In organisms that reproduce sexually speciation isn't about becoming "something else". it occurs when two initially related populations become so genetically distinct that they are no longer able to interbreed with each other without their offspring losing biological fitness. Mules and horses for example can breed with each other but their offspring is infertile - a drastic loss of fitness. Phenotypical similarity isn't an indicator of speciation at all - wolves are more similar to coyotes than to shih tzu but neverthless, they are more closely related to shih tzu than to coyotes. There is also so called convergent evolution - some species may develop similar traits due to similar evolutionary pressures. Wolves are very similar to Tasmanian tigers but are only distantly related.
Ad 2 - I agree that not all words have a common "parent" (words do not arise due to sexual reproduction so they can't have parents). However, languages also evolve though via more or less different mechanisms than biological evolution and there are families of languages which are descended from a common ancestor. My native language belongs to a West Slavic branch of Slavic languages, itself belonging to Indo European family. All Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian etc.) are descended from Vulgar Latin which was a homogenous language around 500 AD but then began to differentate into separate languages because of geographic and political isolation of it's speakers. If you believe in creationism, do you believe in linguistic creationism as well? Do you think that e.g. lexical, grammatical and phonetical similarity of all Slavic languages is just an evidence of creation but not evolution?
Mules and horses for example can breed with each other but their offspring is infertile
Glad you are on to something there.
I have given you the names of known mutations and other proposed methods such as acrocentric breaks in DNA strands to cause 'speciation' use that and spare no details I think if you do minimal research you too will come to realize that genetic, metabolic and physical pathways are quite expansive and well the devil is in the details as they say. I am not interested in theorizing and accepting gaps in science as an exchange of beliefs to something more palatable to a group that considers themselves learned when they're far from it.
Until you can address those I am not interested in all that padding
You've already admitted as much in that first eloquent post of yours that the process isn't random and that actually causes a major shift in gear. Try to focus on key words you use or others use to explain your points of view.. Don't reference me to websites that appeal to your beliefs and don't fill the page with empty rhetoric!
Evolution as a Marxist agenda... Lenin and Stalin laugh in their graves. If they liked it so much, why did they ban it as a an imperialist-capitalist conspiracy against dialectic materialism and banned it from education altogether?
Besides that, are you sure that no one witnessed evolution happening? No one? Not even once? I think you're mistaken as evolution of unicellular organisms in very well documented. An example would be the evolution of antibiotic resistance - those bacteria that survive contact with antibiotics keep reproducing while those who weren't die out, making it a perfect example of natural selection. The reason why we don't readily observe evolution in humans and other animals is because their lifespan/breeding speed is incredibly slow. For bacteria 1000 generations is just a few weeks. For animals (including humans) it's thousands or tens of thousands of years.
Richard Lenski runs an experiment of keeping 12 initially identical populations of E. coli since February 1988. In 2010 the population reached a milestone of 50,000 generations. All populations show remarkable evolutioanry changes, some fo which occured in all populations, some in just a few or one. One strain evolved the ability to use citric acid as a source of carbon, as it was present in the growth medium. Differences in average cell size and shape have also appeared.
Stalin was not exactly a Marxist, more of a psychopath and I don't think Lenin was either, that's why people that followed their doctrines were called Stalinists and Leninists. But the flavour of the day Marxism is capitalism for the rich and socialism for the poor under the one world government the UN under Rockefeller and co. The capitalist exploitation of poor nations (as well as starting wars for the arms trade) with crushing cultural Marxism and regulations in the rich nations.
These bacteria that you speak of, did they evolve at all beyond being bacteria? They seem to have just adapted to become super bugs. Another thing bacteria and algae and other single cell life forms are more or less perfect for survival, so why would they evolve beyond being single celled life and if being many celled is so much better why is there single celled ones around in such huge abundance? Why is there life around that has not evolved and is in a primordial state of simplicity? The trouble with fossil evidence is that the Earth recycles itself, so a lot of fossils would have been dragged down into the magma. So at the end of the day even if you could dig up every fossil you only get a small glimpse of history. There is too much unknown even about human history let alone other creatures. So to be truly scientific about it you would have to reason it as insufficient data. And since the data has been destroyed you will never know. That's why the wise will answer to the riddle of life the universe and everything as "God knows".
This is a really good video. Thanks for sharing it.
It brought these two verse to my mind:
28:50. But if they do not respond to you - then know that they only follow their [own] desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.
22:8. And of the people is he who disputes about Allah without knowledge or guidance or an enlightening book.
Of course the context of these verse aren't directed to atheists, but it does expose the same diseases they have deep in their hearts. They like to argue and come up with pretty much any random excuse to not get out of their comfort-zones. They also blatantly lie and say "I would worship God if I could see Him". When the soul is desperate to avoid worship so badly, it will inevitably make up more excuses even if the atheist saw God.
In the TOE argument, it's usually Creationists who choose the battleground. They attack detailed aspects of TOE (such as Skye attacking the rate of mutation mechanism). The idea is to focus attention on the least complete aspects of the theory, and draw attention away from other areas. (So for instance in this case we get this endless sterile statistical argument). Of course, mechanism is important - but the only reason we're interested in it is to explain the factual state of the world we can already see.
In response, scientists don't examine Creationism much in return because they simply assume that once you assume divine intervention, 'anything goes' so it's untestable.
This is not correct. Creationism (let's call it 'divine TOE) can be tested in many aspects - not least because it usually comes with a specific narrative that is not just 'anything goes'.
If we treat the notion of divine TOE seriously and apply similar tests, it does not make sense. Turning the argument I made earlier round the other way, speciation by continuous divine fiat does not fit a wide range of evidence such as:
a) The broad trend of simple organisms to more complex organisms over a long period of time.
b) The correct chronological order of that trend both at the level of individual species and individual characteristics (eg bipedalism)
c) The correct geographical and geological distribution of that evidence
d) The way Nature is structured into a huge network of related species, as opposed to individual unrelated creations by divine fiat
e) The evidence of adaptive structures which are not as good as specifically created structures (eg the human skull including its delayed fontanelle closure, altered jaw structure and elaborate birth canal gyrations that formerly led to 1in 5 death rate for mothers)
e) The presence of vestigial organs and structure
f) The existence, and extinction, of related species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans
g) The trackable history of mankind's multiple migrations out of Africa, which does not fit any scriptural description
h) The extinction of approx 90% of creatures before human-like creatures ever set foot on the world and the immense period of time before there was any life at all.
And some more specifically related to Islamic TOE:
j) The absence of any fossils, tools or other archaeological evidence for 90ft men - or any transitional fossils across succeeding generations
k) The absolute impossibility of scaling up a human to that size without other serious physical adjustments and difficulties with living in a 'normal' sized world
l) The absence of any genetic evidence for such creatures
m) The absence of any fossil or other evidence for humans living to extreme old age (ie hundreds of years)
n) The illogicality of creating natural laws for everything in the universe, except this one thing.
To paraphrase, these are some of the Questions that Creationists cannot answer. Divine TOE is not compatible with the evidence.
Last edited by Independent; 12-26-2013 at 10:39 AM.
These bacteria that you speak of, did they evolve at all beyond being bacteria?
Why would they? Evolution is not about "getting better" - it's about survival. Things that can survive perfectly well as a simple organism do so. These bacteria are surviving happily, so why would they change into something different?
There is no end goal to evolution, if changes in an organism don't give them an advantage, they don't remain.
That doesn't a 'logical' argument make.
Furthermore, and for the umpteenth time, Islam doesn't offer an explanation to creation or how we came to be and I have quoted multiple times that i am getting rather sick of your inability to read & processes information:
18:51 I called them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor (even) their own creation: nor is it for Me to take as helpers such as lead (men) astray!
Which part of that exactly was difficult for you to understand?
Please cut the crap, and cut the padding, and quit trying to pass yourself off as something you're clearly not. You're neither well versed in science nor are you in religion!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I guess if you can't cut and paste the answer, you have no answer.
cutting & pasting seems your speciality - yes... If you have understanding you won't need cuts and pastes!
Not sure what it is you're psycho babbling about now as I have already stated, I am not big on substituting one belief for one that your ilk deems more appropriate for the time, firstly you're not of my peers and secondly you've NOT the slightest clue what you're talking about most of the time.
best,
Last edited by جوري; 12-26-2013 at 07:35 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
cutting & pasting seems your speciality - yes... If you have understanding you won't need cuts and pastes
In fact as I look back through some past threads I see you've been cutting and pasting the same handful of articles for year after year, as this ever-popular topic comes up. Never really reading anyone's questions, just recycling the same not especially relevant reply. I should think you owe Mr Mullan a few royalties at this stage.
You have no answer for any of the main evidences - either for TOE, or against divine fiat.
In fact as I look back through some past threads I see you've been cutting and pasting the same handful of articles for year after year, as this ever-popular topic comes up. Never really reading anyone's questions, just recycling the same not especially relevant reply. I should think you owe Mr Mullan a few royalties at this stage.
actually he has a doctorate which you don't on the topic.. and whether or not I have referenced his article, I have also discussed at length the science and have tons of threads in the health & science section that testify to that.
The relevance is a matter of abstraction which you don't seem to possess, and linear folks who parrot the status quo generally don't tend to think in abstract forms or are able to use the science they've learned to synthesize new ideas or even discuss existing ones to any effect.
The last statement I'll attribute to your inner child throwing a tantrum as usual
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
This article does not disprove TOE. But I enjoyed reading it and at least Mullan has something interesting to contribute, unlike yourself.
However, he doesn't touch on any of the principle evidences for TOE. Nor does this article contribute anything to an argument supporting a history of life by divine fiat.
This proposed Creationist history simply does not fit the evidence and so far, you've given nothing at all to suggest otherwise.
Why has life in fact progressed from the simple to the complex? Why is everything in the right geographical, geological, biological and chronological order? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
You appear to have no answer to any question that actually relates to TOE, or the problems which invalidate development by divine fiat.
Last edited by Independent; 12-26-2013 at 11:58 PM.
This article does not disprove TOE. But I enjoyed reading it and at least Mullan has something interesting to contribute, unlike yourself.
The article doesn't prove TOE either, and I doubt very much you've read it!
two posts ago the fellow was a 'MR' to you and received the bite of your all too frequent sophomoric comments. All of a sudden you enjoy his work?
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
However, he doesn't touch on any of the principle evidences for TOE. Nor does this article contribute anything to an argument supporting a history of life by divine fiat.
I have touched on the proposed principles of TOE and they've come undone and so has Br. Mustafa MC whose bread and butter is genetics. What have you done expect string words together and attempt to decrease the value of actual scientists in favor of your silly beliefs?
Science should be concerned with science not philosophy it should be concerned with what it can produce in numbers and data not the machination in someone's wild imagination. Read a little something about P values, confidence intervals Types I and II error and you too will understand what the purpose of science is.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
This proposed Creationist history simply does not fit the evidence and so far, you've given nothing at all to suggest otherwise.
What evidence is that exactly? Evidence denotes application not mere empiricism. We are not here to discuss 'creationism' we are here to discuss why evolution (as in speciation) is a farce, no more no less. I am not interested in how God created the universe.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Why has life in fact progressed from the simple to the complex? Why is everything in the right geographical, geological, biological and chronological order? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Good question, something that is directed and progresses in a particular fashion denotes intelligence and direction. Not a sprinkle of water and sunshine and a bit of time et voila, life higher reticular function and millions of species, if it were as simple as all that then discuss mechanism of action in details, You seem to be under the impression that the onus is on me to prove something right, the onus is to prove your beliefs wrong, no more no less.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
You appear to have no answer to any question that actually relates to TOE, or the problems which invalidate development by divine fiat.
Again, an adequate assessment of the sum of your failures. If you had something substantive to discuss make the science shine not the stench of BS
Why would they? Evolution is not about "getting better" - it's about survival. Things that can survive perfectly well as a simple organism do so. These bacteria are surviving happily, so why would they change into something different?
There is no end goal to evolution, if changes in an organism don't give them an advantage, they don't remain.
Ok so the evolutionists believe the world cooled and after the rains fell and filled the oceans etc. There was a great soup of microbes for ages and ages that thrived. So you said evolution wasn't about getting better so why or how did these microbes evolve. Using chaos theory this planet is too young for the complicated mathematical odds of organic molecular bonds to make the complex DNA of a microbe. Maybe the planet was seeded from outer space by inorganic iron pyrites struck with enough lightning energy and radiation to cause organic compounds synthesis to form a very simple life form. But here is the sticking point. The odds of a simple life form evolving into a complex one is astronomical. Our Sun would have gone out and our planet freeze before a poly cell life form would evolve let alone life forms of such complexity today. Of course evolutionary theories are no better than saying life was sneezed upon the Earth by Zeus who had them brewing up his nose for ages.
The odds of a simple life form evolving into a complex one is astronomical.
Which is what Dr. Mullan's research discusses precisely and in such depth withe the math and physics involved. As to why that is lost on the atheists who seems to 'enjoy' Mullan's work but can't seem to understand how that most basic concept fits into what he's peddling is beyond me.. and that's actually to say the miraculous compound that came together was functional to begin with, simply adding amino acids together doesn't guarantee functionality and that is also of course if I forgo the idea of the need of a host all together and then work your way up to a fully functional being of two separate genders across millions of species noting along the way that a single deleterious compound missing or added in the wrong place will render the process moot and in need to start all over.. for example adding a rate limiting step to the urea cycle... they don't realize these buffoons that the wrong ion even in the wrong place can spell insta death.. but are here to lecture on what they find 'enjoyable and sensical'.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
But this is a two way war and it was not the evolutionists who threw the first stone.
I have a great admiration for people, who have varying degrees of righteousness, power and authority; to throw the first stone; but give up their right. Nelson Mandela, Jesus, the prophet; pbuh, Mahatma Gandhi; all knew what would happen after the first stone is thrown.
For this reason, I can see why certain key evolutionary steps would have a radical effect. For instance the eye. Even in its most primitive, early state, the eye is a game-changing breakthrough that confers huge competitive advantage. (In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king!) Creatures with sight are strongly advantaged to fill all available niches and you would expect to see a sudden apparent acceleration in evolution. This is exactly what we do see.
I cannot believe the eye could evolve without deliberate interventions from God. I have read numerous explanations, Dawkins suggests 400,000 generations, over a period of about half a million years. He then slipped in a side note saying the brain would also have to evolve alongside each mutation of the eye, but he seems to dismiss this little attention to detail. He also deliberately overlooks the need for the brain to pass on information to fins, and mouth; so the information could be useful.
On its own; the evolution of the eye; as Dawkins describes, amounts to a heap of junk; with no evolutionary advantage. If he described how a brain evolved alongside, how nerves evolved, connection the lens to the brain, and how more nerves evolved controlling movement, then he might be more truthful.
Similarly with bones. Once the ability to form bones has evolved, it's a far smaller step to multiply it.
We seem to be lacking detail here, if every bone was a similar shape and size, I could go along with your explanation, if they evolved before the eye, or brain, or muscles etc, they seem pretty much useless on their own.
When did the first bone appear in the evolutionary timeline?
In the spirit of searching for God
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
Although evolution is one of the most frequent debates on this forum over the years (much to Muhammad's exasperation), some things never seem to get discussed.
The case against TOE is made all the time. Popular objections are the length of time required for the origin of life, the rate of beneficial mutation, suggested examples of irreducible complexity and (for the more spiritually inclined) a generalised refusal to accept that things that are so beautiful and so complex could have evolved by chance.
The 3 posts above are typical of such responses. None of them answer the 'a' to 'n' questions I posted earlier.
If Creationism is to be taken seriously as scientifically valid and capable of being taught in schools, then it must be capable of answering these questions and others I haven't thought of. Otherwise it will simply lead to a decline in faith as what you learn in one lesson is contradicted in another.
TOE is a satisfactory explanation for all of the phenomena I listed. Creationism is not. TOE's problems lie not with the theory itself, but with the suggested mechanisms. Whereas Creationism's problems lie not with the mechanism (which of course is untestable anyway) but with the failure to account for observable phenomena.
The problems with TOE mechanisms are not as yet fundamental. Just because a problem is not solved yet doesn't mean it is unsolvable. In astrophysics, we don't have an agreed proof for dark matter. Yet without dark matter the whole cosmological model does not add up. Does that invalidate the whole of astrophysics in the meantime? Of course not. We can infer the existence of dark matter, and its properties, in advance of a definitive proof. (For instance the Higgs Boson was predicted decades ago, but only proven this year. The situation with TOE is parallel).
As it stands, there is no proof against TOE (despite any number of ways in which it is falsfiable) and it remains the only inclusive descriptor of observable phenomena. New discoveries (such as the Neanderthal/Denisovan dna) without exception continue to support TOE while throwing yet more difficult questions for Creationism.
I would be very interested to see an attempt to resolve the 'a' to 'n' difficulties for Creationism I posted above. I accept that answers may vary according to different theologies.
(NB I repeat that TOE is not incompatible with belief in God, only to certain Creation narratives. It's also possible to believe in TOE and the divine origin of life as many Christians and Muslims do.)
Last edited by Independent; 12-27-2013 at 11:39 AM.
I have touched on the proposed principles of TOE and they've come undone
No you haven't. You have attacked some of the possible mechanisms, not TOE itself, which in any case predated genetics altogether. TOE is designed to account for a vast range of observable phenomena which it does, so far, better than any other theory on the table.
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
The article doesn't prove TOE either
Of course it doesn't, it's not about TOE it's about abiogenesis. And even if you accept all his premises, and all his rationale, the article can only refute a particular suggested mechanism, not TOE itself. The observable phenomena that led Darwin and his successors to TOE still need to be accounted for. Creationism is a less complete, less efficient description.
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
two posts ago the fellow was a 'MR' to you
The vast majority of specialists in this field support TOE. They are far better qualified than you, but you don't accept their verdict. So don't waste time quoting your own or Dr Mullan's credentials.
Last edited by Independent; 12-27-2013 at 11:55 AM.
Ok so the evolutionists believe the world cooled and after the rains fell and filled the oceans etc. There was a great soup of microbes for ages and ages that thrived.
OK, now you're talking about the origin of life which is not evolution. They are two separate things. We really don't know how life started, we do know how it evolved.
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
So you said evolution wasn't about getting better so why or how did these microbes evolve.
Survival. At its basest level, life is about reproduction. If a change in an organism makes it more likely that it can reproduce, then it has an advantage. That advantage makes it more likely to reproduce and so pass on that advantageous change.
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
The odds of a simple life form evolving into a complex one is astronomical.
How are you calculating the odds? All creationist arguments based on probability have been shown to be flawed, usually due to a misunderstanding of how probability works (whether they accept the flaw is a different matter).
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Of course evolutionary theories are no better than saying life was sneezed upon the Earth by Zeus who had them brewing up his nose for ages.
I would say the idea of a god "sneezing" life onto the Earth sounds much more like creationism.
Last edited by observer; 12-27-2013 at 12:40 PM.
Reason: clarity
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
A Question which Atheists could not answer (OP)
Muhaba liked this post
Lenin and Stalin laugh in their graves. If they liked it so much, why did they ban it as a an imperialist-capitalist conspiracy against dialectic materialism and banned it from education altogether?
مَا أَشْهَدتُّهُمْ خَلْقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمَا كُنتُ مُتَّخِذَ الْمُضِلِّينَ عَضُدًا
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks