Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

http://islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?ca...sub_cat_id=792
Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective| Prepared by the Research Committee of IslamToday.net under the supervision of Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî|


Many Muslims wonder about the theory of biological evolution – the theory that living species on Earth today are descended from others in the past, and that the present diversity of living species we see is a result of descent with modification over the course of numerous generations.

Muslims also wonder about one of the main processes that evolutionary theory proposes to explain how evolution takes place – the process of natural selection. This is the idea that the individuals within a populations of living organism vary in their individual traits – they are not exactly alike – and that the organisms which are most successful at leaving descendants will pass on their unique traits to the next generation at the expense of the traits possessed by less successful organisms in the population, thereby contributing to a long-term gradual change in the suite of traits found within the population.

We as Muslims must ask:

Does the theory of evolution – and likewise the theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution – conform to Islamic teachings or conflict with them?

Is a Muslim allowed to believe in evolution as a scientific theory as long as he or she accepts that Allah is behind it?

Can a Muslim believe in human evolution? If not, how can we explain the fossils of upright, bipedal, tool-using apes with large brains that have been discovered?

To start with, we wish to emphasize that our concern here is not with examining the scientific merits of the theory of evolution. What we want to know is what Islamic teachings have to say about the idea. Whether evolution is true or false scientifically is another matter altogether.

When we look at the sources of Islam – the Qur’ân and Sunnah – we see that, with respect to human beings living on the Earth today, they are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

Allah also says: “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing.” [Sûrah al-Hujûrât:13]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) identified the "male" mentioned in this verse as being Adam. He said: “Human beings are the children of Adam and Adam was created from Earth. Allah says: ‘O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing’.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî (3270)]

We also see that Allah created Adam directly without the agency of parents.

Allah says: “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’ and he was.” [Sûrah Âl `Imrân: 59]

We also know that Eve was created from Adam without the agency of parents.

In the Qur’ân, Allah states clearly: “O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 1]

Therefore, the Qur’ân tells us that Adam and his wife were the father and mother of all human beings living on the Earth today. We know about this by way of direct revelation from Allah.

The direct creation of Adam (peace be upon him) can neither be confirmed nor denied by science in any way. This is because the creation of Adam (peace be upon him) was a unique and singular historical event. It is a matter of the Unseen and something that science does not have the power to confirm or deny. As a matter of the Unseen, we believe it because Allah informs us about it. We say the same for the miracles mentioned in the Qur’ân. Miraculous events, by their very nature, do not conform to scientific laws and their occurrence can neither be confirmed nor denied by science.

What about other living things, besides the human beings living on the Earth today? What about plants, animals, fungi, and the like?

When we turn our attention to this question, we find that the Qur’ân and Sunnah do not tell us much about the flora and fauna that was present on the Earth before or at the time of Adam and Eve’s arrived upon it. The sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago Adam and Eve arrived upon the Earth. Therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts.

The only thing that the Qur’ân and Sunnah require us to believe about the living things on Earth today is that Allah created them in whatever manner He decided to do create them.

Allah says: “Allah is the Creator of all things and over all things He has authority.” [Sûrah al-Zumar: 62]

Indeed, Allah states specifically that He created all life forms: “And We made from water all living things.” [Sûrah al-Anbiyâ’: 30]

We know that “Allah does what He pleases.” Allah can create His creatures in any manner that He chooses.

Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur’ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.

The role of science is only to observe and describe the patterns that Allah places in His creation. If scientific observation shows a pattern in the evolution of species over time that can be described as natural selection, this is not in itself unbelief. It is only unbelief for a person to think that this evolution took place on its own, and not as a creation of Allah. A Muslim who accepts evolution or natural selection as a valid scientific theory must know that the theory is merely an explanation of one of the many observed patterns in Allah’s creation.

As for the fossil remains of bipedal apes and the tools and artifacts associated with those remains, their existence poses no problem for Islamic teachings. There is nothing in the Qur’ân and Sunnah that either affirms or denies that upright, brainy, tool using apes ever existed or evolved from other apelike ancestors. Such animals may very well have existed on Earth before Adam’s arrival upon it. All we can draw from the Qur’ân and Sunnah is that even if those animals once existed, they were not the forefathers of Adam (peace be upon him).

And Allah knows best.

[azim]

Salaam.

I think that maybe this would be good as a sticky. Theres quite a lot of stickys already but I think it's good for people to read this.

[Takumi]

Subscribing to the creation of Adam completes the belief that human being is holistic in nature.

While evolutionary process mainly deals with the physical change due to adaption to the so called primate's surroundings, it fails to address the emotional progression of human being. [Silvan Tomkins, Paul Ekman, and Carol Izard haven't proven anything yet]

We know Adam felt happy, sad and grief. He was a complete human, thus all his emotional faculties are inherited to us.

Evolution theory advocates are still scrambling with the fact, if such primate existed, and somehow or rather it was "selected" to evolve, when did complex emotional characteristics come about? [at least in this forum, my questions haven't been answered yet]

On another note, if such precise and complete data of evolution do exist, then cloning human being with perfect duplication is definitely possible.

But of course, can science guarantee or prove that a cloned Caesar would have the same emotional characteristics as the one who died?

What if the cloned Caesar is purposely brought up in China by a chinese family, hmmmm...Confucious watch your back! :)

[mansio]

I would have liked to know at what time and in which place on earth Adam and Eve lived according to Muslims.
I got some kind of response from Ansar when he said "The sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago Adam and Eve arrived upon the Earth. Therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts."
Unfortunately that is a important fact of science which is missing from the Quran.

There is another question: the story of Adam and Eve is taken from the Bible. Scientists, historians and most Christians (I don't know the situation with Jews) know that it is a creation myth which originates in pagan cultures. (A myth being a story invented by men to express a religious idea).
So I wonder how Muslims can put in accordance their views of Adam and Eve with modern thinking.

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

[azim]

I would have liked to know at what time and in which place on earth Adam and Eve lived according to Muslims.
I got some kind of response from Ansar when he said "The sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago Adam and Eve arrived upon the Earth. Therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts."
Unfortunately that is a important fact of science which is missing from the Quran.

If you believe it is unfortunate this fact is missing then we can't really help that.

There is another question: the story of Adam and Eve is taken from the Bible. Scientists, historians and most Christians (I don't know the situation with Jews) know that it is a creation myth which originates in pagan cultures. (A myth being a story invented by men to express a religious idea). So I wonder how Muslims can put in accordance their views of Adam and Eve with modern thinking.

We're getting into old habits Mansio :). It doesn't matter if scientists, historians and most Christians believe Adam and Eve to be a myth, it is their opinion. You haven't really shown it originates from Pagan cultures but I'll assume you're saying the truth. Even so, the fact its mentioned in older Pagan cultures doesn't disprove/prove anything, you would assume that if Adam and Eve existed, then their story would be found in history.

I don't see how this can turn into a debate, since you have no evidence or facts to bring to me which outright, 100% disprove that we all come from a single mother and father and I cannot bring evidence that does outright, 100% proves we did.

As muslims, we believe in Adam and Eve because it is mentioned the Quran, and we believe (with evidence) that the Quran is the word of God.

Peace.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
Actually, in another thread I refuted mansio's lie that the creation of Adam and Eve (from clay) was a pagan myth, but mansio never returned to the discussion after that. Once again I will post what I had before.

In Norse Mythology, the first humans were created from logs by Odin and his brothers.

In the Ancient Aryan myths, we find the belief that the first men and women grew out of plants and bushes.

In the Babylonian myths, Marduk uses the blood of Kingu to create man.

In the Inca mythology, Con Tiqui fashoned human beings out of giant rocks.

In the Mayan mythology, human beings are created by the Heart-of-sky from Maize-corn dough.

In the Navajo nation, humans were believed to be created from the ears of corn.

In the Celtic mythology, human beings are the descendents of the gods.

In Greek mythology, it is Prometheus who created a race of ONLY men out of water and earth, and stole fire from the heaven to give them as a gift. Later on Zeus found at, and as punishment Zeus created for them the first woman, Pandora, and sent her to dwell amongst them. (bulfinch)

Amonst Egyptian Mythology, we find the belief that men and women formed from the tears of the god, Khepera.

In Hindu Mythology, Lord Prajapati (Viraj) divided himself into man and woman. He then mated with his female half, producing human beings. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1:4:1-5).

Quite clearly, none of these pagan myths bear any resemblance to the Abrahamic belief that God created humanity from Adam and Eve, and that Adam was created from clay!

I would have liked to know at what time and in which place on earth Adam and Eve lived according to Muslims.
I got some kind of response from Ansar when he said "The sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago Adam and Eve arrived upon the Earth. Therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts."
Unfortunately that is a important fact of science which is missing from the Quran.

Is the Qur'an supposed to give us the date when Adam and Eve were created?! Does this affect the guidance in our daily lives? Will this alter our path to salvation? The answer is no.

So I wonder how Muslims can put in accordance their views of Adam and Eve with modern thinking.

What isn't in accordance with modern thinking? You have to point out a specific problem first.

[Takumi]

I would have liked to know at what time and in which place on earth Adam and Eve lived according to Muslims.
I got some kind of response from Ansar when he said "The sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago Adam and Eve arrived upon the Earth. Therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts."
Unfortunately that is a important fact of science which is missing from the Quran.

There is another question: the story of Adam and Eve is taken from the Bible. Scientists, historians and most Christians (I don't know the situation with Jews) know that it is a creation myth which originates in pagan cultures. (A myth being a story invented by men to express a religious idea).
So I wonder how Muslims can put in accordance their views of Adam and Eve with modern thinking.

I would have liked to know about many things. Was Aadam black or white or purple? Did Eve have long silky hair, what color were her eyes and did Adam have washboard abs?

I would have liked to know how Adam sounded like? He was the first created man, did he sound like Tom Jones or El Debarge? Did Eve sound like Mariah Carey or maybe Norah Jones? :giggling:

The list could go on.

Since my faith is in God's words, elements of history that He did not reveal would not bother me. In fact, those were the first description given by Allah on those who are mindful of him.

alif laam meem.

Indeed, this is the book there is no doubt in it

Guidance to those who are mindful of God.

They are the ones who believe in the unseen and establish their prayers and they give charity from what We have blessed them.

....

Allah, the angels, hell fire, paradise, where Adam and Hawwa descended are just examples of the unseen.

Harold Kushner the author of the book "Who Needs God" and "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" cleverly and simply illustrated the hypocritical attitude of some people when it comes to God.

There are only a few among us who have seen the South Pole. But yet we believed that it exists. Because we saw it on TV and we read about it, giving our 100% to the authors.

But when it comes to the existence of God, some of us turned our backs on Him, even though it is with the faculties that He had given us that we are able to believe the existence of the South Pole.

Science is a man made discipline. The protocols of science (burden of proof, reproducibility and what's nots) are conjured by the human mind. Are those protocols credible; yes, but they're not absolute. In fact, those are the faculties GIVEN as a blessing from God so that human may ponder WHO is the one creative enough to have come up with such intricacies in His designs.

I don't speak for all muslims, but I don't believe that Adam and Hawwa came from pagan cultures. We know the immediate progenies of Aadam worshipped only God and then as time went by, human with their awe towards god fearing people began to construct statues to remember their dead loved ones.

But such admiration became obessession and unfortunately became idol worshipping. That's what happened to the people of Noah, who built statues of their dead ancestors, and you know the rest of the story. As you will agree with me, such process are also taking place right now.

There are people who worship prophets, and some worship Muhammad.

So, if somone accuses me of blindly following the ancient scriptures, I'd say, it's fine with me. How about you? You're blindly following many things.

The existence of the South Pole, for instance, since I guarantee you, you haven't seen it.

[Abu Zakariya]

During the past week, I have started to look into the matter of evolution, not being interested in it at all in the past.
I visited various sites (from talk.origins and wikipedia's evolution-section to trueorigins and "alternativescience") and even borrowed books on the subject from the library.
From what I've read, it seems that, as Dr. Michael Behe (author of a well-known book that criticises Darwinism) said, the idea of common descent has some support, and also some problems.
Of course, I am in no position to really comment on the issue since I have no real knowledge, but from what I've read, this seems to be the case.

In my search for some answers, I frequently e-mailed to IslamToday's research commitee, chaired by Shaykh 'abd al-Wahhâb at-Turayrî and they explained the islamic position on this matter to me.
They essentially told me that islam has no problem with evolution. We are obliged to believe that Adam and Eve were created directly by God and this can't be confirmed or denied by science.
Here's a quote:

There really is no reason for a Muslim to bother with refuting the theory of evolution or other scientific theories. A Muslim believes that Allah creates the universe and what it contains however He wishes to. Science can only attempt to see the observable patterns in Allah’s creation, whatever those patterns may be.
Therefore, such scientific theories do not have a bearing on our faith as Muslims, even if they do pose serious problems for some other religions.

[mansio]

I'm sorry.
I saw the name "biological evolution" so I thought it was about science.
If it is about faith then of course anything can be believed.

This is for Ansar (from Wikipedia. It corroborates what I knew from school):

"Many scholars have noted striking similarities between the creation story in the Enûma Elish and the first creation story in the Biblical tale of Genesis. For example, Genesis describes six days of creation, followed by a day of rest; the Enûma Elish describes six generations of gods, whose creations parallel the days in Genesis, followed by a divine rest. In both Enuma Elish and Genesis 1, the creation proceeds in the same order, beginning with light, and ending with mankind. Also, the goddess Tiamat parallels the primordial ocean in Genesis; the Hebrew word used in Genesis for the primordial ocean is "tehôm" which has the same etymological root as "Tiamat". This has led many to believe that Genesis is based on a modified form of the Enûma Elish, or that they are both derived from the same source.
The same parallell mythology can be found in the Baal cycle recovered in Canaanite Ugarit."

[Abu Zakariya]

I got some kind of response from Ansar when he said "The sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago Adam and Eve arrived upon the Earth. Therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts."
Unfortunately that is a important fact of science which is missing from the Quran.

As Ansar al-'Adl mentioned, knowing this doesn't help us in the path to salvation.
The Qur'an isn't a science-book. When scientifical matters are mentioned, they are there to illustrate Gods power and as a lesson.
So mentioning details about the creation of Adam, animals or whatever isn't the purpose of which the Qur'an was revealed.

My question to you is, does the Bible mention these details about Adam and Eve and other parts of the creation?

[azim]

This is a site I found regarding Genesis and the Enuma Elish poem.

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_R...h_creation.htm

If you have a read through, it's quite abstract parallels and when compared to Islam, completely different with no similarites except the number six.

Also, Adam and Eve aren't mentioned in the slightest, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Adam and Eve the focus at the moment?

[mansio]

Azim

Adam and Eve are not mentioned and neither are their home adress and zip codes.
Same with the Flood story, the registration number of Noah ark is not given in the Mesopotamian tablets.

[azim]

Azim

Adam and Eve are not mentioned and neither are their home adress and zip codes.
Same with the Flood story, the registration number of Noah ark is not given in the Mesopotamian tablets.

Mansio, you said: -

There is another question: the story of Adam and Eve is taken from the Bible. Scientists, historians and most Christians (I don't know the situation with Jews) know that it is a creation myth which originates in pagan cultures. (A myth being a story invented by men to express a religious idea). So I wonder how Muslims can put in accordance their views of Adam and Eve with modern thinking.

I said that most Christians know the story of Adam is a myth of probably Sumerian origin.

We're talking about the origin of Adam and Eve. Ansar refuted your claims and you posted a link about the creation in Genesis, which had no reference (even vaguely) towards Adam and Eve.

Are you here for debate? Or to simply throw your opinions around with no facts and base? When a point you make is disproven, the honest, open minded and mature thing to do is to accept your mistake. The childish, ignorant thing to do is make silly, pointless comments like the one above. I've said this several times regarding your posts, you rarely, if ever, have facts to back up anything you say. If you would simply like to air your opinions, then create a blog where I'm sure hundreds of people will flock to read what you have to say. If you are here for honest, rational and intellectual fact-based debate..then stay, but I seriously admonish you to adopt a new method of arguing.

[Abu Zakariya]

Also, this is a bold claim Mansio:

most Christians (I don't know the situation with Jews) know that it is a creation myth which originates in pagan cultures

According to whom do most Christians "know" this? You?
The Christians I've met and the various Christian sites that I've visited don't agree with your statement here. Of course, my personal experience doesn't disprove your claim, but I'd like to see you back that up.

[jalo]

Speaking as a christian I certainly do not believe that the story of Adam and Eve came from a creation myth which originates in pagan culture. Genesis chapter 1 verses 26-31 states that God created human beings on the sixth day of creation. Chapter 2 tells of the garden of eden.For some time the general thinking is that "Adam & Eve" was the name given to male and female, otherwise how was Cain able to have a wife.Irrespective of this we learn from the Bible that human beings were on the earth from the sixth day of creation.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I'm sorry.
I saw the name "biological evolution" so I thought it was about science.
If it is about faith then of course anything can be believed.

The topic of this thread is: "biological evolution - an Islamic perspective". This means it is a discussion on how Islam views biological evolution.

This has absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous complaint that the Qur'an does not mention mundane scientific facts such as the date Adam was created.

This is for Ansar (from Wikipedia. It corroborates what I knew from school):

"Many scholars have noted striking similarities between the creation story in the Enûma Elish and the first creation story in the Biblical tale of Genesis. For example, Genesis describes six days of creation, followed by a day of rest; the Enûma Elish describes six generations of gods, whose creations parallel the days in Genesis, followed by a divine rest. In both Enuma Elish and Genesis 1, the creation proceeds in the same order, beginning with light, and ending with mankind. Also, the goddess Tiamat parallels the primordial ocean in Genesis; the Hebrew word used in Genesis for the primordial ocean is "tehôm" which has the same etymological root as "Tiamat". This has led many to believe that Genesis is based on a modified form of the Enûma Elish, or that they are both derived from the same source.
The same parallell mythology can be found in the Baal cycle recovered in Canaanite Ugarit."

Thanks, but what does this have to do with anything? This doesn't discuss adam and eve at all. If you want to discuss Babylonian/Mesopotamian myths, then i already pointed out that Marduk created human beings from the blood of Kingu. Doesn't sound anything like Islam to me.

Shall I take your silence on the issue of Adam's creation as an admission that your allegation has been refuted? The evidence I have given clearly proves that the Qur'anic account of man's creation bears no resamblance to any of the pre-islamic mythologies.

You are clearly fond of advancing personal conjecture as established fact.

[azim]

Mansio, your changing the subject and twisting it.

If you'd like to talk about Clay and creation from, I've started a new thread on Comparative Religion.

Stay on topic.

Peace.

[Khattab]

:sl: Brother check out this link http://www.islamonline.net/English/c...rticle01.shtml inshallah will be of some use to you. A long article but a interesting read.

:w:

During the past week, I have started to look into the matter of evolution, not being interested in it at all in the past.
I visited various sites (from talk.origins and wikipedia's evolution-section to trueorigins and "alternativescience") and even borrowed books on the subject from the library.
From what I've read, it seems that, as Dr. Michael Behe (author of a well-known book that criticises Darwinism) said, the idea of common descent has some support, and also some problems.
Of course, I am in no position to really comment on the issue since I have no real knowledge, but from what I've read, this seems to be the case.

In my search for some answers, I frequently e-mailed to IslamToday's research commitee, chaired by Shaykh 'abd al-Wahhâb at-Turayrî and they explained the islamic position on this matter to me.
They essentially told me that islam has no problem with evolution. We are obliged to believe that Adam and Eve were created directly by God and this can't be confirmed or denied by science.
Here's a quote:

There really is no reason for a Muslim to bother with refuting the theory of evolution or other scientific theories. A Muslim believes that Allah creates the universe and what it contains however He wishes to. Science can only attempt to see the observable patterns in Allah’s creation, whatever those patterns may be.
Therefore, such scientific theories do not have a bearing on our faith as Muslims, even if they do pose serious problems for some other religions.

[Abu Zakariya]

Jazzak Allah kheyr

I have actually read that article. I read it last Wednesday or Thursday I believe. The book recommendation list at the end made me go to the library to borrow the following book:

Thinking About God. Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood. Bloomington, Indiana: American Trust Publications.

[root]

Seems to be the beginning of the end for ID, this is nothing more than laying the foundation to prepare muslims to accept evolution after years of rejecting it.

What a reversal, and to think you write it in such a way as to attempt to retain a certain ammount of respect. Still, at the very least you should be congratulated for taking evolution onboard after years of stubborn religous rejection. Still, you are only prepared to go halfway, Your ancestors in history were Archaics.

[Fishman]

Seems to be the beginning of the end for ID, this is nothing more than laying the foundation to prepare muslims to accept evolution after years of rejecting it.

What a reversal, and to think you write it in such a way as to attempt to retain a certain ammount of respect. Still, at the very least you should be congratulated for taking evolution onboard after years of stubborn religous rejection. Still, you are only prepared to go halfway, Your ancestors in history were Archaics.

:sl:
I don't know why so many Muslims reject evolution. The scientists of the Islamic golden age had a concept of it, and the Quran states that all life was created from water and clay. There is actually a real scientific theory that states that life began with clay, but it is most likely that the word 'clay' represents the gunk in the 'warm little pond' where life began.
:w:

[united]

http://www.harunyahya.com/
Need I say more?

[Fishman]

http://www.harunyahya.com/
Need I say more?

:sl:
Harun Yahya is a very dodgy site. I'll try to disprove some of it's claims here.

No advantageous mutations: Adan Oktar claims that there have been no advantageous mutations. This is simply a lie. Some bateria have recently aquirred a mutation that allows them to digest a chemical that exists in nylon waste that didn't exist in nature before the 1930's, when nylon was discovered. Some people in Italy have a mutation that stops them from catching osteoporosis. Some other people have inherited a mutation that helps prevent heart disease.

Natural selection doesn't work: Adan Oktar also claims that natural selection does not work. There have been many examples of natural selection, such as the peppered moth incident.

I strongly suggest for Muslims not to listen to Harun Yahya, as it is not for us to be fooled.
:w:

[united]

Bro Fishman read this
http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/7...eism_sci34.php

[united]

:sl:
Harun Yahya is a very dodgy site. I'll try to disprove some of it's claims here.

No advantageous mutations: Adan Oktar claims that there have been no advantageous mutations. This is simply a lie. Some bateria have recently aquirred a mutation that allows them to digest a chemical that exists in nylon waste that didn't exist in nature before the 1930's, when nylon was discovered. Some people in Italy have a mutation that stops them from catching osteoporosis. Some other people have inherited a mutation that helps prevent heart disease.

Natural selection doesn't work: Adan Oktar also claims that natural selection does not work. There have been many examples of natural selection, such as the peppered moth incident.

I strongly suggest for Muslims not to listen to Harun Yahya, as it is not for us to be fooled.
:w:

The Peppered Moth - An Update
(From Ken Miller's Evolution Page)

For years the story of the peppered moth, Biston betularia, has provided one of the best-known examples of natural selection in action. The story of the moth was outlined on pages 297-298 of the Elephant Book, and highlights the experiments of British ecologist H. B. D. Kettlewell.

However, a recent book by Michael Majerus (Melanism -Evolution in Action) makes it clear that the peppered moth story has changed in recent years.
The Peppered Moth is routinely used as an example of evolution.

But is this well-known story wrong?

The light-colored form of the moth, known as typica, was the predominant form in England prior to the beginning of the industrial revolution. Shown at left, the typica moth's speckled wings are easy to spot against a dark background, but would be difficult to pick out against the light-colored bark of many trees common in England.
The "typica" form of the moth.


Around the middle of the 19th century, however, a new form of the moth began to appear. The first report of a dark-colored peppered moth was made in 1848. By 1895, the frequency in Manchester had reached a reported level of 98% of the moths.

This dark-colored form is known as carbonaria, and (as shown at right), it is easiest to see against a light background. As you can well imagine, carbonaria would be almost invisible against a dark background, just as typica would be difficult to see against a light background. The increase in carbonaria moths was so dramatic that many naturalists made the immediate suggestion that it had to be the result of the effects of industrial activity on the local landscape.
The "carbonaria" form.

As noted on page 297 of the Elephant Book, coal burned during the early decades of the industrial revolution produced soot that blanketed the countryside of the industrial areas of England between London and Manchester. Several naturalists noted that the typica form was more common in the countryside, while the carbonaria moth prevailed in the sooty regions. Not surprisingly, many jumped to the conclusion that the darker moths had some sort of survival advantage in the newly-darkened landscape.

In recent years, the burning of cleaner fuels and the advent of Clean Air laws has changed the countryside even in industrial areas, and the sootiness that prevailed during the 19th century is all but gone from urban England. Coincidentally, the prevalance of the carbonaria form has declined dramatically. In fact, some biologists suggest that the dark forms will be all but extinct within a few decades.

For evolutionary biologists, the question behind the rise and fall of the carbonaria form is "Why?" Why should the dark phenotype have appeared so suddenly, come to dominate the population in industrial areas, and then have declined just as sharply when levels of pollution declined? To many biologists, the answer seemed obvious. In areas where pollution had darkened the landscape, the darker moths were better camouflaged and less like to be eaten by birds. Under less-polluted conditions, the light-colored moths prevailed for similar reasons.

But was the obvious answer correct? That's what Kettlewell set out to check in a series of classic studies carried out in the 1950s. As described in Chapter 14 of the text, his results seemed to confirm that background camouflage was the key:



What I don't understand is why the GCSE/A-Level questions have not been updated.

[root]

Hi United,

I don't use the peppered moth as an example and I think people who google answers probably do come up with out-dated information. I posted a great example of evolution in action here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...nightmare.html

[united]

Would you say that Africans have "evolved" to be black, and Europeans have "evolved" to be white and Indians have "evolved" to be brown etc? Because Im sure that all these colours did not come about overnight.
And does this make each of the colours a different species? Of course they are able to interbreed, but so can different species of dogs.

[root]

Would you say that Africans have "evolved" to be black,

This is certainly the starting point in that the first modern men seem to have come from out of Africa a few times, if the skin evolved from white to black as overall coverage of hair declined is still a topic of hot debate. However, black skin albeit black from the beginning or otherwise has been a procuct of evolution.

and Europeans have "evolved" to be white and Indians have "evolved" to be brown etc? Because Im sure that all these colours did not come about overnight.

As the first Humans migrated out of Africa evolution favoured lighter skin and as you have already implied, evolution does not apply changes overnight

And does this make each of the colours a different species? Of course they are able to interbreed, but so can different species of dogs.

Not a different species and certainly not classed in a subspecies taxonomy like dogs. However, Africans Asians and Europeans have followed a slightly different genetic drift ancestory.

[united]

But would you call this evolution or adaptation?

[root]

That depends on wether you want to call a 50 pence piece - 50p or 10 bob?

What I am getting at, is adaptation is part of the evolutionary theory. Under the issue we are debating then climate adaptation is the apparent root cause. Adaptation within a species is very well documented, other factors that could also be the force behind adaptation is predator avoidance change is food source etc etc.

[united]

I understand adaptation, but how does adaptation cause "evolution" ?

[root]

I understand adaptation, but how does adaptation cause "evolution" ?

Adaptation is part of evolution, you seem to see them as two seperate entities.

[united]

Yes they are two entities.

[root]

Yes they are two entities.

Can you explain your logic in your statement along with any supporting evidence.

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

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

Charles Darwin would undoubtedly be both pleased and chagrined.

The famous scientist would be pleased because a study published online this week provides the first clear evidence that natural selection, his favored mechanism of evolution, drives the process of species formation in a wide variety of plants and animals. But he would be chagrined because it has taken nearly 150 years to do so.

What Darwin did in his revolutionary treatise, “On the Origin of Species,” was to explain how much of the extraordinary variety of biological traits possessed by plants and animals arises from a single process, natural selection. Since then a large number of studies and observations have supported and extended his original work. However, linking natural selection to the origin of the 30 to 100 million different species estimated to inhabit the earth, has proven considerably more elusive.

In the last 20 years, studies of a number of specific species have demonstrated that natural selection can cause sub-populations to adapt to new environments in ways that reduce their ability to interbreed, an essential first step in the formation of a new species. However, biologists have not known whether these cases represent special exceptions or illustrate a general rule.

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

A full copy of the study can be obtained from the below link.

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

[Abdul Fattah]

This is one of the bigest misconceptions among supporters of the evolution theory. Evolution theory does not speculate that species evolve out of adaptation. A mutation is the result of a malfunctioning. It is not (unless you believ in ID) purpose-minded. Species don't mutation in order to adapt. They adapt because they have mutated. It is a fluke. Adaptation only comes in after mutation. The mutated specie can sometimes adapt to it's new charesteristics so they find their mutation a benefit rather then a downside. Their customs and ebhavior can adapt but their DNA does not "adapt" to new enviroments. In fact their enviroment cannot have any effect on their Dna, the Dna is well confined within the cells of our bodies and therefor undisturbed by the enviroment.

[root]

This is one of the bigest misconceptions among supporters of the evolution theory. Evolution theory does not speculate that species evolve out of adaptation.

I am so angry right now Steve with you for peddling this type of rubbish. :grumbling

A mutation is the result of a malfunctioning. It is not (unless you believ in ID) purpose-minded.

Why are we talking mutations, we are talking adaptation. Evolution is not driven by one single force. Mutational change is one aspect and not the sole aspect. however, if you read the thread we are talking adaptation.

Species don't mutation in order to adapt. They adapt because they have mutated.

:grumbling

It is a fluke. Adaptation only comes in after mutation.

:grumbling

The mutated specie can sometimes adapt to it's new charesteristics so they find their mutation a benefit rather then a downside.

Yes this can happen and probably does, but again it's not the sole reason.

Their customs and ebhavior can adapt but their DNA does not "adapt" to new enviroments. In fact their enviroment cannot have any effect on their Dna, the Dna is well confined within the cells of our bodies and therefor undisturbed by the enviroment.

:grumbling

[united]

Well arent adaptation and mutation related?
Some individuals of a particular species are better adapted due to some genes which they possess. These genes may have come about due to mutations.

[Abdul Fattah]

Well you can be angry about it, but that's not going to make my arguments any weaker or stronger then they already are. :)

[root]

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

[Abdul Fattah]

Yes I am aware that it is broadly used, nevertheles it's incorrect. The word adaptation suggests that mutations occured as a proces of adaptation. that's why so many biologists object to the term. It confuses people. When a monkey in the zoo suddenly starts using a knife to peel banana's just as the keepers do, then he has adapted to the tools available in his enviroment. When a specie suddenly has advantages due to a mutation; then it hasn't adapted but it just got lucky. Unless you believe in ID, and suggets the mutation wasn't the result of luck but rather a laid out plan. But I doubt that is waht you mean.

[Fishman]

Yes I am aware that it is broadly used, nevertheles it's incorrect. The word adaptation suggests that mutations occured as a proces of adaptation. that's why so many biologists object to the term. It confuses people. When a monkey in the zoo suddenly starts using a knife to peel banana's just as the keepers do, then he has adapted to the tools available in his enviroment. When a specie suddenly has advantages due to a mutation; then it hasn't adapted but it just got lucky. Unless you believe in ID, and suggets the mutation wasn't the result of luck but rather a laid out plan. But I doubt that is waht you mean.

:sl:
I think you are confusing ID with theistic evolution. ID claims that there is no evolution, and that all mutations are disadvantageous in some way. Theistic evolution says that God controls evolution, and that there is no such thing as chance, just God's Will.
:w:

[Abdul Fattah]

:sl:
ID claims that there is no evolution, and that all mutations are disadvantageous in some way. :w:

ID stands for intelligent design. It suggests that the proces of evolution is not by chance but rather following an "intelligent design" suggesting the existance of an intelligent designer. So I don't see much difrence between theistic evolution and ID.

[Fishman]

ID stands for intelligent design. It suggests that the proces of evolution is not by chance but rather following an "intelligent design" suggesting the existance of an intelligent designer. So I don't see much difrence between theistic evolution and ID.

:sl:
Intelligent design is a branch of the creationism movement, like Flood geology and baraminology. It says that all animals were created in an instant by an unspecified Designer, and that this design can be detected. 'Evidence' for design includes irreducibly complex structures, which are (incorrectly) claimed to be impossible to have evolved, and specifed complexity, which, thanks to confusing creationist jargon, I cannot understand in the slightest.

Theistic evolution (the one I support) is exactly the same as the standard theory of evolution, except that it says that God controls mutation and natural selection.
:w:

[Abdul Fattah]

:sl:
Intelligent design is a branch of the creationism movement, like Flood geology and baraminology. It says that all animals were created in an instant by an unspecified Designer, and that this design can be detected. 'Evidence' for design includes irreducibly complex structures, which are (incorrectly) claimed to be impossible to have evolved, and specifed complexity, which, thanks to confusing creationist jargon, I cannot understand in the slightest.

No ID doesn't suggest that. Id is the same as theistic evolution except that the word ID can refer to "any" devine source. Be it "the one God" or the trinity-God in which Adam is created as image, a flying spaghetti monster, etc ...

Here's a link from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

[Fishman]

No ID doesn't suggest that. Id is the same as theistic evolution except that the word ID can refer to "any" devine source. Be it "the one God" or the trinity-God in which Adam is created as image, a flying spaghetti monster, etc ...

Here's a link from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

:sl:
If you read the section in the article that talks about the claims of ID, you will see that they are all atempts to disprove evolution. You're right that it does not specify what created life.

Do you support creationism or evolution? I'm an ex-atheist Muslim (well technically I'm not one yet, as I have not said Shahadah yet) who supports theistic evolution.
:w:

[Abdul Fattah]

:sl:
If you read the section in the article that talks about the claims of ID, you will see that they are all atempts to disprove evolution. You're right that it does not specify what created life.

Well not exactly the only difrence between ID and classical evolution is that evolution calls the proces random and our existance the result of mere luck. Whereas Id suggests it was all planend (and worked out) by a deity.

Do you support creationism or evolution? I'm an ex-atheist Muslim (well technically I'm not one yet, as I have not said Shahadah yet) who supports theistic evolution.
:w:

Well I try to keep an open mind there are many theories that I consider possible. I'm inclined towards a mixture of evolution and creation.
there's two parts of evolution I have problems with. Common descent and abiogenesis. Let's start with abiogenesis, the theory that suggest life erose out of lifeless matter. This I cannot accept at all, there's to many unlickely suggestions , to many parts of teh theory still left to speculation, to many holes.

Then there's common descent ,which basicly says: since some species evolved out of other it seems logic to assume all species evolved out of teh same ancestral being. Here again there's many questions, many things left to speculation. And again many gaps: fish evolving into reptiles, reptiles into birds, reptiles into mamels, or mamels into birds, asexual species to sexual species, instinct driven apes to intelligen (to some extend) humans, evolution of the eye, all missing links I need to see filled up before I can accept common descent. So until proven wrong I'll stick to classical creationism.

The third part: mutations; are obvious. I wouldn't dream of denying that. Virus evolving, wolf evolving into dog, lynx evolving into cat. It's all possible and coincedently, this part does not go in against Islamic vieuws.

[root]

there's two parts of evolution I have problems with. Common descent and abiogenesis. Let's start with abiogenesis, the theory that suggest life erose out of lifeless matter. This I cannot accept at all, there's to many unlickely suggestions , to many parts of teh theory still left to speculation, to many holes.

:grumbling

Abiogenesis is not part of the evolutionary process, you know this you have in the past acknowledged this. So why are you still peddling one of the greatest misconceptions you can give to the Theory of Evolution.

[Abdul Fattah]

:grumbling

Abiogenesis is not part of the evolutionary process, you know this you have in the past acknowledged this. So why are you still peddling one of the greatest misconceptions you can give to the Theory of Evolution.

Well it's not a part of the real "evolution". But it is frequently (mis)placed under evolution. That's why I make the distinction here.

[root]

Well it's not a part of the real "evolution". But it is frequently (mis)placed under evolution. That's why I make the distinction here.

Come again!

You know it's not part of Evolution and you made no distinction at all. Can you answer the following question with a simple YES or NO so we are all absolutely clear.........

"Is Abiogenesis part of the Theory of Evolution"

Thanks.....

[Abdul Fattah]

No it's not a part of evolution, yet people commonly use the word "evolution" to refer to both evolution and abiogenesis.

[root]

No it's not a part of evolution,

A simple no would have beed sufficient.

yet people commonly use the word "evolution" to refer to both evolution and abiogenesis.

No Steve, Creationists and ID thinkers "commonly" refer to both evolution and abiogenesis in order to help them futher confuse people to what evolution actually is. They are well aware they are seperate (like you are) yet, they still peddle this rubbish (like you do).

:grumbling

[ahmed baker]

Well

Not all theory is a fact.

Please Visit

www.harunyahya.com

[Salaam]

Salaam,

Hello shuhel how are you, hope you are enjoying the site.

[ahmed baker]

Who is that

i am not shuhel

I am Suhail

[root]

Not all theory is a fact.

OMG. :grumbling :hiding: :?

You want facts, OK my freind here they are. (I hope you are ready for this).

New alternative theory to evolution

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

Further. We have an artists impression of "HIM"

Additionally, "HIM" has turned up in living bacteria:

Source:http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10183948/

Further, More evidence of the "Late Neolithic noodles: They may settle the origin as The remains of the world's oldest noodles have been unearthed in China. The 50cm-long, yellow strands were found in a pot that had probably been buried during a catastrophic flood. Radiocarbon dating of the material taken from the Lajia archaeological site on the Yellow River indicates the food was about 4,000 years old.

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4335160.stm

Further, you can find information about this theory in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Further, we have hundreds of scientists who support this theory:
http://www.venganza.org/endorsements.htm

Scientific proof (a miracle revelation)

[QUOTE]the best scientific proof to date of the existance of our lord the FSM. Attached is an electron micrograph obtained in my laboratory of human DNA showing the most blessed signs of HIM. Alas! we are made to His image and the proof is in the DNA. Please note the detail of
His noodly appendage. We are so blessed to have him inside of all of us!!!
[QUOTE]

Finally:

Go google "creator of the universe"......................................... ..........

So, what's your theory BillyBoy.........................................

[Idris]

Come on root this is old news…people now days really have problems using the brain and coming up with facts not joke story.. get real man....You don't really want us to even think about this…. you just wasted 5 min of my life reading this.

This is the real story …some depressed atheist had a tough time finding facts so he tried use this muscle brain and…. :rollseyes forget this read for yourself

“The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design creationism as an "alternative" to biological evolution.”

[root]

Come on root this is old news…people now days really have problems using the brain and coming up with facts not joke story.. get real man....You don't really want us to even think about this…. you just wasted 5 min of my life reading this.

It now has 10 million supporters and is a serious theory of ID. Be careful, you may be offending someones religion.

This is the real story …some depressed atheist had a tough time finding facts so he tried use this muscle brain and…. forget this read for yourself

That is the whole point. What is a fact & what constitutes absolute proof, irrespective this is a serious theory for ID and should ID need to be taught then this needs to be taken seriously as an alternative theory to evolution?

“The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design creationism as an "alternative" to biological evolution.”

Correct, and could you refute it as being false?

I mean look at this link:
Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4335160.stm

How did the chinese know about the flying spaghetti monster 4,000 years ago. Surely divine Sphaghetti monster inspiration, how could they have known it was was to be. Can you refute anything that is claimed........

[Idris]

What is a fact & what constitute absolute proof

And I am saying is that his guy wants to waste time and play word game about what fact and what absolute proof is.

Root provide me with a e.g. on how you can get confused about what fact and absolute proofs
Now evolution is a theory not fact. Now root do you know how many theory’s their are about space…. Closed Time-Like Curves, Black Holes, Rotating Cylinders, Time-warped Field Theory Emerges, Wormholes, Chronology Protection Conjecture, Cosmic Strings and Many Worlds Theory. I can name countless and the funny thing is no one can tell them that they are wrong because it’s a theory.

[root]

Root provide me with a e.g. on how you can get confused about what fact and absolute proofs

Sure, the theory of general relativity does not offer absolute proof that Gravity exists as we understand it.

Now evolution is a theory not fact.

Your right, but then again so is the theory of relativity. Are you suggesting gravity does not exist as we currently understand it. God forbid you ever become unwell and rely on medical science which again offers no absolute proof, yet odds are you will place your life (allah considered) within medical science that is offering only a probability they are right........

Now root do you know how many theory’s their are about space…. Closed Time-Like Curves, Black Holes, Rotating Cylinders, Time-warped Field Theory Emerges, Wormholes, Chronology Protection Conjecture, Cosmic Strings and Many Worlds Theory. I can name countless and the funny thing is no one can tell them that they are wrong because it’s a theory.

I agree, the issue though is that you have completely mixed several hypothosies with theories, Wormholes for example are hypotheticals however they will fall under space-time theory. Evolution is a theory, and whilst the whole picture is not clear certain (not all) within the theory will be hypothetical because we still do not know yet, predictions are generally presented as an hypothosis. If I am correct then I hypothosise this will happen. If it proves correct then the hypothosis becomes a supported theory, it does not become absolute proof because it still might be wrong but nest fits the data that is presented.

Science does not deal in facts presented as absolute proof. At best, science can only offer a probability and no more. It is probable that tomorrow will come, it is not an absolute fact that tomorrow will come.

Hopefully, you appreciate why science cannot offer an answer as absolute proof of fact. With this Science suggests that evolution is the probable cause of how we came to be (Evolution theory only) because evolution is the only theory that can support and explain the scientific data. ID, is not scientific nor does it support the scientific data. If our children are to be fooled into having ID presented to them in the science classroom as opposed to RE, then by such validation of ID our divine Sphaghetti monster must additionally be taught as a serious theory of ID. (The paradox being ID is a faith position and not validated as scientific).

[Abdul Fattah]

You disapoint me Root, I nevre thought you'd drop so low to defend a theory against better knowledge just to make a point.

[root]

You disapoint me Root, I nevre thought you'd drop so low to defend a theory against better knowledge just to make a point.

I am defending the Sphagetti Monster as a serious contender of ID. You have Allah, I have the sphagetti monster they are "BOTH" equally valid under Intelligent Design...........

Unless of course you can prove otherwise.

[Abdul Fattah]

Root, I know you don't believe in it and that the only reason you defend it is as an argument ad absurdum. And quite frankly that disapoints me from you. Now you an try and rephrase that in any way you want,... But that won't make any difrence.

[root]

Root, I know you don't believe in it and that the only reason you defend it is as an argument ad absurdum. And quite frankly that disapoints me from you. Now you an try and rephrase that in any way you want,... But that won't make any difrence.

Double jeapardy! But alas, you cannot refute it as a serious viable ID alternative to evolution, that is the point being made, we have controversy have we not. Should we warn our kids that this controversy exists when we tech them biological evolution in the classroom.

[root]

Hi Steve,

I have been meaning to get back to you on the point of adaptation as a driving force behind evolutionary change and the seemingly linked way that you view mutational change to be the sole force. For a reminder here is your full comment:

This is one of the bigest misconceptions among supporters of the evolution theory. Evolution theory does not speculate that species evolve out of adaptation. A mutation is the result of a malfunctioning. It is not (unless you believ in ID) purpose-minded. Species don't mutation in order to adapt. They adapt because they have mutated. It is a fluke. Adaptation only comes in after mutation. The mutated specie can sometimes adapt to it's new charesteristics so they find their mutation a benefit rather then a downside. Their customs and ebhavior can adapt but their DNA does not "adapt" to new enviroments. In fact their enviroment cannot have any effect on their Dna, the Dna is well confined within the cells of our bodies and therefor undisturbed by the enviroment.

The theory of evolution for a very long time made a prediction that when species becomes isolated in an environment where the species is too big to survive then the species would adapt by literally shrinking. Where food sources are scarce, the advantage given to same species with less overall mass obtain a survival edge over the larger same species. Subsequent survival (selection by less mass) would trigger evolution by adaptation without any apparent mutational change of DNA which is termed "Island Dwarfing". This is simply because the species is being selected by smaller mass. This concept does not require a "lucky mutational change" and has been shown to be correct in both the natural world & under scientific experimentation, both of which consistently show this prediction as being correct.

Island Dwarfing in the natural world

For this, I will give an example from a recent scientific discovery. However, before doing so I would like to provide a link for Island Dwarfing where a greater number of examples and more indepth information is available:

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

Now for the newest discovery;

A new species of mini-dinosaur has been unearthed in northern Germany. The creature was of the sauropod type - that group of long-necked, four-footed herbivores that were the largest of all the dinosaurs.

But at just a few metres in length, this animal was considerably smaller than its huge cousins, scientists report in the journal Nature.

The fossils were found in Late Jurassic carbonate rock (about 150 million years old). At this period in Earth's history, much of what is now central Europe was under water. Dr Sander and colleagues suggest the dinosaurs could have lived on one of the large islands around the Lower Saxony basin.

"Such islands would not have been able to support large-bodied sauropods," they write in Nature.

"The ancestor of the Europasaurus would have dwarfed rapidly on immigrating to the island, or as a response to shrinking land masses caused by rising sea levels."

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5055128.stm

Now, for some scientific experimentation.

Adaptation, for this is via artificial selection. By this I mean the domestication of the wolf and/or wild dog by early humans and the genetic effect on the species changing over time without "Mutational Luck".

By comparing foxes selected for tameness with others that have not been selected in this way, researchers have found evidence that dramatic behavioral and physiological changes accompanying tameness may be associated with only limited changes in gene activity in the brain.

The researchers found that although there were many differences in the gene-activity profiles of the wild and farm-raised foxes, foxes selected for tameness showed relatively limited changes in brain gene activity when they were compared to non-domesticated farm foxes. Because the selected and non-selected foxes live in an identical environment, the authors point out that the differences in gene activities that do exist between these two groups probably reflect the consequences of behavioral changes accompanying tameness,

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...fox#post188026

Steve - The summary above does not sound like mutational DNA influencing the distinctive change that the above fox's went through. How do you account for this if you beleive mutational change is the sole driving force behind evolution?

[Abdul Fattah]

Double jeapardy! But alas, you cannot refute it as a serious viable ID alternative to evolution, that is the point being made, we have controversy have we not. Should we warn our kids that this controversy exists when we tech them biological evolution in the classroom.

I think it's ofensive to suggest this is an equally valuable alternative next to theism. Although theoretical all loose ends might have been tied up, this doesn't even come close to to other religions. The point of the inventor of it was to show that difrent interpretations of ID are all possible. I don't think it was his intention to degrade religions as something simular to this. And clearly there are many difrences between the classical religions and between this story. I'm not going to be lured into a vain discussion to show you that. I'm not going to try and show you why this isn't in the same lague while you very well realise it is made up and nothing more then a lie. Either you rely on your own intelligence and judgement to understand that or the discussion ends there.

[root]

I think it's ofensive to suggest this is an equally valuable alternative next to theism. Although theoretical all loose ends might have been tied up, this doesn't even come close to to other religions.

Why are you working on the assumption that ID is only validated if it has a religous origin?

The point of the inventor of it was to show that difrent interpretations of ID are all possible. I don't think it was his intention to degrade religions as something simular to this. And clearly there are many difrences between the classical religions and between this story.

I would agree with you, to teach an "intelligent Designer" without giving due consideration to who the intelligent designer is would implicate many religions and non religions too.

I'm not going to be lured into a vain discussion to show you that. I'm not going to try and show you why this isn't in the same lague while you very well realise it is made up and nothing more then a lie. Either you rely on your own intelligence and judgement to understand that or the discussion ends there.

I suspect because like current ID the use of the supernatural as a means of an explanation will be an impossible hurdle for you just like ID, and thus the main reason ID should not be accepted into the science classroom and held for Religous Education only............

PS. Will you answer the question on Island Dwarfing in the natural world that seems to conflict with your understanding of evolution?

[Abdul Fattah]

Why are you working on the assumption that ID is only validated if it has a religous origin?

Because ther's a big difrence between those two. If Id comes from a religion it works like this: A person uses his knowledge (on religion) to try and explain events. You might question wheter religion is qualified as base for that. But obviously a believer believes his religion to be sufficient base to search for the truth. However if his religion is full of holes and unanswered questions, that takes down the strenght of his theory. In the other case, where a religion origenates from an attempt to explain events, it is most likely the result of imagination. A person answering a question he cannot solve with his imagination.

I would agree with you, to teach an "intelligent Designer" without giving due consideration to who the intelligent designer is would implicate many religions and non religions too.

Idd, I'd lke to point out I'm also against teaching ID in biology class. It belongs in religious class. However I do think that when teaching evolution, they should make it clear that it is not a certainty, and a theory on thin ice.

I suspect because like current ID the use of the supernatural as a means of an explanation will be an impossible hurdle for you just like ID, and thus the main reason ID should not be accepted into the science classroom and held for Religous Education only............

no the reason I do not wich to indulge the FSM argument is because I already see your point before you made it so I do not believe discussing will grant me any new knowledge. As for your part, I believe you also realise this is an argument ad absurdum and therefor debating it won't grant you much knowledge either. So in the end we'll probably end up both frustrated in a gridlock-discussion for no apearant reason.

PS. Will you answer the question on Island Dwarfing in the natural world that seems to conflict with your understanding of evolution?

Yes well I don't see how this conflicts with my understanding of evolution, which is: I accept the posibility of some species to have mutated spontainiously, but don't accept common descent. I do see ID as a possible alternative for my viewpoint. And I can understand you see these island dwarfing as contradicting to "unintelligent" design.
However I would like to point out that unintelligent design is a very dificult argument to make. It's hard to judge something as unintelligent. Do we know all the benefits and downsides of this? Do we know what the results would have been if this phenomena did not occur? Can we honestly say we are knowledgable enough to speculate on which design would have been more desirable? Can we imagen a more desirable design without any hidden flaws in it that we fail to see?

[root]

Yes well I don't see how this conflicts with my understanding of evolution, which is: I accept the posibility of some species to have mutated spontainiously, but don't accept common descent.

If we may can we look closer to the quote you actually made early on:

Evolution theory does not speculate that species evolve out of adaptation. A mutation is the result of a malfunctioning. It is not (unless you believ in ID) purpose-minded. Species don't mutation in order to adapt. They adapt because they have mutated.

I would like to ask you the question again now that I have more closely identified the conflict that I am talking about.

Given the examples of adaptation I have provided with Island Dwarfing & scientific experiment. How do you account for "lucky Mutational Change" being a predictive phenomena, if it's predictive (as I have shown) then it cannot be lucky and visa versa.

I do see ID as a possible alternative for my viewpoint. And I can understand you see these island dwarfing as contradicting to "unintelligent" design. However I would like to point out that unintelligent design is a very dificult argument to make. It's hard to judge something as unintelligent. Do we know all the benefits and downsides of this?

I am not going to comment on this, unintelligent design could be seen as the theory of evolution. No point rebranding something to suggest it is something else, that is what the creationists did with ID.

Do we know what the results would have been if this phenomena did not occur?

I suppose we do. We would never find any dwarfed species isolated on small islands.

Can we honestly say we are knowledgable enough to speculate on which design would have been more desirable?

Design or consequences of a species being isolated on an island of limited resources?

[Abdul Fattah]

I would like to ask you the question again now that I have more closely identified the conflict that I am talking about.

I still see no conflict with what I said. The reason the animals mutate into smaller ones is not a product of adaptation but rather by luck. Otherwise all island animals in all islands would undergo this proces. Adaptation only steps in after some evolved into smaller animals. Then teh smaler ones have an advantage over the bigger ones, thus increasing there chances of survival. Evolution does not place any cause corelation between the benefit of a mutation and the mutation itself. Evolution suggests the mutation is by luck, and the advantage of species that evolved makes them "lucky". Only ID suggests that the mutation is purpose minded (A deity made for this mutation because he knew it would give these animals an advantage.)

Given the examples of adaptation I have provided with Island Dwarfing & scientific experiment. How do you account for "lucky Mutational Change" being a predictive phenomena, if it's predictive (as I have shown) then it cannot be lucky and visa versa.

I fail to see how you've shown predictivity between the mutation and the adaptation afterwards.

I am not going to comment on this, unintelligent design could be seen as the theory of evolution. No point rebranding something to suggest it is something else, that is what the creationists did with ID.

Fair enoug. Does that mean you do not believe the argument of unintelligent design disproofs ID?

I suppose we do. We would never find any dwarfed species isolated on small islands.

LOL
that's a good one, hope you did get my point though?

Design or consequences of a species being isolated on an island of limited resources?

Yes even in an isolated island with limited resources there's still numerous things to consider. We simply don't know if a specaluted design would be more preferable to the way species ended up being now.

[root]

I still see no conflict with what I said. The reason the animals mutate into smaller ones is not a product of adaptation but rather by luck.

OK, so large species unexpectadly find themselves trapped on a small island where they cannot sustain their sheer body mass. Evolution predicts the species will shrink in size over the coming generations, further science shows many species where this has occured time and time and time again. And you put this shrinking down to lucky mutational change as opposed to a species adapting to it's new environment as natural selection brings the advantage that smaller mass will survive longer live longer and thus reproduce with other reducing same species evolving over generations a reduction in size as a direct consequence of the environmental changes which have enforced a limited food and water supply.

Further, the wolves in the example happened to have a lucky mutational change that caused them to change colour, obtain floppy ears and a whole host of other changes were "lucky mutations" as opposed to the consequences of simple selection for tameness.

Fair enoug. Does that mean you do not believe the argument of unintelligent design disproofs ID?

What is unintelligent design?

LOL
that's a good one, hope you did get my point though?

No I don't get your point. It's flawed as I showed.

[Abdul Fattah]

OK, so large species unexpectadly find themselves trapped on a small island where they cannot sustain their sheer body mass. Evolution predicts the species will shrink in size over the coming generations, further science shows many species where this has occured time and time and time again.

You are wrong. evolution does not predict these animals will evolve into smaller species. The only thing evolution predicts is that IF one of them suddenly has a gene for "smaller" size, THEN they will have a higher survival change and eventually take over trough the proces of survival of the fitist. Note that out of the thousands of the hudreth of animals that live on each of thousands of islands there are only a few species that followed that process.

And you put this shrinking down to lucky mutational change as opposed to a species adapting to it's new environment as natural selection brings the advantage that smaller mass will survive longer live longer and thus reproduce with other reducing same species evolving over generations a reduction in size as a direct consequence of the environmental changes which have enforced a limited food and water supply.

No what I said, (and not just me, but every well learned evolutionist will tell you the same thing) is that adaptation is a process that only takes place once there are already animals with this altered form. Adaptation does not cause a single animal to change charesteristics. The changes are made by shere luck (according to classical evolution that is). Small food suplies do not cause animals to mutate or attain new charesteristics (unless of course the animals are small because they are underfed, in which case there is no evolution but simply a deficiency). The small suplies only make for teh survival of the fitest to work after the new charesteristics have manifested in some of them.

Further, the wolves in the example happened to have a lucky mutational change that caused them to change colour, obtain floppy ears and a whole host of other changes were "lucky mutations" as opposed to the consequences of simple selection for tameness.

yes mutations are always lucky according to the classical evolutiontheory. Adaptation only steps in after the mutation. If you seem to think that such a mutation cannot be the result of luck then you are yourself opposing clasical evolution and your point of view is to be considered as ID

What is unintelligent design?

Unintelligent design is an argument meant to counter the ID-movement. It states that the design of certain creatures and of humans is not the best imagenable design. Basicly it's some people who claim: "We could have designed better."
However it is debatable as to wheter there suggested alternative designs are in fact possible or beneficial in practise.

Do we know what the results would have been if this phenomena did not occur? I suppose we do. We would never find any dwarfed species isolated on small islands. It's flawed as I showed.

That is only one of the results, the result for us. But what would be the results for the animals on that island? The argument is not flawed. My point is that we do not know wheter a step in evolution was intelligent or stupid and you also seem to agree with me that this step of evolution was beneficial to these species so I really don't see why you object to what I say.

[root]

You are wrong. evolution does not predict these animals will evolve into smaller species. The only thing evolution predicts is that IF one of them suddenly has a gene for "smaller" size, THEN they will have a higher survival change and eventually take over trough the proces of survival of the fitist.

Island dwarfing - is a biological phenomenon by which the size of animals isolated on an island shrinks dramatically over generations. It is a form of natural selection in which smaller size provides a survival advantage.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_dwarfing

It's strange you'd dispute a well observed biological phenomena:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/eden/giants.html

Note that out of the thousands of the hudreth of animals that live on each of thousands of islands there are only a few species that followed that process.

It's not about this, it's about a large land animal that becomes "ISOLATED" on an island and then dwarfs due to selection presure

Foster's rule (also known as the island rule) is a principle in evolutionary biology stating that members of a species will get smaller or bigger depending on the resources available in the environment. This is the core of the study of island biogeography. For example, it is known that pygmy mammoths evolved from normal mammoths on small islands. Similar evolutionary paths have been observed in elephants, hippopotamuses, boas and humans.

All these observations Elephants, Pygmy Mammoths Elephants Hippopotamus, Boas and humans have all been demonstrated to have undergone this evolutionary process when they have become isolated where limited resources are available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster%27s_rule

Then, trapped in their new home, erectus began to shrink. 'Island dwarfing is well-known,' says Professor Adrian Lister of University College London. 'With limited resources and lack of predators on islands, large mammals get smaller

The rest of your post is misleading so I thought it best we concentrate on this.

You claim adaptation is only possibble when a gene mutates, I say that is nonsense and draw your attention to island dwarfing which as I pointed out is well observed and a predicatable phenomenam........

[Abdul Fattah]

Island dwarfing - is a biological phenomenon by which the size of animals isolated on an island shrinks dramatically over generations. It is a form of natural selection in which smaller size provides a survival advantage. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_dwarfing
It's strange you'd dispute a well observed biological phenomena:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/eden/giants.html

I know perfectly well what it is and I'm not disputing it. I am simply explaining you how you've got it wrong. Adaptation causes groups of animals to become smaller. But evolution happens on an individual level. It's not like a whole group suddenly mutate. A single animal is born with difrent charesteristics, and due to that he has a larger chance of survival. Over generations due to survival of the fittist the whole group will have these charesteristics. However when you loko at the mutation responsible for this, from the point of view of classical evolutionists, "adaptation" has nothing to do with that. the mutation is the result of luck. Adaptation is the process that occurs after this fluke.

Foster's rule (also known as the island rule) is a principle in evolutionary biology stating that members of a species will get smaller or bigger depending on the resources available in the environment. This is the core of the study of island biogeography. For example, it is known that pygmy mammoths evolved from normal mammoths on small islands. Similar evolutionary paths have been observed in elephants, hippopotamuses, boas and humans.

No, you got cause and effect wrong. The rule only tells you that in an island with with these conditions the smaller mutated animals will have a large benefit and therefor over generations the whole group will have these charesteristics. But the initial mutation has to occur first. And it is not linked with adaptation. It is the result of a malfunctioning in the devisions of either the spermcells or egcells of the father or mother. It is according to classical evolution a fluke, the result of mere luck.

You claim adaptation is only possibble when a gene mutates, I say that is nonsense and draw your attention to island dwarfing which as I pointed out is well observed and a predicatable phenomenam........

In the link you yourself provided is a list of such cases. If you count them you'll have 11. Now ponder upon this. Why has this only happened with 11 animals. There are thousands of islands on earth and each one of them has hundreds of difrent species. Yet those eleven are the only cases. If these conditions would trigger the sudden creation of smaller creatures then why hasn't this happened for all the thousands of other creatures who live in such circumstances? Very simple, because they need an initial step. Be it a mutation, the creation of a new gene, a miracle, whatever you wish to call it. Animals don't just grow smaller due to their enviroment. the size of an animal is decided by it's DNA. And an enviroment cannot have any influence on the bleurpint of your DNA. the only case animals can have fysical charesteristics due to their enviroment is in teh case of malnutrition or disfunctioning. and then we are'nt speaking of evolution, because such charesteristics aren't passed on to new generations.

[root]

I know perfectly well what it is and I'm not disputing it. I am simply explaining you how you've got it wrong. Adaptation causes groups of animals to become smaller.

OK, what causes the species to get smaller when isolated on a small island. You say lucky Mutational DNA, I say hogwash.

Do you still stand by your original consensus that a lucky mutational change causes the species to shrink. if so SOURCE PLEASE........... because non of the sources I have provided use lucky mutational change to explain this phenomenam, in fact non of them include mutational change.

Source please?

Or is this another "assumption" mixed with philosophy and religion plugging the rest of the gaps that we have come to learn about your defence.

Source please.......

I need you to provide a source that states island Dwarfing is dueto random lucky mutational change of DNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Abdul Fattah]

Come one Root. Your own source says:

Island dwarfing:
Island dwarfing is a biological phenomenon by which the size of animals isolated on an island shrinks dramatically over generations. It is a form of natural selection in which smaller size provides a survival advantage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_dwarfing

So it's a form of natural selection:
Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. Natural selection works on the survival of individuals, and thus the survival of their individual traits within populations, but only the heritable component of a trait will be passed on to the offspring, with the result that favorable, heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in adaptations and speciation (see evolution).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Evolution:
The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the idea that individual organisms which possess genetic variations giving them advantageous heritable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce and, in doing so, to increase the frequency of such traits in subsequent generations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Genetic variation:
Genetic variation refers to the variation in the genetic material of a population or species, and includes the nuclear, mitochodrial, ribosomal genomes as well as the genomes of other organelles. New genetic variation is caused by genetic mutation, which may take the form of recombination, migration and/or alterations in the karyotype (the number, shape, size and internal arrangement of the chromosomes). Genetic drift is a statistical measure of the rate of genetic variation in a population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variation

The only reason the article of NOVA doesn't mention it is because they take that for granted. And the article does not intend to explain how the mutation took place but how the enviroment influenced the process of adaptation after the mutation.

Ironic isn't it, that I -a theist- have to explain you -an evolutionist- how the theory of classical evolution works. But you don't have to take my -or wikipedia's- word for it. Ask any scientist in the field of evolution and he/she 'll tell you.

You want proof? To bad, the theory of evolution is not based on proof. It's based on assumptions. We weren't there, there were no camera's taping it, no eye witnesses. In the end we have to result to educated guesses. Evolution does not have any proof. You don't have to accept it for all I care. But how can you accept it in one topic and deny it in the other?

[Idris]

Sorry root but I don’t recognize how Island Dwarfing in the natural world can assist the theory of evolution

Island gigantism is a biological phenomenon by which the size of animals isolated on an island increases dramatically over generations. It is a form of natural selection in which bigger size provides a survival advantage (see Bergmann's Rule). Large size in herbivores usually makes it harder to escape or hide from predators, but on islands, these are often lacking. Thus, island gigantism is not an evolutionary trend due to fundamentally new parameters determining fitness (as in island dwarfing), but rather, the removal of constraints.

Root you should read this :?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/eden/giants.html

And examine the nagging questions section too

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/eden/giants2.html

I hope you comprehend this.

[root]

Idris - Sorry root but I don’t recognize how Island Dwarfing in the natural world can assist the theory of evolution

Albeit Island dwarfing or Island giganticism, it is a species evolving over-time. Wether you choose to accept that this evolution is how Allah intended it to be or as a result of chance is for this thread neither here nor their. The point remains that a species that becomes isolated will go through a period of natural selection sometimes with mutation, but mostly with genetic variation due to recombinant genes, etc. Keep in mind that this typically applies mostly to large warm-blooded species. Reptiles and small mammals often show the opposite trend, increasing in size, such as komodo dragons, giant geckos and tortoises, and giant island rats.

Steve - Ironic isn't it, that I -a theist- have to explain you -an evolutionist- how the theory of classical evolution works. But you don't have to take my -or wikipedia's- word for it. Ask any scientist in the field of evolution and he/she 'll tell you.

The difference in our two opinions based on the assumption of a large warm blooded mammal becoming isolated is that you seem to suggest that "mutational Change" will be the driving force where I am suggesting not, as genetic variation will already be in place natural selection will be the driving force, you don't seem to make a distinction between the processes and to all tense and purpose you see mutational change and natural selection as the same process. Unless I have misundertood you.

Change in genetic variation can be brought about be mutation, which generates new variation, and natural selection, which selects which of these variations shall propagate. The rate of change is able to happen much faster with natural selection. The rate of mutation is generally fairly stable. The rate at which natural selection can change the genetic variation in a population is highly variable, and there's essentially no limit to it. So under conditions which don't favour any individuals within the population, natural selection will have no effect and mutation will be the driving force of change in genetic variability. Under conditions that greatly favour the survival and reproduction of certain individuals natural selection will become the driving force.

It's also important to realize that size is governed by a lot of alleles, and is *highly* variable between individuals; it's one of the fastest things to respond to natural selection. So short and sweet, mutation and recombination create lots of genetic variation in size in all populations. If selection acts against large animals (or for them), then average animal size changes, often quite rapidly.

[Abdul Fattah]

The difference in our two opinions based on the assumption of a large warm blooded mammal becoming isolated is that you seem to suggest that "mutational Change" will be the driving force where I am suggesting not, as genetic variation will already be in place natural selection will be the driving force,

Can the term genetic variation suffice to account for this proces?

you don't seem to make a distinction between the processes and to all tense and purpose you see mutational change and natural selection as the same process. Unless I have misundertood you.

Yes you have I never said they were the same thing they are two difrent processes, but they are also two consecutive steps. It's not like some animals evolved out of mutations and other out of natural selection. All evolutions are the result of a coincedential change according to classical theory. Once that change occured, the proces of natural selection manifests itself naturally. But you can't have one without the other.

Change in genetic variation can be brought about be mutation, which generates new variation, and natural selection, which selects which of these variations shall propagate.

This is what Wiki says:
Genetic variation refers to the variation in the genetic material of a population or species, and includes the nuclear, mitochodrial, ribosomal genomes as well as the genomes of other organelles. New genetic variation is caused by genetic mutation, which may take the form of recombination, migration and/or alterations in the karyotype (the number, shape, size and internal arrangement of the chromosomes). Genetic drift is a statistical measure of the rate of genetic variation in a population.

The rate of change is able to happen much faster with natural selection. The rate of mutation is generally fairly stable. The rate at which natural selection can change the genetic variation in a population is highly variable, and there's essentially no limit to it. So under conditions which don't favour any individuals within the population, natural selection will have no effect and mutation will be the driving force of change in genetic variability. Under conditions that greatly favour the survival and reproduction of certain individuals natural selection will become the driving force.

Not exactly. In situations where there's no natural selection, (since there's no benefit to either one). Mutation will not be a driving force. Mutation rarely happens. If such a situation occurs, then there simply is no driving force of change in genetic variation; and the domination of one over the other is only by luck.

It's also important to realize that size is governed by a lot of alleles, and is *highly* variable between individuals; it's one of the fastest things to respond to natural selection.

Yes I do not deny the importance of size in teh proces of natural selection.

So short and sweet, mutation and recombination create lots of genetic variation in size in all populations. If selection acts against large animals (or for them), then average animal size changes, often quite rapidly.

Then that means you agree and for an animal to evolve there has to be an initial mutation which is the result of mere luck?
If so, then you also accept that there's no such thing as an animal "adapting" to it's enviroment. That the evolution is a result of a lucky change in the DNA?
That seems contradicting to you previous statement:

OK, what causes the species to get smaller when isolated on a small island. You say lucky Mutational DNA, I say hogwash.

[root]

Root - The difference in our two opinions based on the assumption of a large warm blooded mammal becoming isolated is that you seem to suggest that "mutational Change" will be the driving force where I am suggesting not, as genetic variation will already be in place natural selection will be the driving force,

Can the term genetic variation suffice to account for this proces?

I don't think we can really. Genetic variation of the genome will already be in place prior to the species becoming isolated thus genetic variation has no direct link through cause & effect from becoming isolated, please bear in mind we are discussing Island dwarfism as an example of "Natural Selection" and not the whole evolutionary theory. I do understand the point you are making in that natural selection cannot itself work unless you have genetic variation in the first place which occures as you suggest by mutational change and indeed genetic variation will indoubtably continue upon isolation, but again natural selection will be the driving force under conditions known as island dwarfing.

Root - you don't seem to make a distinction between the processes and to all tense and purpose you see mutational change and natural selection as the same process. Unless I have misundertood you.

Steve - Yes you have I never said they were the same thing they are two difrent processes, but they are also two consecutive steps. It's not like some animals evolved out of mutations and other out of natural selection. All evolutions are the result of a coincedential change according to classical theory. Once that change occured, the proces of natural selection manifests itself naturally. But you can't have one without the other.

OK, we agree that genetic mutational change which leads to genetic variation is different to natural selection as an evolutionary process.

Root - The rate of change is able to happen much faster with natural selection. The rate of mutation is generally fairly stable. The rate at which natural selection can change the genetic variation in a population is highly variable, and there's essentially no limit to it. So under conditions which don't favour any individuals within the population, natural selection will have no effect and mutation will be the driving force of change in genetic variability. Under conditions that greatly favour the survival and reproduction of certain individuals natural selection will become the driving force.

Steve - Not exactly. In situations where there's no natural selection, (since there's no benefit to either one). Mutation will not be a driving force. Mutation rarely happens. If such a situation occurs, then there simply is no driving force of change in genetic variation; and the domination of one over the other is only by luck.

How strange! Genetic Mutation will have occured everytime a species reproduces! Yet your claiming it's a rare event, your own Wiki quote acknowledges this:

Steve - This is what Wiki says:
Genetic variation refers to the variation in the genetic material of a population or species, and includes the nuclear, mitochodrial, ribosomal genomes as well as the genomes of other organelles. New genetic variation is caused by genetic mutation, which may take the form of recombination, migration and/or alterations in the karyotype (the number, shape, size and internal arrangement of the chromosomes). Genetic drift is a statistical measure of the rate of genetic variation in a population.

Quote:Root
So short and sweet, mutation and recombination create lots of genetic variation in size in all populations. If selection acts against large animals (or for them), then average animal size changes, often quite rapidly.

Steve - Then that means you agree and for an animal to evolve there has to be an initial mutation which is the result of mere luck?
If so, then you also accept that there's no such thing as an animal "adapting" to it's enviroment. That the evolution is a result of a lucky change in the DNA?

This can lead us up the garden path, firstly I am quoted as saying "mutation and recombination". If we accept your wiki definition that recombination is a process of DNA Mutation then recombination is either going to result in slightly smaller, or slightly larger off-spring and natural selection will favour the smaller over generations the overall size of the species will be reduced. I really don't see the "luck" angle here and natural selection shows to be the driving force of which your stating above there is no such thing!

Steve - That seems contradicting to you previous statement:

Quote:Root
OK, what causes the species to get smaller when isolated on a small island. You say lucky Mutational DNA, I say hogwash.

I can't see how my position is contradictory. Natural selection would be the evolutionary force at work here and not Mutational DNA as I just demonstrated.

[Abdul Fattah]

How strange! Genetic Mutation will have occured everytime a species reproduces! Yet your claiming it's a rare event, your own Wiki quote acknowledges this:

Well words as "rare" always have a relative meaning. Let me answer your question with the following question: have we documented a single case of mutation in the human body ever since the discovery of DNA; despite the billions of people that have been born ever since?

If we accept your wiki definition that recombination is a process of DNA Mutation then recombination is either going to result in slightly smaller, or slightly larger off-spring and natural selection will favour the smaller over generations the overall size of the species will be reduced. I really don't see the "luck" angle here and natural selection shows to be the driving force of which your stating above there is no such thing!

First of all you are assuming that the genetic variation already existed outside the isolated island. I'm not certain about that, then again I'm not inclined to believe otherwise. Either way, my point was without the mutation wish is entirly based on luck, theer would be no evolution once so ever.

Remember how this whole discussion began:
Steve: Evolution theory does not speculate that species evolve out of adaptation. A mutation is the result of a malfunctioning. It is not (unless you believ in ID) purpose-minded. Species don't mutation in order to adapt. They adapt because they have mutated.

Root: I would like to ask you the question again now that I have more closely identified the conflict that I am talking about.
Given the examples of adaptation I have provided with Island Dwarfing & scientific experiment. How do you account for "lucky Mutational Change" being a predictive phenomena, if it's predictive (as I have shown) then it cannot be lucky and visa versa.

In this text "the question" refered to:
PS. Will you answer the question on Island Dwarfing in the natural world that seems to conflict with your understanding of evolution?

So I take it the misunderstanding is now cleared and you no longer see Island dwarfing as contradicting with my understanding of evolution?

[root]

Well words as "rare" always have a relative meaning.

perhaps then you won't use mutation and rare in the same sentence again.

Let me answer your question with the following question: have we documented a single case of mutation in the human body ever since the discovery of DNA; despite the billions of people that have been born ever since?

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJH...220753210Guest

First of all you are assuming that the genetic variation already existed outside the isolated island. I'm not certain about that, then again I'm not inclined to believe otherwise. Either way,

Of course genetic variation will already be in existence, the species will have already evolved to it's current form before the point in which it finds itself isolated.

my point was without the mutation wish is entirly based on luck, theer would be no evolution once so ever.

I agree, without our planet also their would be no life to evolve on it!

Remember how this whole discussion began:
Steve: Evolution theory does not speculate that species evolve out of adaptation. A mutation is the result of a malfunctioning. It is not (unless you believ in ID) purpose-minded. Species don't mutation in order to adapt. They adapt because they have mutated.

I agree with your statement I always have, the issue here is:

Evolution theory does not speculate that species evolve out of adaptation. (natural selection)

Species do evolve through adaptation, this is why evolution can at times be predictive such as the case with island dwarfing. Natural selection is the process by which species adapt to their environment. Natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals with certain characteristics have a greater survival or reproductive rate than other individuals in a population and pass on these inheritable genetic characteristics to their offspring. Simply put, natural selection is a consistent difference in survival and reproduction between different genotypes, or even different genes, in what we could call reproductive success. [A genotype is a group of organisms sharing a specific genetic makeup.]

I do understand that this can only happen because of mutations, however mutational change does not for most of the part direct an evolutionary path that again at times can be predictive. Mutations are random and unpredictive as we see here natural selection at times is very much predicatable.

They adapt because they have mutated

Some species have not changed for millions of years yet mutate frequently, if a species adapts because it mutates why would some species record almost no physical or anatomical changes? while other species do if mutations are driving evolution.

Mutation & natural selection are two different evolutionary forces and you have already agreed this.

[Abdul Fattah]

perhaps then you won't use mutation and rare in the same sentence again.

Or perhaps I will but just place a referance of comparison :)

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJH...220753210Guest

broken link :(

Of course genetic variation will already be in existence, the species will have already evolved to it's current form before the point in which it finds itself isolated.

1. Does it matter?
2. How do you know?
3. How come these giants and dwarfs are'nt occasionally found in other places?

There's much to say about wheter natural selection can be considered as part of evolution itslef or not. I guess that all depends on ones defenition. In the end it doesn't make that much difrence.

Mutation & natural selection are two different evolutionary forces and you have already agreed this.

Well mutation is a driving force, whereas natural selection is an investigation of how the mutations manifest themself.
You could compare it with a tab pooring water on teh back of your hand. The open tab is the driving force of the water, and the curvature of your hand dictates which way the water flows. But you cannot claim that the curvature of your hand causes the water to flow. The curvature only decides the direction in which teh water flows. It doesn't tell teh water to flow at all. In a simular way, natural selection is the curvature of life which dictates what specie will take over which palce. Whereas the mutation is the tab that cause the evolution to poor.

[Danish]

:sl:
mashallah article was nice, jazakallah khair for sharing

[muslim_friend]

One thing i don't understand is how evolution works. though i know for certain that there's no place for it in islam, i'd like evolutionists to explain the mechanism of evolution. Take a good look at this colourful sea dragon.

http://www.eveandersson.com/photos/u...agon-large.jpg

So this sea dragon evolved from a cell? How did it get its leafy structure to protect it from enemies?

[root]

Steve - Well mutation is a driving force, whereas natural selection is an investigation of how the mutations manifest themself.

I don't quite accept that as being the complete story, unless of course you consider Genetic Recombination genetic mutations which as you probably realise I do not. This point I am sure will come back in other threads when discussing evolution by mutational change, if your of the opinion recombination is mutational change then I am not going to counter debate against the idea only duly note your position on it.

I must say though, I did not find your analogy a very good one.

muslim_friend - One thing i don't understand is how evolution works. though i know for certain that there's no place for it in islam,

I can accept your point. Perhaps it is a good thing that Islam stays outside of the science classroom since when life first began on our planet it evolved and all life has and continues to evolve this is the overwhelming consensus of all the top scientif acadamies and institutions including ones representative of muslim majority countries.

Who exactly was it that said Islam is in perfect harmony with science.

muslim_friend - i'd like evolutionists to explain the mechanism of evolution. Take a good look at this colourful sea dragon.

A very nice picture, all life is currently equally as impressive as the sea dragon though the variation amongst sea dragons are equally as impressive. Consider all species are in the business of survival and reproduction and thus we are all intermediate species too so I like to think.

So this sea dragon evolved from a cell? How did it get its leafy structure to protect it from enemies?

All life evolved from single cell organisms, in this respect the sea dragon is no different. As to offering an answer, a combination of genetic mutation and a lot of genetic recombination.

[Fishman]

One thing i don't understand is how evolution works. though i know for certain that there's no place for it in islam, i'd like evolutionists to explain the mechanism of evolution. Take a good look at this colourful sea dragon.

http://www.eveandersson.com/photos/u...agon-large.jpg

So this sea dragon evolved from a cell? How did it get its leafy structure to protect it from enemies?

:sl:
Didn't you read the article on the first page? That was by some scholars who say that it is OK to believe in evolution. Of all the fatwaas and articles on evolution written by scholars who are decently knowledgeable of the subject, I have seen none that condemn evolution. They all say that the only forms of evolution that Islam disaggrees with are atheistic evolution and human evolution.
:w:

[root]

Quote from main Article (Page 1) - As for the fossil remains of bipedal apes and the tools and artifacts associated with those remains, their existence poses no problem for Islamic teachings. There is nothing in the Qur’ân and Sunnah that either affirms or denies that upright, brainy, tool using apes ever existed or evolved from other apelike ancestors. Such animals may very well have existed on Earth before Adam’s arrival upon it. All we can draw from the Qur’ân and Sunnah is that even if those animals once existed, they were not the forefathers of Adam (peace be upon him).

And Allah knows best.

Response:

Fishman - They all say that the only forms of evolution that Islam disaggrees with are atheistic evolution and human evolution.

What exactly is "atheistic Evolution", I have never heard of such a thing?

[Fishman]

What exactly is "atheistic Evolution", I have never heard of such a thing?

:sl:
Atheistic evolution is the belief that evolution is not guided or controlled by a designer.
:w:

[root]

Atheistic evolution is the belief that evolution is not guided or controlled by a designer.

Scientific source please for your claim, failing that all that you have shown is that "Atheistic Evolution" is just a made up entity by religous groups who realise that they cannot any longer look so isolated in the face of overwhelming scientific discovery. This be the case then I put it to you that a "religous Evolution" may attempt to update (yet again) Intelligent Design and further attempt to create controversy by deceipt.

Evolution by scientific definition is no more controlled than mankinds own cultural history, History was not a careful put up job designed to deliver our present and nor was evolution a carefully constructed entity specifically designed to bring about you and I.

[wilberhum]

:sl:
Atheistic evolution is the belief that evolution is not guided or controlled by a designer.
:w:

In other words, it is based in fact and not faith.
But then isn't all science atheistic.

[Fishman]

In other words, it is based in fact and not faith.
But then isn't all science atheistic.

:sl:
Wrong. Evolution is based on fact and not faith. It is science. Theistic and atheistic evolution are both based on faith, respectively, having faith that God controls evolution, and having faith that he does not.

Sciencific facts (not fake discoveries) are neutral, and based purely on observation and deduction. Beliefs about what controls and guides all phenomena are not.
:w:

[wilberhum]

There is nothing scientific about Theistic Evolution". It is just another theistic theory.

[Looking4Peace]

http://islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?ca...sub_cat_id=792
Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective| Prepared by the Research Committee of IslamToday.net under the supervision of Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî|


Many Muslims wonder about the theory of biological evolution – the theory that living species on Earth today are descended from others in the past, and that the present diversity of living species we see is a result of descent with modification over the course of numerous generations.

Muslims also wonder about one of the main processes that evolutionary theory proposes to explain how evolution takes place – the process of natural selection. This is the idea that the individuals within a populations of living organism vary in their individual traits – they are not exactly alike – and that the organisms which are most successful at leaving descendants will pass on their unique traits to the next generation at the expense of the traits possessed by less successful organisms in the population, thereby contributing to a long-term gradual change in the suite of traits found within the population.

We as Muslims must ask:

Does the theory of evolution – and likewise the theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution – conform to Islamic teachings or conflict with them?

Is a Muslim allowed to believe in evolution as a scientific theory as long as he or she accepts that Allah is behind it?

Can a Muslim believe in human evolution? If not, how can we explain the fossils of upright, bipedal, tool-using apes with large brains that have been discovered?

To start with, we wish to emphasize that our concern here is not with examining the scientific merits of the theory of evolution. What we want to know is what Islamic teachings have to say about the idea. Whether evolution is true or false scientifically is another matter altogether.

When we look at the sources of Islam – the Qur’ân and Sunnah – we see that, with respect to human beings living on the Earth today, they are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

Allah also says: “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing.” [Sûrah al-Hujûrât:13]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) identified the "male" mentioned in this verse as being Adam. He said: “Human beings are the children of Adam and Adam was created from Earth. Allah says: ‘O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing’.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî (3270)]

We also see that Allah created Adam directly without the agency of parents.

Allah says: “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’ and he was.” [Sûrah Âl `Imrân: 59]

We also know that Eve was created from Adam without the agency of parents.

In the Qur’ân, Allah states clearly: “O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 1]

Therefore, the Qur’ân tells us that Adam and his wife were the father and mother of all human beings living on the Earth today. We know about this by way of direct revelation from Allah.

The direct creation of Adam (peace be upon him) can neither be confirmed nor denied by science in any way. This is because the creation of Adam (peace be upon him) was a unique and singular historical event. It is a matter of the Unseen and something that science does not have the power to confirm or deny. As a matter of the Unseen, we believe it because Allah informs us about it. We say the same for the miracles mentioned in the Qur’ân. Miraculous events, by their very nature, do not conform to scientific laws and their occurrence can neither be confirmed nor denied by science.

What about other living things, besides the human beings living on the Earth today? What about plants, animals, fungi, and the like?

When we turn our attention to this question, we find that the Qur’ân and Sunnah do not tell us much about the flora and fauna that was present on the Earth before or at the time of Adam and Eve’s arrived upon it. The sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago Adam and Eve arrived upon the Earth. Therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts.

The only thing that the Qur’ân and Sunnah require us to believe about the living things on Earth today is that Allah created them in whatever manner He decided to do create them.

Allah says: “Allah is the Creator of all things and over all things He has authority.” [Sûrah al-Zumar: 62]

Indeed, Allah states specifically that He created all life forms: “And We made from water all living things.” [Sûrah al-Anbiyâ’: 30]

We know that “Allah does what He pleases.” Allah can create His creatures in any manner that He chooses.

Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur’ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.

The role of science is only to observe and describe the patterns that Allah places in His creation. If scientific observation shows a pattern in the evolution of species over time that can be described as natural selection, this is not in itself unbelief. It is only unbelief for a person to think that this evolution took place on its own, and not as a creation of Allah. A Muslim who accepts evolution or natural selection as a valid scientific theory must know that the theory is merely an explanation of one of the many observed patterns in Allah’s creation.

As for the fossil remains of bipedal apes and the tools and artifacts associated with those remains, their existence poses no problem for Islamic teachings. There is nothing in the Qur’ân and Sunnah that either affirms or denies that upright, brainy, tool using apes ever existed or evolved from other apelike ancestors. Such animals may very well have existed on Earth before Adam’s arrival upon it. All we can draw from the Qur’ân and Sunnah is that even if those animals once existed, they were not the forefathers of Adam (peace be upon him).

And Allah knows best.

i know this was probably posted a long time ago but this is great and it answered many questions i had :) , good to know muslims dont have to throw out all science the way other religions do.

[root]

The direct creation of Adam (peace be upon him) can neither be confirmed nor denied by science in any way. This is because the creation of Adam (peace be upon him) was a unique and singular historical event. It is a matter of the Unseen and something that science does not have the power to confirm or deny.

Retro-virus insertions certainly does not support this opinion. Further, scientific consensus clearly edges it's bet's on that above propoganda being certainly false. Clearly, if man was "unique" then why would we show the same retro virus insertion at the same point in our genome showing the same degrading over time with our buddies the chimps.

As a matter of the Unseen, we believe it because Allah informs us about it. We say the same for the miracles mentioned in the Qur’ân. Miraculous events, by their very nature, do not conform to scientific laws and their occurrence can neither be confirmed nor denied by science.

Agreed, man being created by the flying sphagetti monster can niether be confirmed nor denied by science also. we could always ask for a probability though!!!!!!!!!!, perhaps we should teach our kids this "controversy" when teaching the theory of evolution in the science class.

[Fishman]

perhaps we should teach our kids this "controversy" when teaching the theory of evolution in the science class.

:sl:
I think that we should be taught that not everyone believes in evolution, but not actually taught creationism. What do you think?

BTW, they don't teach evolution in school.
:w:

[wilberhum]

think that we should be taught that not everyone believes in evolution

Even more reason to teach evolution.

BTW, they don't teach evolution in school.

Which schools? Every one I attended did, and that was 30 years ago. Even Catholic school.

[root]

Fishman - I think that we should be taught that not everyone believes in evolution, but not actually taught creationism. What do you think?

I think it is a terrible idea. The overwhelming scientific bodies on our planet have released 4 key points that it considers "Key Facts".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h..._evolution.pdf

Key Fact 1#

In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

But remember kids not everyone believes this!

Key Fact 2#

Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so..

But remember kids not everyone believes this!

Key Fact 3#

Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

But remember kids not everyone believes this!

Key Fact 4#

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

But remember kids not everyone believes this!

And here is one I really like

The Earth is round, but remember kids, not everyone believes this!

Surely, the sciences of science should remain scientific in a science classroom.

[Fishman]

:sl:
What I mean is at the beginning of classes about evolution (after being introduced to the topic) just make a statement along the lines of 'although almost all scientists believe in evolution, there are a number of people who disagree with it because of their religious beliefs about the creation of the universe'. Then teach them about evolution, and how it works.

They don't teach it in my school. I'm in year nine, and I have never been taught about evolution. Everything I know about it I learnt outside of school, often from books and the internet. I wrote a nine-page essay on the subject for school. It was for a project on famous scientists, where you had to choose a scientist and write about them. I wrote about Darwin's discovery and my friend who I was working with wrote about Darwin's life.
:w:

[muslim_friend]

All life evolved from single cell organisms, in this respect the sea dragon is no different. As to offering an answer, a combination of genetic mutation and a lot of genetic recombination.

Thanks for your reply.

Since everyone claims that evolution is a gradual process, I find the possibilities of a 'perfect fit' extremely low. :rollseyes .. the colour, the shape and size all seem highly impossible for a species to develop by itself without having any of its earlier ancestors survived.

Any idea about fossil remains or other evidence that supports this hypothesis regarding mutation of creatures into higher organisms? It seems that this missing link is nothing but hoaxes.

:sl:
Didn't you read the article on the first page? That was by some scholars who say that it is OK to believe in evolution. Of all the fatwaas and articles on evolution written by scholars who are decently knowledgeable of the subject, I have seen none that condemn evolution. They all say that the only forms of evolution that Islam disaggrees with are atheistic evolution and human evolution.
:w:

salam,

I did read that article on the first page about the fatwa.. If the Qur'an indicates that evolution of other species is in accordance with Islam, i will consider only Allah's words and what any scientist says does not matter as it will not make any difference. but since islam, neither denys nor confirms evolution, i'm asking questions from a scientific view-point for a better understanding of the subject at hand. As for human evolution, I know it is unacceptable in Islam, thank you.

wsalam.

[root]

Muslim_Friend - Since everyone claims that evolution is a gradual process, I find the possibilities of a 'perfect fit' extremely low.

"perfect", firstly I would suggest that evolution can be and often is far from perfect. However I am afraid I do not fully understand what you really mean by a perfect fit.

Muslim_Friend.. the colour, the shape and size all seem highly impossible for a species to develop by itself without having any of its earlier ancestors survived.

OK, I think you are referencing the lovely picture of a leafy sea dragon.
http://www.eveandersson.com/photos/u...agon-large.jpg

The sea Dragon is a fish, and if you ask any person to draw you a fish then I think the probable result would be a streamline body pointed at the front end triangular fin top and bottom and tail, finally a dot for the eye and some gills penciled in just behind the eye. Hey-presto we have a fish.

I doubt anybody would draw a leafy sea dragon which to give it's proper name of Phycodurus Equus A fish that looks like your standard issue herring or perch does so only because it is a good shape for swimming through open water and not gently swaying in amongst kelp. The standard fish shape in evolution can be twisted and kneaded and pulled out in a remarkable array of any un-fishy way that it needs to survive and reproduce.

The Seadragon is part of the Teleosts species which is one of the biggest and most succesful group of fish, fossils date this group as evolving from 440 Million years ago (mya) although the leafy seadragon is only 150 mya (incidently Seahorses evolved 115 mya and is a major genetic influence on sea dragons otherwise known as a very close ancestor).

The Teleosts appeared in the earliest siliruin, still with ice cap left over from the cold Ordovician period, There are some 23,500 species from this group and prominent at many levels of underwater food chains. They have adapted over-time from their origins of icy water (where they still are present) to hot springs, high mauntain lakes are found thriving in acid streams stinking marshes and saline lakes, they have also succesfully exploited fresh water adaptation too. The evolutionary driving force behind this group will be dominated by predator evasion (since they are prominant in most underwater food chains) and environmental adaptation since they have come to exploit many areas of the planet.

Muslim_Friend - Any idea about fossil remains or other evidence that supports this hypothesis regarding mutation of creatures into higher organisms? Missing link?

How shall we know the past? and how do we date it? What aids to our vision will help us peer into theatres of ancient life and reconstruct the scenes and the players, their exits and their entrances of long ago? Conventional human history has three main methods and so we find their counterparts on the larger timescale of evolution. First there is archeology, the study of bones arrowheads, fragments of pots, oystershell midens, figurines and other hard evidence from the past. In evolutionary history the most obvious are bones and teeth and the fossils they eventually become (it is estimated that we may never know about 90% of all extinct species since no trace has been left. We also have renewed relics, records that themselves are not old but which contain or embody a copy or representation of what was old. In human history such as your Quran which would be the history of written or vocal accounts handed down, repeated reprinted or otherwise duplicated from the past to the present. In evolution DNA is the main renewed relic, this method led to the discovery that the hippo is the closest living ancestor of the whale, what a shocker that was. Triangulation is used in human history and too in evolution where you can "traingulate" an ancestor by comparing two (or more) of it's survining or otherwise descendants.

[Vampairious]

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time.The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

[Fishman]

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time.The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

:sl:
Matt, did you write that? Or did you copy and paste it? Anyway, welcome to the forums, and I think that you did spell your name wrong. From what you told me it was 'vamperios'.
:w:

[Vampairious]

no i wrote that, y do u ask?

[Fishman]

no i wrote that, y do u ask?

:sl:
'Cause it was good!
I wanted to give you rep for that, but the rep thing didn't let me.
:w:

[Abdul Fattah]

Root
Do you remember the discussion we had about endogenous retrovirus serving as proof for humans as descendant from apes? And how I said it's more likely that both partys obtained the virus in the same proces independant of one another because that would solve the issue of how the ERV got wide spread over the whole population in both species. To this you replied that it would be unlikly for the virus to place itself at the same place in both species. And I replied that Certain places in teh DNA Would probably be more prone to obtain this retrovirus.
You asked me to prove that. But I couldn't. The best I could do is suggest that the delta-negative charges caused by the electrons which is difrent for the endmolecules would create higher or lower afinity. It was a posibility, but a long shot. Today I read something that confirmed my educated guess.
New discovery in DNA

Take special note of this particular fragment:
Biologists have suspected for years that some positions on the DNA, notably those where it bends most easily, might be more favorable for nucleosomes than others, but no overall pattern was apparent. Drs. Segal and Widom analyzed the sequence at some 200 sites in the yeast genome where nucleosomes are known to bind, and discovered that there is indeed a hidden pattern.

;D

[hongi]

Any idea about fossil remains or other evidence that supports this hypothesis regarding mutation of creatures into higher organisms? It seems that this missing link is nothing but hoaxes.

Hello. Have you heard of Archaeopteryx?

What I mean is at the beginning of classes about evolution (after being introduced to the topic) just make a statement along the lines of 'although almost all scientists believe in evolution, there are a number of people who disagree with it because of their religious beliefs about the creation of the universe'. Then teach them about evolution, and how it works.

Why single out evolution? Reading a statement out before the start of the class will make the students think that evolution is special or somehow different from other theories they are taught, like the atomic theory of matter (that things are made out of atoms), or the germ theory of pathogens (that bacteria and viruses cause diseases).

Clearly it is not. Evolution is both fact and theory.

[Abdul Fattah]

Why single out evolution? Reading a statement out before the start of the class will make the students think that evolution is special or somehow different from other theories they are taught, like the atomic theory of matter (that things are made out of atoms), or the germ theory of pathogens (that bacteria and viruses cause diseases).

Clearly it is not. Evolution is both fact and theory.

Well mutation of species is both fact and theory and shouldn't be treathed "special" but abiogenesis and common descent isn't factual, isn't even worked out well enough to be considered a "theory". And those two are generally thought alongside of evolution. And we should stress those aren't that certain.

[root]

Originally Posted by Steve.

Root
Do you remember the discussion we had about endogenous retrovirus serving as proof for humans as descendant from apes? And how I said it's more likely that both partys obtained the virus in the same proces independant of one another because that would solve the issue of how the ERV got wide spread over the whole population in both species. To this you replied that it would be unlikly for the virus to place itself at the same place in both species. And I replied that Certain places in teh DNA Would probably be more prone to obtain this retrovirus. You asked me to prove that. But I couldn't. The best I could do is suggest that the delta-negative charges caused by the electrons which is difrent for the endmolecules would create higher or lower afinity. It was a posibility, but a long shot. Today I read something that confirmed my educated guess. New discovery in DNA

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/sc...syahoo&emc=rss

Hi Steve,

Yes I do remember when you proposed that idea whilst ignoring some main points that casted severe doubts over your educated guess. It seems you are quite happy to ignore some key points as was posted:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ight=hot+spots

Point #1

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

how do you explain 12 ERV's embedded into gametes within primate species only, all showing the same crippling mutational changes showing the same pattern of change with time?

Even if there was a virus that was simultaneously capable of infecting every kind of primate from new world monkeys through to humans, there is no reason to think that this virus would actually infect every available primate and become fixed in every single population. we might well expect several to be missed i.e. we might see spider monkeys, bonobos, chimps and humans infected, but not gorillas or Orang Utan. we do not find these spurious distributions of ERVs. we just do not find these sorts of retroviruses that have such a wide species affinity. and again, even if we did, there is no reason that the retroviruses would form the phylogenies that they do.

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

To prove that your educated guess is correct you must be able to answer the above points, good luck. :?

Steve - Well mutation of species is both fact and theory and shouldn't be treathed "special". but abiogenesis and common descent isn't factual, isn't even worked out well enough to be considered a "theory". And those two are generally thought alongside of evolution. And we should stress those aren't that certain.

The theory of Abiogenesis does not form part of the theory of Evolution and this thread is "Biological Evolution". Perhaps, considering the ammount of time you discuss evolution with abiogenesis a short statement should be read out when teaching the theory of evolution as thus:

"the theory of evolution does not form part of the theory of abiogenesis or visa versa, many people actually consider the the to be the same or linked. This is not true"

As for you stating that common descent is not factual. I would like to remind you of one key fact where all scientific institutions are in agreement.

Key Fact #4
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate
their common primordial origin.

Ref:scientists have released 4 key points that it considers "key facts" that "scientific evidence has never contradicted".

Finally, thanks for the link to the suspected hidden DNA code, I am not a genetecist but do have several friends who work in this field and I am trying to obtain a more laymens explanation of the article.

[Abdul Fattah]

Well the main reason I brought this up is because this article conforms the possibility of these so called hotspot who would be prone to ERV.
Of course this alone does not suffice. But do note that I did raided a lot of answers besides this.
1. It's not certain all ERV's are actually ERV'S they don't come with name tags, and are deformed from their origenal form, if they wouldn't be deformed, that would mean your body produces these retrovires 24-7 since your cells are constantly copying DNA. So obviously these partial dna strings can no longer function as virusses. Which begs the question, how can we tell they actually are virusses. Remember that a lot of the function of teh DNA is still a mystery. We've only mapped it so far, and here we see yet another code arising. What aperas to be "junk DNA" may very well have a good function. Likewise, what apears to be an ERV, might very well be a cleaver design.
Furthermore I don't consider it unlikely for a virus to spread among a whole population, espacially back in the days we run around as cavemans having no hyghene, not coocking our meat, etc. And if a certain virus is prone to install itself into the DNA, then that solves the problem.

I know there's some "if's" here. But the same goes for the classical theory.

[root]

Well the main reason I brought this up is because this article conforms the possibility of these so called hotspot who would be prone to ERV. Of course this alone does not suffice. But do note that I did raided a lot of answers besides this.

I quite agree that your article is looking relavent to "hot spots", which has already been covered;

hot spots, where the odds of a virus being inserted are slightly higher than other places, but there are still a great number of hotspots throughout the genomes, and given the above points, there is no reason why multiple infections would result in the same ERVs being inserted in the same locations with the same crippling errors and showing the same pattern of change with time. Again if there are multiple hotspots and multiple infections, there is no reason that there should not be ERVs that do not match the phylogenetic tree. again we see no deviances from expected inheritance patterns.

1. It's not certain all ERV's are actually ERV'S they don't come with name tags, and are deformed from their origenal form, if they wouldn't be deformed, that would mean your body produces these retrovires 24-7 since your cells are constantly copying DNA. So obviously these partial dna strings can no longer function as virusses. Which begs the question, how can we tell they actually are virusses. Remember that a lot of the function of teh DNA is still a mystery. We've only mapped it so far, and here we see yet another code arising. What aperas to be "junk DNA" may very well have a good function. Likewise, what apears to be an ERV, might very well be a cleaver design

They have simply mutated and became crippled by their own mutation whilst retaining their genetic identification. as I already stated above:

the retroviruses are crippled, but still identifiable as retroviruses.

Furthermore I don't consider it unlikely for a virus to spread among a whole population, espacially back in the days we run around as cavemans having no hyghene, not coocking our meat, etc. And if a certain virus is prone to install itself into the DNA, then that solves the problem.

I think you missed the point entirely, what conclusion are you drawing in reference to 12 misfired ERV's spread amongst seven different species all of whom show the exact same crippling error sequence and same degradation over time

Additionally, this virus did not spread. It harmlesly misfired into a gamet of a single animal and is now embedded into every human Chimpanzee Orangutan Gorilla Gibbon old world monkeys and new world monkeys DNA by species reproduction and NOT infection. Your trying to suggest multiple different species were infected on seperate occasions all of which misfired in a genetic mutation identical to one another at the exact same genetic letter within multiple primates.

That's like a Boeng 747 being assembled as a result of a tornado ripping through a junkyard :giggling:

I know there's some "if's" here. But the same goes for the classical theory.

That is an understatement. ERV insertions are not the sole mechanism for Phylogenetic tree construction (AKA - Common Descent) for they are also constructed in similar fashions by looking at ALU sequences (long sequences of repeating DNA) and transposons (kind of like internal viruses that only ever exist within the nucleus and copy themselves around the DNA). It's an excellent cross reference mechanism.

To claim your "educated guess" on the same par as the classic theory is in my humble opinion completely nuts.........

[Abdul Fattah]

ok have it your way :)

[root]

Hi Steve,

It's not a question of having it my way, It's simply interpretation of the scientific data. How would you feel if your mother said she had hand made a unique present for you only to discover a "made in Hong Kong" label on it's tag!

[Abdul Fattah]

the reason I'm simply answering: have it your way, is because your teling me your personal opinon and interpretation, not the science. So I don't feel like looking for source and disproving you, so I take a step back and say: have it your way ...

[Zone Maker]

:sl:
Can any one answer me please?
Do you think the evolution theory has anything to do with the sura where Allah says that he transformed some Jews into apes?
Correct me if I have made a mistake.:rollseyes

Wa Allah A3lum.

[Muhammad]

:sl:

I don't see how it is referring to evolution when the context of the verse shows it to be a punishment for people who disobeyed Allaah, as opposed to a stage of creation:

And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). We said to them: "Be you monkeys, despised and rejected." So We made this punishment an example to their own and to succeeding generations and a lesson to those who are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious). [Qur'aan 65-66]

Wallaahu A'lam.

[Zone Maker]

:sl:

I don't see how it is referring to evolution when the context of the verse shows it to be a punishment for people who disobeyed Allaah, as opposed to a stage of creation:

And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). We said to them: "Be you monkeys, despised and rejected." So We made this punishment an example to their own and to succeeding generations and a lesson to those who are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious). [Qur'aan 65-66]

Wallaahu A'lam.

:sl:
Well I heard that some scientists have found bones which prove their theory and it might be the bones of those Jews that Allah punished:rollseyes . In other words they understood the opposite of what really happened.
This what I am trying to say:? .

Wa Allah A3lam.

[Muhammad]

:sl:

Well I heard that some scientists have found bones which prove their theory and it might be the bones of those Jews that Allah punished:rollseyes . In other words they understood the opposite of what really happened.
This what I am trying to say:? .

Wa Allah A3lam.

I see what you are saying now. But I'm not sure whether the bones were limited to only those of ape-humans, maybe there were some involving birds or fish, according to the theory?

[Muhammad]

:sl: and Greetings,

The posts regarding evolution in relation to the afterlife have been moved to a new thread here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...afterlife.html

[root]

the reason I'm simply answering: have it your way, is because your teling me your personal opinon and interpretation,

Not quite. The conclusions I am reaching is shared with the mainstream scientific community based on scientific data.

not the science. So I don't feel like looking for source and disproving you, so I take a step back and say: have it your way ...

:giggling:

BTW, that reference to hotspots you provided and I said I would wait for a genetecist to comment on the article. here it is below, still remember it';s just his opinion right!

I can't see any relevance. The news study talks about access to the DNA for signalling when to turn a gene on:
"Having the sequence of units in DNA determine the placement of nucleosomes would explain a puzzling feature of transcription factors, the proteins that activate genes. The transcription factors recognize short sequences of DNA, about six to eight units in length, which lie just in front of the gene to be transcribed. "

If the transcription sequence is buried, then the factor can't bind to it. However, ERV's are inserted into the DNA. You are thinking that exposed sections of DNA make it easier to have the same insertion sites from species to species. Right?

But that still doesn't explain why there is a heirarchy of shared ERVs. That is, we share more ERVs with chimps than we do with orangutuans. Among ALL the possible insertion sites opened by nucleosomes -- 30 million -- why would we share with chimps more than gorillas or deer? That's a LOT of hotspots and there is no reason to think that one exposed area -- since they are all of the same 6-8 bases -- is going to be different than any other exposed area. No, the insertions would be random among the 30 million sites, not showing the heirarchial pattern we do see.

Also, insertion is not the same as binding. Sequences that encourage enzymes to cleave DNA are not the same sequences that are binding the proteins that are transcription factors.

Now, creationists could do some actual research and test whether ERVs are associated with transcription areas. That is, do ERVs always or most often appear just before transcription areas? Michael Behe still has a lab and the Discovery Institute has money. Perhaps DI could fund Behe to look at this hypothesis. Bet they don't.

[Curaezipirid]

My posts before in this thread were all assigned a thread of their own because I was writing to the future possiblities of evolution rather than the existing sciences. So here I will be stricter with my self.

I know quite a few persons whom are familiar with the wide range of popularist literature in the English language that has speculated upon the possiblities of what caused evolution. One such persons told that the aspect of such reading that stimulated his wonderment was the fact that of all the huge variety of different shaped micro-organisms, it was that one with potential to evolve biology with two eyes and one mouth etc, that came to evolve. Such literature has an admirable place upon the bookshelves of persons whom are not educated in Islam, in that it can stimulate such wonderment into a certainty in Allah. So it is very much worthy of Islamic discussion and for Muslims to influence such modern popular literature.

Indeed, often such literature is where are found reports of scientific discoveries that are otherwise not being made accessible to the general population whom are not likely to be reading scientific journals. It is that some forms of scientific discovery are difficult to get out in to the public spectrum of understanding in 'the west' simply because Rosicrucian occultists want to hide that information which can verify Qur'an.

But what I am really wanting to contribute to this general discussion is that there is a set of almost common place known facts, that are seldom placed together in the minds of ordinary folk without any education in Qur'an, and sometimes even in the minds of folk with education in Qur'an, simple sets of known scientific facts have not yet been enabled to become placed together.

My example here is the following:
the arguments for an evolutionary stance based in science alone and that seem to refute Allah as creator, depend upon an understanding that over time our genetics become modified;
the arguments for a creationist approach are more simply that we are instructed to at all times sustain Faith in Qur'an and Torah and Gospels, yet such are not instructing us specifically as to what we should make of the quantity of scientific data we are being presented with;
there is however, an additional fact, that the genetics of any one of us, and every plant and animal and microbe, contain the genetics of every disease of our ancestors, and of every state of evolution that has gone before.

In that third point, it is that case that the genetic map in a Human being for being able to determine that food goes into the mouth and faeces come out of the anus, instead of the other way around, is in fact the exact same genetic that worms have for knowing which end is which. So should we be questioning why or merely accepting that in Allah's grace it is that there was not need to ever form more than a single genetic structure for knowing which end of the digestive organ is which.

Then consider this: my great grandfather survived Bubonic plague. Therefore, the genetics of Bubonic plague are present in my own body. But how is it determined that such genetics are at any time switched 'on' or 'off'? The RNA molecules that read off the DNA and thereby determine the sequences in which amino acids are being assembled into proteins, are the changeable factor.

So then why is it, that in my past I exibited behavioural symptoms that are compatible with the preconditions of Bubonic plague, but that I am caused to be motivated that such behavioural symptoms, are at this time, (and at every time in respect of my children), being overridden by a better set of genetic patterns? Only in Allah can it be that I am being enabled that the RNA in my body is not reading the Bubonic plague genetics.

Therefore it is clear that Creationism is in fact a simply key to the science of evolution.

[Abdul Fattah]

Sister As far as I know our DNA does not keep a record of the diseases we have. I suspect you might have picked this idea up when reading about endogenous retro virus (=ERV). This is how it works, when a cell devides, sometimes there's a mix up. When you happen to be carrying a virus at that moment, the virus might get mixed up in your DNA. But this doesn't happen everytime your sick. Then if a virus embeds itself in a cell located in your upper right arm, then that cell, and all it's copies that are later made, will have that same virus present in it, however you do not pass this on to your children. You can only pass on this ERV, when a virus embeds himself in the very eggcell (or spermcell in a man's case) that will create your child.

[Curaezipirid]

I heard an Australian ABC radio science show broadcast that affirmed that our DNA contains the DNA of every previous Human disease.

This could be checked out through the ABC Science Show web site. I think that the broadcast I heard was before Easter in 2001.

It is because of Allah's miracle of Qur'an that we are able to bear with such diseases in our DNA without the RNA reading the protien sequences of, and I believe that this is an important fact of science.

[Abdul Fattah]

Now, creationists could do some actual research and test whether ERVs are associated with transcription areas. That is, do ERVs always or most often appear just before transcription areas? Michael Behe still has a lab and the Discovery Institute has money. Perhaps DI could fund Behe to look at this hypothesis. Bet they don't.[/I][/B]

Hi root
I found something new that is relevant to the whole ERV- random vs. specific insertionpoint debate. Here's a copy paste:

HIV Inserts Into Human Genome Using A DNA-associated Protein

Science Daily — A human DNA-associated protein called LEDGF is the first such molecule found to control the location of HIV integration in human cells, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. This study, published in this week's early online edition of Nature Medicine, describes the first clear target for modulating where viruses insert into the human genome, which has implications for better design of gene-therapy delivery. Retroviral vectors are often used to introduce therapeutic genetic sequences into human chromosomes, such as in the delivery of Factor VIII for hemophilia patients.
source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1128010951.htm

So if aids, which is a retrovirus btw, carries these enzymes with him it's possible and probable that the ERV's were talking about inserted by the same mechanism.

[Curaezipirid]

Salams,

Thanks for that info. There are a few other things which spring to mind in respect of.

There is recent research from New Zealand, which was on television here in Australia, and which points the data proving that changes in genetics actually take place over a much shorter time frame than was previously imagined possible.

There is another thing on television here recently, at Christmas, and I love this part the most of all: the genetic engineer research here being done on animal species, has found that it is possible to breed out introduced species by structuring the genetics of pest species so that only males are born. They are working first with the European carp which have caused inordinate damage to Australian waterways. . . .

. . . (if only male fish are born, . . . will only female kafir . . . .? . . . that is, can all male kafir become detected as fishy, rather than human like?)(I believe that there are believers among those researchers somehow.) I know this is a long bow to draw, but for those whom can be certain of when kafr and the consequences, the facts are a simple logic . . . the scientists are proving the prophesies without knowing.

Then I am also thinking about the HIV virus. I know a bloke whom has it but is not especially ill from, after re-committing to Islam. . . .

it is a disease which accompanies a thought stream in which the full comprehension of the inevitable of fulfilling prophesies has been recognised, but in which bodily behaviour has denied that recognition.

The opposite disease is the Lupus type, in which the autoimmune response begins to attack the healthy organism. It is an indicator of having been accepting more than the individual responsiblity into the individual account of comprehension.

However, that general picture of the way in which our genetics are effected by our behaviour is very important to understanding science in Islam. That the health of our Spirit effects our genetic potential through RNA is a fact.

We might not like to know this, since most of us have little or no control in matter of our Spirit, in the circumstance of this world itself being diseased beyond our immediate control. But it is nevertheless the case. We can improve our genetics only be our behaviour, by refusing to act in the paucity of Spirit which society often demands.

Also, all facts which lend belief into developing a science of ablity to immediately improve genetics are very important to Islam and also Christianity and Judaism.

Torah states that it requires eight generations before the sins of our predecessors are having no impact upon our immediate daily health and overall Human potential. Eight is far fewer than modern science would have us believe, which implies that there must be mechanisms by which our genetics can either deteriorate or improve over a really very short space of time.

Think about it like this, if in the next thousand years, all the Prophesies will be realised, then what will our health be like that we will be in mind always in Jannah? How much, or rather how little, will we eat? Will we sustain our body in the physical/carnal world by a little as Jesus is reported to have eaten and feed many from? Living from pure Mana is certainly factually possible for a time, and even for quite a long time, as Torah teaches. As Muslims we can appreciate this fact as a lesson of Ramadan. What is it going to require of our immediate behaviour, that in the following generations, it will be our descendants whom realise the prophesies as believers enabled in health to live as the people of the book have always given evidence to?

I will tell you that I know when I am in good Spirit, I can through prayer alone, in only about five to ten minutes of holding one posture, cause that I can enter into the cardiovascular state of having been working out, with deeper breathing and an altered heart rate. How fast I enter that state is dependant upon how little I have eaten.

Here is one more story from science, and my apology that I have not now ready access to the original research to prove my self with. In artificial insemination work with animals, it has been widely proven that if, for example, a brown female dogs ovuum, are fertilised in a test tube, with a brown male dogs sperm, and then the resultant embryo is placed into a mother dog which is black with white spots, the puppies are very likely to develop into black with white spot pups. Why, if not that our environment in utero can switch certain genetics on and other genetics off?

Surely that idea that many scientists now speak of, of a switch for specific genetics, which might be understood to be the RNA molecules which read from the total available DNA, and determine which DNA is structuring the amino acid sequences in which protiens form, is an idea with which we, as Muslims, might conceive of Prayer functionally being able to "switch" a whole population into a specific frame of mind.

Wasalam

[Abdul Fattah]

Which evidence, you got a videorecording of it?

[islamirama]

Origin of Life - An Islamic Perspective

Science must increase our faith. It is wrong for anyone to close their eyes to what is right in front of them. For a Muslim the evidence of dinosaurs and fossils is not a threat to our beliefs. Rather, it is a confirmation of the power of Allah.

Adapted from the Book: What Islam is All About By Yahiya Emerick

A. Why Does Allah Tell Us About the Creation?

The Holy Qur'an is the book given to us by the Creator of the Universe. Allah, (literally: THE God) which is His personal Name, knows us best and is aware that humans can be very skeptical creatures.

Allah points out, "...if you were to seek a tunnel into the earth or a ladder into the skies and bring them a sign, (they still wouldn't be convinced.) If it were Allah's will, He could gather them all into true guidance, so don't be among those who are influenced by ignorance." (6:35)

Allah, the Keeper of Wisdom, makes it a point to give as many proofs in the Qur'an about His existence and creative abilities as possible so the maximum number of humans can be guided. We need proof, and Allah gives us that proof. (2:26, 40:57)

Allah, of course, does not need us to follow Him, or believe in Him. As He states, "Allah can do without them and Allah is free of all needs." (64:6)

He merely wishes that people would choose to believe in Him so He can reward them for their choice. Allah is ready to forgive even those who acted wrongly if they but ask for His forgiveness.

In a Hadith, or saying of the Blessed Prophet Muhammad, we learn, "When Allah decreed the creation (of the universe,) He set down in His book which is with Him, 'Indeed, My mercy is stronger than My wrath.'" (Bukhari & Muslim. Also see 6:12)

Among the proofs given in the Qur'an for us to learn from is a very detailed explanation of the different features of the universe, how it was made and how the planets and stars were formed. Allah says that, "To Him is due the origin of space and the Earth." (6:101)

Of course, most people who lived at the Prophet's time would never have understood what those ayat really meant, but they accepted them anyway and interpreted them as best they could. Sometimes they came up with very interesting explanations.

Allah instructs us to accept everything in the Qur'an, even if we don't yet know how to understand it. The understanding of the Qur'an grows with each passing generation. As He said, "The intelligent people declare, 'We believe in the book, the whole of it is from our Lord." (3:7)

B. Modern Science and Islam.

Modern day scientists have been awe-struck at how complex and intricate the universe is. (67:3-4) The sciences of astronomy, chemistry, astrophysics and molecular biology have pushed the limits of our knowledge ever further.

These new discoveries have assisted greatly in the understanding of what the ayat in the Qur'an mean. For example, there is a section of verses where Allah mentions that during the process of human development, there is a stage where we were an 'Alaq in the womb. (96:1-5) The word literally means, "a clinging thing." But no one knew in past centuries how that could be part of the process of growth for a fetus.

So translators, commentators and scholars have tried to explain it as meaning we were clots of blood or other such strange things in the womb. But new discoveries in the last few years have shown that in the early stages of pregnancy, the fertilized egg actually attaches itself to the uterine wall and clings there as it is growing. Thus, modern knowledge unlocks another mystery that previous Muslims could only guess at.

The same thing is true in other areas to quite a startling degree. When we study the ayat of the Qur'an relating to the creation of the universe, we come away astounded, especially since they agree with what we have only discovered in the last ten, twenty and fifty years.

The Qur'an does not give a single, unified essay on how the universe began. Instead, keeping with the Qur'anic method of teaching, different aspects of creation are mentioned in different places in order to give authority to the particular lesson being taught. (See 30:58)

For example, in Surah at Tariq, (86) Allah begins by mentioning the brightest star which appears in the sky at night. Then He describes this star and uses it as a metaphor for how every human has an angel watching over them. Do you see how Allah uses physical aspects of nature to illustrate spiritual principles?

C. The Qur'anic History of Creation.

After we find the references to creation in the Qur'an, then we can piece them together to get a picture of how Allah's revelation explains the beginning. As Muslims, however, we must not forget to look into the lesson taught in each passage. We must remember what the purpose is for including these signs in the Qur'an so we can be enlightened spiritually as well as mentally.

Allah begins by stating that the universe and planet Earth took six "days" to create. (7:54) Now it must be remembered that in Arabic the word Youm can mean a day as we know it, or it can mean any stage or period of time. As Allah points out, a day to him can be a thousand years, fifty thousand years or more. 1

The creation of planets and the Earth took place in the last two periods of time. As Allah states in the Qur'an, "Declare, 'Do you disbelieve in the One Who created the Earth in two stages? Do you make others equal to Him? He is the Lord of all the worlds.'" (41:9)

The process of creation can be summarized as follows: All matter in the universe was compacted together in one place. Then Allah gave the command and it blew apart scattering molecules and gases in all directions. ("The Big Bang.") The force of this initial explosion keeps the universe expanding.

Space was filled with matter, anti-matter and gases which eventually combined into larger particles. These bits of matter eventually grew into asteroids, planets, stars and moons. Each object of inter-stellar space conformed to a set of physical laws which governed the trajectory of their orbits so a regular pattern of rotation could be seen. (21:33, 29:61)

Stars ignited in a fury of radioactive fusion and gave off light and heat which brought warmth to those planets near them. (86:3) Small moons were captured in the orbit of larger planets and came to have a regular orbit around them, often reflecting light from the sun. (54:1-2)

Finally, the planets themselves developed and formed in a variety of ways with fantastic geologic formations and movements both above and below the surface. (27:61)

The planet Earth, in particular, cooled near its outer layers, forming a thin crust made up of plates that moved and grated against each other. (15:19) This allowed the Earth's surface to constantly erase the damage caused by occasional asteroid impacts. But the colliding of the plates also had the side effect of raising tall mountains and exposing the geologic history of the planet.

Escaping gases from the ground and water, warmed in the sunlight, eventually raised to a high altitude where they formed a protective layer. This Ozone Layer shielded out harmful radiation and ultraviolet rays from the sun.

After a time, life was to appear but that is the subject of the next lesson. For now, it is amazing that this scientific narrative is almost exactly the same as what Allah revealed in the Qur'an. Look at the following illustrations showing what happened, what Allah said about it, and the ayat from which they come.

You will be amazed and can only proclaim your wonder at Allah's Revelation. Remember, He mentioned these things to teach us to be believers in Him. If He tells us the truth, we would be fools not to believe in Him. Right?

"Don't they see anything in the functioning of space and the Earth and in all things Allah created?" (7:185)

D. How Can We Know the World Around Us?

As we have learned already, Islamic teachings assume that the Earth and universe are very old. In addition, the Qur'an states clearly that one of the reasons Allah made us intelligent and self-aware, or Sentient, is so that we can discover the wonders of the natural world around us. In short, Allah gave us the mission to investigate what He created.

There is so much we don't know or understand, even about how our own bodies work. With all these fantastic areas of knowledge to pursue, you would think that everyone would recognize their Lord. But some still choose to keep their eyes shut. As Allah says, "He, (Allah,) created humans from a drop of sperm and then the same humans become clear arguers!" (16:4.)

But thankfully, not everyone closes their understanding and the world has many fine examples of great scientists and researchers who also put their trust in Allah.

In our modern world there are so many discoveries in all fields which are giving us a more complete picture of the history of the universe. At the same time, our knowledge of Earth's past is expanding and revealing some surprising results.

E. What Do We Know about the Origins of Life?

Today, scientists tell us that life began in the sea when simple molecules bonded together and became self-replicating, or self-producing. These single-celled organisms, quickly took on the characteristics of what we know as algae.

They received their energy from the sun in a process termed Photosynthesis, and as a result of their activity, new gases formed in the air creating a viable environment for more complex forms of life.

As Muslims we can either accept this theory, reject it or modify it according to what we know in Allah's revelation. As you will remember, we learned that Allah said He created all life from water and raised a protective canopy over the Earth. Allah knows best and all we can do is study, research, test and reflect.

Scientists further tell us that over millions of years, the first organisms blossomed gradually into many different types and shapes, resulting in plant life, plankton, arthropods and simple fishes. Dinosaurs, higher creatures and mammals followed.

F. What is Evolution and Creationism?

These discoveries in themselves are not harmful to a healthy belief in Allah's creative power to make whatever He wills in whatever way He wishes. But some scientists have tried to say that everything in the universe, even life itself, happened all by chance and accident, without any Divine intervention.

The name of this theory is Evolution and its most famous advocate was a man named Charles Darwin (1809-1882). He was an Englishman who lived during the nineteenth century when ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Britain ruled most of the world.

He was keenly interested in the origin of life and took a journey around the world to study the plants and animals of Earth. The ship he sailed on was called the HMS Beagle. He spent a particularly long amount of time on the Galapagos Islands, located in the Pacific ocean, examining birds, lizards and giant turtles.

He came to believe that the variety of life in our world was due to what he called "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest." He wrote his findings in a book entitled, "On the Origin of Species" which he published in 1859.

The book immediately caused a controversy in the Christian world because Christianity taught that God made life in an instant and that Earth was the center of importance in the universe. Christians also felt threatened by Darwin's teachings because they knew it meant he was saying everything happened without needing God. To this day, many Christians still oppose and do battle in court over whether or not these theories should be taught in school.

These Christians advance the counter- idea of Creationism, or God making things all at once, while modern scientists still promote Evolution, or things happening by themselves accidentally, gradually and naturally. The two sides are as far apart as ever.

G. What Do Muslims Believe?

Where do Muslims stand? The answer may surprise you for we can agree with aspects of both sides. Islam teaches us that Allah's creation is vast and beyond our comprehension. We are also taught that the more we explore and learn, the more we will come to believe in Allah. That is the Islamic position.

So we assert without any hesitation that Allah caused the creation of the universe and that He set up the laws for its functioning. As Allah said:

"Behold! In the creation of space and the Earth and in the changing of night into day are indeed signs for people of understanding. Those who remember Allah standing, sitting and lying down, and contemplate the (wonders) of creation in space and the Earth. (They declare,) "Our Lord! You didn't create all of this for nothing. So save us from the punishment of the fire." (3:190-191)

Science, then, must increase our faith. It is wrong for anyone to close their eyes to what is right in front of them. For hundreds of years people have been finding fossils, bones and ancient artifacts which point to a hidden past we don't know much about. Allah even commands us to travel over the Earth and learn from what we see. We humans have now seen much to challenge our understanding!

We know that Earth existed long before the appearance of humans. Allah says, "Wasn't there a long period of time before humans were even mentioned?" (76:1)

We also know from the geologic timetable that the Earth went through many ages before we came here. And in the ayat that mentions this proof of Allah, we are given a very strong clue about the adaptability of life forms to their environment.

Allah said, "Don't you see that Allah sends rain from the sky? With it We produce plants of various colors. And in the mountains are colored layers, white and red of various tones and some black in hue. And so too, among humans and crawling creatures and cattle. They are of various colors. Those among Allah's servants who have knowledge truly fear Him, for Allah is Mighty and Forgiving." (35:27-28)

So while we agree with the Creationists who say Allah made the universe, we disagree with them on how fast it was constructed and that Earth is the only center of focus for the Creator. Allah declares Himself to be the Lord of All the Worlds: Rabb ul Alameen.

Because we do not reject the evidence presented to us by Paleontologists (fossil hunters) and other scientists, we can accept some of what they say, also, about the origins of life on Earth and the existence of dinosaurs and other creatures in the fossil record. However, we read in Allah's book that He caused it to happen and that by studying it we increase our faith in Him. Therefore, we disagree with those who say everything happened without Allah, by mere chance only.

"To Allah belongs the control of space and the Earth and Allah has power over all things." (3:189)

Ours is the middle position even as Allah said we were created to be the middle community: never going to extremes. (2:143) So we don't accept, based on the evidence, the final positions of both sides. Rather, we accept what appears to be true and reject what appears to be false from each. The Qur'an is our standard, our determiner, and it has never let us down, nor will it ever do so.

For a Muslim, then, the evidence of dinosaurs, trilobites and ancient algae is not a threat to our beliefs. Rather, it is a confirmation of the power of Allah. As Allah said, "He has created horses and mules for you to ride and show; and He has created other (creatures) that you don't know." (16:8)

"Allah created every creature from water. Of them are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for He has power over all things. We have indeed sent signs that make things clear and Allah guides whom He wills to the straight way." (24:45-46)

Who else but Allah could have made such a complex and mysterious universe? (16:40) We must have pity on those who reject the proof of Allah's existence for they will be the losers in the end.

Remember the ayah that was listed before: Allah says, "He, (Allah,) created humans from a drop of sperm and then the same humans become clear arguers!" (16:4.)

Even a miraculous thing such as the fertilization of the egg cannot convince some people to believe in the creative energy of the Creator of the Universe.

Allah asks rhetorically, "Then what message will they believe in after this?" (77:50)

[Hussein radi]

I know that evolution is false when it coems to humans, but what about animals. I jsut dont see how animals could of survived an explosion that extincted the dinasors. I try to post this on Basic of Islam, but for some reason there is X mark preventing me from posting thread.

[ranma1/2]

I know that evolution is false when it coems to humans, but what about animals. I jsut dont see how animals could of survived an explosion that extincted the dinasors. I try to post this on Basic of Islam, but for some reason there is X mark preventing me from posting thread.

know huh?
Well what made the dinosaurs go bye bye is in debate but why other animals survived is pretty simple. They had what was needed to survive.

If food became more limited and you were say smaller and thus needing less food you were more likely to adapt.
As for human evolution. Thats pretty much established through science. Its only when you throw religion in do people get all vain about their origins.

[Abdul Fattah]

The evolution of man is not "pretty much established trough science", quite the contrary, it's one of the biggest missing links that exist in the three of descent that common descent implies.

[ranma1/2]

The evolution of man is not "pretty much established trough science", quite the contrary, it's one of the biggest missing links that exist in the three of descent that common descent implies.

Its been pretty much established with dna and fossil evidence.

[Abdul Fattah]

I'm sorry Ranma, but that is just false. In the fossil record is still a huge gap, and many alleged links that were suggested as intermediary form have now been found to be unrelated. As for DNA, There also we have no prove at all, we don't even have mechanistic theories explaining evolution of man (from apes).
But you're welcome to prove me wrong.
I'll give you a hint, many of these so called "proofs" have been discussed earlier in this very topic.

[ranma1/2]

I'm sorry Ranma, but that is just false. In the fossil record is still a huge gap, and many alleged links that were suggested as intermediary form have now been found to be unrelated. As for DNA, There also we have no prove at all, we don't even have mechanistic theories explaining evolution of man (from apes).
But you're welcome to prove me wrong.
I'll give you a hint, many of these so called "proofs" have been discussed earlier in this very topic.

there will always be gaps. There are billions of transitions. I sincerly suggest reading about evolution. Perhaps go to berkleys site or talkorigins. Both are good sites with evidence about evolution. "proof is for beer and math"

[Abdul Fattah]

Here are some proposed missing links, which in teh end turned out to be different branches instead of direct lineage (the more proposed intermediate stages that turn out to be from different baranches, the wider the gap between man and a different specie it alledegdly evolved from.)
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
The false claims from Richard leakey and Donald C Johanson that the australopithecus walked erected has been refuted and seems to be closely related with urangutans (which according to evolutionists is from a different branch then men)
Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago (proposed in the 60's as first humanoid that walked erecte and used tools)
new discoveries in 80's showed a different picture and Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace said that this was in fact nothing more then An Australopithecus habilis. So it's just another extinct african ape.
Homo rudolfensis 1.9 to 1.6 million years ago
It refers to a single fragmented skull found in Kenia. However most scientists have accepted it again as nothing more then Australopithecus habilis.
Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
although this skeleton is exactly the same as human, evolutionists have classified it as a transendiery specie, based on the small skullcontents (900-1100 cc) and because of the big eyebrows (of teh skull). However, tehre are humans alive today with thatskullcontents (i.e. Pygmees), and that have such eyebrows (i.e. Australian aborigenals). So there is no reason to assume these skelletons are a missing link, they are just humans. In fact the New Scientists of 1998 14 march even wrote an excelent article of how Homo erectus had the technology to build and use transport ships.
Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago
again there's no reason to assuùme they weren't human, in fact many researchers have even concluded that they are exactly the same as Australian aborigenals. They even found skeletons of them showing that they lived up to recently in villages in Italy and Hungary. The dramatic pictures of hary human-like apes you found in schoolhandbooks are just indulgance into imagenation, remmeber we've only found skelletons.
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago
Erik Trinkus, paleontologist of university of mexico writes: detailed study of the skelleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intelect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man.

Now I'm not going to claim there's some sort of crazy conspiracy going on here, and that evolutionists purposely create false intermediate species. But perhaps people are just looking so hard for these unfound missing links that they start to see things that aren't there.

As for evidence in stead of proof, that two I have not yet seen. And no, I will not look at links, arguing by links does not fly here. What? Do you actually expect that I'm going to take the time to refute all those pages just because you mention the name of the site? No, if you got some evidence that you can get from that site present it here and inshaAllah I'll answer it. Otherwise the only option you got left is to agree to disagree and back out.

[Curaezipirid]

Which evidence, you got a videorecording of it?

it is very unscientific to assume that a video recording might be the definition of evidence

those who see will hear and who hears will see

[Curaezipirid]

Can anybody refute the claim that the Magi, (as the Austrlian Aborigine race is), have a biological capacity to engage in willing sudden drops in metabolic rate, and to put such a biological difference to work only in Allah?

Australia has the oldest Human remains in which there is evidence of a death rite having been conducted.

But that is not evidence that Aborigines in Australia have an evolutionary advantage, is it. (That is the advantage which is only undermined by the practises of hate which are being perpetrated commonly against our men in the public prison system. But the question is whether the advantage of being able to conduct sudden shifts in metabolic rate, is effectively evolutionary? -especially in connection with the fact that when the shaytan know of the biology, what they enact to defeat it has repeatedly proven to increase and even enhance the biological capacity in future generations-and the more rapid the harm done us the more increase in our capacity to tolerate the shaytan without falling to them is caused.)

Salam

[Abdul Fattah]

sister, the question about the video-tape was meant sarcastically, as to indicate that all the alleged proofs are unsubstantiated.

As for biological advantages of one race t another. I'd be carefull with that.
"O Mankind, we created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you in to tribes and nations so that you may know each other (not that you despise each other). Verily, the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is he who is most righteous of you." (49:13)
This clearly shows that one race is not better or worse then any other, but instead being better is only in being more righteous then the other.

As for your request to refute it, in order to refute a theory/argument there has to first exist a theory or argument. You only made some unsubstantiated vague claims, and no supporting theory to refute.

ps: sorry if I misinterpreted something you said. I seem to be having some problems in understanding some sentences of your posts.

[MustafaMc]

it is a disease which accompanies a thought stream in which the full comprehension of the inevitable of fulfilling prophesies has been recognised, but in which bodily behaviour has denied that recognition.

The opposite disease is the Lupus type, in which the autoimmune response begins to attack the healthy organism. It is an indicator of having been accepting more than the individual responsiblity into the individual account of comprehension.

However, that general picture of the way in which our genetics are effected by our behaviour is very important to understanding science in Islam. That the health of our Spirit effects our genetic potential through RNA is a fact.

We might not like to know this, since most of us have little or no control in matter of our Spirit, in the circumstance of this world itself being diseased beyond our immediate control. But it is nevertheless the case. We can improve our genetics only be our behaviour, by refusing to act in the paucity of Spirit which society often demands.

What in the world are you talking about?

Also, all facts which lend belief into developing a science of ablity to immediately improve genetics are very important to Islam and also Christianity and Judaism

Torah states that it requires eight generations before the sins of our predecessors are having no impact upon our immediate daily health and overall Human potential. Eight is far fewer than modern science would have us believe, which implies that there must be mechanisms by which our genetics can either deteriorate or improve over a really very short space of time.

By what mechanism.

Think about it like this, if in the next thousand years, all the Prophesies will be realised, then what will our health be like that we will be in mind always in Jannah? How much, or rather how little, will we eat? Will we sustain our body in the physical/carnal world by a little as Jesus is reported to have eaten and feed many from? Living from pure Mana is certainly factually possible for a time, and even for quite a long time, as Torah teaches. As Muslims we can appreciate this fact as a lesson of Ramadan. What is it going to require of our immediate behaviour, that in the following generations, it will be our descendants whom realise the prophesies as believers enabled in health to live as the people of the book have always given evidence to?

I will tell you that I know when I am in good Spirit, I can through prayer alone, in only about five to ten minutes of holding one posture, cause that I can enter into the cardiovascular state of having been working out, with deeper breathing and an altered heart rate. How fast I enter that state is dependant upon how little I have eaten.

Where is this described in the Quran or the hadith?

Here is one more story from science, and my apology that I have not now ready access to the original research to prove my self with. In artificial insemination work with animals, it has been widely proven that if, for example, a brown female dogs ovuum, are fertilised in a test tube, with a brown male dogs sperm, and then the resultant embryo is placed into a mother dog which is black with white spots, the puppies are very likely to develop into black with white spot pups. Why, if not that our environment in utero can switch certain genetics on and other genetics off?

I highly doubt this is a repeatable scientific observation. I don't know the genetics of color in dogs, but children sometimes express traits that are not observed in either parent due to recessive genes that become homozyygous, for example Aa X Aa > AA, Aa and aa offspring.

Surely that idea that many scientists now speak of, of a switch for specific genetics, which might be understood to be the RNA molecules which read from the total available DNA, and determine which DNA is structuring the amino acid sequences in which protiens form, is an idea with which we, as Muslims, might conceive of Prayer functionally being able to "switch" a whole population into a specific frame of mind.

Wasalam

Can you please explain the basis for what you have stated in this post?

[pasionatemumina]

in my course this is wat were doin for one of the modules hearing wat the lecturer said made me thinkin
but after readin this it made me clear
thanx

[ZarathustraDK]

Gah, again with the 'missing links'-arguments.

Don't you guys see that you ask for the impossible when you demand the missing link? If scientists find an organism dated and accepted to be the 1.5 million year old link between something 2 million years old and 1 million years old, believers will simply point to the timespan between 2 mio <-> 1.5 mio y old, 1.5 mio <-> 1 mio y old and ask for a missing link there. This is a neverending regress, and in the end believers will have demanded that scientists account for every single living organism to any time with a fossil record, which is not practically possible.

[ranma1/2]

threadomancy level 3
several months dead revived thread.. Bu wa ha ha ha...

[ZarathustraDK]

Bah, it's a sticky, didn't notice the date.

[Abdul Fattah]

Gah, again with the 'missing links'-arguments.

Don't you guys see that you ask for the impossible when you demand the missing link? If scientists find an organism dated and accepted to be the 1.5 million year old link between something 2 million years old and 1 million years old, believers will simply point to the timespan between 2 mio <-> 1.5 mio y old, 1.5 mio <-> 1 mio y old and ask for a missing link there. This is a neverending regress, and in the end believers will have demanded that scientists account for every single living organism to any time with a fossil record, which is not practically possible.

Well actually the problem is, that as out knowledge advances, the gaps grow bigger rather then smaller as you suggest! over the years the tree of descent has been falsified numerous times. Every time it was, they made a new corrected tree, and often that new tree suggests even more intermediate species. A second counterargument, links are missing not only in terms of timespan, but also in terms of shapes intermediate stages. For example, did the elephant evolve directly from the hippopotamus and/or rhino, or were there several intermediate species? To go directly from one to the other would require a whole bunch of changes in terms of bones-structure alone, not to mention all the other differences. So why hasn't there been found traces of intermediate steps there (and in many different places of the tree as well).

My views on evolution

[ranma1/2]

Well actually the problem is, that as out knowledge advances, the gaps grow bigger rather then smaller as you suggest!

actually no, we become more knowledgeable of what we dont know perhaps but we do fill in more and more peices to a puzzle that we dont know what it looks like.

over the years the tree of descent has been falsified numerous times.
not even once. Got a sourece for this claim? Scientific journal would be great.
Now im sure as we have learned more parts of the phylogenic tree are updated but thats about all i can think of.

Every time it was, they made a new corrected tree, and often that new tree suggests even more intermediate species.
thats science and thats not falsifying the tree.

A second counterargument, links are missing not only in terms of timespan, but also in terms of shapes intermediate stages. For example, did the elephant evolve directly from the hippopotamus and/or rhino, or were there several intermediate species?
To go directly from one to the other would require a whole bunch of changes in terms of bones-structure alone, not to mention all the other differences. So why hasn't there been found traces of intermediate steps there (and in many different places of the tree as well).

no scientists that has a clue about evolution believes there was this sudden elephant.
My views on evolution

i really suggest reading about evolution through a real scientific source.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

[Trumble]

For example, did the elephant evolve directly from the hippopotamus and/or rhino, or were there several intermediate species? To go directly from one to the other would require a whole bunch of changes in terms of bones-structure alone, not to mention all the other differences. So why hasn't there been found traces of intermediate steps there (and in many different places of the tree as well).

Steve, this really is total nonsense. Nobody has even suggested that the elephant evolved from either hippopotamus or rhino, so of course there are no 'intermediate steps' between any of them. You seem to be picking them out just because they are all big, and grey!

Let's look at an 'elephant' site (rather than 'creationist' or 'evolutionist' site)

Elephant Information Repository

Fascinating stuff. Did you know that

Interestingly, the Asian elephant is more closely related to the extinct mammoth than to the African elephant

or that

Interestingly, based on both morphological and biochemical evidence, it is agreed that the manatees, dugongs, and hyraxes are the closest living relatives of the today's elephants. It is incredible to believe given the vastly different sizes, external appearance and the fact that they occupy completely different habitats.

EDIT: talking of hippos, elephants, manatees and such, in decidely spooky fashion this story caught my eye today; Elephant had aquatic ancestor

An ancient ancestor of the elephant from 37 million years ago lived in water and had a similar lifestyle to a hippo, a fossil study has suggested.

The animal was said to be similar to a tapir, a hoofed mammal which looks like a cross between a horse and a rhino. Experts from Oxford University and Stony Brook University, New York, analysed chemical signatures preserved in fossil teeth. These indicated that the animal grazed on plants in rivers or swamps. The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, could shed light on the lifestyle and behaviour of modern elephants.

Dr Erik Seiffert, co-author of the study, told BBC News: "It has often been assumed that elephants have evolved from fully terrestrial ancestors and have always had this kind of a lifestyle. "Now we can really start to think about how their lifestyle and behaviour might have been shaped by a very different kind of existence in the distant past. "It could help us to understand more about the origins of the anatomy and ecology of living elephants."

DNA evidence suggests that elephants are related to seagoing manatees and dugongs, and another land-based mammal, the rabbit-like hyrax.

Another piece slotted into what is indeed a very large and complex puzzle!

[Abdul Fattah]

i really suggest reading about evolution through a real scientific source.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Oh come on Ranma, that is so low of you. First of all you shouldn't judge arguments based on where they come from, but based on their own merit. If you want to not believe in a freewebs site I made but do believe in a berkley site, just because its got a fancy name, then go ahead. But don't expect that dubble standard to fly in here. Here one would expect arguments to be judged by their own merit, not by who made them. Second of all there's a huge difference in the way we presented our links. I added my link after making my arguments in addition for those interested. You just basicly said; "you're wrong just look here". That's arguing by link, that's even more low discrediting source rather then merit of arguments.

Steve, this really is total nonsense. ...

I admit I didn't give much thought to the example. I took the first thing that entered my haead and messed up there. But nevertheless the argument still stands. The argument being that missing links is not as much a matter of finding bones out of every era, but more a matter of finding intermediate topology in bones. Which is a perfectly valid refutation for ZarathustraDK's earlier comment, regardless of my bad example.

[ranma1/2]

Oh come on Ranma, that is so low of you. First of all you shouldn't judge arguments based on where they come from, but based on their own merit. If you want to not believe in a freewebs site I made but do believe in a berkley site, just because its got a fancy name, then go ahead.

im not, why do think i do. Berkley is a well known univeristy. If your rejecting that site then i think your the one that hasthe double standard. Scientists have that odd thing of actually supporting there work with evidence. Seriously "Fancy name" is that your argument?


But don't expect that dubble standard to fly in here. Here one would expect arguments to be judged by their own merit, not by who made them.
Yes and thats why yours fails.

Second of all there's a huge difference in the way we presented our links. I added my link after making my arguments in addition for those interested. You just basicly said; "you're wrong just look here".
well your argument pretty much showed your ignorance in evolution. Its pretty clear you dont know much about it. The link i gave you is a good one that should help you learn more.

That's arguing by link, that's even more low discrediting source rather then merit of arguments.
Im not arguing anything, im trying to give you the resources to better educate yourself.

I.... The argument being that missing links is not as much a matter of finding bones out of every era, but more a matter of finding intermediate topology in bones. Which is a perfectly valid refutation for ZarathustraDK's earlier comment, regardless of my bad example.

im unclear as to what your saying here. COuld you please clarify?

OThe reason i gave you a good scientific source. (well basic source) is because they have done thework, theyhave dont the research and they have that availble.

[ranma1/2]

ok here is a reall quick review of your belief. im sure i made many mistakes but thats one reason why i provide links to better writers than me.

The theistic agenda.
Let us say for the argument that as an extreme example tomorrow every single little thing that falls under biological evolution is true, how would that change the theist his paradigm?...
The atheistic agenda.
Now, again for the sake of argument let us assume the opposite extreme, that tomorrow every single part of biological evolution turns out to be false…..
Seriously, theistic. Atheistic agenda? EAC? Evolution does not equal atheism.
That’s all I have to say about this part other than its an attempt to create some non existent validity for ID that it fails at…

Micro evolution Theory; well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.
Macro evolution Theory; still some lose ends but testable, falsifiable and provable.
Common descent Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.

This here also shows where you get your info on evolution.
Abio is not part of evolution. Evolution takes place after you have life. For all it matters we could have been placed here by blue 3 legged aliens all named bill. Evolution takes place after you have life.
Macro is micro on a long time scale. Imagine micro is walking to your fridge and macro is walking to NewYork from LA. Your argument is that you cant one butyou can do the other.
Common descent, supported by evidence. (fossils, dna, geology ect…) Falsifiable (bunnies in the Cambrian layers, humans with dinosaurs) and as provable as you can prove anything. The except details are unknown but as stated earlier, we got a HUGE puzzle , no picture and not all of the pieces.

Out of thin air, and prebiotic soup
Abio not evo. No need to go into this.

One big happy family
Common decent, is supported by tons of evidence as stated before. This seems to be the biggest problem religious individuals tend to have with evo. (what im related to an ape..!!!)

Irreducibly complex.
Pretty much this argument is one from incredulity. ( don’t knowhow this happened so god did it.)
And since im not nearly as educated in this as actual scientist I have no problem posting links to resources that go over this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Argument from comparison:
The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another.
Im not sure where you got this argument, are you referring to morphology or those that have similar structures?

Your argument that a designer could have also designed them fails without any evidence.
Not to mention a perfect being (god lets say) that has infin resources and infi time has no need to copy past designs when he can make better ones. We poor humans do.

Not only that but when you compare the we have fused dna that seems and odd way for a god to make us based off of chimps. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Not to mention that these beings did not exists at the same time and instead they fit in the appropriate geological column for their time period.

Argument from unintelligent design:
This isn't really scientific but philosophical. The argument goes like this: "Creation is flawed, in the sense that it's poorly designed. There are many shortcomings and imperfections. If we would have truly been created, we would have been perfect rather then imperfect."

I think its an important question, if a perfect being made something wouldn’t it be perfect?
Surely it could make something perfect. Can you tell me how a perfect being can make imperfection?

Argument from useless design:
This simply goes that organs or structures have gotten reduced to no use. Not NO USE only.
Vestigial structures do exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_structures

[Abdul Fattah]

im not, why do think i do. Berkley is a well known univeristy. If your rejecting that site then i think your the one that hasthe double standard. Scientists have that odd thing of actually supporting there work with evidence. Seriously "Fancy name" is that your argument?

I know that, and I don't oppose theories that come with evidence. I oppose theories that come without evidence. Theories that don't even deserve the name "theory" and are actually nothing but speculation. And if you prefer berkley's speculation, then that is a double standard.

But don't expect that dubble standard to fly in here. Here one would expect arguments to be judged by their own merit, not by who made them.
Yes and thats why yours fails.

No it doesn't my argument was very simple and didn't even talk about source, you're the one who brought the whole "oh you have a bad source"thing up so don't tell me its my failure.

well your argument pretty much showed your ignorance in evolution. Its pretty clear you dont know much about it. The link i gave you is a good one that should help you learn more.

Again trying to attack the arguer rather then the argument, very mature Ranma...

That's arguing by link, that's even more low discrediting source rather then merit of arguments.
Im not arguing anything, im trying to give you the resources to better educate yourself.

Oh that's Bs and you know it. If your intention was really to educate me you would have sent me a Pm saying, here's an interesting link I'd like you to look at. You wouldn't have but into an argument and replied to the argument: "Here's a better source."

Seriously, theistic. Atheistic agenda? EAC? Evolution does not equal atheism.
That’s all I have to say about this part other than its an attempt to create some non existent validity for ID that it fails at…

You're fighting a strawmen. Nowhere in that text does it say evolution=atheism. I never made such claims. The introduction of that paragraph clearly said: As you might have noticed evolution has been a hot topic for decades, ever since the beginning of it, and it continues to be widely discussed today. And all to often proponents of evolution like to create the illusion as if the debate on evolution is a debate of science vs. religion. But let's look at what's really at stake shall we?
So the remainder of the paragraph is a counter to that misconception, not an argument against evolution as you said.

This here also shows where you get your info on evolution. Abio is not part of evolution. Evolution takes place after you have life.

No that's where you are wrong. "Evolution" as a single word can refer to pretty much anything, like the evolution of language for example. Biological evolution refers to any evolution slightly related to biology. And evolution of the species, a term coined by darwin, only occurs like you said "after you already have life".

Macro is micro on a long time scale. Imagine micro is walking to your fridge and macro is walking to NewYork from LA. Your argument is that you cant one butyou can do the other.

Again you're misinformed and you turn out to be the one not knowing anything about it. Walking to the fridge and walking to L.A. both take the same proces: walking. Microevolution however uses a completely different proces as Macroevolution. Don't be deceived, although in both cases we are dealing with mutations, macroevolution relies on a whole different class of mutations then microevolution does. A better comparison would be: rolling to your fridge in the other room with your weelchair, or rolling up the stairs with your weelchair.

Common descent, supported by evidence. (fossils, dna, geology ect…)

That isn't evidence at all, the fossils, the DNA the geology supports my view just as well as your view!!! Fossils don't prove that one evolved out of the other. The only thing fossils prove is which animal was present at which area. How it got there is left completelty open to interpretation. DNA doesn't support anything. We have only mapped DNA for 4 species, let alone done an in depth analysis of DNA comparison of first cell to human. every single piece of so called "evidence" is completely open to interpretation. Just because evolutionsts prefer to interpret it their way doesn't make common descent provable.

Falsifiable (bunnies in the Cambrian layers, humans with dinosaurs) and as provable as you can prove anything. The except details are unknown but as stated earlier, we got a HUGE puzzle , no picture and not all of the pieces.

Again, you completely dropped the ball. The tree of descent is falsified all the time. However, every time we encounter a finding that contradicts previous tree's evolutionists simply adjust the tree to the new findings! So the falsifiability is flawed for two reasons.
1. It's circular, if the current tree is based on which skeleton was found in which area, then we cannot use those same finds to falsify the assumption.
2. The falsifiability is relative, because given small adjustments the theory can survive these "falsifications". That means they aren't really falsifications, a true falsification would render the theory indefenitly false.

Common decent, is supported by tons of evidence as stated before.

Yeah, we just haven't found it yet, but if we keep looking ^_^

Irreducibly complex. Pretty much this argument is one from incredulity. ( don’t knowhow this happened so god did it.)

Another straw men your fighting, the argument is not: "we don't know, so God must have done it". The argument is: 'It's impossible to have occured through the methods of the theory of evolution of the species.". I don't know if you're making up these strawmen on purpose, or wheter you're just having dificulties understanding the theories. But I'd advice you to be more carefull, especially since you have this arrogant you-know-nothing-about-this-so-listen-to-me attitude.

And since im not nearly as educated in this as actual scientist I have no problem posting links to resources that go over this.

and since you're not willing to make your homework, and since arguing by link isn't allowed in this forum according to the rules you agreed to, and since I have already pointed this out in the previous post, I'm not even going to waste my time.

Argument from comparison: The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another.
Im not sure where you got this argument, are you referring to morphology or those that have similar structures?

It's an assumption that runs like a silver lining throughout the whole theory. without it, many of the arguments and so called "evidence" fail completely.

Your argument that a designer could have also designed them fails without any evidence.

First of all, an argument doesn't fail because of a lack of evidence. A theory needs evidence to be considered scientific, an argument needs logic. Big distinction. Secondly, I never claimed that my alternative beliefs are scientific, I'm simply pointing out that neither is common descent scientific!

Not to mention a perfect being (god lets say) that has infin resources and infi time has no need to copy past designs when he can make better ones. We poor humans do.

Your argument is flawed. You assume that a copy of a design can't be perfect. this is of course ludacrous. The reason the design is so simular is because it's so perfect. So the perfect design for one specie is simular to the perfect design of the other specie. Just like how the perfect design for a bridge over one river would probably be very simular to the perfect design of the bridge over another river. The reason it is simular, is because simular criteria an problems require a simular perfect solution, and not because God would have to resort to copy out of shortage of designs.

Not only that but when you compare the we have fused dna that seems and odd way for a god to make us based off of chimps. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

Like I said simular requirements and goal require the solutions to be simular if both solutions should be perfect. It's not a question of basing one off the other, it's a question of getting simular results from a simular thoughtproces.

I think its an important question, if a perfect being made something wouldn’t it be perfect?
Surely it could make something perfect. Can you tell me how a perfect being can make imperfection?

I don't need to answer your question as it isn't really directed to me. I hold that all creation are perfect.

This simply goes that organs or structures have gotten reduced to no use. Not NO USE only.
Vestigial structures do exists.

No they don't each structure has and always had a function and again, stop arguing by link. If you're not going to take the time to write your own arguments and present them, I'm not going to take the time to refute every website on the web you can find. Not to mention again, it's against forum rules!

[ranma1/2]

I know that, and I don't oppose theories that come with evidence. I oppose theories that come without evidence. Theories that don't even deserve the name "theory" and are actually nothing but speculation. And if you prefer berkley's speculation, then that is a double standard.

then you accept the theory of evolution since it does have evidence.


No it doesn't my argument was very simple and didn't even talk about source, you're the one who brought the whole "oh you have a bad source"thing up so don't tell me its my failure.

well its clear that your source of information abotu evolution is a bad source since your understanding is heavily flawed.

Again trying to attack the arguer rather then the argument, very mature Ranma...

hi mr kettle.

Oh that's Bs and you know it. If your intention was really to educate me you would have sent me a Pm saying, here's an interesting link I'd like you to look at. You wouldn't have but into an argument and replied to the argument: "Here's a better source."

no, and since this is a public forum with others reading it it helps that they can go to the same locations and get the same info. I have given you a univeristy quailty source.

You're fighting a strawmen. Nowhere in that text does it say evolution=atheism.

no but its clear that your trying to associate atheism and evolution or why even have it there?

No that's where you are wrong. "Evolution" as a single word can refer to pretty much anything,
Yes, but when we are talking about evolution in the terms of The Theory of evolutoin it has a limited def. BUt im sure you know that.

like the evolution of language for example.
and we are not talking about that.

Biological evolution refers to any evolution slightly related to biology.
And evolution of the species, a term coined by darwin, only occurs like you said "after you already have life".

and can you have biology without life?


Again you're misinformed and you turn out to be the one not knowing anything about it. Walking to the fridge and walking to L.A. both take the same proces: walking
as does mirco and macro evo.

. Microevolution however uses a completely different proces as Macroevolution.
and that process is?

Don't be deceived, although in both cases we are dealing with mutations, macroevolution relies on a whole different class of mutations then microevolution does.

macro deals with an accumulation of mutations over a long period of time.

another anaology is counting.
micro. coutning 1 to 10.
macro 1-1,000,000,000,000,000
both use the same process, one jsut goes over a longer period of time.
...

That isn't evidence at all, the fossils, the DNA the geology supports my view just as well as your view!!!

how??
how do fossils, dna, geolgoy ect... support your view?

Fossils don't prove that one evolved out of the other. The only thing fossils prove is which animal was present at which area. How it got there is left completelty open to interpretation.

fossils, the age of the fossils, where they are found in geological layers all comibine to tell us when they likely existed.

DNA doesn't support anything. We have only mapped DNA for 4 species, let alone done an in depth analysis of DNA comparison of first cell to human. every single piece of so called "evidence" is completely open to interpretation. Just because evolutionsts prefer to interpret it their way doesn't make common descent provable.

sigh... i guess if you reject evidence you can say there is no evidence. We dont have to have completly mapped every species to do some basic comparisons. You seemed to ignore my link (source if you will) about human and ape fused chromosomes. "ah but your doing argument by links you say?, and if i posted every single thing this would be pages long. Stop with that silly argument and you can address the facts."


Again, you completely dropped the ball. The tree of descent is falsified all the time.

no its not. science corrects as we learn more but thats science. imagine once agian we ahve a huge puzzle with no picture but we can figure out roughly where peices go based on date, homological structures, dna ect..
as we get more peices we can better position those peices. We have yet to find a human peice next to a dinosaur.


However, every time we encounter a finding that contradicts previous tree's evolutionists simply adjust the tree to the new findings! So the falsifiability is flawed for two reasons.
Wait, news flash science corrects itself with new info. Duh.....
No scientists says this tree is set in stone. Lets go over this again.
Based on the data scientists have they place these puzzel pieces into as close to the correct spot that they can. As they gain more peices and more info they can more accuratly place these peices.
Your argument that jsut because we dont know exactly where these peices go since we dont knwo the exact picture makes the theory false is silly.

1. It's circular, if the current tree is based on which skeleton was found in which area, then we cannot use those same finds to falsify the assumption.
2. The falsifiability is relative, because given small adjustments the theory can survive these "falsifications". That means they aren't really falsifications, a true falsification would render the theory indefenitly false.


1. im not sure what your getting at here? the tree isnt based on one area but on knowledge about geolgy, dates, fossils, morphology ect....
2. precambrian bunnies would falsifiy the tree. falsifiable doesnt mean it has to be proven false but there are criteria for making it false.



Another straw men your fighting, the argument is not: "we don't know, so God must have done it". The argument is: 'It's impossible to have occured through the methods of the theory of evolution of the species.".

no your argument is that you dont see how these things can have evolved and therefore god must have made it. Behe tried this and was shot down. To date there is no IR structure out there.



Your argument is flawed. You assume that a copy of a design can't be perfect.

No, i assume that a perfect being can make a better design that exactly made to be perfect. (not to mention thefact that we are not perfectly designed so its obvious we were not made perfectly).

this is of course ludacrous. The reason the design is so simular is because it's so perfect.
show us this perfection you speak of. (why for instance did god give us the inability to produce vitamin C.)

So the perfect design for one specie is simular to the perfect design of the other specie.
show us this perfection. why are our perfect spines made for walking on all 4s and not made perfectly for walking upright? why does our perfect design require most humans to get their overcrowding molars removed? why does our perfect design have an appendix that has only a minor function from that of others?

Just like how the perfect design for a bridge over one river would probably be very simular to the perfect design of the bridge over another river. The reason it is simular, is because simular criteria an problems require a simular perfect solution, and not because God would have to resort to copy out of shortage of designs.

the reason human designed bridges are similar is because we have limited resources and knowledge. A being with perfect knowledge, unlimited resources and time has no excuse.


I don't need to answer your question as it isn't really directed to me. I hold that all creation are perfect.
that perfect cancer killing thousands all over the world.
that perfect aids killing children. that perfect storm , plaque, dead baby, crazy nutjob, lunatic ect... Gods got a screwed up sense of perfection.
perfect 1/20 eyesite, perfect heart attacks, perfect back problems, perfectly deluded ect....

No they don't each structure has and always had a function and again, stop arguing by link.
the link you ignored provided you a source on what vestigial structures are. You know provideding sources to your homework is usually required in school. I always try to do that. Vestigial structures are structures of reduced function. The appendix, human body hair, ostrick wings ect.. are structures that have reduced function from the past. (tell me when you see an ostrich fly)

If you're not going to take the time to write your own arguments and present them, I'm not going to take the time to refute every website on the web you can find. Not to mention again, it's against forum rules!

im sorry that your excuse is that you dont want to. But once again im provideding you the resources to better educate yourself on what

evolutoin is
macro evolution is
micro evolutoin is
vestigial structures is ect..

your posts clearly show that you have been misinformed.

[Abdul Fattah]

then you accept the theory of evolution since it does have evidence.

No, some sub theories have evidence. Evolution is a term refering to many theories, some of them proven some of them unproven. Some of them I accept some of them I do not, is this really so hard to understand? You'd think that after a few posts you'd get the picture...

well its clear that your source of information abotu evolution is a bad source since your understanding is heavily flawed.

No, it's not clear at all. All you've done is slander me, and posted links. My understanding is flawed according to your judgement. I counter that it is in fact your understanding that is flawed, this isn't getting us anywhere. Again, you'd do well to drop the arrogance.

Again trying to attack the arguer rather then the argument, very mature Ranma...
hi mr kettle.

The difference is I am in defending myself, so don't you try turning the tables on me.

no, and since this is a public forum with others reading it it helps that they can go to the same locations and get the same info. I have given you a univeristy quailty source.

Regardless, it still remains a reply to my argument, you quoted my argument. Said that it was wrong without stating why and droppped the link. That is arguing by links, so don't tell me that was not what you were doing.

no but its clear that your trying to associate atheism and evolution or why even have it there?

That is your interpretation. It is not clear that I'm trying to associate one with the other. And neither is that my intention. I put it there because it's a common misconception and a common argument. Learn to let go of the strawmans when they burn up ranma, lest you get blisters on your hands.

Biological evolution refers to any evolution slightly related to biology.
And evolution of the species, a term coined by darwin, only occurs like you said "after you already have life".
and can you have biology without life?

No, and I never said you would need biology without life. Fact still remains abiogenesis is part of biological evolution, but not part of evolution of the species. Your counter of biology without life doesn't change anything to that.

macro deals with an accumulation of mutations over a long period of time.

No, wrong. an accumulation of the simple mutations of microevolution cannot explain macroevolution. We're dealing with a different class of mutations there. So your analogy is flawed.

how??
how do fossils, dna, geolgoy ect... support your view?

How do they not? The point is they are indifferent to which of both views are right. That means, they cannot be put forth as evidence for either.

fossils, the age of the fossils, where they are found in geological layers all comibine to tell us when they likely existed.

Yes that's exactly what I said. But I don't necesairly disagree on which animal existed when and where. What I disagree on, is how some of them origenated.

sigh... i guess if you reject evidence you can say there is no evidence.

Sigh... i guess if you can reject it, that means it's not really evidence in the first place.

We dont have to have completly mapped every species to do some basic comparisons.

what you are refering to here is not genotype comparison but fenotype comparison. When we do a basic comparison, we don't compare DNA but karyotypes! (all this is actually on the single page you briefly refuted it amazes me that it seems like all this info went straight trough you, did you actually read the stuff or skimmed trough the text looking for possible mistakes to try and discredit me). Anyway, back on topic: Karyotypes. They are fomed by the histones that wind up DNA into chromosones. So in fact that's not evidence from genetics, thats comparing phenotypes and saying: "If two things look alike one must have origened from the other"

You seemed to ignore my link (source if you will) about human and ape fused chromosomes. "ah but your doing argument by links you say? and if i posted every single thing this would be pages long. Stop with that silly argument and you can address the facts."

Yes of course, you think I'm gonna take the time to read every link some absolute stranger posts on a forum? Let me explain how this really works. If you know what you're talking about, and know what is in the links, you should be able to formulate the gist of it in a couple of sentences. Then you may leave the link merely for the purpose of checking up. If that's to much work for you, then don't get into the wet works.

no its not. science corrects as we learn more but thats science.

Yes I understand that, but this shows why your falsification isn't really a falsification. The falsification only falsifies a very specific tree, that can easily be abandoned without abandoning the main idea of common descent. So in fact, these very specific trees are falsifiable (and they are falsified all the time); but the concept of common descent itself is not falsifiable at all. your story about the puzzles is all very exciting, but that doesn't change the fact, this puzzle isn't falsifiable.

Wait, news flash science corrects itself with new info. Duh.....

Yeah well news flash, it's not science thats at stake here. DUH...

No scientists says this tree is set in stone.

Yes, exactly! That proves that the falsifiability is a pipe dream, because falsifing the tree doesn't falsify common descent one bit.

Your argument that jsut because we dont know exactly where these peices go since we dont knwo the exact picture makes the theory false is silly.

No, my argument is not that it is false, my argument is that it is not falsifiable. You constantly fighting strawmen arguments, that's what silly.

1. im not sure what your getting at here? the tree isnt based on one area but on knowledge about geolgy, dates, fossils, morphology ect....

Which animal goes where in the tree is decided based on archeologic finds. So you can't use those same findings to falsifiy the theory.

no your argument is that you dont see how these things can have evolved and therefore god must have made it. Behe tried this and was shot down. To date there is no IR structure out there.

Stop trying to tell me what argument I'm making. The argument is: "There exist irreducible complex structures that could not have been made trough simple biological evolution alone." By which method it then did origenate I leave completely to your discretion. I find it sufficient to show the flaws in the theory, I feel no need to argue in favor for any alternatives. So my argument is, wheter you like that or not, what I say it is.

No, i assume that a perfect being can make a better design that exactly made to be perfect.

Yes, you assume so, whereas I assume that the existing design is already perfect and by defenition no better one exists. By what authority are your assumption superior to mine? To the extend even that based on these assumptions of you, you can arrogantly insult me for being ignorant?

(not to mention thefact that we are not perfectly designed so its obvious we were not made perfectly).

Or so you claim, whereas I hold that we are obviously perfect. But just holding an opinion doesn't make it true, so if you want your argument to be valid you'll need to prove that we are indeed not perfectly designed. Otherwise your argument is a slippery slope.

show us this perfection you speak of.

I don't need to show you, I'm taking the defensive position here, and the benefit of the doubt is sufficient for me. You're the one that needs imperfection to be showned if you want your arguments to hold ground.

(why for instance did god give us the inability to produce vitamin C.)

Because he didn't need to give us that ability. Because he wanted humans to constantly need food, not only vitamins, byt various foods. To remind them of the many bountys mankind has been given around him, and to remind him of his dependency on God's blessings. Just because you would prefer a design with the ability to produce vitamin C doesn't mean thta it would have fitted more perfectly in God's plans.

why are our perfect spines made for walking on all 4s and not made perfectly for walking upright?

Our spines are not made for walking on all fours, where did you get that idea? I challenge you to walk on hands and feet for a year, if you think that's what your anatomy suggests you to do. We'll see what your spine will have to say to that. And no, our spine is not made to walk up "perfectly' straight, but instead made in an angle, so that it would be easier for mankind to humble himself and harder for him to walk in pride. See even that's a blessing from God, it's pure perfection.

why does our perfect design require most humans to get their overcrowding molars removed?

The overcrowding of molars is not the standard. The design of the mounth is perfect. And many people have a mouth according to that design. However some people their mouths aren't according to these standard designs. This however doesn't mean the design itself is imperfect. That would make just as much sense as saying that blind people are proof that eyes have a bad design.

why does our perfect design have an appendix that has only a minor function from that of others?

It is there because it has a function. To you it might seem as a minor function, but that is not the issue here. Certainly perfection does not imply that ever single organ needs to have the exact same value. That would be an odd criteria for perfection.

the reason human designed bridges are similar is because we have limited resources and knowledge.

Wheter or not bridgedesigns are perfect or not is not the issue. The issue is that the best solution for one problem is often simular to the best solution for a simular problem. Or in simpler terms: "if it aint broken, don't fix it. You're assuming that perfection would be something exotic and extravagant and most importantly, something thta is very distinct and different for each other creature. Why would the perfect design for creature X need to be so different from the perfect design of creature Y? If both creature X and Y have the same function on earth, and are created for teh same purpose, why would your criteria for perfection be hat they are completely different from one another?

A being with perfect knowledge, unlimited resources and time has no excuse.

There is nothing that requires an excuse in the first place.

that perfect cancer killing thousands all over the world. that perfect aids killing children. that perfect storm , plaque,

Again, you are the one with an odd defenition and criteria for perfection. You're saying that God didn't create perfection bacause we're mortal? God wants to test us with a temporal life on earth, and give us a body for it. And your argument is that God screwed up by giving us a mortal body for this short period of time rather then giving us an immortal body for this period of time? Obviously death is a vital part of testing mankind on earth.

crazy nutjob, lunatic ect...

these are the results of free will, so now God screwed up by giving us free will.

You know provideding sources to your homework is usually required in school. I always try to do that.

Oh, so when you do your homework, do you give your teacher a piece of paper full of URL's; or do they want you to write your own report and provide the sources merely as back up so they could fact-check that what you say is indeed true?

The appendix, human body hair, ostrick wings ect.. are structures that have reduced function from the past. (tell me when you see an ostrich fly).

The appendix is not a vestigal organ and still has the same function it has always had.
Body hair is vestigal, but not due to evolution. It has been rendered vestigal due to social advancement, clothing!
As for ostriches; my argument was to discredit arguments in favor of evolution from apes to man. Since I believe man did not evolve from aper, I do not believe we carry any vestigal organs reminant from the apes. That doesn't mean however I can't accept ostriches having vestigal organs from evolving from other animals.

im sorry that your excuse is that you dont want to.

No, you're the one who doesn't want to do it and expects me to do his homework for you.

But once again im provideding you the resources to better educate yourself on what evolutoin is macro evolution is
micro evolutoin is vestigial structures is ect..

No, you're assuming that I am wrong without giving me the benefit of the doubt. That is pure arrogance. In debate it's considered courtacy to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. What you are saying is; "You're clearly wrong, and anything that you haven't brought up yet or that we haven't debated will defenitly be explained in that link, because the posibility that I am wrong doesn't exist. Obviously I'm not going to play that game. If you want to come in here and attack my posts and insult me for stupid, you'll have to either present your case or back out and apologise. I'm not going to refute every site you can find on google for you to weasel out.

your posts clearly show that you have been misinformed.

Your posts clearly show that you haven't payed close attention to anything I'm saying because your arrogance makes you dismiss any argument make before you even consider it.

[ranma1/2]

No, some sub theories have evidence. Evolution is a term refering to many theories, some of them proven some of them unproven. Some of them I accept some of them I do not, is this really so hard to understand? You'd think that after a few posts you'd get the picture...

why dont you be more clear then.
state which theories so there is no confusion.

..
That is your interpretation. It is not clear that I'm trying to associate one with the other. And neither is that my intention. I put it there because it's a common misconception and a common argument. Learn to let go of the strawmans when they burn up ranma, lest you get blisters on your hands.

i dont see how it was even related to evolution so it appears you were trying to make some sort of relation to it. If not fine. I gave my opinion.

No, and I never said you would need biology without life. Fact still remains abiogenesis is part of biological evolution
No its not. abiogensis may be a part of chemical evolutoin but not of biological. You cant have biology without life.

No, wrong. an accumulation of the simple mutations of microevolution cannot explain macroevolution. We're dealing with a different class of mutations there. So your analogy is flawed.

no we are talking about mutations over time. small changes eventually leading to entirely differnt properties. 1+1+1+1+1... you will eventually get to a billion.

How do they not? The point is they are indifferent to which of both views are right. That means, they cannot be put forth as evidence for either.
one is supported theother isnt.


Yes that's exactly what I said. But I don't necesairly disagree on which animal existed when and where. What I disagree on, is how some of them origenated.
and why do you disagree? religion.

...

what you are refering to here is not genotype comparison but fenotype comparison. When we do a basic comparison, we don't compare DNA but karyotypes! (all this is actually on the single page you briefly refuted it amazes me that it seems like all this info went straight trough you, did you actually read the stuff or skimmed trough the text looking for possible mistakes to try and discredit me).

actually i was referring to the fusion of our chromosomes. ill let you discredit yourself.

Anyway, back on topic: Karyotypes. They are fomed by the histones that wind up DNA into chromosones. So in fact that's not evidence from genetics, thats comparing phenotypes and saying: "If two things look alike one must have origened from the other"

sigh.. you dont have any undestanding of hte significance do you?


Yes of course, you think I'm gonna take the time to read every link some absolute stranger posts on a forum?

Yes I understand that, but this shows why your falsification isn't really a falsification. The falsification only falsifies a very specific tree, that can easily be abandoned without abandoning the main idea of common descent. So in fact, these very specific trees are falsifiable (and they are falsified all the time); but the concept of common descent itself is not falsifiable at all. your story about the puzzles is all very exciting, but that doesn't change the fact, this puzzle isn't falsifiable.

ok so your falisfication is that one peice is in the wrong spot. fine i agree with that. that one peice being in the wrong spot falsifies the entire tree no.

Yes, exactly! That proves that the falsifiability is a pipe dream, because falsifing the tree doesn't falsify common descent one bit.

falsifing part of the tree means part of the tree have been falsified. (and thus pruned). And usually a newer better model is then put it in its place.
(i seem to get the impression that you think cause we update the model as we learn the entire thing is bunk.)

No, my argument is not that it is false, my argument is that it is not falsifiable. You constantly fighting strawmen arguments, that's what silly.

it is falsibable, it just so happens that there is currently nothing out there to falsify it. LIke i said bunnies in the cambrian layer woudl do it. HUmans with dinosaurs.

Which animal goes where in the tree is decided based on archeologic finds. So you can't use those same findings to falsifiy the theory.

you mean that animal A is found to be older than anima G and G is never found in the same time period as A then we cant falsify it? Im pretty sure if we found G before or with A then that would go to falsifying it.
Humans found in the precambrian era would do too.

Stop trying to tell me what argument I'm making. The argument is: "There exist irreducible complex structures that could not have been made trough simple biological evolution alone." By which method it then did origenate I leave completely to your discretion. I find it sufficient to show the flaws in the theory, I feel no need to argue in favor for any alternatives. So my argument is, wheter you like that or not, what I say it is.

what structures are there? I know of any structures that have been deemed IC.


Yes, you assume so, whereas I assume that the existing design is already perfect and by defenition no better one exists. By what authority are your assumption superior to mine?

well lets look at flaws in the design, if there are flaws then thats a certain lack of perfection. If perhaps you were to define what you mean by perfection we can clear up this confusion. For me a perfect design would work perfectly. (without problems or errors) It would not break down, it could not be improved upon.(need for glasses) Perfection woudl be somthing that you could not add or subtract from to make better. Perfection would be something that does not create imperfection. Of course these are my ideas and i dont think its possible for perfection to exists. Now perhaps you can show how perfection can beget imperfection.


To the extend even that based on these assumptions of you, you can arrogantly insult me for being ignorant?
Im simply pointing out your understanding of evolution being different than the accepted understanding in the scientific community.
Or so you claim, whereas I hold that we are obviously perfect. But just holding an opinion doesn't make it true, so if you want your argument to be valid you'll need to prove that we are indeed not perfectly designed. Otherwise your argument is a slippery slope.
Ive shown with in reason that we are not perfect. (im sure you have noticed my missspellings and your own) that in itself should be enough. the fact that many of us have to wear some sort of corrective lenses to see properly. The fact that we die ect...

Now why dont you provide evidence that we are perfect. (prove your claim to a reasonable degree.)


I don't need to show you, I'm taking the defensive position here, and the benefit of the doubt is sufficient for me. You're the one that needs imperfection to be showned if you want your arguments to hold ground.
You do need to show your positive claim. The burden of proof is the one making the positive claim.
similarly if i were to claim i was god its not your burden to prove i am not god but mine to prove i am.

Because he didn't need to give us that ability. Because he wanted humans to constantly need food, not only vitamins, byt various foods.

sounds like an imperfection to me. why i bet a human that didnt need to eat, or need vitman c is certainly better than one that does.

To remind them of the many bountys mankind has been given around him, and to remind him of his dependency on God's blessings.

wouldnt a perfect creation not need to be reminded?

Just because you would prefer a design with the ability to produce vitamin C doesn't mean thta it would have fitted more perfectly in God's plans.


Our spines are not made for walking on all fours, where did you get that idea?
odd thing called evolution.

I challenge you to walk on hands and feet for a year, if you think that's what your anatomy suggests you to do. We'll see what your spine will have to say to that. And no, our spine is not made to walk up "perfectly' straight, but instead made in an angle, so that it would be easier for mankind to humble himself and harder for him to walk in pride. See even that's a blessing from God, it's pure perfection.

lol, oh our imperfect spines are made to perfectly worship right? our spines evolved from those originally ment to walk on all fours. (i should have been clearer my imperfect mistake.)

The overcrowding of molars is not the standard. The design of the mounth is perfect. And many people have a mouth according to that design. However some people their mouths aren't according to these standard designs. This however doesn't mean the design itself is imperfect. That would make just as much sense as saying that blind people are proof that eyes have a bad design.
Seems to be a major flaw to me. and yes blind people are evidence that humans are notperfectly designed.

It is there because it has a function. To you it might seem as a minor function, but that is not the issue here. Certainly perfection does not imply that ever single organ needs to have the exact same value. That would be an odd criteria for perfection.

Once agian please define perfection. I think a fair one is something that can not be improved on by taking or adding to , and can not create imperfection.


WhetHer or not bridge(space)designs are perfect or not is not the issue. The issue is that the best solution for one problem is often simular to the best solution for a simular problem. Or in simpler terms: "if it aint broken, don't fix it.

for us humanswith limited resources yes. but a good enough is not a perfect design. Or are you saying god is lazy? Could you explain then why god didnt make one pefect design for wings rather than several almost evolved looking forms (insects, birds, bats, gliders ect...)

You're assuming that perfection would be something exotic and extravagant and most importantly, something thta is very distinct and different for each other creature.
no. your saying that. im simply pointing out that we are not perfectly designed beings.


Why would the perfect design for creature X need to be so different from the perfect design of creature Y? If both creature X and Y have the same function on earth, and are created for teh same purpose, why would your criteria for perfection be That they are completely different from one another?
why should they appear to have evolved, why do certain structures vary depending on how they (evolved, wings. birds, bees, bats, gliders ect..)
....


Again, you are the one with an odd defenition and criteria for perfection. You're saying that God didn't create perfection bacause we're mortal?
well death does seem to be a big imperfection.

God wants to test us with a temporal life on earth, and give us a body for it. And your argument is that God screwed up by giving us a mortal body for this short period of time rather then giving us an immortal body for this period of time? Obviously death is a vital part of testing mankind on earth.
Obviously. (im not sure how to do therolly eye smily)


these are the results of free will, so now God screwed up by giving us free will.
no many of these are the result of brain disorders. and once again to hit on perfectoin. cant god make a being with free will that doesnt do bad? or is he not thatperfect?


Oh, so when you do your homework, do you give your teacher a piece of paper full of URL's; or do they want you to write your own report and provide the sources merely as back up so they could fact-check that what you say is indeed true?
im not writing a paper to a teacher.


The appendix is not a vestigal organ and still has the same function it has always had.
Body hair is vestigal, but not due to evolution. It has been rendered vestigal due to social advancement, clothing!
appendix is vestigial and as a matter of fact some people are born without it these days. Human body hair has become vestigial. It has reduced in size and no longer serves thesame function it once did. ( we do have as i recall the same number of folicles as our ape cousins "roughly")

As for ostriches; my argument was to discredit arguments in favor of evolution from apes to man.
why apes to man? personal reasons? do you think ostriches can fly or are they reduced function? (still keeps them warm, mating, fighting ect.. but no flying)

Since I believe man did not evolve from aper, I do not believe we carry any vestigal organs reminant from the apes. That doesn't mean however I can't accept ostriches having vestigal organs from evolving from other animals.
sounds like a personal issue then that is in conflict with science and knowledge.

..
No, you're assuming that I am wrong without giving me the benefit of the doubt. That is pure arrogance.
No im letting your words show that you are wrong.

In debate it's considered courtacy to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. What you are saying is; "You're clearly wrong, and anything that you haven't brought up yet or that we haven't debated will defenitly be explained in that link, because the posibility that I am wrong doesn't exist.

and why is that? why should i give you benefit of the doubt that you understand evolutoin when you clearly dont? Now ihappily admit that i dont understand it perfectly either but im much closer than you are.

Obviously I'm not going to play that game. If you want to come in here and attack my posts and insult me for stupid, you'll have to either present your case or back out and apologise. I'm not going to refute every site you can find on google for you to weasel out.
Sure whatever you want. Those darn universities are shaking in their pillars..


Your posts clearly show that you haven't payed close attention to anything I'm saying because your arrogance makes you dismiss any argument make before you even consider it.

well to be honest i admit i may have missed something (work and internet are poor bedfellows) but i m pretty sure ive gotten the gyst of it.


Oh and one more time. please define prefection. ;)

[Abdul Fattah]

why dont you be more clear then. state which theories so there is no confusion.

I do believe in micro-evolution and macro-evolution, however I do have some reservations for the last, because I think there's still a lot of work in there and misconceptions that need to be straightened out.
I don't believe in common descent and abiogenesis.

i dont see how it was even related to evolution so it appears you were trying to make some sort of relation to it. If not fine. I gave my opinion.

It's related only in the sense that often when debating with layman evolutionists, they tend to bring this up. So the paragraph was only in anticipation of them.

No its not. abiogensis may be a part of chemical evolutoin but not of biological. You cant have biology without life.

The line between chemical evolution and biological is blurred. Both theories overlap. To give an example, consider the debate on whether or not a virus is a living organism. Certainly the origin of life is a matter that is thought in biology classes on universities in here, and not in chemistry classes.

no we are talking about mutations over time. small changes eventually leading to entirely differnt properties. 1+1+1+1+1... you will eventually get to a billion.

Well; lets consider the normal mutations we deal with in micro evolution. For example a cross mutation where one RNA string that says "blue eyes + blond hair", and another that says "brown eyes + brown hair get mutated into two different RNA-strands, one saying "blue eyes + brown hair" and "brown eyes + blond hair". A summation of a thousand of those cross mutations cannot account for a creature with 12 chromosomes to evolve into a creature with 14 chromosomes. That would require a different kind of mutation to take place (for example the kind of mutation where 1 RNA strands gets cut into two halves and both halves are adapted as a chromosome and wound up by histones). It's a completely different class of mutations.

How do they not? The point is they are indifferent to which of both views are right. That means, they cannot be put forth as evidence for either. one is supported theother isnt.

You missed my point, my point is that fossils, geology, DNA, only support for example which animal lift where and when. It doesn't support how they got there and this "evidence" is as much compatible with your views as it is with mine.

and why do you disagree? religion.

1. At first, back when I was an atheist I believed in common descent, but as I learned more about it I started questioning it. That was before I converted; so no my motivation is not religion.
2. What my motivation is, is irrelevant here. Judge arguments by their logic, not by the motivation of the arguer.

actually i was referring to the fusion of our chromosomes. ill let you discredit yourself.

I know what you were referring to, my point is that you brought up chromosomes to defend your earlier statement that DNA is evidence for evolution. My counterargument is that there's a difference between DNA and chromosomes. And that the argument is thus not an argument from genetics, but rather an argument from morphology.

sigh.. you dont have any undestanding of hte significance do you?

It's importance is not what is being questioned here. What is being questioned here is whether or not this can be brought up as evidence. I showed how it flawed as evidence. That should also answer you question on how important it is.

falsifing part of the tree means part of the tree have been falsified. (and thus pruned). And usually a newer better model is then put it in its place. (i seem to get the impression that you think cause we update the model as we learn the entire thing is bunk.)

Then your impressions are wrong, what I am saying is merely this: The theory of common descent cannot be falsified. Perhaps the tree that is proposed by common descent can be falsified, but falsifying the tree doesn't falsify common descent itself ergo common descent is not falsifiable.

it is falsibable, it just so happens that there is currently nothing out there to falsify it. LIke i said bunnies in the cambrian layer would do it. HUmans with dinosaurs.

The falsification is unfair.
1. Said bunnies would only falsify the idea of in which era bunnies existed, it would not falsify common descent. I wouldn't be surprised if a new tree would be conjured that allows for precambrian bunnies in such a case.
2. A falsification of a part of the theory cannot count as falsification for the entire theory. My argument has been that common descent is not falsifiable. It hasn't been that the tree of common descent isn't falsifiable, there's a big difference there.

you mean that animal A is found to be older than anima G and G is never found in the same time period as A then we cant falsify it?

You can falsify the very specific idea that that one animal is older then then that specific other one. But this falsification does not fit the criteria to falsify the theory itself. To give an analogy:

1. I have a rock that makes all unicorns on earth invisible.
2. I observe that there aren't any unicorns around.
3. If there would any unicorns visible on earth, while my rock is still existing, my theory would be falsified.
4. Out of (3) follows that theory (1) is falsifiable.

The presence of visible unicorns would indeed falsify theory(1). However, this does not count as falsification. Just because something would falsify something, doesn't mean that the theory itself is falsifiable. The standard for "falsifiable theory" is a bit higher. why? Because the falsification could also be interpreted for a much simpler theory: "There exist no unicorns". If there is consensus on the non-existence of unicorns, the falsification is useless. In analogy, the presence of precambrian bunnies would falsify a much simpler theory: "there exist no precambrian bunnies" something there is consensus on between both proponents as opponents of common descent. The falsification is thus flawed and the theory doesn't deserve the title "falsifiable" based on it.

Im pretty sure if we found G before or with A then that would go to falsifying it.
Humans found in the precambrian era would do too.

Yeas and I'm pretty sure that the afterlife will falsify atheism, but that doesn't mean atheism should be considered falsifiable.

what structures are there? I know of any structures that have been deemed IC.

There are numerous ones.
On biochemical level: ribosomes, Golgi apparatus, mitochondria, centrioles within centrosomes, flaggella's,...
On organ level: eyes, ears, noses, stomaches, kidneys ...
On system level: reproductive system, digestive system, blood circularly system, breathing system, ability to walk, ability to fly

well lets look at flaws in the design, if there are flaws then thats a certain lack of perfection. If perhaps you were to define what you mean by perfection we can clear up this confusion. ... Now perhaps you can show how perfection can beget imperfection.

Since the argument goes, if god is perfect he should have created us in a perfect state, then your definition of perfection is inappropriate here. Given the opening argument, perfection creation should mean: "A creation most fitting for to purpose of our creation"

To the extend even that based on these assumptions of you, you can arrogantly insult me for being ignorant?
I'm simply pointing out your understanding of evolution being different than the accepted understanding in the scientific community.

Obviously I am aware that I have different views then the mainstream scientific community. I'm simply trying to point out how the views of this mainstream scientific community are sometimes un-scientific. Either way, regardless of what you are trying to point out, it does not justify attacking me personal trough the process.

Ive shown with in reason that we are not perfect. (im sure you have noticed my missspellings and your own) that in itself should be enough. the fact that many of us have to wear some sort of corrective lenses to see properly. The fact that we die ect...

I think you'll grant that this argument fails under the new interpretation of perfect (perfect creation, as most fitting for the purpose of our creation) that I have brought in one of the previous argument?

I don't need to show you, I'm taking the defensive position here, and the benefit of the doubt is sufficient for me. You're the one that needs imperfection to be showned if you want your arguments to hold ground.
You do need to show your positive claim. The burden of proof is the one making the positive claim.
similarly if i were to claim i was god its not your burden to prove i am not god but mine to prove i am.

Ah, I think you have lost track of the origin of this issue.

You: common descent has evidence.
Me: no it doesn't, all the evidence does is who which creature lived when, it doesn't show how it origenated. These evidences don't rule out the probability of creation, or any other method for that matter, so they aren't really evidence.
You: but creation is impossible because our design is imperfect

It is thus your argument on the line, and your burden of proof.

sounds like an imperfection to me. why i bet a human that didnt need to eat, or need vitman c is certainly better than one that does. wouldnt a perfect creation not need to be reminded?

Again I think these are both countered by the "perfect for its purpose" argument.

Olol, oh our imperfect spines are made to perfectly worship right? our spines evolved from those originally ment to walk on all fours. (i should have been clearer my imperfect mistake.)

Whether or not the shape of our spine is a remnant of evolution is strictly speculation. Either way it doesn't render the spine as imperfect, unless of course you could prove us that we'd be better of with a straight spine? However in your evidence, you'd have to consider things as: would a straight spine not cause a higher number of spine injurys during lifting of objects? Wouldn't a straight spine wear out more since gravity pulls it together whereas a bend spine divides the force over angles? Wouldn't a straight spine cause more vanity in the world, and along with it, more arguing and jealousy and hate? See it's one thing to say: "I think this is imperfect because I don't like it", but it's a whole other thing to say: "this is not perfect because this alternative is better".

Seems to be a major flaw to me. And yes blind people are evidence that humans are notperfectly designed.

Blind people are evidence that people aren't perfect, I never claimed peopel are perfect, I claimed the human design is perfect for Gods plans.

for us humanswith limited resources yes. but a good enough is not a perfect design. Or are you saying god is lazy? Could you explain then why god didnt make one pefect design for wings rather than several almost evolved looking forms (insects, birds, bats, gliders ect...)

By your narrow definition of perfection, in the end only one creature would inhabit earth, since only one could (by your standards) be perfect. You really need to see the bigger system. Like the ecological systems of how one creature easily becomes bait to the other.

God wants to test us with a temporal life on earth, and give us a body for it. And your argument is that God screwed up by giving us a mortal body for this short period of time rather then giving us an immortal body for this period of time? Obviously death is a vital part of testing mankind on earth.
Obviously. (im not sure how to do therolly eye smily)

So I take it you're sticking to your argument? Ok then, prove to me that this alternative plan, where God would have created us immortal would have been better. Mind that your evidence has to take into consideration that God wanted to test us, so the transitions of those who's time on earth has ended may not be obvious to those remaining.

these are the results of free will, so now God screwed up by giving us free will.
no many of these are the result of brain disorders. and once again to hit on perfectoin. cant god make a being with free will that doesnt do bad? or is he not thatperfect?

You're asking for four-sided triangles. Not allowing us to do bad things defeats free will.

I'm not writing a paper to a teacher.

I never said you were, I merely pointed out that your analogy was flawed.

appendix is vestigial and as a matter of fact some people are born without it these days.

Some people are born with only 9 toes for example, but that doesn't mean the 10th is vestigial.

Human body hair has become vestigial. It has reduced in size and no longer serves thesame function it once did. ( we do have as i recall the same number of folicles as our ape cousins "roughly")

Yes, I admitted that hair is vestigial in the previous post already, but I also said it has become vestigial due to civilization. It has nothing to do with evolution from man to ape. See your logic is completely circular. First you defend that we evolved from apes by claiming that we have vestigial organs, and then you defend that hair is in fact vestigial based on the assumption that we evolved from apes, and thus the hairs have become different then how they were. My counter: the way that the first humans were created there was nothing vestigial about their hair. Hair has only become vestigial due to technological advancements.

As for ostriches; my argument was to discredit arguments in favor of evolution from apes to man.
why apes to man? personal reasons?

The reason why I picked that specific link was mentioned in the page you so quickly refuted, apearently without reading it first.

do you think ostriches can fly or are they reduced function? (still keeps them warm, mating, fighting ect.. but no flying)

Like I said, I only oppose the theory of common descent. That means I oppose that all animals evolved from the same ancestral source. I don't oppose that some animals evolved from some others. That means it doesn't really matter in here whether or not ostriches have vestigial organs.

sounds like a personal issue then that is in conflict with science and knowledge.

Actually no, because there's nothing scientific about the parts of evolution that I reject. SO to me it sounds like common sense.

and why is that? why should i give you benefit of the doubt that you understand evolution when you clearly dont? Now ihappily admit that i dont understand it perfectly either but im much closer than you are.

In reverse of your views, I myself suspect that I know more about evolution then you do. The difference is, I'll give you a chance to defend your views and will not try to discredit your arguments by attacking you personal.

Sure whatever you want. Those darn universities are shaking in their pillars..

Again your mockery shows little respect. It was never my intention to make universities shiver in their pillars.

[ZarathustraDK]

I admit I didn't give much thought to the example. I took the first thing that entered my haead and messed up there. But nevertheless the argument still stands. The argument being that missing links is not as much a matter of finding bones out of every era, but more a matter of finding intermediate topology in bones. Which is a perfectly valid refutation for ZarathustraDK's earlier comment, regardless of my bad example.

The whole idea of 'finding intermediate topology' is senseless from a scientific point of view looking at creationists employing it. All a creationist will see when scientists find an 'intermediary species' is not an answer that will make them go "oh ok, you're right", no, it's simply a dividing the cake creating two more needs for intermediary species between the newfound one and the two already known ones. There is no such thing as a fossil of an ape in the process of mutating into a human, only gradual mutations over millions of years. The same way that you can't find a fossil of a soccer-match where one team is winning, you can only find a soccer-match where the teams are playing, or a soccer-match where one team has already won.

Some people seem to think that the fossils we have uncovered somehow constitute a platonic ideal of what X should look like at the time, and that they, because they were uncovered first, constitute some kind goal which every fossil thereafter must work towards. It's not, it's simply an organism who had the misfortune of being covered in sediments at that point in time. They didn't walk around thinking "Ah, I must remember that I must evolve towards being an elephant in the next 5 million years". Nope, **** happened, the bugger tripped into a river and got famous half a dozen million years later, that's all.

[Abdul Fattah]

The whole idea of 'finding intermediate topology' is senseless from a scientific point of view looking at creationists employing it. All a creationist will see when scientists find an 'intermediary species' is not an answer that will make them go "oh ok, you're right", no, it's simply a dividing the cake creating two more needs for intermediary species between the newfound one and the two already known ones.

Yeah well the thing is, rather then the gaps growing smaller, as you suggest, we actually see the opposite happening.

[ranma1/2]

rather than have each posts 5 miles long im going to open up some seperate threads for us to discuss.

check out the one on perfection.

[ranma1/2]

Yeah well the thing is, rather then the gaps growing smaller, as you suggest, we actually see the opposite happening.

um no we dont, we are becoming more aware of the puzzle and where the pieces fit.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi ranma

um no we dont, we are becoming more aware of the puzzle and where the pieces fit.

Well we already agreed on the fact that the tree suggested by common descent is constantly falsified by new findings and then altered accordingly. Well the things is, in most of those cases, the new finds actually suggest that there are even more intermediate species then first assumed. On the other hand almost none of these intermediate creatures have been found. So the conclusion would be that rather then the number of missing links growing smaller, they are indeed growing larger. And the picture that ZarathustraDK reply suggested, were the gaps are constantly "cut it in half" is not representative at all.

[ranma1/2]

Hi ranma


Well we already agreed on the fact that the tree suggested by common descent is constantly falsified by new findings and then altered accordingly. Well the things is, in most of those cases, the new finds actually suggest that there are even more intermediate species then first assumed. On the other hand almost none of these intermediate creatures have been found. So the conclusion would be that rather then the number of missing links growing smaller, they are indeed growing larger. And the picture that ZarathustraDK reply suggested, were the gaps are constantly "cut it in half" is not representative at all.

i strongly disgree, no scientists to my knowledge thinks "Hey we found the last one, or only 5 more to go." They know that there are concieveably as many intermediates as creatures born. As stated many times so far, we ahve a HUGE puzzle, we dont know the size of it. (how many peices) but as we find peices we get a better idea of the puzzle. We get closer to understand what the picture looks like.

on a side note if i understand your view correctly.
I find it intersting that you accept evoltuoi and common decent for everything but us humans.

Its like thinking the 208443893497 grain of sand in an hour glass had all of the others grains fall just for that one grain.

[Abdul Fattah]

i strongly disgree, no scientists to my knowledge thinks "Hey we found the last one, or only 5 more to go." They know that there are concieveably as many intermediates as creatures born. As stated many times so far, we ahve a HUGE puzzle, we dont know the size of it. (how many peices) but as we find peices we get a better idea of the puzzle. We get closer to understand what the picture looks like.

I don't think scientists think in terms of "5 to go" either. What I do think is that they form a general idea of how many significant mutations there should have been, and the more we discover the larger the number.

on a side note if i understand your view correctly.
I find it intersting that you accept evoltuoi and common decent for everything but us humans.

No, I reject common descent in it's totality. Ape to human isn't the only step I'm having troubles with. There's also one celled organism to multi celled ones, fish to reptile, reptile to bird, cold blooded to warm blooded, ...
I even doubt much smaller classes like common descent between feline and canine. In other words. I believe that many different creatures were created independently, and that out of those many creatures an even larger number of variations on those creatures evolved.

[MustafaMc]

No, I reject common descent in it's totality. Ape to human isn't the only step I'm having troubles with. There's also one celled organism to multi celled ones, fish to reptile, reptile to bird, cold blooded to warm blooded, ...

I am shocked! You mean that you don't believe that the cotton plant that I work with originated from the same "common ancestor" (that we assume to be unicellular and prokaryotic) that I evolved from completely by chance through random mutations and genetic drift as acted upon by natural selection?

My, my, my - have you got a lot to learn as this process is completely logical (so they say) to evolutionists. It seems to me that they have just as large of a "leap of faith" in the theory of evolution that we do in a Creator. I choose to believe that Allah created the different life forms and species - by what process and over what time period is irrelevant to me.

[ranma1/2]

I don't think scientists think in terms of "5 to go" either. What I do think is that they form a general idea of how many significant mutations there should have been, and the more we discover the larger the number.


No, I reject common descent in it's totality. Ape to human isn't the only step I'm having troubles with. There's also one celled organism to multi celled ones, fish to reptile, reptile to bird, cold blooded to warm blooded, ...
I even doubt much smaller classes like common descent between feline and canine. In other words. I believe that many different creatures were created independently, and that out of those many creatures an even larger number of variations on those creatures evolved.

ok so if you reject it totatlly then do you thin god poofed everything into existence at one time? Does it wait a couple years and poofs a new oneinto existence and hten another?

[MustafaMc]

ok so if you reject it totatlly then do you thin god poofed everything into existence at one time? Does it wait a couple years and poofs a new oneinto existence and hten another?

... and why is it important to explain away the origin of the species? The development of every single human being from a single egg fertilized by a single sperm is miraculous to me. All of the information that is required for the development of a completely unique organism is contained within a microscopic zygote. Yes, we have some knowledge of embryogenesis and how organisms of widely differing species look quite similar at the early stages and then they differentiate their own specific features. The reproduction of species over time is a self-replicating process that we have some knowledge of. We also have some knowledge about how species adapt to changing conditions in the environment. However, I contend that we have no scientific knowledge to support the macro changes that would have been required for a common ancestor to evolve into all of the divergent extant and extinct species without the direct involvement of a Creator. When I see the scientific evidence to support these claims, I will be glad to consider them.

[Abdul Fattah]

Yes, not all animals would have to have been created at the same time. I don't really see why this is an issue. Unless you're building to bring the argument: well the occurrence in time suggests one evolved from the other.
In which case my reply is:

1. No it's the other way around, the tree of common decent is based on which time which creature occurred
2. Even if it would, that's still speculation and interpretation.
3. There's many problems with that theory (example Cambrian explosion)

[ranma1/2]

what is wrong with the cambrian explosion?
the cambrian explosion is well understood in science.
That explosion is when some of the first fossilizable structure had first evolved.

[MustafaMc]

Yes, not all animals would have to have been created at the same time. I don't really see why this is an issue.

Yes, the assumption of an instantaneous event whereby all extant and extinct species were simultaneously created is a stumbling block. Real scientific knowledge does not challenge my faith. If anything my knowledge of the intricacies of genetics and molecular biology reinforces my faith in a Creator. If we come to the same level of scientific knowledge (instead of the current speculation) regarding evolution, I am sure that believers would continue to see the direction and control over the process by a Creator - if nothing else in its establishment.

As I implied earlier, the embryonic development of animals in their mother's womb could be a parable for the origin of the species. The "missing element" is the existence of the generic, primal nurturing womb, but it does address the issue of what came first - the chicken or the egg. For that matter, there could have been multiple primal zygotic "seeds" for the establishment of male and female as well as similar yet distinct species like horse/donkey/zebra, Asian elephant/African elephant/mastodon, human/chimpanzee/orangutan, saber-toothed tiger/lion/domestic cat, and wolf/domestic dog/coyote.

We can never go back in time to refute either this hypothesis of a "generic, primal womb" any more than we can refute "evolution" over eons of time or the instantaneous "creation" of living species.

[MustafaMc]

We can never go back in time to refute either this hypothesis of a "generic, primal womb" any more than we can refute "evolution" over eons of time or the instantaneous "creation" of living species.

Surely someone has a comment for this post. Have you ever heard the the saying, "Dazzle 'em with brilliance, or baffle 'em with B.S." Well, sometimes it is hard to distinguish between the two.:giggling:

[ranma1/2]

We can never go back in time to refute either this hypothesis of a "generic, primal womb" any more than we can refute "evolution" over eons of time or the instantaneous "creation" of living species.

im not clear on what your saying here.

In general i think science goes toward the less complicated answer as well as ones supported by evidence. Since adding in a ID is an unecessary step and that there is no evidnece for ID (or even a coherent idea/theory behind it) its discarded.

"real scientific knowledge is that like true science?"

[MustafaMc]

im not clear on what your saying here.

I quoted only a portion of a post on the previous page that hints at why we might call the planet we live on "Mother Earth." What I am saying is that we can't observe the evolution of each species from a basic, common ancestor, nor can we collect evidence to prove that it happened.

In general i think science goes toward the less complicated answer as well as ones supported by evidence.

As I have said before, my understanding of genetics, molecular biology and embryology all tie together into a nice logical thread. In contrast, my knowledge of the components of the evolutionary theory do not tie together into a logical thread.

Since adding in a ID is an unecessary step and that there is no evidnece for ID (or even a coherent idea/theory behind it) its discarded.

Yes, at present ID/Creationism does not provide a scientific explanation or theory for the origin of species.

"real scientific knowledge is that like true science?"

Not sure what you are getting at, but knowledge is distinct from the process used to gain it.

[Abdul Fattah]

In general i think science goes toward the less complicated answer as well as ones supported by evidence. Since adding in a ID is an unecessary step and that there is no evidnece for ID (or even a coherent idea/theory behind it) its discarded.
"real scientific knowledge is that like true science?"

The argument of Ockham’s razor is flawed here. Although I grant that at first sight the opponents of the anthropic theory can bring up Ockham’s razor since an explanation without a design is simpler then an explanation with a design; a more in depth analysis shows the flaws. The proponents can also be defended with Ockham’s razor because a purpose minded design seems much simpler then appointing the miraculous characteristics of the universe to nothing more then coincidence. That is because the term luck is a cover up. Luck indicate that something happened against expectations. Most of the time we use the terms like "luck", "randomness" or "chance" when we fail to include all factors that play a significant role in a process when predicting the outcome. So when one says that life is the result of luck that’s just another way of saying: we fail to comprehend all the factors that play a decisive role in it. So the contra argument covered up this need for a causal chain of events going back all the way to big bang by claiming life was mere luck. Now if we assume that there actually is such a causal chain of events that explains the universe's current qualities as results of intrinsic characteristics of whatever blew up during big bang, then and only then -according to Ockham’s razor- is the contra argument the more complex one; and hence less likely to be true. If on the other hand, this hypothetical explanation fails, then Ockham’s razor fails to. Because in such a case you are comparing an incomplete theory to a complete theory. Obviously the incomplete explanation will then be less complex; that doesn't mean it's more likely to be true, but simply that it is incomplete.

However this difference in judgement is not due to a paradoxical nature of Ockham’s razor, nor due to an inherited paradox in the anthropic theory. It is much rather the result of the two conflicting paradigms. To an atheist "design" seems like an unnecessary expansion of his worldview. Whereas to a theist the notion of “coincidence” look like an uncalled expansion of his world-view. So in conclusion I think both parties have to agree that the use of Ockham’s razor in this issue is inapt.

[ranma1/2]

...What I am saying is that we can't observe the evolution of each species from a basic, common ancestor, nor can we collect evidence to prove that it happened..

true we cant yet time travel but i think we can deduce with the evidence at hand, fossils, (genetics) dna, geology ect.. the time in which certain species have popped up over time and which are related to which.

[ranma1/2]

The argument of Ockham’s razor is flawed here. Although I grant that at first sight the opponents of the anthropic theory can bring up Ockham’s razor since an explanation without a design is simpler then an explanation with a design; a more in depth analysis shows the flaws. The proponents can also be defended with Ockham’s razor because a purpose minded design seems much simpler then appointing the miraculous characteristics of the universe to nothing more then coincidence.

the additional step is now you have to show how this designer came to being, so it becomes more complicated. Also which is more likely, the formation through a natural proccess of the universe or the formation of a infini more complex superbeing?.


.....this hypothetical explanation fails, then Ockham’s razor fails to. Because in such a case you are comparing an incomplete theory (?)to a complete theory(?). Obviously the incomplete explanation will then be less complex; that doesn't mean it's more likely to be true, but simply that it is incomplete.

However this difference in judgement is not due to a paradoxical nature of Ockham’s razor, nor due to an inherited paradox in the anthropic theory. It is much rather the result of the two conflicting paradigms. To an atheist "design" seems like an unnecessary expansion of his worldview. Whereas to a theist the notion of “coincidence” look like an uncalled expansion of his world-view. So in conclusion I think both parties have to agree that the use of Ockham’s razor in this issue is inapt.

Ocams razor is by no means the end all. However it is a good general tool.
And as stated, the additional step is now you have to show how this designer came to being, so it becomes more complicated. Also which is more likely, the formation through a natural proccess of the universe or the formation of a infini more complex superbeing?.

Im also notsure what theory was complete and which was not.

God did it ishardly a complete theory it is for the most part a non answer since ti doesnt answer how.

Evolutoin only covers why we have varitey of life.
abio is a theory that tries to explain how life started.
bigbang is on theory that tries to explain how this universe started.

[Abdul Fattah]

And as stated, the additional step is now you have to show how this designer came to being, so it becomes more complicated. Also which is more likely, the formation through a natural proccess of the universe or the formation of a infini more complex superbeing?.

I believe he was ever existing, so didn't need to come into existence.

God did it ishardly a complete theory it is for the most part a non answer since ti doesn't answer how.

It is complete in the sense that it tels you how you got from (a) to (b). Whereas contra anthropic theory tells you we started here and ended up there, but we're not sure about the middle. Of course the method of explanation is different because one is scientific and one is theological which of course makes comparison problematic. However you are the one who started using ockhams razor to compare scientific theories with theological ones. I was the one that said you can't use ockhams razor here.

Evolutoin only covers why we have varitey of life.
abio is a theory that tries to explain how life started.
bigbang is on theory that tries to explain how this universe started.

Yes, but when you brought up the antrophic principle, you brought up abio and big bang to since they go hand in hand. If you don't want to discus these and want to stick strictly to evolution, then you shouldn't have gone to the argument of the anthropic principle.

[ranma1/2]

I believe he was ever existing, so didn't need to come into existence.

ah that entire no evidence thing again. i propose that the universe has always existed in someway and thus its still simpler.

It is complete in the sense that it tels you how you got from (a) to (b).
It tells us nothing. Poof is not an explaination.

... Of course the method of explanation is different because one is scientific and one is theological which of course makes comparison problematic.
Well if we are talking about scientific explainationss then no not realy. If we are going on theological then i suggest the GFSM is a much simpler explaination.


Yes, but when you brought up the antrophic principle, you brought up abio and big bang to since they go hand in hand. If you don't want to discus these and want to stick strictly to evolution, then you shouldn't have gone to the argument of the anthropic principle.

yrou the one bringing up everythign else. Im stating that evo is not related to those. And Abio, Big Bang and Evo do not go hand in hand.

[Abdul Fattah]

ah that entire no evidence thing again. i propose that the universe has always existed in someway and thus its still simpler.

Well not exactly. I find an infinite universe far more problematic rather then simpler. According to fourdimensionalism, an infinitely old universe is also infinitely big (since it has an infinite number of temporal segments). The Case of God ever existing is completely different though. I believe that God has always existed, not because he is infinitely old over time, but rather because he is not bound by the dimension of time in the first place. See it's a completely different thing and the comparison doesn't go.

It tells us nothing. Poof is not an explaination.

I never said it explained how, it explains why. See the difference between theological/philosophical theories and scientific theories is that the former study why something happens whereas the latter studies how something happens. That doesn't mean that one is more "complete" then the other. I could just as well claim that science tells us nothing, since it can't explain why things happen which closes the loop and brings us right back to the anthropical argument. See how circular your paradigm is? I guess that's my cue to repeat myself and say: you can't make a comparison between those two and you definitely can't weigh them off against each other with ockham's razor.

Well if we are talking about scientific explainationss then no not realy.

I've already stated before, that I never claimed my point of view is scientific, my point is simply that certain parts of evolution aren't scientific either. If you're not gonna listen to me I'm gonna have to keep repeating myself ^_^

If we are going on theological then i suggest the GFSM is a much simpler explaination.

And you're welcome to believe it if you so desire. However I know you're smarter then that. You know just as well as I do, that the GFSM is an argument ad absurdum. It's sole purpose for existence is to point out to people that theological theories don't belong in science class. I for one agree 100% on that. And as I have repeatedly told you, I never claimed my alternatives were scientific, my point is simply that some parts of evolution aren't scientific either. So that you would bring up the GFSM argument against me, is not only an insult to my intelligence, but a rather cheap shot if you ask me.

yrou the one bringing up everythign else. And Abio, Big Bang and Evo do not go hand in hand.

I never said said: Abio big bang and evo go hand in hand with eachother.
Instead what I said was: Abio big bang and evo go hand in hand with the contra anthropic principle.
And yes you did bring up the contra anthropic principle when you started using ockhams razor to try and defeat ID. Seriously, you need start reading what I'm writing. 90% of all your replies come forth from your prejudges. you're not reading what I'm telling you you're reading what you're expecting to find.

[Chuck]

I've nothing against evolution, but what I don't like is some people take things in it as factual when they don't seem to be factual.

I'll mention some examples:
(1) Carl Woese's third domain. Thirty years ago, in 1977, Carl Woese proposed that Archaea are different from bacteria and constitute a new super-kingdom Archaebacteria, which saw huge opposition from Darwinist and thus was not received well in the scientific community. Ralph Wolfe a friend and colleague of Carl recalls: 'One Nobel Prize winner [in medicine], Salvador Luria, called me and said, 'Ralph, you're going to ruin your career. You've got to disassociate yourself from this nonsense!". Hostility, Woese said, was shocking. He was ridiculed and made fun of, called a crackpot, being neither a microbiologist or an evolutionist. Leading biologist thought he was crazy. But with the progress in molecular biology strong evidences came 20 to 30 years later, and scientist came to know he was right after all. And that changed the shape of tree of life that leading biologists were opposing at that time.

He faced opposition because he was challenging common decent, although he believed in evolution. Woese's data showed that there is not one ancestor of all life forms, but branch of roots. So if Darwinism means one cell as an ancestor of all life then Woese refuted Darwinism.

Sources:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...y/276/5313/699
http://www.amazon.com/Third-Domain-T.../dp/0309102375

(2) Non coding DNA. It was considered junk, a leftover of evolutionary progress without any function (or non essential functionality). And I remember arguments about it :rollseyes

Large swaths of garbled human DNA once dismissed as junk appear to contain some valuable sections, according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine and the University of California-Santa Cruz. The scientists propose that this redeemed DNA plays a role in controlling when genes turn on and off.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0423185538.htm

Genius of Junk is the story of how Malcolm Simons turned Junk into gold, enflaming one of the greatest controversies of our time - the control and ownership of our genetic material.

It is a story of triumph and tragedy. The triumph of a man flying in the face of conventional scientific thought, facing ridicule for his ideas and living to see those ideas vindicated. The tragedy of seeing his dreams come to fruition as he faces death. For he himself has cancer, Multiple Myeloma. A fatal and incurable cancer, formed in the very Junk DNA he spent 16 years exploring.

This is also a story of genius and character. Malcolm Simons had the genius to realise that the non-coding part of our DNA wasn’t in fact the junk DNA that many scientists had labelled it, but vital to the processes of life.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s898887.htm

[Tornado]

I've nothing against evolution, but what I don't like is some people take things in it as factual when they don't seem to be factual.

:? I had the impression that evolution was a fact, the mechanism by which it happened a theory. Perhaps i'm mistaken.

[Chuck]

:? I had the impression that evolution was a fact, the mechanism by which it happened a theory. Perhaps i'm mistaken.

Depends on what you are talking about in evolution. Evolution is a very broad subject, somethings are fact and somethings are theory.

[Tornado]

Depends on what you are talking about in evolution. Evolution is a very broad subject, somethings are fact and somethings are theory.

Evolution isn't really a broad subject. The happening of evolution (tree of life) I thought was a fact, while things like just how, say natural selection, specific things like graduated equilibrium and punctuated equilibrium would be the details that aren't considered fact.

[SixTen]

Id say natural selection is pretty factual nowadays in the scientific community. The only thing which is really in a heavy theory stage is abiogenesis.

[Chuck]

Id say natural selection is pretty factual nowadays in the scientific community. The only thing which is really in a heavy theory stage is abiogenesis.

Natural selection is factual, but natural selection doesn't explain everything. For example:

One class of programmed responses to stress has received very little attention by biologists. The stress signal induces cells of a plant to make a wholly new plant structure, and this to house and feed a developing insect, from egg to the emerging adult. A single Vitus plant, for example, may have on its leaves three or more distinctly different galls, each housing a different insect species. The stimulus associated with the placement of the insect egg into the leaf will initiate reprogramming of the plant's genome, forcing it to make a unique structure adapted to the needs of the developing insect. The precise structural organization of a gall that give it individuality must start with an initial stimulus, and each species provides its own specific stimulus. For each insect species the same distinctive reprogramming of the plant genome is seen to occur year-after-year. Some of the most interesting and elaborate plant galls house developing wasps. Each wasp species selects its own responding oak species, and the gall structure that is produced is special for each wasp to oak combination. All of these galls are precisely structured, externally and internally, as a rapid examination of them will show.

http://gos.sbc.edu/m/mcclintock.html

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Tornado and SixTen
As I've explained many times before in this topic. Evolution is not an accepted theory, evolution is not even a theory it's a word. A word which by itself is meaningless. Terminology is everything. since so many things evolve, evolution could refer to practically anything. The problem is, out of the whole lot of theories and hypothesis, some are true and some are false, but people tend to judge the totality of theories based on the strongest one, and assume that since some sub-theories are accepted and proven, that thus the whole 9 yard is genuine. I say, judge every theory by it's own merit. Then suddenly many parts of "evolution" won't even be considered scientific anymore.

[Tornado]

Hi Tornado and SixTen
As I've explained many times before in this topic. Evolution is not an accepted theory, evolution is not even a theory it's a word. A word which by itself is meaningless. Terminology is everything. since so many things evolve, evolution could refer to practically anything. The problem is, out of the whole lot of theories and hypothesis, some are true and some are false, but people tend to judge the totality of theories based on the strongest one, and assume that since some sub-theories are accepted and proven, that thus the whole 9 yard is genuine. I say, judge every theory by it's own merit. Then suddenly many parts of "evolution" won't even be considered scientific anymore.

Biological evolution isn't a theory? It's not the strongest theory that describes how life came to be, it's pretty much the only one. Point is, the idea that evolution of life happened, that's to say that all life is connected on a tree, I would regard as a fact. Forget terminology, do you think it happened? I don't see why you wouldn't since I don't think it's contradictory to what Islam teaches.

[Abdul Fattah]

The term biological evolution is ambiguous, that's why it's not to be considered as a theory.
To answer your question:
Do I believe in abiogenesis? No
Do I believe in microevolution? Yes
Do I believe in macroevolution? Neutral, not convinced but not against either..
Do I believe in common descent? No

[Tornado]

The term biological evolution is ambiguous, that's why it's not to be considered as a theory.
To answer your question:
Do I believe in abiogenesis? No
Do I believe in microevolution? Yes
Do I believe in macroevolution? Neutral, not convinced but not against either..
Do I believe in common descent? No

Forget abiogenesis, that has nothing to do with evolution.

Micro evolution and but not macro? Micro+Micro...=/=Macro? Kind of disappointed by that answer :cry:. I consider that all living things on Earth are related to one another.

[Abdul Fattah]

Forget abiogenesis, that has nothing to do with evolution.

Yes it does, as I told you "evolution" is just a word. It refers to any "evolvement". It also belongs to "biological evolution". since its' a biological evolvement. Perhaps what you meant is: it does not belong to the theory of "evolution of the different species". Beginning to see the importance of accurate terminology already?

[quote]Micro evolution and but not macro? Micro+Micro...=/=Macro?
No macro evolution suggests more then the sum of its parts. See there are different types of (alleged) mutations. You can't for example explain an increase or decrease of chromosomes by the same procces that you used to explain the evolution of short tailed cats and long tailed cats to middle tail cats. It's a different type of mutation. therefor macro evolution is more then then just a sum of micro steps.

Kind of disappointed by that answer :cry:. I consider that all living things on Earth are related to one another.

Considering doesn't make it a theory, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make it true. That being said, you're entitled to your considerations ^_^

[Tornado]

[QUOTE=Abdul Fattah;970492]Yes it does, as I told you "evolution" is just a word. It refers to any "evolvement". It also belongs to "biological evolution". since its' a biological evolvement. Perhaps what you meant is: it does not belong to the theory of "evolution of the different species". Beginning to see the importance of accurate terminology already?

You really care about terminology and such don't you :). I don't see how abiogenesis has and involvement with evolution at all. One is about how life began, one is about how life progresses.

Micro evolution and but not macro? Micro+Micro...=/=Macro?
No macro evolution suggests more then the sum of its parts. See there are different types of (alleged) mutations. You can't for example explain an increase or decrease of chromosomes by the same procces that you used to explain the evolution of short tailed cats and long tailed cats to middle tail cats. It's a different type of mutation. therefor macro evolution is more then then just a sum of micro steps.

Micro -->few mutations, macro --> many mutations together until species can't intermingle? I don't know the little details to some parts of evolution, but I can tell you that the answers are there.


Considering doesn't make it a theory, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make it true. That being said, you're entitled to your considerations

Evolution is definitely the best we've got. Why are we so close to our monkey cousins, why we are imperfect, etc, why are we made of the kind of stuff that all other organisms are made of. Have you studied evolution?

Regards

[root]

I don't get this terminology about the theory of evolution, it's been accurately given to you and yet you still claim it's just a word.

Your told, again and again that Panspermia or abiogenesis is NOT part of the theory of evolution. Again, it seems to fall on deaf ears since you still mention them as being part of evolution.

Yes, Evolution has "holes" anomalies or areas that seem contradictory. I agree this is true.

Theory Of the Big Bang:

Big problems, The "Lithium" problem has got so bad many researches are now saying the whole thing needs shaked up. They want to retell the whole story introducing exotic new particles. We have gravitational anomalies, ancient stars in distant galaxies that contradict the big bang theory, the dying glow of the big bang also shows "holes" in the theory.

So, the theory of the big bang is just like the theory of evolution. Uncomplete and a work in progress that will change over time and new scientific discoveries are made. YET NOBODY runs around screaming

It's only a theory
It's not fact
It has holes
It is not complete

Why do we not get webpages after webpages of anti-big bang theorists even close to the scales that evolution attracts, books, big money companies dedicated and failing to disprove the big bang theory.

Why do you think that is Steve.........

Let's bring creationism into the science classroom.

"OK kids. The universe is here because god created it, we are here because god created us. Now, let's move onto some alternative explanations that fit the scientific criteria......"

[Abdul Fattah]

I don't get this terminology about the theory of evolution, it's been accurately given to you and yet you still claim it's just a word.

Your told, again and again that Panspermia or abiogenesis is NOT part of the theory of evolution. Again, it seems to fall on deaf ears since you still mention them as being part of evolution.

Just because you claim so, doesn't make it true. See the problem is, you seem to confuse the word "evolution" with the theory: "evolution of the different species". Those are two different things.

Let's bring creationism into the science classroom.

I never claimed for creationism to be thought in science class as it's not a scientific theory. I've told you this many times before so stop fighting strawmen arguments. Instead I would argue that certain PARTS of evolution should not be thought in science class either, since they are not scientific either!

[Tornado]

Just because you claim so, doesn't make it true. See the problem is, you seem to confuse the word "evolution" with the theory: "evolution of the different species". Those are two different things.

I never knew Darwin's Origins of Species had anything to do with the origin of life. We are talking about how living things evolve, so it goes on the assumption that life was already there (Theory of evolution was not the reason that life started. Where do you see the connection exactly?) We aren't confusing evolution with evolution of different species, in case you didn't know, this thread is about biological evolution...(not "chemical evolution" that would be involved in abiogenesis).

I never claimed for creationism to be thought in science class as it's not a scientific theory. I've told you this many times before so stop fighting strawmen arguments. Instead I would argue that certain PARTS of evolution should not be thought in science class either, since they are not scientific either![

What parts of evolution should not be taught? I'm all for teaching holes and saying they are holes/problems (hiding makes no sense) so that one day those gaps in our knowledge can be patched up. Good to see that you aren't a creationist :D.

-
Peace be with you

[Abdul Fattah]

I never knew Darwin's Origins of Species had anything to do with the origin of life.

I never said it did. Did you see me claim such a thing? No, what I said was:
"Evolution" ≠ "evolution of the different species"
"Biological evolution" ≠ "evolution of the different species"
"origin of species" ≠ "evolution"
Here's how it breaks down:

1. Biological evolution.This general term can be split up into two separate theories:

1.1. Evolution of life out of lifeless matter a.k.a. abiogenesis: This is the theory on how life evolved out of lifeless matter on earth.
1.2. Evolution of the different species a.k.a. origin of the different species: This is a group name for several other theories such as the theory of genetic mutation, survival of the fittest, genetic drift, and so on. These theories can be mainly categorized into three segments:

1.2.1. The theory of micro evolution progresses: How genetic drift trough variation and mutation creates new breeds of a certain specie that then grow larger in numbers trough survival of the fittest.
1.2.2. The theory of macro evolution progresses: How mutations on a genetic level can cause new species.
1.2.3. The theory of common descent: How trough micro and macro evolution all existing creatures evolved out of the same ancestral being. This is not a scientific theory but a historical one. In other words it doesn't tell us something about the nature of physics, or the physics of nature, instead it speculates on how the currently existing organisms have evolved in the past.

We are talking about how living things evolve, so it goes on the assumption that life was already there (Theory of evolution was not the reason that life started. Where do you see the connection exactly?) We aren't confusing evolution with evolution of different species, in case you didn't know, this thread is about biological evolution...(not "chemical evolution" that would be involved in abiogenesis).

You're mistaken; you assume that "Biological evolution" = "evolution of the different species". That's wrong. I'll repeat my previous argument.
Evolution: A word, can refer to anything that evolves.
Biological Evolution: A term that can refer to any evolvement in the field of biology.
Evolution of the different species: The theory on how after life existed they evolved into a larger variety of organisms.
Chemical evolution: Refers to any evolvement within the field of chemistry.

So by definition abiogenesis belongs both to chemical evolution, but also to biological evolution. However it does not belong to the evolution of different species.

What parts of evolution should not be taught?

The ones that aren't scientific. I'll explain in detail in the next paragraph.

I'm all for teaching holes and saying they are holes/problems (hiding makes no sense) so that one day those gaps in our knowledge can be patched up.

It's not a matter of holes in one theory. It's a matter of different theories all being judged on the merit of one. Micro evolution is a different theory from macro evolution, common descent is a different theory micro or macro. However all three of them are ambiguously referred to simply as "evolution". And if proofs are found for one theory, like the theory of microevolution, they automatically assume that a different theory, common descent is also true. That is simply an unscientific attitude. I say judge each theory by it's own merits.

Micro evolution: Theory; well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.
Macro evolution: Theory; still some lose ends but testable, falsifiable and provable.
Common descent: Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.

You understand the need for correct terminology now?

Good to see that you aren't a creationist :D.

I am a creationists, however I understand that creationism is not a scientific theory and therefor I argue that even though I believe creationism, it does not belong in science class. However by that same logic; common descent and abiogenesis shouldn't be thought as "scientific theories" either, they have zero scientific value.

[Tornado]

I don't understand the holes. Micro/Macro evolution isn't a problem. Common descent is hard to ignore when you have fossils/transitional species everywhere connecting all life on earth. Instead of saying something is wrong, what's wrong about them?

Nothing wrong about abiogenesis. It's just like the big bang. Our universe is expanding, thus there may have been a start. The tree that signifies evolution clearly has a point from which it starts because as you go back in time, the branches come back to a single point. If not abiogenesis, you are indicating magic so what do you teach exactly? They've done experiments trying to duplicate evolution? Have they created life? No, then again, they didn't have planet size area to test their hypothesis and the vasts amounts of time (compared to the experiments, zilch time).

[root]

Steve, your perception of what is and what is not Evolution get's clouded everytime you post on it,

Here........

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:


"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that, Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:


"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974


One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated. Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:


"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.
Standard dictionaries are even worse.


"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers
"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's


These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!

Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!

Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.

Not sign of "Macro" "Panspermia" or any of the other misrepresentation your trying to peddle here

[Chuck]

Common descent is hard to ignore when you have fossils/transitional species everywhere connecting all life on earth.

That is exactly the thinking that made scientists hammer Carl Woese.

[Chuck]

Forget abiogenesis, that has nothing to do with evolution.

Micro evolution and but not macro? Micro+Micro...=/=Macro? Kind of disappointed by that answer :cry:. I consider that all living things on Earth are related to one another.

Ever heard of the term theory of cosmic evolution? Abiogenesis comes under that theory.

Here is the question. What is the difference between origin of species and origins of life?

Here I found something interesting relevant to the current topic of common ancestor.

Directed Mutation

Dear reader, things have a way of working out serially. For several months, we have had in our possession a paper from Nature, by J. Cairns, of Harvard, plus some passionate correspondence stimulated by the paper. Now that the circle-forming sheep have provided a good introduction, we will jump into the fray, too.

Basically Cairns (in Nature) and B. H. Hall (in Genetics) say that organisms can respond to environmental stresses by reorganizing their genes in a purposeful way. Such "directed mutation" shifts the course of evolution in a nonrandom way.

Such a conclusion was like waving a red flag in front of the evolutionists. R. May, at the University of Oxford, complained, "The work is so flawed, I am reluctant to comment." On the other side, a University of Maryland geneticust, S. Benson, comments, "Many people have had such observations, but they have problems getting them published."

Our template in this discussion is an article by A.S. Moffat in American Scientist. She says, "The stakes in this dispute are high, indeed. If directed mutations are real, the explanations of evolutionary biology that depend on random events must be thrown out. This would have broad implications. For example, directed mutation would shatter the belief that organisms are related to some ancestor if they share traits. Instead, they may simply share exposure to the same environmental cues. Also, different organisms may have different mutation rates based on their ability to respond to the environment. And the discipline of molecular taxonomy, where an organism's position on the evolutionary tree is fixed by comparing its genome to those of others, would need extreme revision."

What sort of experiment did Cairns do to cause such a ruckus? In particular, he studied E. Coli bacteria. Normally, these bacteria cannot metabolize the sugar lactose. Cairns exposed the E. Coli to a sudden dose of lactose, demonstrating that if the bacteria must have lactose to survive, they quickly cast off the two genes that inhibit their metabolizing of lactose. Of course, the experiments were more complicated than this, but the fundamental finding was that the bacteria mutated so that they could use lactose much, much faster than chance mutation would permit, stastically speaking.

The battle lines are forming. A sup-porter of directed mutation, J. Shapiro, of the University of Chicago, is quoted as follows in Moffat's article:

"The genome is smart. It can respond to selective conditions. The signifi cance of the Cairns paper is not in the presentation of new data but in the framing of the questions and in changing the psychology of the situation. He has taken the question 'Are mutations directed?' which was taboo, and made it an issue that people will now do experiments on."

(Moffat, Anne Simon; "A Challenge to Evolutionary Biology," American Scientist, 77:224, 1989.)

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf064/sf064b07.htm

[Tornado]

Ever heard of the term theory of cosmic evolution? Abiogenesis comes under that theory.

Here is the question. What is the difference between origin of species and origins of life?

Here I found something interesting relevant to the current topic of common ancestor.

I'm not an expert at evolution so I can't provide an answer to that (god of gaps, reputable source would be good, my lack of knowledge). Origin of life deals with how life arose, origin of species refers to how species come to be from other species. Please explain what you mean, referring to how one thinks and then got hammered is of no help. Please don't introduce new topics, this thread isn't about cosmic evolution, it's clearly biological evolution. Fighting terminology/semantics is lame. You either believe creationism (magic, god), or evolution (not magic, god or no god).

[Chuck]

Please explain what you mean, referring to how one thinks and then got hammered is of no help.

Explained it there: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post966817

Majority of sciencist opposed Carl Woese over conflict with common descent or not?

Please don't introduce new topics, this thread isn't about cosmic evolution, it's clearly biological evolution. Fighting terminology/semantics is lame.

Terminology is important, not lame. But good to see that you agree evolution can mean many things, which would include abiogensis.

You either believe creationism (magic, god), or evolution (not magic, god or no god).

Sure, makes lot of sense. But explain what your comment has to do with my post?

[root]

Terminology is important, not lame. But good to see that you agree evolution can mean many things, which would include abiogensis. Sure, makes lot of sense. But explain what your comment has to do with my post?

OK, Then we need to look at the evolution of TV, Medicine, Mobile phones and anything that you can identify with a natural progression.

OR

You can accept Biological evolution as defined earlier AND which Abiogenesis and/or Panspermia are not part of, unless we include the evolution of the universe.

Your not fooling anybody playing silly terminology...................

Let me make this so clear, else we are simply wasting time. The theory of Evolution DOES NOT INCLUDE PANSPERMIA OR ABIOGENESIS ANYMORE THAN IT INCLUDES THE BIG BANG THEORY.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Tornado

I don't understand the holes.

Like I said it's not a matter of holes in one theory, but a matter of some theories being scientific, and others not.

Common descent is hard to ignore when you have fossils/transitional species everywhere connecting all life on earth. Instead of saying something is wrong, what's wrong about them?

1. There's many problems with fossil records.
2. Fossil record is indirect proof, and only works after interpretation.
3. Common descent is unproven
4. Common descent is not based on empirical testing
5. Common descent is not falsifiable
6. Common descent does not describe physical processes but describes history
=> conclusion, common descent is not a physics theory

Nothing wrong about abiogenesis. It's just like the big bang.

Abiogenesis is nothing like big bang. And there are many things wrong with it.
1. Abiogenesis is not provable
2. Abiogenesis is not based on emperical testing
3. Abiogenesis is not falsifiable

If not abiogenesis, you are indicating magic so what do you teach exactly?

I already told you I'm a creationists. Look at it this way, I agree with every scientific claim made from evolutionist's corner, however I disagree with their view of history! History and science, although some times overlapping are two different fields. I believe different lifeforms were created, I grant that once a variety of species were created, they evolved into an even larger variety of species. That is equally scientific as the mainstream evolutionists, in the sense that I rely on the same amount of science, and the same amount of assumptions as mainstream evolutionists. There is not a single scientific argument to be made that one is more plausible then the other.

They've done experiments trying to duplicate evolution? Have they created life? No, then again, they didn't have planet size area to test their hypothesis and the vasts amounts of time (compared to the experiments, zilch time).

That's argument is not well thought trough. Abiogenesis, according to the theory doesn't require a whole planet, just a little mudpool. Quite the opposite from your claims is true. If anything the controlled environment should be much more productive as opposed to the real thing. The "infinite time infinite space" argument is a facade. Truth is, there is no scientific explanation to how certain steps could have occurred. Simply saying "well you get to shake it up infinitely" is not an alternative for formulating how it could have happened. Science isn't random but causal. Even if we had infinite time (which this universe hasn't got) over infinite space (which our universe doesn't have either) that still wouldn't explain how something could happen that we cannot explain in causal processes. Because the rules of causality that limits possibility limits it over that whole infinity.


Root,
Even "evolutionists" disagree on definitions since the terms are used so loosely and ambiguously. I'm simply taking it pragmatic, the way it makes sense. To me it doesn't make sense that you insist that one term is simply a synonym for another, when clearly their words suggest differently. If you want to get back to my many arguments you haven't answered, be my guest. For your convenience you don't even have to look all of em up since I've repeated some of 'm in this post. But I really don't see the point in starting semantic debates.

[Azy]

*More* interesting topics :o

1. There's many problems with fossil records.
2. Fossil record is indirect proof, and only works after interpretation.
3. Common descent is unproven
4. Common descent is not based on empirical testing
5. Common descent is not falsifiable
6. Common descent does not describe physical processes but describes history
=> conclusion, common descent is not a physics theory

1. Such as?
2. Not entirely sure what you mean, maybe you could clarify.
3-6. False. All are covered here -> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I already told you I'm a creationists. Look at it this way, I agree with every scientific claim made from evolutionist's corner, however I disagree with their view of history! History and science, although some times overlapping are two different fields. I believe different lifeforms were created, I grant that once a variety of species were created, they evolved into an even larger variety of species. That is equally scientific as the mainstream evolutionists, in the sense that I rely on the same amount of science, and the same amount of assumptions as mainstream evolutionists. There is not a single scientific argument to be made that one is more plausible then the other.

That's weird because a few lines above you were arguing that many ideas held by mainstream evolutionists are unscientific.
What predictions does your scientific account of creationism make, how can we test it?

That's argument is not well thought trough. Abiogenesis, according to the theory doesn't require a whole planet, just a little mudpool. Quite the opposite from your claims is true. If anything the controlled environment should be much more productive as opposed to the real thing.

Don't you think it's a little optimistic to expect something that took millions of years in possibly different conditions to those that exist now, somewhere on earth, could be simulated and somehow accelerated to produce a positive result within a human's lifetime? It would need to be 'much more productive' on an enormous scale.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy,

1. There's many problems with fossil records.

1. Such as?

Cambrian explosion, missing links, margins of error on exact dating, unrepresentative due to small percentage of all death animals that get fossilized and small percentage of all fossilized animals that we have dug up so far.

2. Fossil record is indirect proof, and only works after interpretation.

2. Not entirely sure what you mean, maybe you could clarify.

Well the only thing that a fossil proves directly, is at which era did what creature already live. It doesn't prove that one evolved from the other. If they were created in different stages, it makes just as much sense that they start appearing in different eras. So as I said, the "evidence" is indirect and subjected to interpretation.

3. Common descent is unproven
4. Common descent is not based on empirical testing
5. Common descent is not falsifiable
6. Common descent does not describe physical processes but describes history

3-6. False. All are covered here -> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

First of all, there's a rule against arguing by links. It takes a short google or even bookmark-search for you to post this link, but it would take me several hours to answer to every argument of that site. However, I'll guess seeing how you always debate in a very respectable way I'll meet you halfway and reply to this briefly. I'm already familiar with talkorigins, and I recognize that it has its virtues in spreading a better understanding of some parts of evolution, but in some other parts it spreads false information and mixed messages. This page you linked to, is an excellent example. Consider the titles and the sub-titles. First it says 29+ evidences for macro evolution, and then one of the subtitles says evidence for common descent. But common descent and macro evolution are two different things! Evidence for macro evolution is not evidence for common descent. And they do not produce any evidence in favor of common descent. Just because you can prove that some creatures evolved from others, doesn't mean you've proven that all creatures evolved from the same. In fact I am very frustrated by the method in which they imply to bring one forth as proof for the other, as if they knowingly attempted to conceal the flaw of that hypothesis. If they truly believe that science should be about what you can prove, and not about what you like as they quoted Feynman on (who by the way is a quantumphysisist, and his quote is completely taken out of context), then they should be as open about the flaws in one subtheories, as they are about the strong points in another.

That's weird because a few lines above you were arguing that many ideas held by mainstream evolutionists are unscientific. What predictions does your scientific account of creationism make, how can we test it?

Your question implies that you didn't understand what I'm saying. I never claimed there is anything scientific about my views on creation. I'm merely saying that there isn't anything scientific about the alternative. Because those specific parts of evolution that oppose creationism happen to be the very same parts that aren't covered by science. The very same parts that are lacking in evidence and testability and falsifiability and so on. So what I am saying is, this is a part not touched by science, and all bets are off.

Don't you think it's a little optimistic to expect something that took millions of years ...

Well first off it didn't take millions of years. It should have taken only about a week according to Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey. That's to say, that is how long they think the process took. Time is not a limiting factor. I often make the analogy with a sprinter. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would be 200m or 300m even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run a distance of 100m on that longer track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance. Likewise; the many years that earth existed does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. In other words, the amount of time available, as long as it is enough, has no bearing on the chemical possibility of it happening. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box. Just adding the factor of time doesn't allow you to magically bypass the restraints of chemistry.

... in possibly different conditions to those that exist now, somewhere on earth, could be simulated and somehow accelerated to produce a positive result within a human's lifetime? It would need to be 'much more productive' on an enormous scale.

Again I disagree. In a laboratory, we can manipulate and set the environments exactly to our liking. We're working with an easy controlled and closed environment. We can put exactly the required ingredients at the right place, put the optimal temperature for reactions, use catalysts, and so on.

[ASeeker]

There is no question but that the creation stories in Genesis 1 - 3 are myths (there are two of them and they each give a different order of creation). Also, whilst there are parallels in other ancient texts there are elements in the Genesis accounts which are unique. What is a matter of logic and historical reality is that, far from being a coincidence, the inclusion of Adam and Eve in the Quran creation account owes everything to the acquaintance of the early Muslims with Jewish and Christian (or pseudo-Christian gnostic groups) in the pensinsular adjacent to Mecca in the 6th and 7th centuries A.D. The Genesis accounts predates the Quran by at least 2,000 years.

Whilst I firmly believe that the Bible is the Word of God I also think that not all of the interpretations of the Bible are sufficiently inspired. Some of them are positively absurd.
If I say, in English idiom, that it is raining cats and dogs, most people do not expect our furry friends to be falling from the sky. In the same way, referring to the Genesis accounts, God does not walk in a garden, snakes do not speak, and, as far as I know even Kew Gardens has never acquired a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". A naive literalism is just plain silly and unnecessary.

Painful as it may be, it is time for us to grow up and allow Genesis to speak for itself and for us to use our intelligence and God's inspiration in determining what the text actually means.

I believe that the theory of evolution is persuasive but I do not believe that we exist by accident or that we inhabit a closed system of natural causes. The first verse of the Bible states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Amen to that. How? We can argue about that and we shall probably never knew for sure. The story also says that if we choose to go against God's stated will there will be dire consequences. I believe that too.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Aseeker

There is no question but that the creation stories in Genesis 1 - 3 are myths (there are two of them and they each give a different order of creation).

It is true that the Vatican has posted open letters in the past, admitting that in the past they had added sections to genesis that weren't authentic for the purpose of answering questions that couldn't be answered at that point. However, that doesn't mean that it's all false, you shouldn't throw away the baby with the bathing water.

Also, whilst there are parallels in other ancient texts there are elements in the Genesis accounts which are unique. What is a matter of logic and historical reality is that, far from being a coincidence, the inclusion of Adam and Eve in the Quran creation account owes everything to the acquaintance of the early Muslims with Jewish and Christian (or pseudo-Christian gnostic groups) in the pensinsular adjacent to Mecca in the 6th and 7th centuries A.D. The Genesis accounts predates the Quran by at least 2,000 years.

I'm sorry but that is completely biased. Your argument does not hold under scrutiny. You claim "historical and logical reality" but none of that is proven. It's simple speculation. Perhaps to you it's the most logical explenation, since you don't believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, but that would mean that as I said, your inclination towards that view is completely biased by your religious conviction. An alternative explanation would simply be that the similarities are a result of both accounts being told by the same God, whereas the differences between the stories could be explained simply because Christians altered the story that was conveyed to them. Now don't get me wrong, I certainly respect your opinion and understand that you would claim that my alternative view is just as much biased by my beliefs as your view is biased by yours. However I just wanted to point out how arrogant of you it was to come here and claim that your view is a historical and logical reality, while in reality your view is just speculation and perhaps even wishful thinking.

If I say, in English idiom, that it is raining cats and dogs, most people do not expect our furry friends to be falling from the sky. In the same way, referring to the Genesis accounts, God does not walk in a garden, snakes do not speak, and, as far as I know even Kew Gardens has never acquired a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". A naive literalism is just plain silly and unnecessary.

Yes I understand your position. And reading the bible, I'd get the same impression. The Qur'an however is completely different in style. The verses concerning the creation of Adam and Eve don't hold that many details as the bible does. Also, in the Qur'an; the difference between literal and metaphorical verses are quite clear. And the Qur'an even warns us that those who take the literal parts metaphorically and vice versa have a perversion in their hearts. So like I said, don't throw away the baby with the bathing water. Just because the catholic church added details to the story of genesis, doesn't mean that Adam never really existed in the first place. That would be jumping to conclusions to fast.

Painful as it may be, it is time for us to grow up and allow Genesis to speak for itself and for us to use our intelligence and God's inspiration in determining what the text actually means.

That sounds like a good idea. But that's not really an issue for Muslims. See, even if every single part of evolution turns out to be right, that would not contradict any of the Islamic views. I may personally reject certain parts of evolution, but I don't reject them simply on the base of being muslim. In fact I rejected those parts before I converted to Islam, back when I still was an atheist. I reject certain parts of evolution simply because they are not scientific. What I would like to invite people to. As painful as it may be, is to grow up and allow each sub-theory of evolution to speak for itself, rather than just excepting every part based on the acception of other parts. In other words, judge each part by its own merits, and then suddenly certain parts won't hold up to scientific scrutiny anymore. What I would like to see is that people would debate and reconsider their views not simply based on their religious nor on their atheistic bias, but simply judge it from a scientific p.o.v. Because frankly, even scientists fail to do so, and that is a very sad thing.

[elfuser]

" most Christians (I don't know the situation with Jews) know that it is a creation myth which originates in pagan cultures "
the universe is 12 to 18 thousand million years ols, in estimate. my calculation, trough the the formula of hubble's time issue, it nears 14,5 billion years and counting (and accelerating), now, dedicate 6 days to creation and resting the seventh, so that Adam and Eve couldn't sin, hence, never having sex, wich in turn, denies the possibility of having children (equals creating mankind) seems "tacky".
Why would God create a creature so eager to follow and yet so scpetic about following, capable of sciphering His misterious ways, even capable of killing contenders and suffer in is own flesh His trials, whereas is existence or not-without any assuring- giving their life to a religious culture that indents the same rules and properties than any other religion in the world ( miraculous birth, quests, divine words, people-reaching habilities, revolution-worship, martir-death-process and rebirth after x days,etc. )?
I don't wan't to be that scpetic-science-all-based-wizkid in the house, but either if there is a God or not, I REALLY think that we should be dedicating our lives to other things in LIFE, rather than "who is bigger and best?". I AM NOT unmeasuring the importance of Philosophy and Science nor Religion. They're all are excellent subjects that we should all exercise, however, we, sometimes, forget about us, our lives, our dreams, prospects, children and future.
Either we are or not children of Adam and Eve, we are not mature enough, not even after 5000 years.
If God exists, He should be embaraced and so should we.
Something in common between us...

[Ali_Cena]

are you trying to say that the quran shariffe is supporting evolution, becuse i dont think that is true, abdul fattah could you please clarify more, sorry for my lack of knowledge.

[ihijazi]

AlSalam Alaykum,

Ali, take a look at our website, and then give us your feedback.


You may need to install a Microsaft PowerPoint plugin.


AlSalam Alaykum

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Elfuser

" most Christians (I don't know the situation with Jews) know that it is a creation myth which originates in pagan cultures "
the universe is 12 to 18 thousand million years ols, in estimate. my calculation, trough the the formula of hubble's time issue, it nears 14,5 billion years and counting (and accelerating), now, dedicate 6 days to creation and resting the seventh, so that Adam and Eve couldn't sin, hence, never having sex, wich in turn, denies the possibility of having children (equals creating mankind) seems "tacky".

Yeah I know, that's one of the major differences between the Islamic view and the Christian view. In the Qur'an the timetable isn't that "fixed" so that it denies science. So this only discredits Christian creationists, not Islamic creationists.

Why would God create a creature so eager to follow and yet so scpetic about following, capable of sciphering His misterious ways, even capable of killing contenders and suffer in is own flesh His trials, whereas is existence or not-without any assuring- giving their life to a religious culture that indents the same rules and properties than any other religion in the world ( miraculous birth, quests, divine words, people-reaching habilities, revolution-worship, martir-death-process and rebirth after x days,etc. )? Either we are or not children of Adam and Eve, we are not mature enough, not even after 5000 years.
If God exists, He should be embaraced and so should we.
Something in common between us...

Why would he not? Are you implying that was a mistake of him? Basically the gist of all those arguments boil down to one and the same thing. Your argument is that if God created mankind it was a mistake simply because mankind is able to commit bad deeds? Well first of all, I should not that is a very weak angle to discredit creationism, I'd find It much more constructive to stick to scientific arguments, but since you opened the door I'll go philosophical. ^_^
Free will is a double edge sword, it may enable people to do bad, but at the same time it also enables people to do good. If you want to scale the status of mankind, you have to consider both types. It's true that some people act in degrading ways that renders them to a status even inferior than animals, but at the same time people who act good out of free will acquire a status which can reach even above those of angels; this because according to Islam angels are obedient because they do not have free will. Even if you don't believe in angels, you'll have to agree that hypothetically speaking a creature that is ordered to do good and cannot be disobedient is inferior to a creature who is equally good despite it's capability of being bad. So then your philosophical argument where you claim mankind cannot be created because of its flawed design completely crumbles. Your judgment of flawed design was completely one-sided focusing on "bad" humans. don't throw away the baby along with the bathing water!

I don't wan't to be that scpetic-science-all-based-wizkid in the house,

Lol, you haven't said a single scientifically based argument ^_^

but either if there is a God or not, I REALLY think that we should be dedicating our lives to other things in LIFE, rather than "who is bigger and best?".

Neither do I. Islam doesn't teach us to dedicate our lives to that.

I AM NOT unmeasuring the importance of Philosophy and Science nor Religion. They're all are excellent subjects that we should all exercise, however, we, sometimes, forget about us, our lives, our dreams, prospects, children and future.

Prioritizing is an important part of life. Obviously people with different views and believes put forth different priorities. For example, a person that doesn't believe in an afterlife as opposed to someone who does will have a different perspective on how we should prepare for death. Those who don't believe in it will probably attempt to achieve some level of accomplishment and fulfillment before death, whereas those who do believe in an afterlife will be more interested in their afterlife and how their destination before death. So that means that rather than what you suggest that religion distracts us from our lives, dreams, prospects, children and future is not true at all. Instead all of these concepts: our lives, dreams, prospects, children, and future are in a way embedded into our religion!

Selam aleykum ihijazi
I'll try to respond to you later, for now my firefox is having some problems with your site...

[Chuck]

Selam aleykum ihijazi
I'll try to respond to you later, for now my firefox is having some problems with your site...

His site uses activex, and firefox doesn't support activex. You need view it in IE.

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum
Active X is a serious security hazard I would advise everyone not to use it.
I'm running linux, I'm not going to go trough the problem of running IE on wine. Besides I could simply activate activeX in firefox, but I won't do that out of common sense. Also there's an issue of principle. Even if I do trust you, I wouldn't use it because I want to boycot it. Seriously, you should consider another type of code for your site. there's a lot of alternative ways to make your message come across. Perhaps even just offer the pps for download. Active X is evil, you shouldn't support it. Using it as code in a way is the same as supporting it. The less webmasters that make sites with this, the less popular it becomes. Whereas the more webmasters that use it, the more pages of the net that will be unaccessible to safe browsers like firefox. This in term makes more people inclined to use unsafe browsers, and thus supports to the abuse.

Anyway that being said, I was able to extract the text without having to use activeX; and I read trough most of it, I'm still formulating my replies (it's already incredibly long and I still got a fair amount to go trough). InshAllah I'll post a reply once I have a full comment completed. For now let me just say these two things:

1. Tafsir by mere opinion is forbidden!!! You should be more careful with that brother.
2. Just because some creatures evolved out of one another, doesn't mean that all creatures evolved from the same!!!

Those two comments alone basically refute your entire powerpoint, but like I said, inshaAllah I will post a more detailed refutation once it's finished. While you're waiting, perhaps you would enjoy my p.o.v. on evolution?

[ihijazi]

Selam aleykum
Active X is a serious security hazard I would advise everyone not to use it.
I'm running linux, I'm not going to go trough the problem of running IE on wine. Besides I could simply activate activeX in firefox, but I won't do that out of common sense. Also there's an issue of principle. Even if I do trust you, I wouldn't use it because I want to boycot it. Seriously, you should consider another type of code for your site. there's a lot of alternative ways to make your message come across. Perhaps even just offer the pps for download. Active X is evil, you shouldn't support it. Using it as code in a way is the same as supporting it. The less webmasters that make sites with this, the less popular it becomes. Whereas the more webmasters that use it, the more pages of the net that will be unaccessible to safe browsers like firefox. This in term makes more people inclined to use unsafe browsers, and thus supports to the abuse.

Anyway that being said, I was able to extract the text without having to use activeX; and I read trough most of it, I'm still formulating my replies (it's already incredibly long and I still got a fair amount to go trough). InshAllah I'll post a reply once I have a full comment completed. For now let me just say these two things:

1. Tafsir by mere opinion is forbidden!!! You should be more careful with that brother.
2. Just because some creatures evolved out of one another, doesn't mean that all creatures evolved from the same!!!

Those two comments alone basically refute your entire powerpoint, but like I said, inshaAllah I will post a more detailed refutation once it's finished. While you're waiting, perhaps you would enjoy my p.o.v. on evolution?

Alsalam Alaykum,

Jazak Allah khayer for your feedback. The plug-in is a PowerPoint plug-in from Microsoft. I have installed it on my computer and many of my friends have installed it without any problem. I believe to view the presentation with all verses, comments and images would be more effective and enjoyable.
I look forward to hear more of your comments and feedback. Please include slide numbers in your feedback.

Best regards,

[doorster]

Active X controls are as dangerous or as safe as your kitchen knife, you step ladder, your car and so on (all depends on who's driving the car and who sold it to you)

[doorster]

Alsalam Alaykum,

Jazak Allah khayer. I also invite you to take a look at http://www.<snip>.net


Best regards,

wa alaikum salaam
I am there now, I might post about it later (if I can understand it)
:w:

edit
oopse! I've seen truesigns site before and I do not think that I liked it. sorry! http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1020000

Part 2: Shows that, contrary to popular Islamic belief, the Quran describes a mechanism for human evolution.

this is going to scare me from this one

[ihijazi]

If you are referring to the “Extraterrestrial Life” presentation. Did you go through the entire presentation? If so which slide other than slide-1 you did not like and why?

Best Regards,

[doorster]

If you are referring to the “Extraterrestrial Life” presentation. Did you go through the entire presentation? If so which slide other than slide-1 you did not like and why?

Best Regards,

I am sorry, I don't know what slide number it was but that one line was enough for me to click away

:w:

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum
I also read the second powerpoint, and formulated a reply to it here. Since it would be of-topic to discus here.

[doorster]

:sl:

lol, funny, although analogy is flawed, listed items are unsafe because of unsafe usage by enduser, activeX is unsafe because of coding of some programmers.

a know-it-all sent me this message so I thought I let you all see (in case you were wondering same as my "friendly" adviser)

when I made that analogy:
I was thinking of a car bought from reputable dealer (trustworthy) same ways I think of activeX controls from Microsoft, adobe and Norton etc. to be trustworthy.

and any one else is a lemon seller, whether its a car or any browser controls that are not from them 3

if a pop-up comes up telling a user that an unsigned control is trying to run and I permit it, then its my fault, innay? by the way English is not my first language for that reason alone I should be forgiven for mixing up my metaphors and things:embarrass

:w:

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

I looked at your slides and found many problems with them. I will quote part by part, there were some slides which had "neutral information" which didn't contradict the creationist's view. Like the one about the materials mankind is made of, and about embryology, so I skipped over these.

Neanderthals were first recognized as a distinct group of hominids from fossil remains discovered 150 years ago at Feldhofer in Neander Valley, outside Du¨sseldorf, Germany. Subsequent Neanderthal finds in Europe and western Asia showed that fossils with Neanderthal traits appear in the fossil record of Europe and western Asia about 400,000 years ago and disappear about 30,000 years ago just at the time when the first "modern humans" appear in Europe.

And what exactly is a "modern" human? I wouldn't call 30000y ago as "modern". Humans back then were different from humans now.

In a paper published in the November 2006 issue of the scientific journal Nature5, scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) have sequenced genomic (nuclear) DNA from fossilized Neanderthal bones. Their results show that the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals are at least 99.5-percent identical, but despite this genetic similarity, and despite the two species having cohabitated the same geographic region for thousands of years, there is no evidence of any significant crossbreeding between the two.

No, this is wrong. Neanderthalis never co-existed with "modern" humans. Homo Neanderthalis did however co-exist with "Homo Sapiens". However this begs the question. How smart was it of scientists to compare 30000y old genome with modern genome? Of course there are differences, but there are also differences between Homo sapiens 30000y ago, and homo sapiens now. So these differences do not prove that neanderthalis was "something different than human". Detailed study of the skeleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intellect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man. Yet they classify it as a separate species simply because of these small differences in genes? That's completely generic and arbitrary! And what kind of evidence for crossbreeding should be found than? It's easy to claim that no evidence has been found , but what evidence did they look for? How do you expect to find evidence of crossbreeding 30000y ago? that's practically impossible. If they found no such evidence that probably tells us more about how hard it is to research what happened in the past rather then give us an indication if they did or didn't crossbreed.

What caused the angels to believe that this new successor (Homo sapiens) is a savage who is a source of mischief (harm) and a shedder of blood? And what was it that Allah knew and the angels did not know? The most logical answer to the first question, in light of the discovered fossil remains and DNA evidence, is that the angels presumed that Adam was the like of someone they had encountered before—a predecessor who was from the humankind and looked physically similar to Adam and whose life on Earth was marked by doing harm and shedding blood.

Assumption is the mother of all mistakes! Brother it's very dangerous to make tafsir on assumptions and personal inclinations. See the extract below from Ibn Kathir's introduction. Besides, for the sake of argument your deduction is flawed. The angels asked: "will" you create, so wouldn't that mean they asked it before Allah created him? Also, if he was not already created then how would they be able to compare? And finally, if they like you claim thought that Adam was the same as an already existing but differnt creature, then why didn't they ask: "why have you created" instead of "will you create"? What I mean is, if they thought that Adam was the same as some creature that already exist, why did they suddenly start to question Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) about it at that point, why not earlier when Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) created that other specie you believe in?

Tafsir by mere Opinion
It is prohibited to indulge in Tafsir by mere opinion. Muhammad bin Jarir reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that the Prophet Peace be upon him said,
(For this, and the previous quotes, see At-Tabari 1:90-91)
[Whoever explains the Qur'an with his opinion or with what he has no knowledge of, then let him assume his seat in the Fire.]
At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa'i and Abu Dawud also recorded this Hadith. At-Tirmidhi said, "Hasan".

Explaining what One has Knowledge of, Silence otherwise
The Salaf used to refrain from explaining what they had no knowledge of. For instance, Ibn Jarir (At-Tabari) reported that Abu Ma'mar said that Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said, " Which land will carry me and which heaven will shade me if I said about Allah's Book that which I have no knowledge of? " [6]
Ibn Jarir also reported that Anas narrated that 'Umar bin Al-Khattab read the Ayah,~{And fruits and Abba (herbage, etc.) while standing on the Minbar. He then said, " We know the fruit, so what is the Abba?" He then said, "O 'Umar! This is exaggeration." [7]
This statement means that 'Umar briefly wanted to know the exact nature of the Abba, for it was evident - to him - that it is a plant that grows on earth, just as Allah said, ‘And We cause therein the grain to grow. And grapes and clover plants’ (i.e. green fodder for the cattle) (80:27-28).
Ibn Jarir also recorded that Ibn Abi Mulaykah said that Ibn 'Abbas was asked about an Ayah, "That if any of you is asked about, he will indulge in its Tafsir." without hesitation Ibn 'Abbas refused to say anything about it (meaning with his opinion). This narration has an authentic chain of narrators. He also narrated that Ibn Abi Mulaykah said, "A man asked Ibn 'Abbas about, One Day, the space whereof is a thousand years. Ibn 'Abbas asked him, What is, Day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years~?'
The man said, `I only asked you to tell me.' Ibn 'Abbas said, They are two Days that Allah has mentioned in His Book and He has better knowledge of them.' He disliked commenting on the Book of Allah when he had no knowledge about it."
Al-Layth narrated that Yahya bin Sa`id said that Said bin Al-Musayyib used to talk about what he knows of the Qur'an (At-Tabari 1:86). Also, Ayyub, Ibn 'Awn and Hisham Ad*Dastuwa i narrated that Muhammad bin Sirin said, "I asked 'Ubaydah (meaning, As-Salmani ) about an Ayah of the Qur'an and he said,
"Those who had knowledge about the circumstances surrounding revelation of the Qur'an have perished. So fear Allah and seek the right way."
Ash-Sha`bi narrated that Masruq said, "Avoid Tafszr, because it is narration related to Allah." [8]
These authentic narrations from the Companions and the Imams of the Salaf (righteous ancestors) testify to their hesitation to indulge in the Tafsir of what they have no knowledge of. As for those who speak about what they have linguistic and religious knowledge of, then there is no sin in this case. Hence, the scholars and the Imams, including the ones we mentioned, issued statements of Tafsir and spoke about what they had knowledge of, but avoided what they had no knowledge of.
Refraining from indulging in what one has no knowledge of is required of everyone, just as everyone is required to convey the knowledge that they have when they are asked. Allah said,
‘To make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it’ (3:187);
Also, a Hadith narrated through several chains of narrators says, [9]
(Whoever is asked about knowledge that he knows but hid it, will be tied with a muzzle made of fire on the Day of Resurrection.)

The answer to the second question is found in verses 2: 31-33 (next poster). The Arabic word 1’’خَلِيفَةً : خَلَف فُلَان فُلَانًا فِي هَذَا الْأَمْر إذَا قَامَ مَقَامه فِيهِ بَعْده’’ “Khalifah” translated as “successor”2, literally means "one who replaces someone else who left or died and assumes their responsibilities.”
Image of Homo heidelbergensis.
Adam: successor to previous human species
1- Tafsir Al-Tabari
2- Encyclopedia Britannica
Neanderthal, who became extinct about 30,000 years ago, is thought to be the most recent human species prior to modern man. Archeologists believe that they lived in clans, were territorial and likely practiced female abduction. Many adult Neanderthal fossils have serious injuries, suggesting that their life was extremely dangerous and that they had a war-mongering nature.

This is dangerous tafsir, for the same reason as I stated before.
Ibn kathir's tafsir:

[إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِى الأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً]
(Verily, I am going to place a Khalifah on earth).
Meaning people reproducing generation after generation, century after century, just as Allah said,
[وَهُوَ الَّذِى جَعَلَكُمْ خَلَـئِفَ الاٌّرْضِ]
(And it is He Who has made you (Khala'if) generations coming after generations, replacing each other on the earth) (6:165),
[وَيَجْعَلُكُمْ حُلَفَآءَ الاٌّرْضِ]
(And makes you (Khulafa') inheritors of the earth) (27:62),
[وَلَوْ نَشَآءُ لَجَعَلْنَا مِنكُمْ مَّلَـئِكَةً فِى الاٌّرْضِ يَخْلُفُونَ ]
(And if it were Our will, We would have (destroyed you (mankind all, and) made angels to replace you (Yakhlufun) on the earth.) (43: 60) and,
[فَخَلَفَ مِن بَعْدِهِمْ خَلْفٌ]
(Then after them succeeded an (evil) generation (Khalf)) (7:169). It appears that Allah was not refering to Adam specifically as Khalifah, otherwise he would not have allowed the angels' statement,
[أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَن يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَآءَ]
(Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood).
The angels meant that this type of creature usually commits the atrocities they mentioned. The angels knew of this fact, according to their understanding of human nature, for Allah stated that He would create man from clay. Or, the angels understood this fact from the word Khalifah, which also means the person who judges disputes that occur between people, forbidding them from injustice and sin, as Al-Qurtubi said.
The statement the angels uttered was not a form of disputing with Allah's, nor out of envy for the Children of Adam, as some mistakenly thought. Allah has described them as those who do not precede Him in speaking, meaning that they do not ask Allah anything without His permission. When Allah informed them that He was going to create a creation on the earth, and they had knowledge that this creation would commit mischief on it, as Qatadah mentioned, they said,
[أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَن يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَآءَ]
(Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood)
This is only a question for the sake of learning about the wisdom of that, as if they said, Our Lord! What is the wisdom of creating such creatures since they will cause trouble in the earth and spill blood "If the wisdom behind this action is that You be worshiped, we praise and glorify You (meaning we pray to You) we never indulge in mischief, so why create other creatures''

From these verses we can see that Allah’s intention for asking the angels to inform Him of the names of the displayed objects, and then asking Adam to inform the angels of their names, was to demonstrate to them that their knowledge is limited to what He taught them, and that Adam is not the savage they presumed him to be. The fact that Adam was able to learn and store in his memory the names of all objects taught to him by Allah and then upon seeing them again was able to recognize them, recall their names from his memory and articulate them all correctly to the angels, indicated a high level of intelligence, a fact the angels did not know. With such a level of intelligence this new successor would be able to worship Allah in ways that neither his predecessor nor the angels ever could.
Adam: increased level of intelligence
Anthropologists believe that Neanderthal had a limited spoken language with a small vocabulary and simple grammar.

As I already said, this is baseless. There are no indications suggesting that Neanderthalis were inferior in any way.

Archeologists throughout the world have discovered thousands of fossilized bones from several different humankind species.
1.Australopithecus afarensis Cranium
2.Australopithecus africanus Cranium

These are not humankind species, and not human ancestors either. They are closely related to orangutans, a class which according to evolutionists, is a separate branch of human ancestors.

3.Homo habilis Cranium

The existence of this specie has been refuted, and it has been shown that this is in fact just an Australopithecus Habilis; another specie that even evolutionists should admit that isn't our ancestor.

4.Homo erectus Cranium

Although this skeleton is exactly the same as some humans have, evolutionists have classified it as a transcending specie, based on the small skull contents (900-1100 cc) and because of the big eyebrows (of the skull). However, there are humans alive today with that skull contents (i.e. Pygmees), and that have such eyebrows (i.e. Australian aboriginals)! So there is no reason to assume these skeletons are a missing link, they are just humans. In fact the New Scientists of 1998 14 march even wrote an excellent article of how Homo Erectus had the technology to build and use transport ships.

5.Neandertal Cranium

None of these species were anything different then human. Like I said, completely arbitrary classification.

هَلْ أَتَى عَلَى الْإِنسَانِ حِينٌ مِّنَ الدَّهْرِ لَمْ يَكُن شَيْئًا مَّذْكُورًا
Has there come upon humankind a period from a long span of time, when he was nothing mentioned (extinct)?
The Glorious Quran: chapter 76, verse 1 (622 AD)
The above verse is the first verse in the chapter entitled “Al-Insan” “Humankind.” In this verse Allah brings to our attention the question of whether there has been a period of time since the beginning of the creation of humankind when humankind became extinct. The answer to this question is given towards the end of this chapter in verse 76:28 (next poster). An early Islamic scholar1 also indicated that for the above verse to make sense linguistically, humankind must have been in existence for this period of extinction to come upon them. The Arabic word “الدَّهْرِ” “al-dahr” translated as “a long span of time” has no limit in the context of this verse. 1“وَأَمَّا الدَّهْر فِي هَذَا الْمَوْضِع , فَلَا حَدّ لَهُ يُوقَف عَلَيْهِ”
Humankind and periods of extinction
1- Tafsir Al-Tabari
Ernst Mayr, and evolutionary Biologist for almost 70 years states in his book What Evolution Is: "Wherever we look at the living biota … discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent…The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.“2
2 - Mayr, Ernst, What Evolution Is, pg. 189 (2001).

There is no reason to assume this means that man was at some point extinct. In fact I find this a huge jump to conclusions.
Ibn Kathir:

Allah informs that He brought man into existence after he was not even a thing worth mentioning, due to his lowliness and weakness. Allah says,
[هَلْ أَتَى عَلَى الإِنسَـنِ حِينٌ مِّنَ الدَّهْرِ لَمْ يَكُن شَيْئاً مَّذْكُوراً ]
(Has there not been over man a period of time, when he was not a thing worth mentioning) Then Allah explains this by saying,
[إِنَّا خَلَقْنَا الإِنسَـنَ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ]
(Verily, We have created man from Nutfah Amshaj,) meaning, mixed. The words Mashaj and Mashij mean something that is mixed together. Ibn `Abbas said concerning Allah's statement,
[مِن نُّطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ]
(from Nutfah Amshaj,) "This means the fluid of the man and the fluid of the woman when they meet and mix.'' Then man changes after this from stage to stage, condition to condition and color to color. `Ikrimah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas all made statements similar to this. They said, "Amshaj is the mixing of the man's fluid with the woman's fluid.''

نَحْنُ خَلَقْنَاهُمْ وَشَدَدْنَا أَسْرَهُمْ وَإِذَا شِئْنَا بَدَّلْنَا أَمْثَالَهُمْ تَبْدِيلًا
It is We who created them, and We have strengthened their joints (upright); and when We will, We replaced the like of them
(new creation) a complete replacement.
The Glorious Quran: chapter 76, verse 28 (622 AD)
Verse 76:28 appears toward the end of chapter
“Al-Insan” “Humankind.” It indicates that human evolution occurs through the complete replacement of one human species with another. When this verse is taken in conjunction with verse 76:1 of the same chapter (previous poster), one can clearly see that those periods of time when humankind became extinct occurred between the complete removal of one human species and their replacement by a similar, yet new human species. The Arabic phrase “شَدَدْنَا أَسْرَهُمْ” “shadadna asrahum” translated as “strengthened their joints” seems to imply the ability to walk upright 1,2”أَبُو هُرَيْرَة وَالْحَسَن وَالرَّبِيع ,الْأَسْر:هِيَ الْمَفَاصِل”.
1- Tafsir Al-Tabari
2- Tafsir Al-Qurtubi
Skeleton of Neanderthal (left) and modern man (right). Walking upright is one of the main characteristics that distinguishes humankind.
Removal and complete replacement

Just because one thing replaces another, doesn't means they evolved out of one another. If I replace my cellphone with a new one, the new phone isn't necesairly an "evolved" model of the old one. Again, jumping to conclusions and adding interpretation to tafsir.

وَرَبُّكَ الْغَنِيُّ ذُو الرَّحْمَةِ إِن يَشَأْ يُذْهِبْكُمْ وَيَسْتَخْلِفْ مِن بَعْدِكُم مَّا يَشَاء كَمَآ أَنشَأَكُم مِّن ذُرِّيَّةِ قَوْمٍ آخَرِينَ إِنَّ مَا تُوعَدُونَ لآتٍ وَمَا أَنتُم بِمُعْجِزِينَ
And your Lord is free of need, full of mercy. If He wills He will remove you (mankind) and place as a successor after you whatever He wills, just as He constructed you from the descendants of other people (predecessor).
Verily, what you are being promised is coming and you are not preventing it.
The Glorious Quran: chapter: 6, verses 133-134 (610 AD)
These verses indicate that Allah can remove us and place as a successor after us another creation1, just as He constructed us as a new creation from the descendants of a removed predecessor1. The Arabic world “ذُرِّيَّةِ” “thurriah” “وأَصْل ذُرِّيَّة, فِعْلِيَّة مِنْ الذَّرّ” translated as “descendants” also has the meaning of the smallest particle containing a lineage2 (DNA). In the case of a removed species, the only thing left behind is their remnants containing their lineage (DNA). When the statement “أَنشَأَكُم مِّن ذُرِّيَّةِ قَوْمٍ آخَرِينَ”
“constructed you from the descendants of other people” in verse 6:133 is taken in conjunction with the statement “أَنشَأَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ”
“constructed you from a single being (Adam)” in verse 6:98, and the statement “أَنشَأَكُم مِّنَ الْأَرْضِ” “constructed you from the earth” in verses 11:63 and 53:32 (previous poster), one can clearly see that we were created from a single being (Adam) who was constructed from the earth, which must also have contained the lineage remnants (DNA) of other people (predecessors).

Again you're adding interpretation.
Tafsir ibn Kathir:

[كَمَآ أَنشَأَكُمْ مِّن ذُرِّيَّةِ قَوْمٍ ءَاخَرِينَ]
(As He raised you from the seed of other people.) and surely, He is able to do this, and it is easy for Him. And just as Allah has destroyed the earlier nations and brought their successors, He is able to do away with these generations and bring other people in their place.

Homo erectus is believed to be the direct predecessor to modern man. The fossils indicate that he walked upright, had facial and jawbone features similar to modern man, and a cranial capacity of 750 – 1250 cc.
Construction from extinct predecessor
1- Tafsir Al-Tabari
2- Quran: 7:172

There are human beings who have a cranial capacity of that cc, and have an "eyebrow"-skull. There's no reason to believe that these "homo erectus" weren't just humans.

When the above verses are taken in conjunction with the verses on the previous posters, one can see that humankind is created from clay extracted from black mud rotting containing the lineage remnants (DNA) of a decomposing predecessor.

Again a very personal interpretation, sperm by itself is weak, it can only survive a couple of days, especially in an acidic environment like in the uterus. There's no indication at all that weakness would refer to inferiority of genes.

These verses indicate that Allah can, at any time, remove us mankind and bring forth others of whatever He wills of a new creation to place as a successor after us. The Arabic phrase “إِن يَشَأْ يُذْهِبْكُمْ” “in yasha yuthhibkum” translated as “If He wills He will remove you” occurs in the Quran only in these four verses (4:133, 6:133, 14:19, 35:16) and refers to “أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ” “ayyuha alnnasu” translated as “you who are mankind”, and addresses all of mankind.
When the phrase “وَيَأْتِ بِآخَرِينَ” “wayate beakhareen” translated as “and bring forth others” in verse 4:133 is taken in conjunction with the Arabic phrase “وَيَأْتِ بِخَلْقٍ جَدِيدٍ” “wayate bekhalqen jadeed” translated as “and bring forth a new creation” in verses 14:19 and 35:16, one can clearly see that the word “آخَرِينَ” “others” must refer to “خَلْقٍ جَدِيدٍ” “a new creation”. Therefore the word “آخَرِينَ” “others” in the Arabic phrase “قَوْمٍ آخَرِينَ َ” “qawmen akhareen” translated as “other people” in verse 6:133 must also refer to a human species other than modern man.

This is even worse, now you're speculating on what Allah subhana wa ta'ala "could" do, and making interpretive tafsir for that to prove your theory!

عَلَى أَن نُّبَدِّلَ أَمْثَالَكُمْ وَنُنشِئَكُمْ فِي مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
عَلَى أَن نُّبَدِّلَ خَيْرًا مِّنْهُمْ وَمَا نَحْنُ بِمَسْبُوقِينَ
نَحْنُ خَلَقْنَاهُمْ وَشَدَدْنَا أَسْرَهُمْ وَإِذَا شِئْنَا بَدَّلْنَا أَمْثَالَهُمْ تَبْدِيلًا
It is We who created them, and We have strengthened their joints and when We will, We replaced the like of them (new creation)
a complete replacement .
The Glorious Quran: chapter 76, verse 28 (622 AD)
On that we replace better than them (new creation) and We will not be outrun.
The Glorious Quran: chapter 70, verse 41 (610 AD)
On that we replace the like of you (new creation) and construct you in what you do not know (resurrection).
The Glorious Quran: chapter 56, verse 61 (610 AD)
Human evolution will continue
Theses verses indicate that we will be replaced completely by a similar, yet more advanced human species.

The tafsir is becoming worse and worse. Here it is very clear that the interpretation is wrong. Two of those verses are actually about creation in the afterlife and have absolutely nothing to do with evolution! If you read the verses preceding and following them that should be crystal clear.

وَضَرَبَ لَنَا مَثَلًا وَنَسِيَ خَلْقَهُ قَالَ مَنْ يُحْيِي الْعِظَامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٌ
قُلْ يُحْيِيهَا الَّذِي أَنشَأَهَا أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ خَلْقٍ عَلِيمٌ
And he has (man) coined for Us a similitude, and he has forgotten his creation. He said: “Who will give life to the bones when they are remnants.” Say: “He will give life to them Who constructed them the first time, and He in every creation is All Knowing.”
The Glorious Quran chapter: 36, verse 78-79 (610 AD)
وَإِن تَعْجَبْ فَعَجَبٌ قَوْلُهُمْ أَئِذَا كُنَّا تُرَابًا أَئِنَّا لَفِي خَلْقٍ جَدِيدٍ أُوْلَـئِكَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ بِرَبِّهِمْ وَأُوْلَئِكَ الأَغْلاَلُ فِي أَعْنَاقِهِمْ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدونَ
And If you become astonished, indeed astonishing is their saying: “When we become soil we shall be in a new creation (resurrection)!“ Those are who disbelieved in their Lord and those are who the shackles will be on their necks and those are the companions of the Fire, they are in it eternally.
The Glorious Quran chapter: 13, verse 5 (622 AD)
ذَلِكَ جَزَآؤُهُم بِأَنَّهُمْ كَفَرُواْ بِآيَاتِنَا وَقَالُواْ أَئِذَا كُنَّا عِظَامًا وَرُفَاتًا أَإِنَّا لَمَبْعُوثُونَ خَلْقًا جَدِيدًا أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْاْ أَنَّ اللّهَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ قَادِرٌ عَلَى أَن يَخْلُقَ مِثْلَهُمْ وَجَعَلَ لَهُمْ أَجَلاً لاَّ رَيْبَ فِيهِ فَأَبَى الظَّالِمُونَ إَلاَّ كُفُورًا
That is their reward because they disbelieved in Our revelations and said: “When we are bones and decomposed particles are we to be raised up a new creation!” Have they not seen that Allah Who created the heavens and the earth is Able to create the like of them, and has appointed for them an end whereof there is no doubt? But the wrong-doers refused except to disbelief.
The Glorious Quran chapter: 17, verse 98-99 (610 AD)
Resurrection is the final evolution
These verses indicate that we will be constructed from our remnants (containing our DNA) a similar, yet new creation.

How can you even call this evolution? The theory of evolution suggests mutations in semen/eggs cause new species, being reconstructed after death obviously has nothing to do with evolution, now you are really stretching explanations to find "proof" in the Qur'an.

Theory of Creative Evolution
•An extinction level event results in removal of existing human species from Earth.
•A period of time elapses for Earth to become inhabitable again.
•Previous species’ DNA is extracted from the clay of black soil rich with organic matter.
•A new and more advanced species is constructed from the clay based on the extracted DNA.
•The new species is placed on Earth as a new successor.
•Since our Sun is still middle-aged and has 4-5 billion years before it becomes a red-giant, this evolution could continue for many successors to come.
•The final evolution will occur when we are resurrected a new creation from our remnants containing our DNA.
•Coincides with the archeological fossil record.
•Explains the DNA similarities between species.
•Resolves the mystery of the “missing link”.

Oh my, what a final! Sorry but this is just absurd. How can you call this a "theory" this is complete speculation. Could it happen? Maybe. Do we have any indication that it might happen? No, not at all! The entire thing is based on false interpretation of the Qur'an.

[doorster]

<snip>

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum
MashaAllah brother, it's hard for everyone, especially for those who call to Islam.
I found that it helps to remember surah al-asr when that stuff happens.
May Allah subhana wa ta'ala guide you

[doorster]

<snip>

[ihijazi]

Al-Salam Alaykum,

Jazak Allah Khayer for your replay. Although you have skipped many of the verses (posters) which when included they all come together to support what we have discovered. I will reply to your e-mail in more details, but today we have a meeting on campus to arrange a presentation of our findings to the university community. I believe it would be more effective to look at one verse (poster) at a time. For now, can you give me your understanding of poster-3?

الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ جَاعِلِ الْمَلَائِكَةِ رُسُلًا أُولِي أَجْنِحَةٍ مَّثْنَى وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ يَزِيدُ فِي الْخَلْقِ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

Praise be to Allah, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, Who made the angels messengers having wings, two or three or four. He increases in the creation whatever He wills. Certainly Allah is capable of all things.
The Glorious Quran: chapter 35, verse 1 (622 AD)


Best Regards,





Al-Salam Alaykum,
Jazak Allah Khayer for your replay. Although you have skipped many of the verses (posters) which when included they all come together to support what we have discovered. I will reply to your e-mail in more details, but today we have a meeting on campus to arrange a presentation of our findings to the university community. I believe it would be more effective to look at one verse (poster) at a time. For now, can you give me your understanding of poster-3?

الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ جَاعِلِ الْمَلَائِكَةِ رُسُلًا أُولِي أَجْنِحَةٍ مَّثْنَى وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ يَزِيدُ فِي الْخَلْقِ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

Praise be to Allah, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, Who made the angels messengers having wings, two or three or four. He increases in the creation whatever He wills. Certainly Allah is capable of all things.
The Glorious Quran: chapter 35, verse 1 (622 AD)

[Abdul Fattah]

selam aleykum

Al-Salam Alaykum,
Jazak Allah Khayer for your replay. Although you have skipped many of the verses (posters) which when included they all come together to support what we have discovered.

I'm pretty confident that the ones I skipped were completely neutral in the creationists vs. evolutionists debate.

I will reply to your e-mail in more details, but today we have a meeting on campus to arrange a presentation of our findings to the university community. I believe it would be more effective to look at one verse (poster) at a time.

ok, take your time

For now, can you give me your understanding of poster-3?
الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ جَاعِلِ الْمَلَائِكَةِ رُسُلًا أُولِي أَجْنِحَةٍ مَّثْنَى وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ يَزِيدُ فِي الْخَلْقِ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
Praise be to Allah, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, Who made the angels messengers having wings, two or three or four.
He increases in the creation whatever He wills. Certainly Allah is capable of all things.
The Glorious Quran: chapter 35, verse 1 (622 AD)
Allah increases in the creation whatever He wills

nothing out of the ordinary, it looks like it could have come straight out of a classical tafsir. In fact I don't see why you've put it there as it has no bearing on your theory. This verse does not imply or suggest your theory is right in any way.

[ihijazi]

Alsalam Alaykum,

According to Al-Tabari1, an early Islamic scholar (839 – 923), this increase in creation is not limited to the angels, but applies to all of His creation. He increases whatever He wills in the creation of any of His creatures “وَكَذَلِكَ ذَلِكَ فِي جَمِيع خَلْقه يَزِيد مَا يَشَاء فِي خَلْق مَا شَاءَ مِنْهُ”.
This increase can include the number of appendages, stature (7:69) or even intelligence.

Best Regards,

[doorster]

<snip>

[there there]

Can we stop using the "gaps in the fossil record" argument in an attempt to discredit evolution please?
If there was no fossils evolution would still clearly be understandable.

Secondly, can atheists stop shouting "evidence evidence!" ad nauseum. If religionists were concerned with evidence they wouldn't be religious, they wouldn't have faith.

Of course, atheists needn't tediously ask for non-existing evidence if religionists didn't insist on trying, in vain, to prove their religion is the 'right one'. Please stop trying to justify your faith with supposed evidence and reason! You didn't lull yourself into your religion with evidence so there’s little point in trying to defend your position of faith-I stress the word faith-with evidence.

[ihijazi]

Selam aleykum

And what exactly is a "modern" human? I wouldn't call 30000y ago as "modern". Humans back then were different from humans now.

No, this is wrong. Neanderthalis never co-existed with "modern" humans. Homo Neanderthalis did however co-exist with "Homo Sapiens". However this begs the question. How smart was it of scientists to compare 30000y old genome with modern genome? Of course there are differences, but there are also differences between Homo sapiens 30000y ago, and homo sapiens now. So these differences do not prove that neanderthalis was "something different than human". Detailed study of the skeleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intellect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man. Yet they classify it as a separate species simply because of these small differences in genes? That's completely generic and arbitrary! And what kind of evidence for crossbreeding should be found than? It's easy to claim that no evidence has been found , but what evidence did they look for? How do you expect to find evidence of crossbreeding 30000y ago? that's practically impossible. If they found no such evidence that probably tells us more about how hard it is to research what happened in the past rather then give us an indication if they did or didn't crossbreed.

Alsalam Alaykum,

Is your reply based on any published scientific evidence? You did not provide any references to what you have stated. What I presented in slide 2 are research results of published scientific papers on mtDNA and nuclear DNA analysis. So please provide your references.


Best Regards,

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum ihijazi
First off all, You should say: according to this scholar, or according to that imam, and expect people to accept that on authority, instead say according to this hadith, or according to that Ayat. Even Scholars have to provide source for their tafsir, so what source did Al-Tabari use for that?
Secondly there's a big difference in saying that this increase could refer to any creature and saying that it does. There's even a bigger difference in claiming that this increase refers to the process of evolution. Again, be careful with tafsir from personal opinion.

Is your reply based on any published scientific evidence? You did not provide any references to what you have stated.

Which part of it? you quoted several arguments, you'll have to be more specific about which part you want scientific evidence from.

What I presented in slide 2 are research results of published scientific papers on mtDNA and nuclear DNA analysis.

Wrong, what you have provided is not research results, what you have provided are interpretations of research results. What I have shown you is the flaws in your interpretations.

Hi there there

Can we stop using the "gaps in the fossil record" argument in an attempt to discredit evolution please?

No we cannot, it is still a major problem to the theory of evolution, and just asking nicely won't make it go away.
[quote]If there was no fossils evolution would still clearly be understandable.[/qoute]
Just because it's understandable doesn't mean it's accurate. That's not the issue.

Secondly, can atheists stop shouting "evidence evidence!" ad nauseum. If religionists were concerned with evidence they wouldn't be religious, they wouldn't have faith.

I resent that. Stop making it look as if the issue here were science vs. religion. That's not an accurate representation. Many atheists don't believe in all parts of the evolution theory also! Some parts of the evolution theory simply aren't scientific, and that's a fact that any self-respecting scientist should acknowledge regardless of his personal views.

Of course, atheists needn't tediously ask for non-existing evidence if religionists didn't insist on trying, in vain, to prove their religion is the 'right one'. Please stop trying to justify your faith with supposed evidence and reason!

Please stop telling people what to do and stop being a hypocrite. Aren't you doing the exact same thing? Trying to bring some form of enlightenment to people? What makes you so fantastic that it's ok for you to come here and spread the enlightened vision of atheism, but it's not ok for other people to spread their faith? If you don't like it, ignore it, that's all you can do.

You didn't lull yourself into your religion with evidence so there’s little point in trying to defend your position of faith-I stress the word faith-with evidence.

You're wrong, there's a huge point. You're just not willing to accept that point.

[ihijazi]

Alsalam Alaykum,

As Muslims we believe that the Quran is the final revelation from Allah (God) and the greatest miracle given to our Prophet and Messenger Muhammad, Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him (ABPUH). We also believe that Prophet Muhammad (ABPUH) was the final Messenger sent to all mankind and the Quran will continue to be a source of miracles until the end of time. The Glorious Quran consists of 114 chapters (surahs) each containing a varying number of verses (ayat). The meanings and interpretations of many of these verses are either straight forward or well documented in the Sunnah literature. A few verses are classified as allegorical (mutshabhat), and we are forbidden to interpret them, since their meanings are only known to Allah. The remaining verses were left open to the interpretations of the Muslims, and are the source of the Quran’s continuous miracles. Within these verses are words, phrases and meanings related to Allah’s creation in the fields of astronomy, geology, embryology, botany, entomology, archeology, biology, etc. The meanings and interpretations of these verses will vary according to the knowledge of the time, until scientific ideas become well established facts. Science has advanced dramatically in the last 1400 years, and some of the scientific disciplines did not exist even a few hundred years ago. Therefore, we should expect to find great variations in the interpretations of many of these verses found in the old Quranic interpretation literature such as Tafsir: Al-Tabari, Qurtubi and Ibn-Kathir. As science advances Muslims must reinterpret these verses in light of modern knowledge. The reinterpretation must include a carful review of previous interpretations, a correct understanding of the origins and meanings of the Arabic words and phrases, the verses’ relationship to other Quranic verses and an in-depth understanding of the scientific findings. If we do not reinterpret these verses, and we remain with the interpretations of the past, we would have, in effect, eliminated a major source of Quranic miracles.

Best Regards,

[doorster]

Alsalam Alaykum,
......................

The reinterpretation must include a careful review of previous interpretations, a correct understanding of the origins and meanings of the Arabic words and phrases, the verses’ relationship to other Quranic verses and an in-depth understanding of the scientific findings. If we do not reinterpret these verses, and we remain with the interpretations of the past, we would have, in effect, eliminated a major source of Quranic miracles.

Best Regards,

wa alaikum salaam
yes, we should as Br. Estes said:

it is important to keep in mind that any time we discover something in the answers to actually be better than what we already have, we should be committed to change our position and accept that which is true over that which is false and take that which is better for that which is inferior.

but I do not think he meant that all and sundry should be doing it, only well known people who can be spoken to, face to face, who have history can be relied upon, not any tom, dick and harry who goes on flight of fancy or is an expert googler can be taken as our teacher.

:w:

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

The meanings and interpretations of many of these verses are either straight forward or well documented in the Sunnah literature. A few verses are classified as allegorical (mutshabhat), and we are forbidden to interpret them, since their meanings are only known to Allah. The remaining verses were left open to the interpretations of the Muslims, and are the source of the Quran’s continuous miracles.

Brother that is just plain wrong. Personal interpretation is not allowed for any verse! You must always have some source, even for the third kind of verses.

Within these verses are words, phrases and meanings related to Allah’s creation in the fields of astronomy, geology, embryology, botany, entomology, archeology, biology, etc. The meanings and interpretations of these verses will vary according to the knowledge of the time, until scientific ideas become well established facts. Science has advanced dramatically in the last 1400 years, and some of the scientific disciplines did not exist even a few hundred years ago.

Well scientific findings do not always provide a guarantee. And the cases of the tafsir you presented are as such. Just because we know understand the scientific possibility of an asteroid hitting earth, and the ramifications of it, does not give us a guarantee that Allah subhana wa ta'ala will indeed use this method for the day of resurrection. So in this case your scientific findings provide no guarantee once soever; and the tafsir is by mere personal opinion, which is haram.

If we do not reinterpret these verses, and we remain with the interpretations of the past, we would have, in effect, eliminated a major source of Quranic miracles.

Well that does not seem like a big deal to me, far more dangerous is the possibility of fabricating false miracles, which the later will inevitably be falsified and may turn people away from Islam! And if you look at Sites like the one from Harun Yahya, you can find dozens of these fabricated miracles based on doggy science, bad linguistically interpretation and, mere opinion. And it's very sad, because it takes away the spotlight from the genuine miracles that are also mentioned on that page. There is a reason that tafsir is limited to certain rules, and no matter what amount of knowledge we potentially miss out on, we should still respect those rules, end of story.

Now please back on topic, if you want to continue this open a new topic for it.

[there there]

[QUOTE=Abdul Fattah;1023999]
Hi there there

No we cannot, it is still a major problem to the theory of evolution, and just asking nicely won't make it go away.

If there was no fossils evolution would still clearly be understandable.[/qoute]
Just because it's understandable doesn't mean it's accurate. That's not the issue.

Oh, bad wording on my part. I'll try and be more clear: if there was no fossil record there'd still be an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution. There’s innumerable sources online and they’ll be lots of information in your local library too.

I resent that. Stop making it look as if the issue here were science vs. religion. That's not an accurate representation. Many atheists don't believe in all parts of the evolution theory also! Some parts of the evolution theory simply aren't scientific, and that's a fact that any self-respecting scientist should acknowledge regardless of his personal views.

I’m at a loss when you say some parts of evolution aren’t scientific. I’d be interested in finding out more if you could give me a link or something. It’s curious how, though, people seem to focus on the apparent flaws of evolution and conveniently ignore the overwhelming evidence that does illustrate it.

I’m not trying to be provocative in a roundabout way when I say “If religionists were concerned with evidence they wouldn't be religious”. You took that in a bad way, but shouldn’t it be a good thing? In that you trust your God that much. You have faith. (Someone told me another way to spell faith is R I S K, and he was a Christian.) I’m not trying to come off as snobby to sound like “Oh, if ONLY they were enlightened about evidence et al they wouldn’t need religion.” No, of course not. I’m saying your faith transcends rational thought. It’s not about searching for a justification; it’s about you trusting God. It’s for this reason that I think it’s silly for people to try and prove their faith in the same manner one proves the Earth goes around the sun. It’s two different ways of thinking, two distant magisteria.

Please stop telling people what to do and stop being a hypocrite. Aren't you doing the exact same thing? Trying to bring some form of enlightenment to people? What makes you so fantastic that it's ok for you to come here and spread the enlightened vision of atheism, but it's not ok for other people to spread their faith? If you don't like it, ignore it, that's all you can do.

What I’m doing is giving you my opinions and calling me a hypocrite (etc) isn’t refuting them. There's nothing tospread about atheism.

You're wrong, there's a huge point. You're just not willing to accept that point.

I don’t think I’m wrong when I say you didn’t choose Islam because of evidence. There’s no more evidence for Islam then there is evidence for Christianity. You didn’t see something one day and go “Oh, ok, I now know beyond all doubt that Islam is the right religion.” You don’t know any more than the Christian. As I said, though, it’s not about proving, it’s about faith.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi there there

Oh, bad wording on my part. I'll try and be more clear: if there was no fossil record there'd still be an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution. There’s innumerable sources online and they’ll be lots of information in your local library too.

Well you need to understand that the theory of evolution exists out of many subtheories. There might be plenty proof for other subtheories like microevolution and macroevolution, but there exists no proof at all for common descent! Once evolutionists finally admit that, they should acknowledge that common descent is not a scientific (sub)theory. I never said that all parts of evolution are bad...

I’m at a loss when you say some parts of evolution aren’t scientific. I’d be interested in finding out more if you could give me a link or something.

*) Micro evolution: Theory; well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.
*) Macro evolution: Theory; still some lose ends but testable, falsifiable and provable.
*) Common descent: Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.

It’s curious how, though, people seem to focus on the apparent flaws of evolution and conveniently ignore the overwhelming evidence that does illustrate it.

It's even more curious how some "scientists" accept common descent based on the proofs for other subtheories rather then judging each subtheory by its own merits.

I’m not trying to be provocative in a roundabout way when I say “If religionists were concerned with evidence they wouldn't be religious”. You took that in a bad way, but shouldn’t it be a good thing? In that you trust your God that much. You have faith. (Someone told me another way to spell faith is R I S K, and he was a Christian.) I’m not trying to come off as snobby to sound like “Oh, if ONLY they were enlightened about evidence et al they wouldn’t need religion.” No, of course not. I’m saying your faith transcends rational thought.

Well I didn't really take it personal, I wasn't upset or anything, I'm often that aggressive in debating. It doesn't mean that I'm actually angry, it's a pragmatic thing I do to save time. You'll get used to it after a while ^_^
Anyway, I think your mistakenly comparing Christianity with Islam to much. Islam is a very down to earth rational belief, whereas Christianity has a lot of mysticism and catholicism even more so.

It’s not about searching for a justification; it’s about you trusting God. It’s for this reason that I think it’s silly for people to try and prove their faith in the same manner one proves the Earth goes around the sun. It’s two different ways of thinking, two distant magisteria.

Well like I said, I stopped believing certain parts of evolution back when I was still atheistic. I do have faith in God and trust him, but thats completely irrelevant here. In fact Islam doesn't exclude evolution. I just don't believe in certain parts because they don't seem to make sense to me.

[QUOTE]What I’m doing is giving you my opinions and calling me a hypocrite (etc) isn’t refuting them. [quote]
I didn't attempt to refute you, since you didn't say anything in that quote worth refuting. You simply told people what you think they should or shouldn't do, and I simply replied that was a hypocritical thing to say. And don't know what I should be refuting there. I'm simply pointing something out to you.

There's nothing tospread about atheism.

I know that, but all the same you did come here and voice your opinion did you not?

I don’t think I’m wrong when I say you didn’t choose Islam because of evidence. There’s no more evidence for Islam then there is evidence for Christianity. You didn’t see something one day and go “Oh, ok, I now know beyond all doubt that Islam is the right religion.” You don’t know any more than the Christian. As I said, though, it’s not about proving, it’s about faith.

How would you know? As a matter of fact I am convinced completely of my faith. I don't consider it very plausible, instead I consider it factual. Even if I can't provide any concrete proofs, I have seen enough of them myself. Sadly I can't reproduce them though. Eitherway, that still doesn't matter. Just because there is no "evidence" doesn't mean that we should give up and shut up. People convert to Islam all the time, and when they do, forums like this are a huge push in the back for people who do convert. Also, people who were born into an Islamic background might sometimes feel intimidated by (atheistic) scientists who make it seem as if science and religion are antagonistic. For them to these debates can be very useful. So there is a very big point.

[there there]

Well you need to understand that the theory of evolution exists out of many subtheories. There might be plenty proof for other subtheories like microevolution and macroevolution, but there exists no proof at all for common descent! Once evolutionists finally admit that, they should acknowledge that common descent is not a scientific (sub)theory. I never said that all parts of evolution are bad...

*) Micro evolution: Theory; well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.
*) Macro evolution: Theory; still some lose ends but testable, falsifiable and provable.
*) Common descent: Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.

To say common descent is just speculation, much less that there’s no evidence for it is just an outright lie, a lie akin to saying Spain doesn’t being with the letter S. Please, look it up in a reputable textbook, or a reputable science source online. There’s a reason science works the way it does, peer reviewing work; so the riff raff doesn’t come through. Science works by almost trying to disprove hypotheses so it can rule stuff out and get closer to truth.

It's even more curious how some "scientists" accept common descent based on the proofs for other subtheories rather then judging each subtheory by its own merits.

If I’ve understood you right here, you’ve just asserted it’s wrong for scientists to use evidence primarily used to back up one sub theory to back up another. Well, why? There’s nothing illogical about using evidence to demonstrate two (or more) sub theories. If indeed the evidence does show that , then there’s no reason to say “Oh but that piece was used to prove x, and for that reason it can’t be used to prove y.”

Say fossil A was found in a particular place and thus showed that the animal lived there, and later on fossil remnants of A were found hence showing it’s evolutionary history, there’s no reason why A can’t be used with the others to back up claims about its evolutionary past.

Well I didn't really take it personal, I wasn't upset or anything, I'm often that aggressive in debating. It doesn't mean that I'm actually angry, it's a pragmatic thing I do to save time. You'll get used to it after a while ^_^
Anyway, I think your mistakenly comparing Christianity with Islam to much. Islam is a very down to earth rational belief, whereas Christianity has a lot of mysticism and catholicism even more so.

I don’t know a great deal about Islam so I can’t comment a great deal on this, but it’s the same as Christianity in that both beliefs demand a supernatural (creator) God exists, that listens to prayers etc. This alone is irrational, let alone the other supernatural claims it undoubtedly makes. Maybe you have a rational take on it.

Maybe you don’t actually believe in a God, but I assume the majority do.

How would you know? As a matter of fact I am convinced completely of my faith. I don't consider it very plausible, instead I consider it factual. Even if I can't provide any concrete proofs, I have seen enough of them myself. Sadly I can't reproduce them though. Eitherway, that still doesn't matter. Just because there is no "evidence" doesn't mean that we should give up and shut up. People convert to Islam all the time, and when they do, forums like this are a huge push in the back for people who do convert. Also, people who were born into an Islamic background might sometimes feel intimidated by (atheistic) scientists who make it seem as if science and religion are antagonistic. For them to these debates can be very useful. So there is a very big point.

We must be using words differently. I meant that no one can prove their faith is the “right one” in the same way I can prove that this table my computer is sitting on exists. No one can prove their faith to the same degree. To consider your faith factual in the same sense I just outlined is to admit you’re deluded.

I never said people should “give up and shut up” on the terms that there’s no evidence. The point I’m trying to make is that religion isn’t even about evidence and scientific reasoning (to the believer anyway). Religion starts from fixed conclusions that can’t be falsified. It shouldn’t be treated, in as far the believer should be concerned, in the same systematic way we approach other disciplines like science.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi there there

To say common descent is just speculation, much less that there’s no evidence for it is just an outright lie, a lie akin to saying Spain doesn’t being with the letter S. Please, look it up in a reputable textbook, or a reputable science source online. There’s a reason science works the way it does, peer reviewing work; so the riff raff doesn’t come through. Science works by almost trying to disprove hypotheses so it can rule stuff out and get closer to truth.

It's easy to tell me to look into a textbook, it's a whole other thing to bring evidence, falsification or empirical data for yourself. In here if you wanna talk the talk, you better walk the walk. My position is there exist no such evidence, if you claim otherwise yo'ure welcome to show and tell.

If I’ve understood you right here, you’ve just asserted it’s wrong for scientists to use evidence primarily used to back up one sub theory to back up another.

Not "primarily", but entirely!

[QUOTE]Well, why? There’s nothing illogical about using evidence to demonstrate two (or more) sub theories. [quote]
Yes there is! In science each theory needs to be judged on it's own merits. You can't simply assume that if one theory is proven, that another is proven also because it's somehow related.

If indeed the evidence does show that , then there’s no reason to say “Oh but that piece was used to prove x, and for that reason it can’t be used to prove y.”

I'm not talking about what it's "supposed" to prove. I'm not an idiot. I'm talking about what it does prove! e.g: if you can prove that mutations happen, and you can prove that sometimes these mutations bring beneficial charesteristics, then that does not prove that all existing creatures evolved out of the same ancestral being. So proofs for micro and macro evolution, do not prove common descent.

Say fossil A was found in a particular place and thus showed that the animal lived there, and later on fossil remnants of A were found hence showing it’s evolutionary history,

A fossil does not "show" evolutionary history as you imply. It only shows which creatures lived in which era. How those creatures got there is a whole different matter. So unless you have a fossil of a pregnant creature with a mutated offspring or something like that, fossils can't prove common descent at all.

...belief demand a supernatural (creator) God exists, that listens to prayers etc. This alone is irrational, let alone the other supernatural claims it undoubtedly makes. Maybe you have a rational take on it.

That must be some odd definition of irrational that I'm currently unaware of. There is nothing irrational about those things, rather you're being biased. Allow me to elaborate. When you conclude something is irrational simply because it's supernatural, then you assume that only the natural is rational. In other words you assume that the laws of nature are, will be, and have been ever present. Therefor you are biased by your assumption. even supernatural things can technically speaking be perfectly rational if they do not violate the rules of logic and self-consistency. The only objective objection you can voice towards supernatural claims, is that they are not natural. Of course, that kind of goes without saying, and it isn't far as provocative as calling it "irrational".

We must be using words differently. I meant that no one can prove their faith is the “right one” in the same way I can prove that this table my computer is sitting on exists. No one can prove their faith to the same degree. To consider your faith factual in the same sense I just outlined is to admit you’re deluded.

Just because you can't prove it to others, doesn't mean you can't be convinced about it yourself without having to jump to the conclusion of being deluded. By that argument you yourself would be deluded!
1. You believe the table your pc sits on exists.
2. I'm not sure it exists. (you could have lied, or perhaps just said something random to make a point)
3. You cannot prove to me beyond reasonable doubt the existence of said table. (even if you show a picture I could say it's someone else's table, or photoshopped, if you buy me a plain ticket to come and see it I could claim that you've bought a new table just to win your argument. Whatever you do, I will always have a doorway to reasonable doubt.
4. Therefor you are deluded?
Quite the contrary, I would say that a person who believes: that anything that cannot be proven doesn't exist; is the narrow minded, deluded person.

I never said people should “give up and shut up” on the terms that there’s no evidence. The point I’m trying to make is that religion isn’t even about evidence and scientific reasoning (to the believer anyway). Religion starts from fixed conclusions that can’t be falsified. It shouldn’t be treated, in as far the believer should be concerned, in the same systematic way we approach other disciplines like science.

You didn't just "make a point", don't try to weasel out now. You said:
"Please stop trying to justify your faith with supposed evidence and reason!"
I would say that “give up and shut up” pretty much sums that up. Eitherway, like I said in my previous posts, even if a person isn't religious due to evidence, it can be a push in the back, or a relief during challenging times. So I don't see why people wouldn't be allowed to study their religious views in whichever way they find suitable. It's not like the methodology is copywriten to science, and religion has to abide by some restraining-order or something.

[Gator]

Interesting article on recent fossil finds -

Fossil Fish Shows Complexity of Transition to Land

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: October 15, 2008

In a new study of a fossil fish that lived 375 million years ago, scientists are finding striking evidence of the intermediate steps by which some marine vertebrates evolved into animals that walked on land.

There was much more to the complex transition than fins evolving into sturdy limbs. The head and braincase were changing, a mobile neck was emerging and a bone associated with underwater feeding and gill respiration was diminishing in size, a beginning of the bone’s adaptation for an eventual role in hearing for land animals.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/sc...fossil.html?hp

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Gator
I find It odd that you would post claims about a fossil as "evidence" for evolution; when I just come to explain in one of my previous posts that such fossils can never serve as evidence at all. Fossils simply prove which animal lived when an where. It does not give evidence of how it gotten there, it doesn't show us what it allegedly evolved from or into. All those things are speculation and interpretation.

[Ali_Cena]

Abdul Fattah i think it is great that we have someone with knowledge like yours to help explain to other such as me who are less knowledgable in these feilds "evolution" and that. thanks lol

[Hamayun]

Here is an article I read on the BBC website. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I hope you will too..

Discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution

Many people believe that science has proven that life and all it encompasses evolved by infinitesimal gradiations, a theory we call evolution. According to creationist theory, this is simply not true. The theory of evolution has many discrepancies and often conflicts with reality. Let us take a walk down popular science's timeline of the universe, and examine it objectively and scientifically.
Prebiological Evolution
First let us look at the theory of evolution itself. Before life can evolve from one thing to another it must be created in its simplest form. All life undergoes something called protein 'transcription' and 'translation'.
It starts with DNA. DNA is described as a twisted ladder. Now try making a ladder with as many rungs as the Encyclopaedia Britannica has letters! Furthermore, these letters - or 'bases' - must be in a set order according to what organism they are in. In short, DNA is like a book. A book cannot be made by throwing random letters of the alphabet together. The letters must be carefully selected by an intelligent source - the author. This means DNA needs a writer, and we can certainly suppose that the being who created the universe also 'writes' DNA.
DNA must interact with mRNA1 to continue the transcription and translation. mRNA is created base by base copying the opposite of DNA. Then this mRNA goes through a ribosome (or rRNA2) and connects with tRNA3. tRNA is a smaller version of mRNA that picks up complex organic compounds called amino acids. When tRNA and mRNA meet they form a long chain of amino acids called a protein. You can see now how hard it is for these compounds to simply come together. The odds against these five compounds being randomly formed in a pool of muck just after the planet has cooled and then to have suddenly begun this cycle are astronomical, if not impossible, yet life according to evolution requires that this happen. In fact, life requires that this happen.
In 1953, a scientist named Stanley Miller mixed several chemicals is a glass tube, zapped them with electricity, and subsequently created the previously-mentioned amino acids. This, he said, was probably what happened in that pool of muck billions of years ago to create life. Newspapers cited a breakthrough and subsequent experiments popped up, some using heat instead of electricity, others ultraviolet rays to mimic the sun.
But organisms only use a specific kind of amino acids known as 'left handed'. Miller's amino acids were of both kinds. There is no natural process that creates only left-handed, life-supporting amino acids.
Five years later, a chemist named Sidney Fox boiled already existing amino acids in water, and some of them formed protein-like chains of amino acids. Again, the scientific community cited a breakthrough. But lifeforms require that proteins are linked by peptide bonds. Fox's protein-like structures had all sorts of different kinds of bonds, rendering them useless to a living organism. Also, a true protein has its amino acids linked in a particular order. Fox's protein-like structures were the equivalent of throwing Scrabble letters on the floor and calling it a sentence.
In both of these experiments, the products were immediately put in tubes in a dark place where they would be incapable of breaking down again. Why? Because as soon as these compounds are created they will fall apart unless their environment changes to a more suitable form. In short, the environment necessary for amino acids to be created is not the same as the environment that will keep them alive. This is because heat, electricity and ultraviolet rays will destroy amino acids. If one wants to create amino acids, one must remove the very things that created them after they are created! Fox and Miller have merely proved that even the tiniest organic molecules can only be created by an intelligent force.
Fossils
In 1859, Charles Darwin published the first widely accepted theory of evolution in the tome The Origin of the Species, and the outcry was almost immediate. Contrary to popular belief, though, this disgruntlement came mostly from geologists, not clergymen. The fossil record back then (and still today) was nearly totally void of transitional species. If species are continually mutating, never constant, why do we continually find several of the same, certain prehistoric creatures, but never any that appear to be in transition? Why do paleontologists find lots of dinosaurs but never where dinosaurs come from, nor what they turned into?
In Darwin's own words, 'Why, if species have descended by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?' It is an excellent question, which he answers himself, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.'
So, resuming our trip through history, let us examine the most abundantly fossilised life forms: vertebrates. These are animals with backbones, including fish, reptiles, mammals, birds and so on.
Fish to Amphibians
The evolutionary thesis states that certain fish species evolved the ability to crawl out of the water and then evolved the other amphibious characteristics. There is no specific fossil fish species yet identified as an amphibian ancestor, but an extinct order known as the rhipsodians are dubbed by Darwinists as the 'ancestral group'. Their skeletal features have certain characteristics that resemble early amphibians, but according to the textbook Vertebrate History by Barbara Stahl, 'none of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterise the primitive tetrapods.' There are other inconsistencies, such as the major differences in the reproductive systems of fish and amphibians.
In 1938, a coelacanth, a fish thought to have been extinct for 70 million years, was caught in the Indian ocean. Scientists thought that as it was a close relative of the rhipsodians it would offer new information about the soft body parts of intermediate ancestors of amphibians and fish. But, in the dissection, its internal organs showed no sign of being pre-adapted to land, nor did it give any indication of how a fish becomes an amphibian. This suggests an examination of the soft body parts of rhipsodians would be equally disappointing to the theory of evolution.
Amphibians to Reptiles
This transition is currently the least explicable. To date there is no satisfactory candidate to document it. There are fossil amphibians called seymouria that have certain reptile characteristics in their skeletal structure, but recently they have been re-labelled true amphibians. They also appear far too late in the fossil record anyway.
The most important differences between reptiles and amphibians, however, involve the soft body parts. And these, of course, cannot be fossilised. The main difficulty for Darwinists attempting to explain this transition is the vast differences in the reproductive system of these two kingdoms. Amphibian eggs are laid underwater and the hatched larvae undergo a complex metamorphosis before they become adults, whereas reptiles lay hard, shell-covered eggs on land and the young are perfect replicas of the adults. No Darwinian explanation yet exists as to how amphibians developed these reptilian reproductive processes.
Reptiles to Mammals
There are plenty of possible transitional species for this mutation, and at first a reptile to mammal transition seems quite plausible. It has even been called the 'crown jewel' of the fossil record. There is a large reptilian order called therapsida, of which some fossils have features intermediate between mammal and reptile. A fossil is considered reptilian if it has more than one bone in its jaw and if one particular jawbone, the articulator bone, connects to the skull's quadrate bone. Mammal fossils have one jawbone, the dentary bone, which connects to the squamosal bone in the skull. Assuming this criterion, some therapsids have slight mammalian characteristics, and a few could reasonably be classified as either reptiles or mammals.
Douglas Futuyuma, evolutionary biologist, writes, 'The gradual transition from therapsids to mammals is so abundantly documented by scores of species in every stage of transition that it is impossible to tell which therapsid species were actual ancestors of modern mammals.' But Darwinian transformation requires a single line of descent, so large numbers of eligible candidates prove nothing. Furthermore, the therapsids do not come in the chronological order required of them by Darwinism. What this means is, therapsid fossils do not go from most reptilian jawbone to most mammalian jawbone in chronological order. As famous Darwin critic Philip Johnson puts it, 'An artificial line of descent [between reptiles and mammals] can be constructed, but only by arbitrarily mixing species of different subgroups, and by arranging them out of chronological order. If [the evolutionary] hypothesis is that mammals evolved from therapsids only once... then most of the therapsids with mammal-like characteristics were not part of a macroevolutionary transition. If most were not, perhaps all were not.'
Besides, the only things therapsids have in common with mammals are the ear and jaw bones. One realises there is a great deal more explaining to do when one observes the vast differences in reptilian and mammalian reproductive systems and other soft body parts. If you go further, things get even trickier, especially trying to explain the mutations behind the diversity of mammals, a group that includes such varieties as monkeys, horses, platypuses, bats, whales, squirrels, polar bears, white tailed deer, etc. Again Philip Johnson is critical saying, 'If mammals are a monophyletic4 group, then the Darwinist model requires that every one of the groups have descended from a single, unidentified small land mammal. Huge numbers of intermediate species in the direct line of transition would have had to exist, but the fossil record fails to record them.'
Reptiles to Birds
Archaeopteryx is an approximately 145 million-year-old bird with skeletal features similar to a small dinosaur called compsognathus. It is birdlike in that it has wings, feathers and a wishbone, but it has a mouthful of teeth and claws on its wings. The question here is whether archaeopteyx is a direct link between reptiles and birds, or just a peculiar misfit such as the modern platypus. Until recently, it was regarded as a misfit because the next oldest birds were aquatic divers, unlikely descendants of archaeopteyx. That changed when two fossil birds with certain reptilian features, dated approximately 10 and 20 million years after archaeopteryx, were found - one in China, one in Spain. There is, however, little evidence that they are related to archaeopteryx. Now, the autheniticity of archaeopteryx has been called into question. Many scientists in good standing believe it was a hoax.
Whatever is concluded about archaeopteryx, questions still arise as to how feathered wings, the distinct avian lung, and other body parts evolved, not to mention the ability to fly. Similar to mammals, birds are a very diversified kingdom containing such species as the emu, the sparrow and the penguin, and it is difficult to explain how they evolved from a single ancestor through viable intermediate stages.
Apes to Humans
Anthropology, the study of human origins, sometimes appears to have more evidence backing it because of its nomenclature. Nebraska man and Piltdown Man were discovered to be hoaxes, Neanderthals are considered as a subspecies, not an ancestor, and Cro-Magnon man is simply modern man. That leaves us with four fossil species, Australopithecus arensis, A. africanus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus.
The first two, known as the australopithecines, are apes no more technologically or cerebrally developed than modern gorillas or chimpanzees, but supposedly walked upright. However, one of Britain's most prestigious primate experts, Solly Zuckerman, recently performed biometric testing on them and concluded that 'the anatomical basis for the claim that [they] walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusions that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman primates that it remains unacceptable.' Zuckerman sees the evolution of man from apes as self evident, but tends to see much of the fossil evidence as bunk. He compared it to parapsychology and claimed the amount of radical speculation 'is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.' Other experts in good standing claim that the australopithecines were actually distinct species.
Homo habilis or 'handy man' is an ape that was given status as a human ancestor because it was found near primitive tools that it was presumed to have used. But many prestigious anthropologists now deny that he ever used tools, or even that he ever existed.
The popular current hypothesis known as the 'mitochondrial Eve' theory states that humans came from Africa less that 200,000 years ago, thus disqualifying the current Homo erectus fossils, which are older than 200,000 years. However, H. erectus is still listed as a human ancestor.
Why is there so much confusion in this field? Well, emotions often run amok in studies of one's own ancestry. Robert Lewin, in his book Human Evolution, reports numerous examples of subjectivity. He states, 'There is something inexpressibly moving about cradling in one's hands a cranium drawn from one's own ancestry.' What a way to lower objectivity!
Most Creationists do not deny the possibility that these four species might have existed, and therefore the possible transitional steps between apes and humans, but not the smooth sequence of developments proclaimed by Darwinists.

Contd...

[Hamayun]

Contd...

Irreducible Complexity
Even in the present, many organisms and parts of organisms do not appear to have evolved from lesser things. This is because they are 'irreducibly compex' lifeforms. Irreducible complexity is a concept that biochemistry professor Michael Behe developed in his book, Darwin's Black Box. If something is made of interacting parts that all work together, then it is referred to as irreducibly complex. Behe uses a mousetrap as his example. A mousetrap cannot be assembled through gradual improvement. You cannot start with a wooden base, catching a few mice, then add a hammer, and catch more, then add a spring, improving it further. To even begin catching mice one must assemble all the components completely with design and intent. Furthermore, if one of these parts changes or evolves independently, the entire thing will stop working. The mousetrap, for instance, will become useless if even one part malfunctions.
Likewise, many biological structures are irreducibly complex. Bats are a well known example. They are said to have evolved from a small rodent whose front toes became wings. This presents a multitude of problems. As the front toes grow skin between them, the creature has limbs that are too long to run, or even walk well, yet too short to help it fly. There is no plausible way that a bat wing can evolve from a rodent's front toes. The fossil record supports this, because the first time bats are seen in the fossil record, they have completely developed wings and are virtually identical to modern bats.
Now consider the eye. Suppose that before animals had sight, one species decided it would be advantageous to be able to decrypt light rays. So, what do they evolve first? The retina? The iris? The eye is made of many tiny parts, each totally useless without the others. The probability that a genetic mutation that would create each of these at the same time in the same organism is zero. If, however one organism evolved just a retina, then the logic of Darwin suggests that the only solution is to rid oneself of useless traits replacing them with beneficial ones, so the idea of the eye evolving one segment at a time is bogus also.
Richard Dawkins gives the explanation that some one-celled protozoa have a light sensitive spot with a pigment screen behind it, and some multi-celled organisms have the same thing with cup-shaped cells. Then there is the nautilus which, has a pinhole eye with no lens, and the squid eye, which incorporates the lens.
But these types of eye involve different types of structures rather than a series of similar structures becoming improved, and are thus not thought to have evolved from each other. Besides, even the first step, a light-sensitive spot, is considered irreducibly complex. This apparatus can only detect some shadows, but it requires a multitude of inter-related, complex chemical reactions to work. This excerpt from a book describes it: 'A photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which changes to trans-retinal, which forces a change in the shape of a protein called rhodopsin, which sticks to another protein called transductin, which binds with another molecule...' As for those cup-shaped cells, there are dozens of proteins controlling cell structure and shape. All these would have to be spontaneously created for flat sensory cells to become cup-shaped. Even if the eye did evolve, so many different kind of species have eyes, that according to evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, the eye would have had to evolve over 40 times to achieve its current popularity, an incredibly implausible idea.
A bird is another perfect example. A bird's entire body is built for flight. If even the slightest major mutation occurs, a bird becomes incapable of flight. If some prehistoric reptile felt the urge to fly, evolving something even as complex as wings would do no good. In fact, it would be a disadvantage to lug those wings around.
The only plausible explanation for irreducibly complex biological tissue is an intelligent creator.
So Why is the Theory of Evolution so Popular?
Richard Dawkins once said that 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually-fulfilled athiest.' Perhaps that is why Creationists are stereotyped as a group of Bible thumpers and scientifically-ignorant backwater folk. Evolution is taught in schools all over the world, not as a theory, but a fact.
Genetic variation is often mistaken as proof of evolution. These are often referred to as examples of 'evolution in action'. Let us examine some of these.
Evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyama has put together a summary of examples of evolution in action in one of his books:

• Some bacteria develop resistance to certain antibiotics. Likewise, many insects resist pesticides.
  
• After a massive storm in Massachusetts, hundreds of dead birds littered the countryside. A scientist named Bumpus collected the survivors and killed them, then compared their skeletons with the birds that had died in the storm. He found that, though the size difference was minute, larger birds survived more frequently than smaller ones.
  
• Scientists have observed that some mice will stop reproducing when their local population is 'flooded' with a gene that causes their males to be sterile.
  
• In 1977, a drought on the Galapagos Islands forced Darwin's famous finches to eat larger seeds. For a while, many smaller finches died because they had trouble eating the bigger seeds.

There is no reason to doubt that the strongest organisms prosper, nor that certain circumstances make drug-resistant bacteria more prolific. The problem here is, none of these explain how organisms become other organisms, how organs become other organs, or even how the most minor changes in an organism can become permanent. All of these examples are isolated, special circumstances. Philip Johnson comments, 'That larger birds have an advantage over smaller birds in high winds or droughts has no tendency whatever to prove that similar factors caused birds to come into existence in the first place.' French zoologist Pierre Grasse says, 'The 'evolution in action' of J Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution...'
Indeed, science itself does not imply evolution. Life is far too complex to have been created by a natural force, and natural history contradicts the necessary timeline of evolution. Much of the basis for the theory of evolution is based on false or exaggerated information.

[Gator]

Here's an interesting video on thoughts on abiogenesis - TURN SOUND OFF/HAS MUSIC, but its a slide show so you can watch it anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM6FGY2jvG8

Thanks.

[Hamayun]

Here's an interesting video on thoughts on abiogenesis - TURN SOUND OFF/HAS MUSIC, but its a slide show so you can watch it anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM6FGY2jvG8

Thanks.

Not bad. Although it seems to jump from one conclusion to another with no real explanation. Like someone pointed out he jumps from "organic molecules are quite common in space" to "the pre-biotic environment contained many simple fatty acids".

Also "Irreducible Complexity" seems to be a big hurdle. Read the article on Irreducible Complexity I have posted above.
Thanks for sharing anyway...

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Gator
No arguing by link please. You're welcome to present any of the arguments from that clip on here. Although I'd advise you against it, since I'd have a field day with all the fallacies from that clip. ^_^

[Gator]

Hey Abdul,

No worries as I'm not debating. Just throwing some stuff out there and looking for your response.

I will not be responding. I just thought it would feed the discussion and wanted to see the "Islamic" response.

Thanks.

[Abdul Fattah]

Well I can't help you with an "Islamic" response, since Islam leaves room for both the creation trough metaphysical as well as the creation trough intelligent design. So abiogenesis is technically compatible with Islam. However I don't believe in abiogenesis for a multitude of reasons.

Some logical fallacies from the clip:

Sweeping generalisation:
Just because many civilizations created myths to explain existence of animals-humans, doesn't mean that all religious explanations are therefor mythical.

Strawmen argument 1:
The reason why creationists claim that life could not have emerged from lifeless matter goes way beyond the research of those three mentioned scientists. It's quite pitiful to make the theory seem out of date simply by limiting to those three. there are many contemporary scientists who have come to believe that abiogenesis is impossible, some of which even wrote the book on chemical evolution, but later on changed their minds!

Strawmen argument 2:
The probability of a cell forming cannot be expressed in chances. A chance, no matter how low it is implies that it is possible, just not plausible. Luck however doesn't exist in science; only causality. there is no causal explanation for how the cell could have formed, therefor it is not improbable, but rather scientifically impossible! Secondly, this also applies to even the most basic one-celled organisms. And not only for "complex modern cells" (whatever that may refer to) as the video seems to imply.

False claim 1:
Not only the Bible claims that life was made out of mud. Abiogenesis claims that it was made out of a "prebiotic soup" which is just a fancy word for a mudpool.

False analogy:
The wright brother's contribution towards the mission to the moon is not comparable to the contribution of the Uray-Miller experiment towards explaining Abiogenesis. The wright Brothers contributed to the mission to the moon in the sense that they took scientific progress a step further. The Uray-Miller experiment did not do the same thing. Not only did it not create life, it also did not explain how the necessary components could have been formed in the right environment. The experiment was a failure on every level.

Irrelevant appeal:
Whether or not the earth had more time and space is completely irrelevant to the probability of the process of abiogenesis. If the process failed, doing it a million times over at different places will not change the result. Doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results is mere stupidity.

False claim 2:
The complex chemistry and environmental conditions do not make abiogenesis more probably outside of the chemistry lab as opposed to inside of it. If anything, during the experiment the scientists can fine-tweak and set the environments much more to his likings, as opposed to the outside world where that is a lot harder.

False claim 3:
The fields of astronomy, meteorology, geography and chemistry do not teach us that the early earth was "filled" with organic molecules. That is simply false. Besides not all organic molecules can serve as building blocks for life.

False claim 4:
We do not know whether "organic building blocks" are common in space. So far we've only examined two meteorites. Yes we have found them in both, but still that doesn't mean that they are common, it could still be a fluke. Secondly those "building blocks" that we found weren't the right building blocks.

False appeal:
The first life cannot have been "extremely simple". Even the most basic simple life is quite complex from a chemical level.

False claim 5:
The prebiotic environment did not contain thousands of nucleic acids. There's no indication of that once so ever. These molecules are immensely complex and cannot be formed without the help of complex proteins. The video does not explain how the complex strands can be formed in the first place. The illustration with the colored dots makes it seem very easy, but this is definitely not the case. The formation of nucleic acids is the largest challenge to abiogenesis and is far from solved. Of course who needs explenations and theories when you have fancy illustrations.

Some important steps are also missed, like:

If this early life indeed had a membrane build out of simple fatty acids, then that poses several problems.
- If it is permeable, then why doesn't it allow harmfull substances in? This is very problematic considering the hazardous prebiotic-soup-environment.
- How does it keep the cells components, it's necessary enzymes, its nucleic acids and it's acquired building blocks inside the cell?

Further in the explanation it says that the vesicles break of when they build non-linear. Then it suddenly assumes that these "daughter" vesicles both contain the polymer. That is of course ridiculous. Why would the other compartment that is isolated contain the same polymer? Of course the assumption was crucial to the explanation, without it there can be no evolution since there is no reproduction.

Nucleic acids don't simply split by themselves. This requires certain enzymes.

I'm also looking forward to a more detailed explanation of how these nucleic acids can self duplicate without mRNA.

So in conclusion, as fancy as the illustrations may make it seem, the explanation is completely half-baked, filled with flaws and assumptions.

[root]

I get so bored with the "Evolution must account how life began" myth you always seem to peddle Steve......

It's like saying Gravity probably does not exist because we cant prove where matter dark matter and dark energy come from.

[Abdul Fattah]

I get so bored with the "Evolution must account how life began" myth you always seem to peddle Steve......

It's like saying Gravity probably does not exist because we cant prove where matter dark matter and dark energy come from.

Perhaps you should read the previous posts before you cut in. Somebody posted a link about abiogenesis and I simply replied to it. Now all of the sudden you're complaining about that old thing again? Or are you just desperately clasping to that one technical argument that you've managed to use against me so far?

BTW I've already told you several times that there's a difference between:
1. Evolution of the different species.
2. Biological evolution.

It's quite obvious indeed that abiogenesis does not belong to 1, but whether or not it belongs to 2 is a semantical issue. And quite frankly I simply don't care for those semantical issues enough to indulge you, so stop with splitting hairs already.

[root]

Perhaps you should read the previous posts before you cut in. Somebody posted a link about abiogenesis and I simply replied to it. Now all of the sudden you're complaining about that old thing again? Or are you just desperately clasping to that one technical argument that you've managed to use against me so far?

BTW I've already told you several times that there's a difference between:
1. Evolution of the different species.
2. Biological evolution.

It's quite obvious indeed that abiogenesis does not belong to 1, but whether or not it belongs to 2 is a semantical issue. And quite frankly I simply don't care for those semantical issues enough to indulge you, so stop with splitting hairs already.

I think it's a tad absurd that you talk about "Technical Arguement" then try to ask us to swallow Evolution of the different species and biological evolution. I know you do that in the same manner as you do micro-evolution and macro-evolution except to all the top scientists in this field (which you are not one of them) and BTW the majority of them simply state that they are all part of the same brush.

However, I concede as I have to do that a probability remains that you are correct in as much the same odds that I to must concede that 4 + 4 = 9 and that everytime anyone does that sum they too get it wrong when they get 8. It's this that creationist's like to exploit, that science cannot and does not provide absolute proof for anything. It merely attaches a probability.

Despite the fact 4 + 4 = 9 has a probability of being correct, I also consider it a very miniscule probability compared to 4 + 4 = 8 having a greater probability.......

[Abdul Fattah]

I think it's a tad absurd that you talk about "Technical Arguement" then try to ask us to swallow Evolution of the different species and biological evolution.

Well if you find that absurd, that probably reflects more on your bias rather then on my arguments. Biological evolution, if you analyze the words means any evolution within the fields of biology. Abiogenesis is a suggested hypothesis for biology, and abiogenesis suggests how living organisms evolved out of lifeless matter. So it is a hypothesis concerning biology and it is a hypothesis concerning evolution. Like I said, it's a semantical issue. The theory of "the evolution of the different species" on the other hand, is a term coined by Darwin to refer to a specific theory that does not include abiogenesis. So Like I said, if you find that absurd, that is more likely to reflect on your bias rather then on my argument. Now will you stop flaming about that same irrelevant issue already? How about you try and bring me some proofs for common descent or something, try something constructive.

I know you do that in the same manner as you do micro-evolution and

Do what, use accurate definitions? Oh how dare I...

macro-evolution except to all the top scientists in this field (which you are not one of them)

You're gonna pull rank on me? This isn't the military. Let's judge arguments by their own merits, not by their source.

and BTW the majority of them simply state that they are all part of the same brush.

And because the majority commits a logical fallacy (sweeping generalization), that must be true? That in itself is a logical fallacy to, called the bandwagon fallacy.

However, I concede as I have to do that a probability remains that you are correct in as much the same odds that I to must concede that 4 + 4 = 9 and that everytime anyone does that sum they too get it wrong when they get 8. It's this that creationist's like to exploit, that science cannot and does not provide absolute proof for anything. It merely attaches a probability. Despite the fact 4 + 4 = 9 has a probability of being correct, I also consider it a very miniscule probability compared to 4 + 4 = 8 having a greater probability

Your analogy is flawed, I challenge you to show where in any of my posts or websites I have committed such an exploit. It's easy to throw accusations, its' another thing to back them up!

[there there]

Hi there there

It's easy to tell me to look into a textbook, it's a whole other thing to bring evidence, falsification or empirical data for yourself. In here if you wanna talk the talk, you better walk the walk. My position is there exist no such evidence, if you claim otherwise you're welcome to show and tell.

It is easy, so please do! I recommend the following Talk Origins essay

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Doing a quick Google search will bring up a lot of websites and if you don't feel like looking elsewhere you can check Wikipedia which not only has a page on common descent, but a page devoted solely for the evidence to suggest common descent is true.

That must be some odd definition of irrational that I'm currently unaware of. There is nothing irrational about those things, rather you're being biased. Allow me to elaborate. When you conclude something is irrational simply because it's supernatural, then you assume that only the natural is rational. In other words you assume that the laws of nature are, will be, and have been ever present. Therefor you are biased by your assumption. even supernatural things can technically speaking be perfectly rational if they do not violate the rules of logic and self-consistency. The only objective objection you can voice towards supernatural claims, is that they are not natural. Of course, that kind of goes without saying, and it isn't far as provocative as calling it "irrational".

No, I’m not being biased. It’s scepticism.

It’s irrational to explain something as supernatural as people reach that conclusion often with no good reason, much less anything to back up their claims aside from anecdotes.

Also, to explain something as supernatural is to not explain anything. The supernatural isn’t a consistent set of laws that can be observed. It’s not an explanation as putting it down to the supernatural doesn’t get you closer to a coherent description of what is true. It’s indefinable. Why not simply say you don’t know instead of reaching an unreasoned conclusion for which there is nothing to suggest it’s anything besides wishful thinking?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Just because you can't prove it to others, doesn't mean you can't be convinced about it yourself without having to jump to the conclusion of being deluded. By that argument you yourself would be deluded!
1. You believe the table your pc sits on exists.
2. I'm not sure it exists. (you could have lied, or perhaps just said something random to make a point)
3. You cannot prove to me beyond reasonable doubt the existence of said table. (even if you show a picture I could say it's someone else's table, or photoshopped, if you buy me a plain ticket to come and see it I could claim that you've bought a new table just to win your argument. Whatever you do, I will always have a doorway to reasonable doubt.
4. Therefor you are deluded?
Quite the contrary, I would say that a person who believes: that anything that cannot be proven doesn't exist; is the narrow minded, deluded person.

Don’t bother with dismantling the example, it’s the principle that matters. The fact is any material object is substantially more real and palpable than all the Gods history has given us. That’s all I wanted to show with the example. If you believe God is as real as, say, the computer mouse you’re probably using now, I think you’re deluded. If God was as real as a material object, there would be no reason to doubt its existence. I know religious people don’t see God as a material person, but when you say don’t just consider your faith “very plausible” but “instead [I consider] it factual” you’re saying it’s an undisputed fact. But it isn’t. That’s the problem I had with your argument.

You didn't just "make a point", don't try to weasel out now. You said:
"Please stop trying to justify your faith with supposed evidence and reason!"
I would say that “give up and shut up” pretty much sums that up. Eitherway, like I said in my previous posts, even if a person isn't religious due to evidence, it can be a push in the back, or a relief during challenging times. So I don't see why people wouldn't be allowed to study their religious views in whichever way they find suitable. It's not like the methodology is copywriten to science, and religion has to abide by some restraining-order or something.

Well you’d say wrong.

By all means, say you’re religious because you find meaning; because you enjoy the solidarity; or indeed because you believe in God. You would have to have been duped, however, to say you’re religious because of all the evidence for it. As someone pointed out to me on this board, if there was evidence for Islam, everyone would be Muslim. Why do you think there exists so many faiths in the world? There are many reasons, but that religious faith is exempt from the rigors we put other disciplines through (like data, robust reasons etc) explains why many religions, with contradictory claims, can exist simultaneously.

There aren‘t different right answers and interpretations to 7+3, but there are different views of how and why we exist as shown by the myriad faiths which exist in the world.

[Abdul Fattah]

It is easy, so please do! I recommend the following Talk Origins essay
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

First of all: Sigh...
No arguing by links please, it's to easy to just post a few links and expect me to do your homework. If you have any evidence, testability, falsifiability to bring, then post it in your own words and give the link only as back up. I'm not going to spend hours forming up a reply to every single website you'll post an URL for.
Secondly: sigh...
I've already replied to that site several posts ago.
Thirdly: If you had followed the no-arguing-by-link-rule, if you had posted the gist of the arguments rather then only reading over the titles and posting the links; then you would have noticed that those aren't evidence for common descent at all! Those are evidence for macroevolution. If you read the titles carefully you can see what they attempt to do on that site:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
So basically, they want to claim that common descent is a scientific case, based on evidence for macroevolution. Sorry but that is unscientific! In science each theory is judged by its own merits. Just because there's evidence for macroevolution doesn't mean that common descent is also proven that's a huge sweeping generalization.

So My statement stands, there is no evidence, empirical data, falsification or testability for common descent. Again, if you want to claim that there is, you 'll have to show and tell, not just tell.

Doing a quick Google search will bring up a lot of websites and if you don't feel like looking elsewhere you can check Wikipedia which not only has a page on common descent, but a page devoted solely for the evidence to suggest common descent is true.

And if you would take the time to actually read those sites you will find that it's all false. Again, I'm not going to go and refute every article out there. But if you feel confident about any proof, then bring it here and I'll show you why it's false. I repeat my previous posts. It's easy to tell me to go and look somewhere. But the point in debate is that you bring your own evidence, rather than asking your opponent to look for evidence in favor of your view. If you can't find any, or you are to lazy to do that, then don't come here claiming that there is evidence. In here you've gotta back up what you claim.

No, I’m not being biased. It’s scepticism.

No it is not, skepticism is refusal to accept something without proof. But skepticism is still neutral. When you say that belief is irrational you go way beyond skepticism into the field of bias. I've already illustrated in depth why your claim was biased. Simply denying it and hiding behind skepticism won't defeat my arguments.

It’s irrational to explain something as supernatural as people reach that conclusion often with no good reason,

Now you are being irrational. There's no less than 4 logical fallacies in that single conclusion of yours!
1. Fallacist's fallacy: even if someone uses a flawed argument to reach a conclusion, doesn't mean that the conclusion itself is wrong or flawed. It's perfectly plausible for people to reach an accurate conclusion based on false arguments. Or in this case a rational conclusion.
2. Sweeping generalisation: Just because people "often" reach to the conclusion of supernatural based on no good reason, doesn't mean that every conclusion which suggests to the supernatural is therefor without good reason.
3. Slippery slope: Just because you do not know of a good reason does not mean that there doesn't exists a good reason. There's a difference between what you know, and what other people know. Are you really that vain and arrogant that you think you know more then millions of people do?
4. accent fallacy: there is no such thing as a "good" reason. Reasons are reason. If you have a reason, that is sufficient. All judgments of "good" or "bad" reasons are obviously going to be biased by personal opinion.

See, 4 logical flaws combined in a single conclusion! So don't you tell me I'm the one who's irrational kiddo.

much less anything to back up their claims aside from anecdotes.

Yes obviously believe in something means that there is no proof. Otherwise it wouldn't be believing but rather "knowing". So now you are defending your earlier statement (belief is irrational) because there is no proof. So in other words, in your opinion accepting something as true without proof is irrational? That's a very narrow minded view. And an unsubstantiated by the way, just because something is devoid of proof does not mean it's devoid of rationality also. Again a slippery slope fallacy.

Also, to explain something as supernatural is to not explain anything. The supernatural isn’t a consistent set of laws that can be observed.

Just because it's not a consistent set of laws doesn't mean that it isn't an explenation. Explanations don't always come in consistent set of laws. This fallacy is known as the false dilemma. Either it's observable in a consistent law or it is not explained. You're simply closing your eyes for a whole set of possibilities. Again this is bias and not skepticism. A skeptic would say that he doesn't accept/believe in explanations that aren't observable as consistent laws. To go even farther and say that those explanations aren't explanations at all is just bias.

It’s not an explanation as putting it down to the supernatural doesn’t get you closer to a coherent description of what is true.

What?!? So basically your saying that any explanation that isn't scientific doesn't reveal the truth? What if the truth is something that cannot be examined within the field of science? Again; bias and not skepticism.

Why not simply say you don’t know instead of reaching an unreasoned conclusion

It is not an unreasoned conclusion. In fact an unreasoned conclusion is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. By definition conclusions are reasoned. Otherwise they wouldn't be called conclusions but rather be called assumptions. And no, creationism isn't a baseless assumption. It's very much reasoned. You might disagree with or dislike the reasoning. But it is nevertheless reasoned. By the way, I could just bounce the ball back. There's no evidence for common descent either. Why don't most scientists simply admit (like some do) that at this point science is simply unable to tell whether or not we all evolved out of the same ancestor or not. My initial claim has always been, that common descent does not belong in science.

for which there is nothing to suggest it’s anything besides wishful thinking?

On the contrary, there are many things that suggest it. You're just not willing to accept those suggestions. I don't mind, you're free to accept/decline any suggestion. But to ignore it and then claim it doesn't exist is just acting blind.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In that case, you still owe me some extremely extraordinary evidence for common descent.

Don’t bother with dismantling the example, it’s the principle that matters.

Still going with denial I see. I already dismantled it and showed the flaw in your argument. and that flaw isn't just for that specific example, but can be extrapolated to the general principle as well. Just because you can't reproduce your personal experiences to use them in debate, doesn't mean that you can't base your ideas on it. And sorry for being so frank again, but you're being immensely arrogant and narrow minded when you say that people who do believe something without evidence are deluded. Deluded implies that they are wrong. When you refer to faith as delusion, you imply that atheism is inevitably true. Which in turn means that you are arrogant and narrow minded, not to mention offensive. There isn't any proof that shows that there doesn't exist a god. In fact people believe things on good faith on a daily basis. People believe that they have a brain without ever having had an MRI or dissection to prove it. are all those people deluded since they believe something that isn't proven? People believe on good faith that their partner doesn't cheat on them, also without evidence. Are you going to tell me that all those people who believe that their spouse is faithful are deluded to? Are you gonna claim that everybody cheats on his/her partner? Of course you aren't. Then I ask you, why the double standard. Why say that in one case, accepting something without faith is delusion but in another it is not?

The fact is any material object is substantially more real and palpable than all the Gods history has given us. That’s all I wanted to show with the example.

If that is true then you picked a very odd way of saying it. There's a huge difference between saying:
"Material things are more substantial than faith."
and:
"Accepting your faith as factual means you are delusional."

If you believe God is as real as, say, the computer mouse you’re probably using now, I think you’re deluded.

And if that's what you think, I think you are arrogant, narrow minded, and offensive.

If God was as real as a material object, there would be no reason to doubt its existence.

So god can be partially real, but not equally real? Either something is real or it is not. If you believe in God, you believe he is real. It's as simple as that. So now you're saying millions of people are deluded because they believe God is real? Secondly, just because something is real, equally real as a material object, doesn't mean that there would be no reason to doubt its existence. Just because we can't see God doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
This is again a false dilemma, you claim either there is no doubt about his existence, or he does not exist. There exist more objects in this universe then we are sure off that exist. That's a cold hard fact. So that means obviously there exist some things of which we are not sure of their existence.

I know religious people don’t see God as a material person, but when you say don’t just consider your faith “very plausible” but “instead [I consider] it factual” you’re saying it’s an undisputed fact.

No, I'm not saying that it is an undisputed fact. I'm saying that I consider it indisputable for myself, on a personal level. However I still acknowledge that other people have other ideas. And I acknowledge, that I can't prove what I am convinced of.

Well you’d say wrong.

Again with the baseless denial. How about replying to my argument rather then just saying I'm wrong and leaving it at that.

By all means, say you’re religious because you find meaning; because you enjoy the solidarity; or indeed because you believe in God. You would have to have been duped, however, to say you’re religious because of all the evidence for it.

People can be religious because of multiple reasons. It doesn't have to be just one thing, but in most cases it's the sum of many things.

As someone pointed out to me on this board, if there was evidence for Islam, everyone would be Muslim.

The problem is that the evidence is to weak to convince on it solely. Changing religious views is quite an endeavor and you would need pretty strong undeniable evidence to convert the whole world. In fact, I think undeniable proof doesn't even exist. No matter how convincing something might be, there will always be people who will be able to deny it, since most people accept what they want to accept, and not what convinces them. So as I said, people can be religious due to more then one reason, and these evidences by them self are not enough to convince someone. But that doesn't mean that they are useless, because they aren't always "by them self". So like I said, they can be a push in the back and aren't useless.
Be that as it may, that still leaves the issue: even if for the sake of argument I grant they are useless, who are you to come here and tell us what we should or shouldn't do?

There aren‘t different right answers and interpretations to 7+3, but there are different views of how and why we exist as shown by the myriad faiths which exist in the world.

That's because the different faiths are wrong, not because my faith is wrong. Islam is the only religion with evidence. A fatwa is always based on verses from the koran or hadeeth. The Koran itself functions as proof for the prophecy of Muhammed (peace be upon him). In other religions people accept what they want to accept. In Islam we accept only that which can be proven. I can't help it that all those other people with other faiths have such low standards on what they accept or not. But that has no merit on Islam.

[Ali_Cena]

[QUOTE=there there; If God was as real as a material object, there would be no reason to doubt its existence. [/QUOTE]


lol so if we could see god then you would 10000% belive that their is God and thier is hell and if you do bad things then obviously you would go to hell and YOU WOULD KNOW HOW BAD AND TORTURING, then if you knew that thier is a God and that you would go hell, would you ever even in 1 second of your lifetime commit something bad, when you know that you would go to hell for it? no. so to conclude life is a test, and if we could see God then thier would be no test becuase obvoisly everyone would do the right thing.....duh.... so i think you should use more logic, what kind of test are we giving if we could see God, then thier wouldnt be any disbelivers would there?.

life is a test okay. A TEST.