations in one cell to others within a subcolony. Hence, natural selection preserved this mechanism.

As for the sexual organs, these clearly developed as multicellular organisms became more complex. At some stage the multicelluar organism became a distinct "animal" or a "plant" and some means for transferring DNA from one individual to another co-evolved. The path would have been complex and involved many mutations to create a transfer device for one "animal" and a recepticle for another.

Hermaphroditic worms probably represent one stage in this development. And parthenogenesis....reproduction from an egg in the absence of sperm....is probably another stage. The latter has been preserved in some reptiles.

So "sexual organs" may have first developed in a SINGLE animal...which then mutated into two different sorts of creatures...namely males and females. Think of an earth worm with both male and female sexual organs. All it takes is a series of mutations that produce offspring which possess one type of sexual organ or the other. Parthenogenesis permits reproduction in the absence of a "mate"...partial survival...but it doesn't capture useful mutations in other members of a species. Hence, natural selection has not favored it as a universal mechanism.

Now I really urge you to stop digging more, as you blatantly failed your mission in this thread, that Allah is the creator of all. It is simply evolution and mutation which brang up lifeforms on this earth.

This was my last post in this thread as I prooved all what was to proove !

Peace !

[Makky]

Finally!!!
Thanks guyabano this was the answer I was waiting for, I was waiting for an answer like that from more than 5 days!!
all these claims were discussed many times before. but as I told you I started this thread to expose Atheists and evolutionists.
It would be easy to copy-paste links or books and websites as most of the evolutionists here like to do , like ranma1/2 who follows a theory called ( paste and run)

but finally an Atheist here started to use his senses and to be specific and to follow a scientific way for discussion , this person is guyabano

he is better than many evolutionists here , though it took him time to evolute and mutate :D to be a specific debater.

guyabano simply realized that he must ask a BIG evolutionist to answer this question that has never passed by his mind before . He lost his trust in all his search engines that let him down and others as well many times in this thread.

guyabano due to natural selection :D as mentioned in the theory of evolution you should stay, you shouldn't leave the thread while you are the only one at least at this moment who succeed to bring a valid answer for discussion ( not a valid answer to the question , the proof is coming later )

I was really about to skip this Question because i was frustrated from the low level of the discussion

Wilber...its not a problem for me to skip this Question to discuss the next Questions,, Didn't you notice that we haven't discussed yet the leaf insect itself.. there is a chain of Questions until we reach the leaf insect itself. But the debaters are weaker than I was expecting. though i know that this Question has no answer but at least i was expecting a higher level of debaters. at least Fair ones.

But now i wont skip the Question, because there is something to discuss, though it has been discussed many times before. but you know its a good thing in inviting people to the truth -when normal evolutionists see by their eyes the claims of their scientists being refuted - .

that why the invitation in the beginning of the thread was

This is an invitation to the greatest Atheists ( :D no Atheist is great ) in the world to debate here in this thread

this is a serious Challenge

Guyabano you are in contact with a scientist why do you want to go? staying here will rise the level of the thread .

As I mentioned before the aim of this thread is to expose those who don't believe in GoD ..at least infornt of themselves

Guybano has proven to us that:

ranma1/2,Trumble,dave2,wilber,and guabano himself - maybe i can exclude root- are :

1- Fanatic unjust evolutionists:

because they were claming that they were answering valid answers , yet the only scientific valid answer (valid for discussion only) was brought later by guyabano.

2- blind followers

because they Follow thier preconseptions even without any evidence in thier hands

this is a serious advice for you : most of you are atheists and you all have preconseption that evolution is your evidence on which your atheism rests on . but its very clear that you only have some general knowledge about evolution . its not difficult for a normal person to realize that he couldn't settle his beliefs - on which his fate will be determined - he couldn't settle his beliefs on general knowledge , or on assumptions and doubts. so the advise is : proof before belief .

My last advice before starting the discussion : let your priority is to find the truth , for only one reason, for your personal salvation . Don't wrong yourself inorder to look good in a debate

--------------------------
note
proof before belief belief here is not equal to faith because we are all born with faith by default yet some become Atheists and some become buddists etc

[maroon1]

People accept evolution without solid evidence. "Millions of years" of evidence which should have cumulated is simply not there...

There are zero evidence for creationism

There are many evidence of evolution, like transitional fossils,....... etc

It is a fact that inherited traits of a population changes from generation to generation.

It is a fact that mutation and genetic drifts happens

It is a fact that there are transitional fossils

It is a fact that each kind of animal have adapted to their environment through the process natural selection (for example, camel have biological traits that let him survive in the hot desert)


All these facts and evidences leads us to the conclusion that evolution is true, and all those facts contradicts with creationism. Creationism can't explain how did we have different races of human (white, Negro, Asians). creationism can't explain how camels had biological traits that let him survive in the hot desert

And there is no alternative theory for evolution

[guyabano]

@Makky,

please keep sarcasm out of here! if you cannot accept this answer as a truth, so let it be and simply accept, there are people who have other beliefs than you.
One thing you have to learn is to be more tolerant, my dear brother in humanity !

@Mods: This question/topic has been answered completely and should be closed

Add:

because they Follow thier preconseptions even without any evidence in thier hands

I gave you every evidence you needed, so I don't get your point !

[Trumble]

most of you are atheists and you all have preconseption that evolution is your evidence on which your atheism rests on

"Proof before belief", huh? :D OK... :rolleyes:

If I may offer a little observation myself in return? You seem have a very strange idea that most atheists got to be that way because of their 'belief' in evolution. Actually, for the vast majority, that is not the case and never has been. There have, amazingly, been atheists since an awfully long time before Darwin... my own religious tradition has been atheistic (at least in the sense you mean) for a thousand years before Islam existed. Theism and evolution are not even incompatible.

In my own case, and a lot of other people's, the 'killer' argument (there are several others) is the so-called "Problem of Evil" and the failure of theists to provide an even remotely convincing solution to it. That particular issue has been discussed at great length in previous threads.

[Makky]

@Makky,

please keep sarcasm out of here! if you cannot accept this answer as a truth, so let it be and simply accept, there are people who have other beliefs than you.
One thing you have to learn is to be more tolerant, my dear brother in humanity !

You cant call it tolerance when you see someone taking a lethal poison and you don't even give him an advice.

Do you call it tolerance when you are able to rescue someone but you don't pay attention.

@Mods: This question/topic has been answered completely and should be closed

why do you want the thread to be closed! do you want it to be closed quikly before i answer ?

From where did you know that my reply wont refute this answer?

Didn't I say :

because they Follow thier preconseptions even without any evidence in thier hands

Guyabano I didn't mean to offend you personaly , but remember :
let your priority is to find the truth , for only one reason, for your personal salvation . Don't wrong yourself inorder to look good in a debate

[Makky]

There are zero evidence for creationism

There are many evidence of evolution, like transitional fossils,....... etc

It is a fact that inherited traits of a population changes from generation to generation.

It is a fact that mutation and genetic drifts happens

It is a fact that there are transitional fossils

It is a fact that each kind of animal have adapted to their environment through the process natural selection (for example, camel have biological traits that let him survive in the hot desert)


All these facts and evidences leads us to the conclusion that evolution is true, and all those facts contradicts with creationism. Creationism can't explain how did we have different races of human (white, Negro, Asians). creationism can't explain how camels had biological traits that let him survive in the hot desert

And there is no alternative theory for evolution

Maroon1 you are welcome to post here.. but please the debate has a context
Do you agree with Guyabano in his last answer for the 3rd Question?

[Makky]

"Proof before belief", huh? :D OK... :rolleyes:

If I may offer a little observation myself in return? You seem have a very strange idea that most atheists got to be that way because of their 'belief' in evolution. Actually, for the vast majority, that is not the case and never has been. There have, amazingly, been atheists since an awfully long time before Darwin... my own religious tradition has been atheistic (at least in the sense you mean) for a thousand years before Islam existed. .

I don't pay attention except for educated Atheists after Darwin..

proof before belief

proof before belief : belief here is not equal to faith because we are all born with faith by default yet some become Atheists and some become buddists etc

[Trumble]

I don't pay attention except for educated Atheists after Darwin..

Perhaps you should, you might learn something. :)

The same arguments are just as relevant and important to those "educated Atheists after Darwin".

[ranma1/2]

[QUOTE=Makky;792010]I don't pay attention ..../QUOTE]


wow the only sincere thing you have said so far...

[MustafaMc]

Evolution is not goal oriented so its not heading toward a "perfect" form. But it allows for "improvement" through mutation and weeding out those less fit through selection.

Asexual reproduction for instance has a main drawback in that you can not easily adapt, all mutations must come from your line. Were as if you sexually reproduce you can then have multiple sources of dna that can have all types of mutations that allow for greater selection and adapatation.

And there is no need for life. However ignoring that, through the process of evo, those forms that can reproduce quicker will more likely dominate a gene pool. So need in not needed. Just a process.

Question for you - What happens when closely related, as opposed to completely unrelated, people have sexual intercourse and produce children? Does this type of mating result in children that are stronger, smarter and more evolutionary fit, or is the exact opposite true?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...stract/40/1/55
Eighteen prospectively ascertained cases of brother x sister and father x daughter matings are described. A series of illegitimate children whose mothers were as nearly matched as possible to the incest mothers for intelligence, age, height, weight, and socioeconomic conditions were used as controls. Six of the children of incest had died or were found to have major defects on follow-up 6 months after birth date, whereas one of the comparison children was so classified. This is a larger inbreeding effect than would be predicted on the basis of published findings from marriages of first cousins. The series is published at this time to encourage others to collect these important, but rare and elusive data, in a prospective, controlled manner.

What is the reason for children from the mating of a brother with his sister being less fit if the child survives long enough to even be born? Is it not the expression of deleterious recessive (mutated) genes that are masked in the heterozygous state by expression of the functional, unmutated allele? Even the case of the sickle-cell anemia mutation that Sister PurestAmbrosia has previously referenced is deleterious in the homozygous state. How can a destructive process (mutation) be the foundation for the creation of new and improved species from a single uni-cellular "common ancestor" through naturalistic evolution that is not guided by a Higher Power?

[MustafaMc]

I would love to see a human just try to create something out of nothing.:rollseyes

I agree, sister, what about the creation without the use of a living organism of a single functional protein such as hemoglobin from the elemental building blocks of carbon dioxide, oxygen, water, ammonia, iron, etc? If man can't do it in a laboratory with his intimate knowledge of biochemistry, then how can it form by itself just by chance in nature.

[جوري]

Question for you - What happens when closely related, as opposed to completely unrelated, people have sexual intercourse and produce children? Does this type of mating result in children that are stronger, smarter and more evolutionary fit, or is the exact opposite true?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...stract/40/1/55
Eighteen prospectively ascertained cases of brother x sister and father x daughter matings are described. A series of illegitimate children whose mothers were as nearly matched as possible to the incest mothers for intelligence, age, height, weight, and socioeconomic conditions were used as controls. Six of the children of incest had died or were found to have major defects on follow-up 6 months after birth date, whereas one of the comparison children was so classified. This is a larger inbreeding effect than would be predicted on the basis of published findings from marriages of first cousins. The series is published at this time to encourage others to collect these important, but rare and elusive data, in a prospective, controlled manner.

What is the reason for children from the mating of a brother with his sister being less fit if the child survives long enough to even be born? Is it not the expression of deleterious recessive (mutated) genes that are masked in the heterozygous state by expression of the functional, unmutated allele? Even the case of the sickle-cell anemia mutation that Sister PurestAmbrosia has previously referenced is deleterious in the homozygous state. How can a destructive process (mutation) be the foundation for the creation of new and improved species from a single uni-cellular "common ancestor" through naturalistic evolution that is not guided by a Higher Power?

Akhi pls don't descend down to the level of this cartoonist.. it is futile.. and just to add even in the heterozygous for HbS/HbF produce 60-70% HbS and 20-30% HbF-- they may certainly exhibit symptoms under extreme conditions of Hypoxia, Dehydration, Vascular Stasis, Fever or Acidosis, and you'll see sickling and it confers no benefits save in the remote states of Malaria (which I was the one who pointed it out to begin with) the same way I pointed out that trinucleotide repeat expansion defy the very basics of natural selection.... Do you really want to engage an ailing one track mind or are you just missing the cut and paste of Berckley with no thought or integration of the material whatsoever?
:w:

[MustafaMc]

A good example for the perfection of evolution is the cockroach. Yes, indeed, the cockroach didn't change its physical appearance anymore since at least 1 million of years. It reached its perfection as a creature for its needs. It's a survivor, and it will even survive mankind, and who knows, will still be there, when a new civilisation will arise on this planet.

If cockroaches would know to speak, what would they tell us... ?

So this species, the mighty cockroach, became completely immune to the species-creating process of mutation. Interesting, I thought evolution claimed continuous species improvement through mutation, genetic recombination and natural selection.^o)

[CptSunbeam]

So this species, the mighty cockroach, became completely immune to the species-creating process of mutation. Interesting, I thought evolution claimed continuous species improvement through mutation, genetic recombination and natural selection

I don't know if this may be useful, as I'm no biology expert. But I have read recently that, regardless of mutation or lacktherof, genetic traits developed after birth are never inherited; your children obly inherit your original blueprint, your genetic code at birth.

As I'm led to believe, Natural Selection proceeds not because an organism adapts directly to its environment, but because only those members with beneficial genes survive. So the least fit members of a species are weeded out. In this manner, the species slowly "changes" to one better suited to its environment. This does not mean that mutations do not occur, it just means that unless you are born with the mutation, it is not inherited.

[guyabano]

I'm tired of this thread. I get the feeling, I talk to a wall.

I honestly didn't see any muslim who would maybe just say 'Yes, maybe there is something true in evolution'

Out of this thread, I gain some new knowlegde, for sure, that there cannot exist mulsim biologists and chemists as they all think, that is the work of Satan, God or its Voodoo when cells split or mutate under a microscope.

So far

[جوري]

I don't know if this may be useful, as I'm no biology expert. But I have read recently that, regardless of mutation or lacktherof, genetic traits developed after birth are never inherited; your children obly inherit your original blueprint, your genetic code at birth.

As I'm led to believe, Natural Selection proceeds not because an organism adapts directly to its environment, but because only those members with beneficial genes survive. So the least fit members of a species are weeded out. In this manner, the species slowly "changes" to one better suited to its environment. This does not mean that mutations do not occur, it just means that unless you are born with the mutation, it is not inherited.

this thread has been answered here many times..
a few points because I don't want to get into this or give it more than it is worth!
1- there are indeed sporadic mutations
2- there are de novo mutations
3- there are inherited mutations
4- there are Trinucleotide repeat expansion such as myotonic dystrophy, Fragile X syndrome, Huntington's Chorea and many others who not only (don't get weeded out but continue to get worst with each successive generation) you may read up about them from a simple google search, this defies the very basic concept of natural selction.. of being weeded out because they are better suited for the environment!
No mutation known to us causes anything but a truncated protein, sometime no change at all ( with silent mutations).. sometimes diseases or cancer.. adaptation yes...but not speciation!
it is easy to accept some scientific theories, and be thought of as an illuminati, it is much more rewarding to be the pioneer who looks at it all together, bring questions to the table and thus defy "conventional wisdom" or theory substitution when there are so many holes un patched!

peace!

[CptSunbeam]

Like I said, I'm no expert, but I did not say that mutations are not inherited, I said that acquired mutations are not inherited. I believe the diseases you referred to are heritable via sex chromosomes, are they not? Please correct me if I am incorrect on this.

And yes I agree, "speciation" has been ill-defined. As with anything poorly defined, it is not possible to properly assess the evidence for it. One thing that is not in question is that individual species adapt to their environment, all wothout God's help. Even without mutation it is reasoable to conclude that those with beneficial "adaptations" will survive over and above the others. No one will deny that, whether you believe in "speciation" or not. Interestingly, this adaptive mechanism will cause a species to slowly chane into one better suited to its environment. Will it ever become a new species? Don't ask me...

[جوري]

myotonic dyst. is of mitochondrial inheritance... meaning only the mother can pass it along, as you know the portion of the sperm retained during fertilization doesn't have a mito... fragile X is indeed X linked recessive, affecting only boys.. I can go into some details of how females methylate on of their X chromosome, which would be far more expansive than the topic of this page, and lasty Huntington's Chorea is Autosomal dominant... I don't know if you know anything about the country singer 'Woody' Guthrie who died of this Dz.. certainly people were concerned that his son another country singer would suffer same plight given his chances, and of course if he had children it would be passed down to them etc etc getting successivly worst with each generation.. the point isn't to fan my feathers like a peacock, but to tell you, to be a little but critical of things you read or .. putting fossils in a show case and jumping to conclusions a leap is in and of itself a leap of faith in the guise of science.. I am not saying it can't happen.. I am saying we haven't seen beyind a reasonable doubt that a mutation has indeed led that to happen.. finally I think these two papers are excellent to describe the evolutionary process from a statistical physics point of view and another on the probability of randomly assembling cells..
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf

[MustafaMc]

I don't know if this may be useful, as I'm no biology expert. But I have read recently that, regardless of mutation or lacktherof, genetic traits developed after birth are never inherited; your children obly inherit your original blueprint, your genetic code at birth.

Genetic mutations to sperm and eggs in the reprocuctive organs are indeed passed to the children such that they have defects not expressed in the parents. A prime example is the exposure of parents to "depleted uranium" in anti-tank shells used in Iraq that cause birth defects in their children.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1112-01.htm

Rokke said: "Verified adverse health effects from personal experience, physicians and from personal reports from individuals with known DU exposures include reactive airway disease, neurological abnormalities, kidney stones and chronic kidney pain, rashes, vision degradation and night vision losses, lymphoma, various forms of skin and organ cancer, neuropsychological disorders, uranium in semen, sexual dysfunction and birth defects in offspring.

Like I said, I'm no expert, but I did not say that mutations are not inherited, I said that acquired mutations are not inherited. I believe the diseases you referred to are heritable via sex chromosomes, are they not? Please correct me if I am incorrect on this.

The sex chromosomes (X and Y chromosomes) are only 1 of the 23 pairs of chromosomes in humans. Yes, acquired mutations that cause cancer in one's lungs from cigarette smoking is not passed to children. Newly inherited mutations are actually not expressed in the parents as these mutations occur in the germ cells in testicles and ovaries.

[جوري]

one of my biggest peeves really, is someone who reads an article or two to support his views and fancies himself a cognoscente.. there is a fellow on the H&S section who is subscribed to 'New scientist ' magazine and apparently, that is a sufficient enough to enable him to distinguish the relative nuances between (P)values, attributable risk, relative risk assessment, attack rates, between subject design, bias precession and sampling, it enables him to differentiate randomization, coefficient of determination, cohorts from random double blind.

Some of my preceptors, mentors, the smartest people I have encountered who have graduated from such institutions as Johns Hopkins and Duke have more humility in their podagra diseases toes, than this man with that colossal (New Scientist) supported ego.. someone can be a pathologist for 23 years and still be tested yearly to maintain a license, how is it that a fellow who subscribes to a lay man magazine which covers various scientific by-products become the expert on any field?
It is a case of I hate religion I love science, thus G-D doesn't exist!.. What kind of logical fallacy is this? Petitio Principii?...
If I bring you some of the great bloopers in medicine as early as last century, people would be confounded, wishing to sweep it under the rug...
1- in the 1920's one doctor was awarded the Noble prize for discovering the treatment of advanced syphilis with Malaria before that around 1907 or so Arsenic was the treatment for syphilis! basically bringing people to death with fever to kill either the treponema or the infected.
2- Do you have any idea why they call taking the uterus out a 'hysterectomy'? because that is how they used to treat psychologically ill women.. they thought it was their uterus causing them hysteria, thus by taking it out they'd some how be cured !
3- in the mid 1800's Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis discovered the connection between mortality and washing your hands with chlorinated lime water before delivering babies.. it took the death of his friend Jakob Kolletschka (1803-1847), professor of forensic medicine at Vienna to make that connection...
and I don't even want to begin to tell you of the barbaric ways 'advanced science' used to treat TB, not even a century ago..
How is it that people think they can answer everything with science or make the connection somehow, that being a scientist denotes being an Atheist?.. I dare say most scientists I have encountered, are spiritual, religious and some even border upon zealot...
it is good to exercise one's brain every now and then and not just believe what is dished out there because it comes in a glossy magazine or because some scientist said so... read, learn, challenge conventional wisdom.
Science, is a field amongst many which attempts to answer some of the mysteries of our world but will never fully unlock its mysteries.. this life is beautifully interweaved with many branches.. A person should think for themselves.. arrive to the truth on their own accord, reading all they can, learning all there is to learn.. And show some humility in the process... Sometimes I get so sick reading these threads.. it lets me in on more than just the topic at hand, but really dark and sick psychology of what should be the making of humanity!

[CptSunbeam]

And show some humility in the process... Sometimes I get so sick reading these threads.. it lets me in on more than just the topic at hand, but really dark and sick psychology of what should be the making of humanity!

Woah! Strong stuff. You do realise, it is extraordinarily difficult to determine if a person has humilty or not in an online forum. The web builds up a cyber-wall between human beings, so such discussions tend to be prone to confrontation. I would exercise caution in making accusations of ego or psychological illness amongst non-muslims. This only serves to further alienate those who you may wish to become muslims in the future. It happens that in each forum I've posted in I've been accused of mental deficiency, each by a person who does not know me personally and, in fact, has never met me. I find this to be most discouraging and it saddens me.

[جوري]

Woah! Strong stuff. You do realise, it is extraordinarily difficult to determine if a person has humilty or not in an online forum. The web builds up a cyber-wall between human beings, so such discussions tend to be prone to confrontation. I would exercise caution in making accusations of ego or psychological illness amongst non-muslims. This only serves to further alienate those who you may wish to become muslims in the future. It happens that in each forum I've posted in I've been accused of mental deficiency, each by a person who does not know me personally and, in fact, has never met me. I find this to be most discouraging and it saddens me.

I assure you if I had you in mind I'd have addressed you by name and personally ( as I indeed have the fellow, that led me to write the post that saddened you!)... and indeed I agree one canNOT make a reasonable assessment of another human being's psychology or reasoning based on some post disregarding tone of voice or body language.. the subtle nuances.. However, when you have been on a forum for a while reading the same recycled rhetoric by the same people day in and day out, you can easily figure out communication that is intended to assault and indeed indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient...

peace!

[CptSunbeam]

I'm sorry if I didn't realise who you were referring to. Apologies

when you have been on a forum for a while reading the same recycled rhetoric by the same people day in and day out, you can easily figure out communication that is intended to assault and indeed indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient...

Quite true. I've even been known to display such behaviour myself on occasion. Let's hope it doesn't happen too often hey :)

[ranma1/2]

Question for you - What happens when closely related, as opposed to completely unrelated, people have sexual intercourse and produce children? Does this type of mating result in children that are stronger, smarter and more evolutionary fit, or is the exact opposite true?


What is the reason for children from the mating of a brother with his sister being less fit if the child survives long enough to even be born?
How can a destructive process (mutation) be the foundation for the creation of new and improved species from a single uni-cellular "common ancestor" through naturalistic evolution that is not guided by a Higher Power?

What are the chances of me even carring about yoru questions anymore when you do not care about our answers?

read a book. start with your highschool biology book go up from there.

[جوري]

How deep!

[ranma1/2]

So this species, the mighty cockroach, became completely immune to the species-creating process of mutation. Interesting, I thought evolution claimed continuous species improvement through mutation, genetic recombination and natural selection.^o)

Nope cockroaches are not immune to mutation, there are many species of cockroaches. Now many have found good niches so new mutations dont usually get put throught the population.

[ranma1/2]

Woah! Strong stuff. You do realise, it is extraordinarily difficult to determine if a person has humilty or not in an online forum. The web builds up a cyber-wall between human beings, so such discussions tend to be prone to confrontation. I would exercise caution in making accusations of ego or psychological illness amongst non-muslims. This only serves to further alienate those who you may wish to become muslims in the future. It happens that in each forum I've posted in I've been accused of mental deficiency, each by a person who does not know me personally and, in fact, has never met me. I find this to be most discouraging and it saddens me.

Just ignore PA, he/she? has issues and usually can only make adhom attacks.
Ignore her/him? like most of us do.

[MustafaMc]

How can a destructive process (mutation) be the foundation for the creation of new and improved species from a single uni-cellular "common ancestor" through naturalistic evolution that is not guided by a Higher Power?

What are the chances of me even carring about yoru questions anymore when you do not care about our answers?

read a book. start with your highschool biology book go up from there.

So you don't care for my question. Well, OK. :? I thought you could take a few minutes to defend your position on naturalistic evolution as I have defended mine on ID evolution/creationism.

I have raised many logical questions on evolution for which no one has provided reasonable answers and yet I am made fun of because I say, "God did it!". :giggling:

[MustafaMc]

I'm tired of this thread. I get the feeling, I talk to a wall.

I honestly didn't see any muslim who would maybe just say 'Yes, maybe there is something true in evolution'

I don't have a problem with this statement that the evolutionary process can lead to improvements within a species.

Out of this thread, I gain some new knowlegde, for sure, that there cannot exist mulsim biologists and chemists as they all think, that is the work of Satan, God or its Voodoo when cells split or mutate under a microscope.

So far

Well, I am actually a "Muslim biologist", plant breeder/geneticist to be exact, and there is no conflict whatsoever with my Islamic faith. My minor field of study for my PhD was molecular biology. But I guess that you are right that the more I learn about biology the more I grow amazed at Allah's creation. Glory to Allah! Allah is Great!

[ranma1/2]

So you don't care for my question. Well, OK. :? I thought you could take a few minutes to defend your position on naturalistic evolution as I have defended mine on ID evolution/creationism.

I have raised many logical questions on evolution for which no one has provided reasonable answers and yet I am made fun of because I say, "God did it!". :giggling:

its not that i dont care about your questions, its the sincerity i doubt.
we have defended our position and they have been reasonable in that they are supported by evidence.

however since you are not makky "im getting a little jaded with his type"
ill give a short reply.

What happens when closely related, as opposed to completely unrelated, people have sexual intercourse and produce children? Does this type of mating result in children that are stronger, smarter and more evolutionary fit, or is the exact opposite true?
perhaps , perhaps not. However their does come a greater chance of recessice genes to become dominate. Also with a smaller gene pool their is less variation. The evolutionary fitness depends on the situation.


What is the reason for children from the mating of a brother with his sister being less fit if the child survives long enough to even be born?
this is not true. It can create more or less fit individuals depending on the enviroment.
As stated before, mating within your immediate gene pool does reduce variation and increase the chance of recessive genes be expressed.

How can a destructive process (mutation) be the foundation for the creation of new and improved species from a single uni-cellular "common ancestor" through naturalistic evolution that is not guided by a Higher Power?

Well mutation is not just destructive. They are either, good, bad or neutral.
the simple process of selection allows for the "improvement"

[Makky]

Guyabano's answer

this answer is summarized in 3 words : cumulative accidental mutations . or in other words : chance+mutation . chance should be discussed through known ratios while mutation should be discussed through know kinds of mutations. we can't separate the 2 words in our discussion. but as there are wrong assumptions scientifically in this answer I'll delay my Questions about probabilities and kinds of mutation.

Frist wrong assumption:

During evolution, some unicellular organisms improved survival via symbiosis (each cell did something that improved the survival or another). For example, one cell mutated to produce a metabolic product needed by the other...and vice versa. So the first change...as a result of mutations occurring within individual cells...was the generation of multicellular colonies.

the 1st change that was the generation of multicellular colony !!! happened as mentioned through mutation of individual cells . at this moment a cell has mutated to produce a metabolic product . its known that each cell in the human being as an example carries all the DNA codes of all the tissues and organs in the body. and its know that chromosomes are identical in each cell in the body of any organism.. the hard Question here is : as mentioned in the answer the only relationship between these cells is metabolic products exchange, so its clear that at this stage these cells aren't considered a multicellular organism , but they are in a colony in which they move and act independently and its clear then that if one of these cells mutates then the changes in the DNA wont propagate in the other cells in the colony . then why you consider it a mulitcellular organism ?

Over a great deal of time and many, many mutations, sub colonies of cells within the larger colony developed, each specializing in some new function that benefited the colony as a whole. This marked the beginning of tissues and eventually, organs. Replacement of cells sub colonies was via mitosis...or simple cell division (full 2 copies of DNA)....which yields clones of identical cells.

the same Question here will be harder to be answered...?!!^^^^ he was trying to imagine the formation of tissues and organs

If a sub colony mutates to be specialized in some new function that benefit the colony as a whole the Question is :from where the other sub colonies will recognize the change that happened to the 1st sub colony and add the change to their DNA..

maybe some will ask : why should the DNA of all cells in the colony be identical. because they claim that this kind of colonies are the 1st stage in the formation of tissues..





here are some useful facts for readers :

- DNA : Deoxyribo-nucleic acid : is a nucleic acid molecule that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms.
- Gene : is a set of segments of nucleic acid .
- Chromosome : is a single large macromolecule of DNA.
- in the simplest and the most complex multicellular organisms the chromosomes are identical in each cell all over the individual organism<<<<<<< very important to understand the falseness of their assumption .






.


This post proves the impossibility of this scenario.
being specific is better though there are 2 other wrong assumptions ( at least ) in the paragraph which talks about the formation of the genital organs. therefore I'll just concentrate on the refutation of the 1st part of Guyabano's answer , summarizing it in a question :


The Question is
Is there any scientific explanation other than this false scenario of the formation of tissues then organs ?






.

[Gator]

[CENTER][B]
The Question is
Is there any scientific explanation other than this false scenario of the formation of tissues then organs ?

Thank you Bob, The Symbiotic theory does have its problems and is not in favor. So lets let our next contestant COME..ON...DOWN! Your the next contestant on the "Life is Right"!

Another explanation of multicellularisation is the Colonial Theory which was proposed by Haeckel in 1874. The theory claims that the symbiosis of many organisms of the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which suggests the symbiosis of different species) led to a multicellular organism. At least some, presumably land-evolved, multicellularity occurs by cells separating and then rejoining (i.e., cellular slime molds) whereas for the majority of multicellular types (those which evolved within aquatic environments), multicellularity occurs as a consequence of cells failing to separate following division[2]. The mechanism of this latter colony formation can be as simple as incomplete cytokinesis, though multicelluarity is also typically consided to involve cellular differentiation[3]

The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been seen to occur independently numerous times (in 16 different protoctistan phyla). For instance, Dictyostelium is an amoeba which groups together during times of food shortage, forming a colony that moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then become slightly differentiated from each other. Other examples of colonial organisation in protozoa are Eudorina and Volvox (the latter of which consist around 10,000 cells, only about 25-35 which reproduce - 8 asexually and around 15-25 sexually). It can often be hard to tell, however, what is a colonial protist and what is a multicellular organism in its own right.

Most scientists accept that is by the Colonial theory that Multicellular organisms evolved.

[Ripped from the body of the human intellectual reservoir know as wikipedia!]

[Makky]

Few words After the refutation of the symbiotic theory

Praise be to Allah , The creator of seen and non-seen , by his will the hearts of Atheists are still beating , they eat and drink from his blessings , they live under his sky and on his earth while they are denying him and trying to extinguish his Light But As he Said (translation of the meaning): Their intention is to extinguish Allah's Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But Allah will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).
Praise be to him how he is patient and giving them time , maybe one day they will repent.

After the refutation of Guyabano's answer I think I should remind those Atheists who were trying to answer and even Guybano himself , I'm reminding you of this post :

ranma1/2,Trumble,dave2,wilber,and guabano himself - maybe i can exclude root- are :

1- Fanatic unjust evolutionists:

because they were claming that they were answering valid answers , yet the only scientific valid answer (valid for discussion only) was brought later by guyabano.

2- blind followers

because they Follow thier preconseptions even without any evidence in thier hands

this is a serious advice for you : most of you are atheists and you all have preconseption that evolution is your evidence on which your atheism rests on . but its very clear that you only have some general knowledge about evolution . its not difficult for a normal person to realize that he couldn't settle his beliefs - on which his fate will be determined - he couldn't settle his beliefs on general knowledge , or on assumptions and doubts. so the advise is : proof before belief .

My last advice before starting the discussion : let your priority is to find the truth , for only one reason, for your personal salvation . Don't wrong yourself inorder to look good in a debate

--------------------------
note
proof before belief belief here is not equal to faith because we are all born with faith by default yet some become Atheists and some become buddists etc

Atheists here should see the real face of their personality .
know that you have no evidence , be informed that you are wronging yourself , wake up because you are choosing the worst fate ever...Don't wrong yourself.

Thank you Bob, The Symbiotic theory does have its problems and is not in favor. So lets let our next contestant COME..ON...DOWN! Your the next contestant on the "Life is Right"!

Another explanation of multicellularisation is the Colonial Theory

Gator!
welcome to the thread and thanks for asserting the Falseness of Guyabano's answer , but I'm afraid the colonial theory is already refuted ( read the last post carefully and see the points in which the symbiotic theory and the colonial theory meet together) ..

If Allah wills I'll discuss it in the next post.

[guyabano]

don´t make yourself ridiculous. Everything has been said and prooven.

and this statement ´Falseness of Guyabano's´ is already insulting

THIS IS ONLY YOUR POINT OF VIEW, never forget that!

[Trumble]

but I'm afraid the colonial theory is already refuted

It has not been, of course, but regardless of that you still seem to have a hopeless misconception as to why atheists believe what they do. Most atheistic belief (including my own) is not based on evolution at all. As I've said before, there were plenty of atheists before Darwin, but let's stick with the science to stay on-topic. I won't argue it as it isn't my area, but to defend an atheistic position there is simply no need to do so.

Let us assume, purely for sake of argument, that both of the theories discussed above can indeed be 'refuted'. That does not 'disprove' evolution, all it means is that there are some problems the solutions to which have yet to be found. But that is what science is, the quest to find answers to the questions that arise. To date, and probably for the forseeable future, each answer leads to more questions that need to be answered. The question for a potential atheist is therefore simply this; which of the following is most likely?

1. That evolutionary theory is basically sound, as much evidence suggests, but there are still puzzles to be solved. As with many other things, science will probably get there in the end. Even in the remote chance it doesn't, it may come up with an alternative theory that can be supported by observation, evidence and experiment.

2. Because we haven't found the answers yet it means (for some unexplained reason) we never will. The only alternative if we are to fill the gap is God.


For the atheist '1' will win over "2" every time. "God of the gaps" is no argument at all; all it amounts to is replacing something undetermined or, at worst, improbable with something that is (to an atheist) far more improbable . A believer will not see it that way as, for them, the 'improbability factor' for God obviously isn't there. It is simply a case of 'never the twain shall meet'.

If I may offer my own humble advice, it is to forget science as a means of changing atheist minds, if that is indeed your project. Providing (inconclusive) evidence against something is not the same as providing scientific evidence for something. Theism has nothing to offer in the latter sense... which makes your call for "proof before belief" utterly ludicrous. Perhaps the philosophical arena, where such inconveniences as the need for empirical evidence can be avoided, might be a more fruitful battleground?

[Makky]

don´t make yourself ridiculous. Everything has been said and prooven.

Its obvious that Atheists have nothing to say

and this statement ´Falseness of Guyabano's´ is already insulting

I didn't mean to offend you personally, But you know its a debate and its a fact that the answer is false

THIS IS ONLY YOUR POINT OF VIEW, never forget that!

Its not only my point of view as you mentioned , no its the only Vaild point of view...My friend your life as an Atheists is resting on a myth...WAKE UP , DON"T WRONG YOURSELF.

[Gator]

[CENTER][B][U]
Gator!
welcome to the thread and thanks for asserting the Falseness of Guyabano's answer , but I'm afraid the colonial theory is already refuted ( read the last post carefully and see the points in which the symbiotic theory and the colonial theory meet together) ..

If Allah wills I'll discuss it in the next post.

Makky! I'm going for the showcase showdown! I did not assert any falseness of the symbiotic theory, I just said their are problems with it and maybe it is right, we just don't have that full explanation. The questions you pointed out were not proved impossible to get around, they are just there.

Since you failed to prove the falseness even on the first round please tell me what I've won!

Thanks.

[guyabano]

Its obvious that Atheists have nothing to say

Oh boy ! ;D

But you know its a debate and its a fact that the answer is false

What fact is false? Is that your opinion or can you give me some links where you can show me, I'm wrong !

I didn't mean to offend you personally

But you did, by telling that all what I said is false, but fact is many people deliver you a load of proofs, but instead of proving any reasonable answer, you simply pretend, its false ! That's too easy.
I think, you live in Lala-Land !

Its not only my point of view as you mentioned , no its the only Vaild point of view...My friend your life as an Atheists is resting on a myth...WAKE UP , DON"T WRONG YOURSELF.

And again, I never mentionned anywhere, I'm an Atheist. The only ones who live on myths and strange believes are those who really think, there is a creator, a God.
Now, in order to make yourself more ridiculous, why you simply don't go to a forum about chemistry/biology and ask your question there. I will even look for you to find one. But I guess, you will not have the guts to go there.

Now, I know you like to have the last word, that's why I will grant it to you.
I'm definetely out of this thread, as there is nothing to proof anymore.

[Palamoon]

Athiest need to seriously wake up. Anyone who's athiest is saying they have no place on this earth. I laugh at that.

[wilberhum]

Athiest need to seriously wake up. Anyone who's athiest is saying they have no place on this earth. I laugh at that.

Why do you think athiests are saying "they have no place on this earth"? :-\
So if athiests say that where do they think they should go? :rollseyes

Or you just a newbee blowing smoke? :?

[Isambard]

You dont need evolution to disprove Allah. It can simply be done by reviewing the ancient sources the whole Abrahamic came from

Either read Gilgamesh, or for the layman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_&#37;28god%29

Really, the current conceptualzation of 'God' follows the same sort of deal as that of 'dragons'

[Md Mashud]

Both evolutionists and scientists are agreed on this point: Evolution is a religion, and it must be accepted by faith. This is science vs. evolution; this is the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

The theory of evolution - it is based on several fundamentals (I belive its 4) - the underlying importance of these 4 fundamentals is, only the last one is based on observation, while the former 3 are based on beleif/idea. Btw we are not talking about adaptations or those ancient fossils - Modification in species are known as micro-evolution, but thats not really evolution to be honest. None the less, its macroevolution that is the main tangent for arguement.

Somewhat, believing in evolution does not have more weight then belief in God - because neither have been observed (e.g. macroevolution) but people believe it occured due to reasons X Y Z. Similarly, due to the nature of the Universe, one may conclude that another nature of existane other than that of the matter we see - must exist to make this Universe exist. The argument "Then god must have a creator" is a bit cheeky, in that, God is not thought of being bounded by this Universes laws and act on its matter - As we humans and everything material that we see would have to abide by.

How much evolution can do? I have read some extracts, some people strongly believe that behaviour and morales are derived through natural selection/evolution. Now, their is no scientific evidence for it, and you can't disprove it (well I can't anyway, similarly how no one can disprove God) - so it is somewhat a faith-based belief.

Then we go on arguement - Why is their a needer of a designer/divine being if natural selection/evolution explains how X went to Y? Well, the thing is, this arguement is a bit pointless. Imagine I dropped a pen, from the air - it goes to hit the floor - accelerating at 9.8m/s&#178;. I argue, the pen fell due to the force of gravity - hence God's interference was not needed for this pen to fall. Hence God doesn't exist. This is how I see the evolution arguement, even if evolution was to explain all creations, as with natural selection - how does that contradict the existance of God?

Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator.

Evolution/Natural selection/Eternal cyclical universe/multiverse - all are highly faith/theory based. Facts should mould theories and not the other way around. Hence you could say Atheism is somewhat religious - except without a God :).

As for the OP, cool stuff :).

Isaambard, I don't know whats all that mallarchy about - but I don't see anything to disprove God. Gods existance can't be disproven. If you choose not to believe in God, thats another issue :skeleton:

[Isambard]

MD....honestly...you need more "faith" to believe in gravity than you do in evolution. The folks disagreeing with it have religious/ideological reasons for deceiving others or are idiots (see Hovind for both).

[Md Mashud]

I disagree with you needing more faith to believe in gravity than macro evolution.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ i also disagree

[ranma1/2]

You must have faith to believe in the theory gravity

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Enlarge Image Evangelical

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

[ranma1/2]

[QUOTE=Md Mashud;832069]Both evolutionists and scientists are agreed on this point: Evolution is NOT a religion, and it must be accepted by due to evidence.

ID is not science. They have no evidence.


Macro evolution is micro evolution over a longer time period. To put it another way. You walk a mile one step at a time.

Evolution has been observed.
God has not.


there is evidence to suggest that "morals" and behaviors have "evolved"

There is scientific evidence for evolution again. "fossils, dna etc...."
And once again. None for god.

Evolution makes no comment on a creator or pink invisible unicorns. Its typically religious individuals that hate evo and are blind to evidence.

Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis.


Evolution/Natural selection/Eternal cyclical universe/multiverse - all are scientific theories, unlike ID. These are based on actual evidence.

[Isambard]

I disagree with you needing more faith to believe in gravity than macro evolution.

The term "macro evolution" is entirely definitional. Its just alot of evolution on the micro level. Where you deem it macro evolution is based entirely on opinion and not on some sort of magic pt where it without question enters macro evolution.

Its just a weak arguement to mislead people thru the use of word play really.

As for morality evolving, well, pretty much all k-species have the same emotions, similar interactions, hiarchies, (in the case of chimps and apes) same body language, and they even fight wars/kill for sport.

There is really nothing special in that regard to humans except they are superior at destruction then his hairy cousins.

[wilberhum]

Both evolutionists and scientists are agreed on this point: Evolution is a religion, and it must be accepted by faith. This is science vs. evolution; this is the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts........................

That is one of the most ridicules things I have ever read. :confused:

Can you point to any scientist that says “Evolution is a religion”? :offended:

I surly think not.

Well many be a Computer Scientist that doesn’t have a clue about evolution.:uuh:

[Md Mashud]

Macro evolution is micro evolution over a longer time period

False.

Evolution has been observed.
God has not.

False, only microevolution has been observed. Microevolution leading to macroevolution is a factless theory. Fact.

Can you point to any scientist that says “Evolution is a religion”?

Usually scientists who disregard macroevolution. But their are those who believe in it - and if you read on the theories presented by them - you will find several of the fundamental points of their theory are totally factless but just a theory - kind of like "what if"?

There is scientific evidence for evolution again. "fossils, dna etc...."

Not for macro my friend.

Evolution/Natural selection/Eternal cyclical universe/multiverse - all are scientific theories, unlike ID. These are based on actual evidence.

Is this why that even Stephen Hawkins discredited the idea of multiverse/eternal cyclical universe? Too many people think, just because a scientist made a theory - it must be scientific. One arguement put by was "We don't know whats inside black holes, their could be another universe in it" - this to me isn't scientific, rather an observation/hypothesis.

You must have faith to believe in the theory gravity

If I can see gravity working directly, why do I need faith to believe its existance?

there is evidence to suggest that "morals" and behaviors have "evolved"

False, they are assumptions.

Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis.

Makes no difference.

And once again. None for god.

If the existance of matter such as universe - bound by such strict laws (especially energy), it would only be rational that somthing must exist which is not bound by this strict laws/material behaviour, for rational to be that this could exist in the first place. To me that is a great evidence, the existance of the Universe.

Evolution makes no comment on a creator

Yep, they did somthing more silly, described a process, without means, without explanation of the pre-material existance that must have existed for that process to even begin. In another words, somthing came from nothing.

Before you say "where did god come from then?" - God isn't bound by this universe/laws, who said anything about being needed to be created/transferred into existance outside this realm that we believe as Universe?

[maroon1]

Evolution is not a religion because it is based on evidence


There are many fossil evidence for Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Neanderthal were species of the Homo genus. We share about 99.5% of their DNA. However, mtDNA analysis proved that we and the Neanderthal are two different species.

[wilberhum]

Where of where did my dino go? :rolleyes:

[Md Mashud]

There are many fossil evidence for Evolution

Micro

All this monkey/neanderthal to human is not via evidence - its just by spread microevolution hypothetical macro evolution model. Its just a theory, just like some have different modules of how the Universe is - like some believe it started via big bang, other that their was no bigbang, some that their is a bubbly/cyclical etc. All of them have equal weight but none are scientific.

Where of where did my dino go?

I ate it :(.

[wilberhum]

Md Mashud,
I can't believe you ate the whole thing. :D

But simple people, like me, have simple questions.

We have dino bones going back 75 million years ago.
But we don't fine 75 million year old elephant bones.

To day there are no dinos, but we have elephants.

Can you explain?

Did god just drop by and deliver some elephants?
If so, why did the change the design of the African from the Asian?

I just can't figure out those little problems. Can you help?

[Md Mashud]

I hope you don't think Dinasaurs became fish or Elephants :(?

[wilberhum]

I hope you don't think Dinasaurs became fish or Elephants :(?

I don't know. Where did fish and elephants come from?

Maybe dinasaurs came from fish.

Did god just drop by and deliver them?
If so, why did the change the design of the African elephant from the Asian? :skeleton:

[Md Mashud]

Quran is not a science book, so it won't explain and is not deemed to explain all creations. According to some people, it does reference to dinasaurs at

"Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which God Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise. (The Noble Quran, 2:164)"

"He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs. (The Noble Quran, 31:10)"

Quran does not in detail explain how he sent us to earth - how he created dinasaur or why he made them extinct. I have heard that Dinasaurs were destroyed by Allah. It would explain it being test - One atheist was complaining in a debate that why God did not provide full details of everything? He said he was not content with the information to guide him to religion or God. However, statistics proved him wrong, seeing as majority of people do believe in God. What does he want? God to give him the answer paper to this test, life? Wouldn't that destroy the meaning of the test? Faith/openminded is a quality required indeed.

At the same time, it doesn't hide everything, alot of things are mentioned in the Quran - and statements - to challenge the readers.

[wilberhum]

Md Mashud

Quran is not a science book, so it won't explain and is not deemed to explain all creations.

So maybe god chose evolution as his way to create new creatures.

Why not?

That would save billions of trips back to deliver new animals.

[Md Mashud]

You are 100&#37; correct, God is perfectly capable of using natural selection and evolution - even macro as a tool - it would not affect credibility of the existance of God. The truth is, some animals MAY have gone through it - Quran did not explain every single animal in existance how it happened. However, scientists do disagree with macroevolution - non-religious point of view too.

However, since theirs no evidence for it, and Quran denies that humans were made through macroevolution - why should we believe it (especially natural selection with its huge flaws in its fundamental basis). If their was real evidence/facts that humans were the derivation of macroevolution - You would contradict Quran. Its the only way.

[wilberhum]

You are 100% correct, God is perfectly capable of using natural selection and evolution - even macro as a tool - it would not affect credibility of the existance of God. The truth is, some animals MAY have gone through it - Quran did not explain every single animal in existance how it happened.

Woo, finally. That was a long trip.
Evolution and god are not mutually exclusive

However,

I knew it was too good to last.

scientists do disagree with macroevolution - non-religious point of view too.

In all fields of science there are varied points of view. That is nothing new. Views change all the time.
T-Rex was first assumed to be the fiercest predator on earth. Then evidence that he was a scavenger came to light. To my knowledge it is assumed that he could run much faster than originally thought. Now he is a predator again.
Views vary and many disagree about many things, but scientists in the field all agree, T-Rex evolved.

However, since theirs no evidence for it,

How many thousands of peices of evedence do you have to ignore to come to that conclusion?

Quran denies that humans were made through macroevolution - why should we believe it

It usually comes down to religion. Decisions made on faith and not facts.

(especially natural selection with its huge flaws in its fundamental basis)

Are you telling me we don't have defiened to total pefection? :skeleton:
Of course we don't and never will, that doesn't mean we got it ALL wrong. See T-Rex again.

If their was real evidence/facts that humans were the derivation of macroevolution

There is real evidence/facts. But since we can not reproduce history, there will never be proof.

You would contradict Quran. Its the only way.

I would agree with that and I have no problem with that.
But I do understand, as a matter of faith, you have a major problem with it.

So we go back to the same old problem, faith or facts, a problem that will never be resolved.

Peace
Wilber

[Md Mashud]

You see - you says theirs evidence, Infact, show me some now, don't quote me somthing googled - get something recently dated with author - And I will explain the problem with it.

Alot of hypothesis and just random thoughts of "what ifs" suddenly become scientific evidence - I have no idea how. Just go browse through a Physics forum just to see how many variations you can have of theories for universe - each have equal weight, you cant prove or disprove any. I wouldn't call it scientific though.

I have seen this "evidence" you say for macroevolution of humans - I deny this is evidence, I would rather call it faith (wrong albeit) - I have read and seen alot, nothing striked to me as anything other than a belief.

I know you think I just turned a blind eye to all science - Couldn't be further from truth! I always read views and articles, by scientists who write about evolution, multiverses etc. I think its good to learn what people think about the Universe. However, I can't say I have found anything that I can use to contradict Quran - in terms of science. Most of it definatly has alot of assumptions - I don't see how I can consider that scientific. Scientists are trying to explain a process without means - which I think is just being misleading.

[wilberhum]

You see - you says theirs evidence, Infact, show me some now, don't quote me somthing googled - get something recently dated with author - And I will explain the problem with it.

Everyone agrees there are problems. No one says we have it all right.

Alot of hypothesis and just random thoughts of "what ifs" suddenly become scientific evidence

Example?

- I have no idea how. Just go browse through a Physics forum just to see how many variations you can have of theories for universe - each have equal weight, you cant prove or disprove any. I wouldn't call it scientific though.

You seem to have a major problem with lack of perfection. It's like if it ain't perfect it is all wrong. That is just missing the reality that every thing is imperfect.

I have seen this "evidence" you say for macroevolution of humans - I deny this is evidence,I would rather call it faith (wrong albeit) - I have read and seen alot, nothing striked to me as anything other than a belief.

I know. The standard "I don't like it so I won't believe it". A totally common human trait.

I know you think I just turned a blind eye to all science

Not all science, just the science that contridects your faith.

- Couldn't be further from truth! I always read views and articles, by scientists who write about evolution, multiverses etc. I think its good to learn what people think about the Universe. However, I can't say I have found anything that I can use to contradict Quran - in terms of science. Most of it definatly has alot of assumptions - I don't see how I can consider that scientific. Scientists are trying to explain a process without means - which I think is just being misleading.

A process without means? Of course, when you limit what you will accept then it can be without means. But that is your decision.

Peace
Wilber

PS: It has been fun. Thanks, but I'm off. I may or may not be back on tonight.

[Md Mashud]

Everyone agrees there are problems. No one says we have it all right.

Im not talking about right wrong, Im talking about nature of the statement, evidence.

Evidence in its broadest sense, refers to anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion

I never saw any of this in the theories.

Example?

Derivation of morales through evolution/natural selection. I challenge you to provide me some evidence for it.

You seem to have a major problem with lack of perfection. It's like if it ain't perfect it is all wrong. That is just missing the reality that every thing is imperfect.

Again, you missed point, its not about perfection. This is about, if someone has an IDEA/theory, is that now labelled as scientific evidence because the man/woman happens to have DR or PHD behind his name?

I know. The standard "I don't like it so I won't believe it". A totally common human trait.

What was their to believe? It is one scientisits opinion on how things happened - nothing to do with science. Nothing to like or dislike, its just a matter of credibility which it can't be given without the right scientific backing.

Not all science, just the science that contridects your faith.

What science contradicts faith? It does not exist. Only theories and ideology can contradict faith - but those which do are NOT scientific - I challenge you to provide some evidence of somthing that contradicts faith, which isn't a faith to begin with.

A process without means? Of course, when you limit what you will accept then it can be without means. But that is your decision.

This is, explaining a process, without explaining how that process came about, its origin, its inition. I don't think someone should make a conclusive statement through theoretical assumptions of a model without explaining pre-initiation. Without that, anything goes, you can say anything, anyone can make up anything!

PS: It has been fun. Thanks, but I'm off. I may or may not be back on tonight.

You better be, im not finished with you!

[tarek29]

Evidence?

There is huge numbers of theories with and gainst Human Evoltuion, if we add that there is No scientific theory are 100 % right even if it is proved by science, which is not the case in Evoltuion!

Please ask any scientist about what I just said!

So you depend on something that is debatble and you cannot proof, so it is just PERSONAL opinion!

May Allah (saw) guide us all!

Peace

[wilberhum]

.....................
You better be, im not finished with you!

Sorry my wife changed my priorities.:D

But I did think about your questions. I think I just need to sum it up like this.

You have chosen to disregard all the evidence paleontology has provided, what can an IT professional tell you?

But still has been fun debating with you. Truly. :peace:
I also conceded it successful; getting a theist to agree that god and evolution are not mutually exclusive is usually a great feat.

So many just grab their book and say "Evil atheist scientists are just trying to prove god doesn't exist". :-\

It is nice to deal with someone who doesn’t feel the need to stoop to petty insults. :coolious:

Peace
Wilber
(The really old guy:statisfie )

[Md Mashud]

Their is a good debate on youtube - atheist vs theist (if you type it).

Really good 2.5 hours watch. The truth is, 1000000 universes could exist, natural selection/evolution could perfectly exist without disproving God.

Science never can contradict God. I do think the one wrong atheist do is - forget if their evidence is evidence or not - or if its true - but the fact that they believe they could find SOMTHING that would make the existance of God not required is a bit... Humans can never just explain a process and hope to disprove God!

As for religion, well, to this date, since macroevolution of humans is not science - it doesnt contradict Islam.

You have chosen to disregard all the evidence paleontology has provided, what can an IT professional tell you?

What evidence? Atleast show me some article or somthing, that somehow you seem to have which I never have seen! I never ever have seen to date, even seeing many books and debates (I know this new Richard dawkin era toda) - when explaining natural selection or macro evolution - evidence was never provided.

When people talk about multiverses - evidence is not existance - it is purely theoretical.

I am not rejecting anything as evidence, it is just, nothing was put on the table - Thats why I challenged you to show me somthing that I disregard as truth - yet has evidence for it (be it, derivation of morales through NS/evo, or multiverse). If you dig deep enough, you'll hit rock bottom :).

I would say you to look through some forums, with really genius physicians - after reading them a while - you somehow realise that - public opinion of theories becomes dressed up as scientific evidence, simply due to that a scientist has made it! Kind of scary if you think about it.

[tarek29]

Sorry my wife changed my priorities.:D

But I did think about your questions. I think I just need to sum it up like this.

You have chosen to disregard all the evidence paleontology has provided, what can an IT professional tell you?

But still has been fun debating with you. Truly. :peace:
I also conceded it successful; getting a theist to agree that god and evolution are not mutually exclusive is usually a great feat.

So many just grab their book and say "Evil atheist scientists are just trying to prove god doesn't exist". :-\

It is nice to deal with someone who doesn’t feel the need to stoop to petty insults. :coolious:

Peace
Wilber
(The really old guy:statisfie )

"Evil atheist scientists are just trying to prove god doesn't exist".

No they are not EVIL they just TRY and still TRYING to find answers to the Question that already Answered by Quran 1427 years ago concerning Evolution!

Science that we have still and will always be very little, we cannot even know till today who lives deep inside the Ocean, and no matter how knowlegde we have we will never KNOW everything, so it is useless to try to explain things that we will never be able to know by using the weak science and knowlegde that we have!

We cannot even produce FLY!

So how come you want us to beleive in what you say, while you dont have PROOF to what you say!?

PEACE

[wilberhum]

No they are not EVIL they just TRY and still TRYING to find answers to the Question that already Answered by Quran 1427 years ago concerning Evolution!

Science that we have still and will always be very little, we cannot even know till today who lives deep inside the Ocean, and no matter how knowlegde we have we will never KNOW everything, so it is useless to try to explain things that we will never be able to know by using the weak science and knowlegde that we have!

We cannot even produce FLY!

So how come you want us to beleive in what you say, while you dont have PROOF to what you say!?

PEACE

So how come you want us to beleive in what you say, while you dont have PROOF to what you say!?
That's a really good question. Why do you chose to believe what you do, when there is no PROOF?

[Md Mashud]

So how come you want us to beleive in what you say, while you dont have PROOF to what you say!?
That's a really good question. Why do you chose to believe what you do, when there is no PROOF?

Pick on someone your own size lol! Leave tarek alone :skeleton:

[wilberhum]

Pick on someone your own size lol! Leave tarek alone :skeleton:

I only pick on those younger than me. :D

[tarek29]

So how come you want us to believe in what you say, while you dont have PROOF to what you say!?
That's a really good question. Why do you chose to believe what you do, when there is no PROOF?

Your question means that you realized now that what you believe is not Proved and at this point we are equal, right!?

I have a lot of PROOF to what I believe, for example for me personally QURAN is PROOF simply because it is no way that HUMANS can produce book like QURAN as it is the ONLY book send by word used by our creator:

1- No one can Produce one verse like in QURAN!

2- Quran doesn’t Contain even one SINGLE Mistake or contradiction!

3-It covers all aspects of life which impossible that one person have knowledge about all those matters alone, and out it in a way that fit all humans and for all times!

4-It contains a lot of SIGNS like scientific ones that we still discover them till today!

Those are my PROOF that anyone can TEST by himself, but usually non MUSLIM read only the cover of the books and they dont read what under the cover, and if they read what under the cover they dont understand what is in between the lines!

There is also other PROOF of existence of GOD and this is our nature that witness HIS existence!

And I guess it is impossible that Abraham, Jacob, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Mohamed may peace be upon them all, that they make some kind of agreement between them!?

Why don’t you TEST QURAN I can help you in this test if you want!?

May Allah (saw) guide us all!

PEACE

[wilberhum]

tarek29
Now that you have proven that you have no concept of what PROOF is, there is little to discuss. There is as much proof of the IPU as any thing else.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nicorn.svg.png

Personal opinion is not proof.

[tarek29]

tarek29
Now that you have proven that you have no concept of what PROOF is, there is little to discuss. There is as much proof of the IPU as any thing else.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nicorn.svg.png

Personal opinion is not proof.

wilberhum I showed you that using your science that you rely as PROOF is no PROOF, which means as I said above that at this point we are equal!

I gave you PROOF that you can TOUCH and SEE and READ and TEST!

And this PROOF that you can TOUCH, SEE, OBTAIN, READ and Test is Holy QURAN, that I told you that NO HUMAN can produce anything like it, becuase it is not written by Humans, it is not even bible or Torah as they were teachings inspired to humans and Humans wrote them using human way of expressions!

But Obviously you know nothing about the living Miracle Quran, tell me if I am wrong!?

May Allah (saw) guide us all!

PEACE

[wilberhum]

wilberhum I showed you that using your science that you rely as PROOF is no PROOF, which means as I said above that at this point we are equal!

I gave you PROOF that you can TOUCH and SEE and READ and TEST!

And this PROOF that you can TOUCH, SEE, OBTAIN, READ and Test is Holy QURAN, that I told you that NO HUMAN can produce anything like it, becuase it is not written by Humans, it is not even bible or Torah as they were teachings inspired to humans and Humans wrote them using human way of expressions!

But Obviously you know nothing about the living Miracle Quran, tell me if I am wrong!?

May Allah (saw) guide us all!

PEACE

Personal opinion is not proof. It is that simple.

If what you say was truly proof, not 1 out of 5 would be Muslim, 9 out of 10 would be.

It is simply a case of "Faith Blinders". Believe what you will, I do not challenge that.

But I find it sad when people don't understand the difference between "Faith" and "Fact".

Peace
Wilber

[tarek29]

Personal opinion is not proof. It is that simple.

If what you say was truly proof, not 1 out of 5 would be Muslim, 9 out of 10 would be.

It is simply a case of "Faith Blinders". Believe what you will, I do not challenge that.

But I find it sad when people don't understand the difference between "Faith" and "Fact".

Peace
Wilber

Who are talking about personal opinion !?

I gave you my PROOF and asked you to TEST it, very simple and Logic!

I also gave you HINTS of how to test it in my posts above!

I didnt ask you to TEST something that beyond human Knowledge, I gave you a BOOK which were the LAST message from skies to us and asked you to TEST it!

Simple, Logic, without feeling and without blind faith or any faith!

See but you Just provedyour ignorance about QURAN and ISLAM with all my respect, because you cannot have ability to PROOF QURAN to be made by Humans, so how you can say that Muslims don’t have PROOF when we give it to you!?

May Allah (saw) guide us all!

PEACE

[wilberhum]

Who are talking about personal opinion !?

I gave you my PROOF and asked you to TEST it, very simple and Logic!

I also gave you HINTS of how to test it in my posts above!

I didnt ask you to TEST something that beyond human Knowledge, I gave you a BOOK which were the LAST message from skies to us and asked you to TEST it!

Simple, Logic, without feeling and without blind faith or any faith!

See but you Just provedyour ignorance about QURAN and ISLAM with all my respect, because you cannot have ability to PROOF QURAN to be made by Humans, so how you can say that Muslims don’t have PROOF when we give it to you!?

May Allah (saw) guide us all!

PEACE

I reject it? Well you finally got some thing right. :D

Me and about 5 billion other people. :-\

Your so called proof is so weak that 4 out of 5 people reject it.

So just go away, my purpose here is not to insult Islam.

Peace Wilber

[tarek29]

I reject it? Well you finally got some thing right. :D

Me and about 5 billion other people. :-\

Your so called proof is so weak that 4 out of 5 people reject it.

So just go away, my purpose here is not to insult Islam.

Peace Wilber

You dont have PROOF to your Theories, while you cannot Discuss PROOF that Islam gives you!

But if you calculate it like that you, will find most of those 05 Billion beleive in God, some follow same GOD like Christians but they are miss guided and also jews, so as you see those who beleive in God are not 1 to 5 but more, so where does this put you!? this if we use same way how you calculate things!?

conclusion:

You use General talks and feelings and personal opinion not based on any Proof, and ironicaly and amazingly at same time you talk about PROOF and Logic and Blind faith etc....

And all this from first Proof that I gave to you, while I didnt finish yet of brining my PROOFS!

you should undertsand that I dont attack you, I just give you information for your sake!

May Allah (saw) guide us all!

PEACE

[Woodrow]

This thread is heading to become an argument. Let us keep in mind what month this is and avoid any needless arguments.