Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

Al-Anbiya (The Prophets)[21:18] [RECITE]

[top] [next match]

Bal naqthifu bialhaqqi AAala albatili fayadmaghuhu faitha huwa zahiqun walakumu alwaylu mimma tasifoona

21:18 Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).

I'm leaving the house in a bit so I can't watch the video right now but I read the description

"Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design like to point to what they call the "irreducible complexity" of the eye as proof of the existence of a designer/creator. In other words, they like to say that complex components of our physiology like the eye could not have come about through a process of evolution because they are not of any use until everything is in place and working. In this excerpt from his "Growing Up In The Universe" series of lectures, Professor Dawkins demonstrates how something complex like the eye can indeed evolve."

I will get around to watching it InshaAllah but what I would like to say is something which I think often gets overlooked which is even if evolution is real, it would be saying that the creatures have an inclined desire to survive, why do we not think about why this inclination or desire is embedded in it?

Another thing is, if evolution means a gradual change of state to adapt to an environment, why are we not asking how this ability is embedded in us?

I'm not sure if I remember correctly but I think I've read somewhere on the forum before that Pygo does agree that evolution does not equal to there being no Creator? Or am I thinking about someone else?

The study of nature does not invalidate the belief that there is a Creator, because as much as we are able to study it. In the end we are merely the ones studying it, not the ones ordaining how it works. We might be able to figure out the speed of light but thats all it means.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

You may be right.

Dawkins is probably addressing simpletons with that sad demonstration, he's so unsophisticated that Christopher Hitchens is probably rolling in his grave in his new state he could still articulate himself better!

Now,
We evaluate the probability Pr that the RNA of the first cell was
assembled randomly in the time available (1.11 billion years
[b.y.]). To do this calculation, we first set a strict upper limit
on the number of chemical reactions nr which could have occurred
before the first cell appeared.
In order to illustrate the consequences of the finite value of nr,
we make some extremely minimalist assumptions about cells. We
consider a cell composed of Np = 12 proteins, each containing Na =
14 amino acids. We refer to the minimum (Np , Na) set as a (12-14)
cell. Such a cell is smaller than some modern viruses.
The ability to perform any of the basic tasks of the cell is not
necessarily limited to a single protein. Many different proteins
among all those which were available in the primeval soup may have
been able to perform (say) waste disposal. In order to allow for
this in estimating Pr, we include a factor Q to describe how many
different proteins in the primeval soup could have performed each
of the basic tasks of cell operation. The larger Q is, the easier
it is to assemble a functional cell by random processes. However,
there is a maximum value Qmax that is set by phase space arguments.
The hypothesis that life originated by random processes requires
that Pr be of order unity. We estimate how large Q must be (Qra :
subscript “ra” denotes “random assembly”) in order to ensure Pr = 1
in the time that is available (1.11 b.y.). We find that Qra must be
so large as to exceed the maximum permissible value Qmax in the
phase space of proteins comprised of a set of 14 distinct amino
acids. Such a large value of Qra would have serious consequences
for biology: if Qra were truly as large as Qmax in the primeval
soup, then essentially all 14-acid proteins must have possessed
the ability to perform each of the fundamental tasks in the cell.
That is, there was no task specificity among the proteins: a
protein which was able (say) to maintain the membrane in a cell
would also have been able to control (say) the replication
process.

That's from Dr. Mullan's ability to randomly assemble cells (using various variables) that would make the process favorable. I have posted the entire journal here before and would advise anyone desiring to discuss science to follow that degree of detail not stand there with a projector and posters as it seems in and of itself so self-defeating to go through all that trouble to evoke the notion that something so complex is simple. Certainly the process of demonstration itself seems cumbersome and still comes up so empty and for something that should be self revealing and naturally/innately demonstrable.
Just to be able to perform what he calls a 'primitive function' requires a staggering number of biochemical and physiological processes which are still connected to other processes in order for the whole machination to give us a fully functional, noetic being, as you know the eye didn't evolve in isolation.
And again I repeat simply the coming together of random amino acids doesn't give function, form, nor animation, else why not put say a dead flower back together simply by re annealing parts denatured? I think it is embarrassing for this guy to present that as science and for you to accept it and post it here is mind boggling. I think maybe this can satisfy easily manipulated school aged kids.. one does grow a bit wiser (we hope) and intensely more sophisticated with age, and that sort of demonstration is not acceptable.

I have no problems with people being atheists, really I don't care who believes what, but I find stuff like that insulting to my intelligence and to others, you don't have to have a doctorate in science to see how this comes up short again and again.

best,

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent

Can you give me a link to that? I can't find Dr Mullan online.

here's two:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf

you can't find it because academics don't advertise online but quacks often do

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

You may be right. But I do get the strong impression that you didn't watch the video he is referring to. Do you state there is no evidence because you have sought it out and know it isn't there, or because you don't want to look?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E

I've seen that video.

How is that video an evidence that such a process, as so passionately outlined by Dawkins, occurred? He proposes a certain understanding how human eye might have gone through steps from primitive eye to complex eye, but he has not presented evidence for that occurring other than giving us snapshots/samples of eye's structure from various points along that curve of supposed evolution which to the simpleton would make sense.

But on deep inquiry, one does realize that just because we have various structures of eye in nature, from the simplest to the more complex, it does not mean they have a linear time-space relationship between them.

He's not a formidable foe.. there's nothing impressive to his credit unfortunately. He's like the Harun Yahya of atheists.

Lily, Skye, or whatever I am to call you now (My keyboard can not type your current name), isn't that abiogenesis that you are talking about in your post and not evolution? As far as I am aware evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing. From what I have read of this Dawkins fellow and others, evolution is a change in gene sequence over time. If there is no DNA, no genes, then there can't be evolution yet. No?

Evolution in terms of an eye evolving or one species diverging into a new species has always seen coherent and sensible to me on reading about it, especially after reading Dawkins' Selfish Gene. But abiogenesis I have never been able to wrap my mind around or make much sense of.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk

even if evolution is real, it would be saying that the creatures have an inclined desire to survive, why do we not think about why this inclination or desire is embedded in it

Another thing is, if evolution means a gradual change of state to adapt to an environment, why are we not asking how this ability is embedded in us?

As I understand it, evolotion does not say these things are imbedded in us, but rather that they are processes of nature (natural selection, competition, mutation, etc). I think evolution can still work even if a particular creature is suicidal, so long as it passes on its genes before dying. In fact, I have read about some kinds of spider wherein the male will willingly throw itself into the female`s mouth to be eaten after copulating. Its about what creatures`genes will be passed along, not what will make the creature itself live or die. I found a lot of my questions and concerns about evolution and contradictiions within it are explained if I look at evolution from a gene`s eye view.

I'm not sure if I remember correctly but I think I've read somewhere on the forum before that Pygo does agree that evolution does not equal to there being no Creator?

Yes. Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive. A creator could have made early life and it may have evolved from there. The only thing evolution would invalidate about creation would be if you claimed all life on earth and creatures on earth exist today exactly like they did at creation.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Lily, Skye, or whatever I am to call you now (My keyboard can not type your current name), isn't that abiogenesis that you are talking about in your post and not evolution? As far as I am aware evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing. From what I have read of this Dawkins fellow and others, evolution is a change in gene sequence over time. If there is no DNA, no genes, then there can't be evolution yet. No?
Evolution in terms of an eye evolving or one species diverging into a new species has always seen coherent and sensible to me on reading about it, especially after reading Dawkins' Selfish Gene. But abiogenesis I have never been able to wrap my mind around or make much sense of.

You need a point of origins in order to evolve from it, and you don't get to choose the points of your choosing and even if you did, you'd still need to work the details out, not merely say, such happens over time. If you're a rock one day and sprout wings the next, you need to demonstrate how that happens by the means you proclaim caused it. NO?
Also, do you know enough about mutations & genetics to discuss with some dexterity? frame shift, nonsense, missense, etc. that sort of thing? well people who do science need those to work out the details you want others to accept at face value. That's if you're going to discuss science not science fiction.
There's a clear demarcation between adaptation and speciation, let alone that which moves forward in a particular fashion and takes on positive traits. Most mutations are in fact deleterious. Some atheists are formidable and are contenders Dawkins is not one of them I can't imagine anyone wasting money on his books but each is to his own. If you understand science you won't need a quack to break it down to you with his own additives and preservatives..

As an Addendum to the above I have no problems if evolution were the way per the verse in suret al-kahf -
Al-Kahf (The Cave)[18:51] [RECITE]

[top] [next match]

Ma ashhadtuhum khalqa alssamawati waalardi wala khalqa anfusihim wama kuntu muttakhitha almudilleena AAadudan

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!


So believe me when I say I am not aggrieved either way.. my objection is over the missing details and that in fact most atheists use 'evolution' with whatever that entails to them to prove that life can be without God..although some seem to modify their beliefs now...


best,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Certainly. And I'd even agree had you changed the above statment to reflect what evolution theory really says (I assume you wrote what you did for the sake of hyperbole). We should not simply accept evolution because somebody says it is so. We should not accept it on faith. We should investigate it and test it, and look for evidence for it and to disprove it. We should not turn it into a religion, as I have seen some people do. On that we can definitely agree.

I am glad you see that some folks do turn it into a religion and any questions are met with ridicule and cheap digs to ones intellect and education.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

That said, as far as I am aware evolution is our best current guess at how life changes on earth and how new species arise. Aside from religious claims of course, which for some reason I can't fathom people don't seem to want to subject to the same level of scrutiny, and consider it ok to take on faith. I wouldn't take either on faith and am open to evidence for both. And they are not mutually exclusive.

I don't subscribe to that for the mere reason that you'll actually set yourself back and not be able to fill in the blanks. In other words instead of starting with two beings, you'll be starting with a few proteins that need to find a host and move that process forward to bring about a fully functional being across billions of species with what that entails of details we should be seeing it before our very eyes not failing miserably to reproduce it in a laboratory setting and with all the direct manipulation that we use.
So it does come down to faith and we're all allowed the faith of our choosing.
You understand that we're not merely physical beings and that there are many sciences that are built on conjectures and faith, practically 70% of psychiatry is. I hope one day you'll arrive to the same conclusions that many of us have not out of faith so much as reflection on the signs and sciences of the world.

Fussilat (Explained in Detail)[41:53] [RECITE]

[top] [next match]

Sanureehim ayatina fee alafaqi wafee anfusihim hatta yatabayyana lahum annahu alhaqqu awalam yakfi birabbika annahu AAala kulli shayin shaheedun

41:53 Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?


best,

so i watched the video.

not being an expert, please forgive me for the ineptitude.

but am i to believe that humans evolved from the squids?

because if they did not then the eye is more common than one would assume.

here look at all these eyes... yes brilloent.

i mean dogs still see in black and white.. whats that all about!


what im getting at is that the templates of creation are pretty much just that.

what gets my goat...no pun intended, is dawkins ending line.

like its all some sort of natural progression.


anyway little fact in my post, just my 2cents.


lol random addition.

so the gradual change of eye shape as described in the vid.

those "mutations" at every percent must have been dominant ie overriding of the creatures base genome.

or that 1% change must have made a huge difference in how predators were perceived.

i mean if an eye has a 1% difference it is usually a detraction from vision...but thats at the top of the mountain.

either way at each mutation it is somehow perceived as beneficial and becomes a dominant trait?


also an eye alone is worth nothing as soon as it reaches land..
you need cleaning and lubricating mechanisms.

i dont know how that comes about via evolution.

also am i to take it that there comes a point where the eye is pretty much perfect for the environment and "evolution" stops?

as the vid example.. species can climb no further? because thats just lazy in my book.. you should at least try and change.

so the cycle of evolution stops because technically they are all at the top of the mountain.


hope you get the idea and the paradox... although it is probably not correct.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

As a Muslim, I don't have any qualms with a theory about how one bird develops a long, thin beak while another develops a short, stout one through natural processes

Speaking of birds.

We were talking about hummingbirds in class just now and how there are plants that are dependent on hummingbirds for reproduction. How does this work in the evolution theory?

Another one I've been thinking about is camouflage on animals, how does that work as well?

^^ hulk
that is called co-evolution and defined by different relationships in biology such as parasitism, symbiotism etc. That is how we evolved defences agaisnt bacteria and to overcome thsoe defences, bacteria developed new mechanisms to replicate. Perpetual cycle of war and evolution. I only believe in half or a quarter of it though as most of it is Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I took few courses in undergrad in botany and plant defences. It is just mind boggling that even green plants have sophisticated immune systems to fight off infections and to warn other plants in their surroundings of the impending doom .... such a beautiful tapestry of life.

I love forests. Sometimes I feel blessed to be born to witness all these things and workings of nature around me while yet this nature works on my body, my genes, my neurons and on everything about me too.