× Register Login What's New! Contact us
Page 3 of 9 First 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last
Results 41 to 60 of 177
  1. #1
    Array Khattab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    454
    Threads
    41
    Reputation
    763
    Rep Power
    89

    evolution refuted simply (OP)


    Over the past couple of weeks, I have watched programmes from animal programmes to just day to day programmes where the theory of evolution is seen as fact. Switched on the tv and the usual ranting on about our "ancestors" etc.

    My question why do you think something which is very doubtful and to this day remains a theory is pushed so heavily on us?
    evolution refuted simply

    "Lo! the Hour is surely coming, there is no doubt thereof; yet most of mankind believe not." (Al-Ghafir:59)

  2. #41
    Abdul Fattah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Belgium, Gent
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,931
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    12990
    Rep Power
    94
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    70

    Re: evolution refuted simply

    Report bad ads?

    You are in agreement with me that the insertion points we see are not "Random" and nor are they "Luck". What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of DNA? The very same logic applies. Given the improbable event of two separate infections leading to the same ERV the most likely scenario is that the two species share a common ancestor.
    So first they were random (remember the 1-to-6-billion-chance-argument) wich is an argument for evolution. Now we both agrea that they are not likely to be random, and then it's aparently a proof favorouble for evolution. Seems that the argument is of lesser importance to you and the theory is already proven no matter what. But i'll take the bait anyway, so explain me how. How does the hypothese that both species got this ERV through seperate infections, makes a common ancestor more likely?

    Taxonomy, through the study of fossils, has come to the conclusion that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Therefore, knowing the implications of ERV production, we should find ERV’s at the same letter of DNA in each of these species. This is a prediction made by the theory of evolution.
    Ok so now it's just two hypothesis who happen to share common ground. One of wich I'm in the middle of debating to ground an onother based on unscientific findings like: hey we both have skulls, we must have evolved from one another.
    No really, the only reason they share common ground is because the hypothese origenated from a biased point of vieuw!

    If humans and orangutans share a common ERV at the same letter of DNA, then chimps and gorillas should also have that same ERV at the same letter of DNA because all of these species share one common ancestor. Since orangutans branched off before the other three, we should see ERV’s occuring after this branching. That is, there should be ERV’s common between gorillas, chimps, and humans that orangutans do not have. Since gorillas split off next, we should see ERV’s shared between chimps and humans that are not seen in gorillas or orangutans. In fact, there are twelve ERV’s between humans and chimps that can only be explained by common ancestory, as well as the other ERV’s shared by humans and other apes.
    You'r assuming that I the whole branch wich isn't the case, i'm simply saying that human don't fit in that branch. This doesn't deny the evolution of different ape's.

    We can diverge with as much complexity and smoke as you care. At the end of the day the simple question remains, other than "common ancestory" how can you account for the facts that Chimps and humans share 12 ERV insertions. Currently you have still failed to provide a credible answer. Stating that they have the same but accuired them in a different manner is speculative, unfounded and has nothing to support this. You are employing nothing more than speculation to disprove over-whelming evidence.
    No, YOU are the one claiming a certain speculation is an overwhelming proof. Since the proof is not waterthight and shows so many holes it's only logical to see it as a speculation. You can claim this is evidence for common descent, but it is not. The data wich you start from can clearly be interpreted in a totally different way. The only reason it seems so overwhelming to you is because you WANT it to be a proof.
    ...
    ...
    See? An argument can often works both ways. It is because it's not based on logic but on emotions and personal feelings. You were the one claiming I had a lack of knowledge on this, so I suggest you'd wise up and refrain from those personal arguments but rather stick to the facts.
    evolution refuted simply

    Check out my website for my conversion story.
    Check out my free e-book if you like reading drama-novels.

  3. Report bad ads?
  4. #42
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,348
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    774
    Rep Power
    90
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Re: evolution refuted simply

    Quote:Root
    You are in agreement with me that the insertion points we see are not "Random" and nor are they "Luck". What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of DNA? The very same logic applies. Given the improbable event of two separate infections leading to the same ERV the most likely scenario is that the two species share a common ancestor.
    Steve - So first they were random (remember the 1-to-6-billion-chance-argument) wich is an argument for evolution
    We cannot debate when you are being so misleading. The initial infection leading to the insertion of the "junk" DNA is random. The subsequent copies of cell/species reproduction is not. the 1-to-6 billion chance arguement (actually 1-to-6=billion X 12: since we observe 12 such insertion points) is the creationists argument against random luck.

    Now we both agrea that they are not likely to be random, and then it's aparently a proof favorouble for evolution.
    Yes, this is true. The randomness of the intitial insertion is random, subsequent copies of the gene are then fixed creating a "marker" that we all carry at the same place

    Seems that the argument is of lesser importance to you and the theory is already proven no matter what.
    Unless creationists can come up with a credible reason for what we observe yourself included then yes like the theory of relativity, it is what it is because it is testable, predictable and observable.

    But i'll take the bait anyway, so explain me how. How does the hypothese that both species got this ERV through seperate infections, makes a common ancestor more likely?
    Firstly, I have never stated the ERV insertions were through seperate infections as this goes against all we have discussed. One insertion point in multiple species (in this case primates), by carrying the static "copy" of the original random infection can only suggest common ancestory.

    Ok so now it's just two hypothesis who happen to share common ground. One of wich I'm in the middle of debating to ground an onother based on unscientific findings like: hey we both have skulls, we must have evolved from one another.
    No really, the only reason they share common ground is because the hypothese origenated from a biased point of vieuw!
    I like the way you have switched from theory to hypothosis. This is a mistake since ERV insertions within the animal kindom is a theory and not hypothosis. As stated above we can Observe, test and make predictions based on observation, this afterall is what validates the theory of relativity. And I simply don't understand how you can subscribe a biased point of view when it is based on observable and credible scientific observation.

    You'r assuming that I the whole branch wich isn't the case, i'm simply saying that human don't fit in that branch. This doesn't deny the evolution of different ape's
    ERV insertions is a scientifically credible at ancestory observation. We also observe matching ERV insertions between a woolly mammoth & Elephant. We observe matching insertion points within the reptile species and again with mammals. Each species showing common ancestory (matching ERV's within their own groups.)

    No, YOU are the one claiming a certain speculation is an overwhelming proof. Since the proof is not waterthight and shows so many holes it's only logical to see it as a speculation. You can claim this is evidence for common descent, but it is not. The data wich you start from can clearly be interpreted in a totally different way. The only reason it seems so overwhelming to you is because you WANT it to be a proof
    If the proof is not water tight then please post your objections.

    No, ERV insertions cannot be interpreted in any other way that would make sense. This is like saying the theory of relativity shows many holes in logic then bot actually concluding why one would reach such a conclusion.

    No, the only reason it seems so overwhelming is because we have the evidence. Observable, testable and predictable. Everything a theory needs.

    See? An argument can often works both ways. It is because it's not based on logic but on emotions and personal feelings. You were the one claiming I had a lack of knowledge on this, so I suggest you'd wise up and refrain from those personal arguments but rather stick to the facts.
    I agree, and thus stuck to the facts regarding ERV insertions. I am still waiting for you to give me a credible fact against ERV proving common ancestory. In other words when are you going to post factual information that explains why we see matching ERV sequences within our closest relatives. And other species show to they have matching ERV's within there branches too.

    Unless you bring this evidence to the debate, your only going around in circles.

    Regards

    Root

  5. #43
    Abdul Fattah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Belgium, Gent
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,931
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    12990
    Rep Power
    94
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    70

    Re: evolution refuted simply

    I’ve noticed in the last couple of posts that you’r responses to certain quotes have a total disregard of wich is further mentioned in the original post. To avoid me repeating myself, and to avoid people thinking I’m running around in circles, kindly read through my post at least once before making a reply so you have knowledge of what comes behind the piece of text you quote.

    We cannot debate when you are being so misleading. The initial infection leading to the insertion of the "junk" DNA is random. The subsequent copies of cell/species reproduction is not. the 1-to-6 billion chance arguement (actually 1-to-6=billion X 12: since we observe 12 such insertion points) is the creationists argument against random luck.
    Ok first it’s totally random, then it’s totally not, and now the infection is random but reproduction not. And I’m the one being misleading? No my point of vieuw has been christalclear. Namely that the method of infection is not random. And it’s not just out of the bleu, I provided evidence to go with that claim. You are in fact the one who now tries to mislead people by bringing up un-randomness of the reproduction, wich has nothing to do with the discussion at hand point. You’r simply blowing smoke so no one would notice your failure in providing decent arguments.

    Yes, this is true. The randomness of the intitial insertion is random, subsequent copies of the gene are then fixed creating a "marker" that we all carry at the same place
    Euhm there is no reason at all to assume the loci where the virus is inserted is random. I already showed in fact why it would be logical to assume the oposite.

    steve: Seems that the argument is of lesser importance to you and the theory is already proven no matter what.
    Root:Unless creationists can come up with a credible reason for what we observe yourself included then yes like the theory of relativity, it is what it is because it is testable, predictable and observable.
    First of, common descent is not testable, nor observable nor predictable. That’s why you can’t compare it with gravity or relativity for example. Creationist do have a credible explenation, and even if we didn’t it’s absurd to claim a theory is wright just because you fail to find an alternative.
    If the proof is not water tight then please post your objections.
    Ow my God, what do you think I’ve been doing all this time? Did you actually thouroughly read my posts or just do a quick copy-paste and replyed the first thing that popped in your mind? Or is asking for something that I already posted just another way of escaping confrontation?

    No, ERV insertions cannot be interpreted in any other way that would make sense. This is like saying the theory of relativity shows many holes in logic then bot actually concluding why one would reach such a conclusion.
    Yes it can be interpretated in other ways that make sense. I’m currently defending an interpretation that makes perfect sense. You might think that it is nonsensical, but the actual judgement of my point of vieuw can only be made when no more arguments are left to debate wright?

    steve: But i'll take the bait anyway, so explain me how. How does the hypothese that both species got this ERV through seperate infections, makes a common ancestor more likely?
    Root: Firstly, I have never stated the ERV insertions were through seperate infections as this goes against all we have discussed. One insertion point in multiple species (in this case primates), by carrying the static "copy" of the original random infection can only suggest common ancestory.
    Forgive me for trying to place words in you mounth but when I read the following quote I did seem to me as if you clamed the insertion point (place were virus infects) are not randomly chosen.

    You are in agreement with me that the insertion points we see are not "Random" and nor are they "Luck". What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of DNA?
    Ok, moving on to the next item at hand....
    I like the way you have switched from theory to hypothosis. This is a mistake since ERV insertions within the animal kindom is a theory and not hypothosis. As stated above we can Observe, test and make predictions based on observation, this afterall is what validates the theory of relativity. And I simply don't understand how you can subscribe a biased point of view when it is based on observable and credible scientific observation.
    Ow my, did you just now ignore all of my previous posts when making this statement? ERV insertion is a theory, but using ERV-insertion to back up common descent is a hypothesis. And for a very simple reason. As I said before, and even demonstrated, the presence of these ERV’s can very well be interpretated in a different way. Therefor the presence of these ERV do not undeniably imply common descent. This is why it’s a hypothesis and not a theory. As for being biased. If there are multiple ways of interpreting these ERV’s, and you say one interpretation (mine) is speculation, and the other interpretation (yours) is an overwhelming evidence for common descent, then you are VERY biased.

    ERV insertions is a scientifically credible at ancestory observation. We also observe matching ERV insertions between a woolly mammoth & Elephant. We observe matching insertion points within the reptile species and again with mammals. Each species showing common ancestory (matching ERV's within their own groups.)
    Yes it’s commonly accepted way of ancestorial observation. Why? Alow me to show the steps that were taken in the course of it getting recognised.
    1. A lot of scientist believe in common descent.
    2. With ERV’s only commonalitys were searched to proof this descent. (remember the encyclopedia argument?)
    3.We found some ERV’s that if we assume origenated from a single source rather then from multiple infections would speak favorouble for evolution.
    4. Since this hypothesis seems to corelate to common descent so good, it must be true.
    5. So now we see this as a theory rather then a hypothesis.
    6. The theory corelates to common descent.
    7. I no longer need to believe in common descent, since it’s now a proven fact...

    I agree, and thus stuck to the facts regarding ERV insertions. I am still waiting for you to give me a credible fact against ERV proving common ancestory. In other words when are you going to post factual information that explains why we see matching ERV sequences within our closest relatives. And other species show to they have matching ERV's within there branches too. Unless you bring this evidence to the debate, your only going around in circles.
    I will not bring evidence that proofs your hypothesis falsness for the following 4 reasons:

    1. My point was made clear: I believe those ERV’s to be the result of different infections wich would explain why they are present in whole populations. You have countered this with the “chance” argument. First of, I showed you how it needend be a case of “luck” and secondly I showed you how your point of vieuw also has some problems with a “chance factor”.
    3. My p.o.v. stands undefeated so far, whereas you stopped fighting the arguments I presented to your p.o.v. So in a way, I’ve already done more then you did.
    4. I do not have the spare time to look up the whole proces of ERV’s to calculate how polarity and threedimensional shapes of diffrent virusses would influence this proces.
    5. Even if I did have the time for it, I wouldn’t bother. I entered the discussion only to show that common descent is not proven; and by doing so to show that when someone opposes you, that doesn’t neccesairly mean that he has a lack of knowledge in the matter at hand. I did show you that your “proofs” are only hypothesis. I've already done what I wanted to do. Now you want me to proof your hypothesis is wrong, or else you'll accuse me of going in circles? Even though you've failed to proof mine is wrong? No, I shared my point of vieuw, If you don't want to accept it out of personal judgement of one likelyness versus another then that's your choice, I have nothing to do with that.

    Note that this doesn't mean I'm bailing out the conversation. I will Inshallah try to continue answering any comments you have to this post. Al be it only out of politeness to allow you to further try your case. This is simply me saying: what you require of me is to much and uncalled for.

    With respect steve
    Last edited by Abdul Fattah; 08-23-2005 at 06:50 PM.
    evolution refuted simply

    Check out my website for my conversion story.
    Check out my free e-book if you like reading drama-novels.

  6. #44
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,348
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    774
    Rep Power
    90
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Re: evolution refuted simply

    Hi Steve

    OK,

    Ok first it’s totally random, then it’s totally not, and now the infection is random but reproduction not. And I’m the one being misleading? No my point of vieuw has been christalclear. Namely that the method of infection is not random. And it’s not just out of the bleu, I provided evidence to go with that claim. You are in fact the one who now tries to mislead people by bringing up un-randomness of the reproduction, wich has nothing to do with the discussion at hand point. You’r simply blowing smoke so no one would notice your failure in providing decent arguments.
    I would like if I may to break your first and most important piece down a little into smaller chunks:

    Ok first it’s totally random, then it’s totally not, and now the infection is random but reproduction not. And I’m the one being misleading?
    I fail to see why you have stated this since from the outset I have always claimed that the insertion point of the virus is random. Subsequent copies of the "infected" gene are static, throughout this post I have always stated this.

    No my point of vieuw has been christalclear. Namely that the method of infection is not random. And it’s not just out of the bleu, I provided evidence to go with that claim.
    Yes you did, and this concluded that the insertions were not random.

    You are in fact the one who now tries to mislead people by bringing up un-randomness of the reproduction, wich has nothing to do with the discussion at hand point.
    No, I am claiming simply this as stated right at the beginning:

    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).

    In summary this means that the insertion to the host is random (currently disputed) and that the new organism will carry the junk DNA at a specific point. Indeed we as human will share this same insertion point today.

    Again, this all comes down to the issue as to wether or not the initial infection is random in it's insertion position within the host chromozones.

    You’r simply blowing smoke so no one would notice your failure in providing decent arguments.
    OK, readers can see for themselves if I am constantly changing position.

    In summary, we will not be able to make any progression towards a greater truth until we have resolved the issue with the insertion point being random or not as I originaly discounted it as random for the following reasons:

    A common creationist objection to the ERV concept is that of multiple insertions i.e. the idea that a virus might insert itself into the same place in different organisms and it becomes embedded in both organisms i.e. a human might be infected with E1, and this ERV becomes embedded in the human population, and a chimp might become infected with E1 and this also becomes embedded,

    Again, this is taken from my first post on ERV insertions and common decent. And it is a matter of fact that this is indeed your objection. As seen on page two, and your right in stating that the debate balloned out of which we need to slim it. hence why I am concentrating on your very first rebuttle. i.e The insertion points are not random

    Sometimes, subjects become very complex and I hope readers take the time to read suggested link to follow this story through to better educate themselves how Evolution cannot and will not be as easily refuted as the original poster intended. (I don't mean Steve for whome I have a lot of respect).

    I can provide many professional links to scientific data that suggests the insertions are random. Since the only source on the internet that did rebuttle a claim against randomness was removed by the author, placing yourself at the wrong end of the debate.

    a class that creationists often claim cannot exist. We know that sequences are randomly being inserted into our DNA by retroposition even today, as genetic accidents without apparent divine intervention, including insertions that can cause inherited diseases in subsequent generations or induce cancer in the individual in which they arise. If these insertions have no beneficial function, there is no reason to suspect any function for the similar insertions that are shared between species.

    Although creationists have been, for the most part, conspicuously silent on ERVs as strong evidence for evolution (a notable exception was AIG's Carl Wieland, who wrote a response to Edward Max's Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/); Max's reply (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molg...ielandRetracts), pointing out the piece's serious and misleading errors, convinced him to remove it from their webpage) a common theme of dissenters is to deny, implicitly or explicitly, the randomness of proviral integration into the host genome. If integration is non-random, they argue, the extreme improbability of ERVs showing up at the same loci across different species (a problem circumvented by acknowledging they represent ancestry, and not different, convergent instances of infection) effectivly goes out the window. To buttress this claim, creationists cite mainstream literature on specific aspects of integration specificity. For example, Zhu et al (1999) knocked out Sir3p and Sir4p, two components of silent chromatin, in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. This was followed by a more than nine-fold decrease in Ty5 (one of the families of S. cerevisiae ERV) integration specificity, which normally (more than 90%) occur near the silent chromatin bounded telomeres and HM loci.
    Source:http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?tit...s_retroviruses

    I also thought that readers may enjoy this, the rebuttle to have your claim removed. (Well, it's not exactly your claim but your understanding as to why ERV insertion is not a sound theory)

    Dear Carl Wieland,

    I have just come across your article on the Web entitled 'Junk-making' viruses neutralize an evolutionary argument, in which you claim that the evolutionary argument based on shared pseudogenes is invalid. As you may be aware, I have written an extensive article (posted at the Talk.Origins Archive) in which I outline in detail why retroposons/pseudogenes shared between species argue strongly for common ancestry and therefore support evolution. I am writing to you now to explain why I believe the conclusions of your article to be erroneous.

    1. You write "there is no consistent pattern of pseudo-genes (sic) in humans, chimps and gorillas from which it could be argued that humans are closer to chimps than they are to gorillas. Some pseudogenes are shared by humans and chimps, not by gorillas, while others are shared by humans and gorillas, but not chimps."

    According to the current evolutionary view, humans, chimps and gorillas shared common ancestors for hundreds of millions of years from the origin of life until about 6 million years ago, when a separate gorilla lineage diverged. Therefore, the evolution model predicts that most human retroposons/pseudogenes would be shared between all three species since any retroposons/pseudogenes that arose in human ancestors before 6 million years ago (MYA) would have been passed on equally to those ancestors' human and ape descendants. This prediction is supported by current evidence that most human pseudogenes examined are shared by chimps and gorillas, and it is this evidence that argues strongly that these three species shared a common ancestor. If the data you cite in your second sentence above actually exist, they bear only on the question of whether chimp or gorilla ancestors first diverged from the human lineage, and not on the fundamental validity of evolution.

    Current evidence suggests that the chimp lineage diverged from human ancestors about 5 MYA. Therefore, the evolution model would predict that human DNA should harbor some retroposons/pseudogenes not shared with chimps or gorillas, namely those that arose less than 5 MYA. This prediction is also supported by current evidence, in that several retroposons/pseudogenes whose sequence characteristics suggest that they arose recently are in fact not found in chimps and gorillas. Similarly, there are recent chimp retroposons/pseudogenes not found in humans or gorillas.

    The interval of time between the divergence of gorillas from humans and the divergence of chimps from humans is believed to be about 1 million years, which is a tiny portion of the evolutionary history of these three species. Accordingly, evolution predicts that this period would have been too brief to have accumulated many retroposons/pseudogenes that we might now find shared by chimps and humans but not gorillas. Consistent with this prediction, I have not found any documented examples of such pseudogenes, although there are many examples of other more frequent types of genetic alteration (deletions, nucleotide substitutions, small insertions) which are shared by humans and chimps but not gorillas. [note added 4-26-00: An example of a sequence present in human and chimpanzee but not gorilla or other primate species is described in Keller et al., Mol Biol Evol 16:1019, 1999.]

    What about a hypothetical pseudogene/retroposon shared by humans and gorillas but not chimps? As I argue in section 5.8 of my Web posting, although such a retroposon/pseudogene is not predicted by evolution, a few such examples can easily be accommodated with an evolutionary explanation: a pseudogene or retroposon that arose in the common ancestor of humans, chimps and gorillas may get deleted in chimps. Such deletions are not common, but are known to occur.

    But suppose as DNA sequence data accumulates in the future we discover not a few, but many pseudogenes shared by humans and gorillas, and far fewer ones shared by humans and chimps; would this threaten the foundations of evolutionary theory as you imply? Absolutely not; it would, however, cause us to rethink the notion that gorilla ancestors diverged from the human lineage before chimp ancestors. The current view of an earlier gorilla divergence (and the estimated dates given above) derive from statistical calculations based on the very slightly greater similarity of DNA sequences between human and chimp than between human and gorilla; but only a small fraction of the DNA of these species has been sequenced, so these similarity estimates carry some uncertainty. Because most scientists feel that shared retroposons represent better clues to species relatedness than routine sequence similarity comparisons, a greater number of shared gorilla-human retroposons would probably compel the conclusion that the gorilla lineage diverged from the human more recently than the chimp lineage. The slightly greater chimp-human sequence similarity than gorilla-human would, if it persisted as more sequence data accumulate, suggest a greater mutation rate in the gorilla lineage than in human or chimp.

    Alternatively, if future investigations discover just as many chimp-and-human-but-not-gorilla shared retroposons/pseudogenes as gorilla-and-human-but-not-chimp, this could be explained if chimp and gorilla ancestors diverged simultaneously (or very closely in time) from the human lineage. In this case the incompletely shared retroposons/pseudogenes could have inserted into the common ancestor such a short time before the lineage split that they had not spread throughout the population before the lineage split occurred; some retroposons/pseudogenes might become fixed in gorillas and humans but not chimps, and others might become fixed in chimps and humans but not gorillas.

    In any case, I am surprised that you were able to find enough examples of gorilla-human-but-not-chimp pseudogenes to make the generalization in your second sentence quoted above. I would appreciate it if you would send me the literature references to all these examples. I can't help wondering if you are generalizing from the single example that creationist John Woodmorappe has cited, that of an epsilon immunoglobulin pseudogene supposedly shared by gorilla and human but not chimp. If you read my Web posting (the boxed sidebar under section 5.8), you will see that this example is erroneous.

    2. You cite a creationist model of pseudogene formation (shown in your Fig. 1) in which genes A, B and C present in early populations of humans, chimps and gorillas lead to pseudogenes in modern populations of these species. If you think that this model accurately reflects the current observations of pseudogenes, you seriously misunderstand the details of the pseudogene data. Your model suggests that the pseudogene A' in humans arose independently from the pseudogene A' in chimps and in gorillas. The problem with your formulation is that many examples exist where not only do humans and chimpanzees both have a pseudogene derived from the same source gene, but they both have the SAME pseudogene; i.e. the pseudogene has the SAME defects and is located in the SAME location in the DNA of the two species, inserted into the SAME sequence at the target DNA site. There is no way that the random origin of retroposons/pseudogenes independently in two species, as described in your model, can explain identical defects and identical locations of the same pseudogene shared between species. On the contrary, your model predicts that random pseudogenes arising independently in chimps and humans would carry different mutations and, at least for processed pseudogenes, be located in different locations; both of these predictions are contradicted by the evidence.

    3. Finally, you claim that "at least some of the 'pseudogenes may not properly be such at all, and may turn out to have a function like so many of their 'junkyard' cousins have." These arguments are also dealt with in my Web article (sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4). I suggest that you (and any other readers of this letter) consult my article. To briefly summarize these sections:

    (a) It is true that a very few examples exist of retroposed genes that have no mutational defects and are functional; these are properly called "processed genes." They can easily be distinguished from processed pseudogenes, and do not suggest any function for those pseudogenes.

    (b) A very few examples are known of retroposed sequences that have regulatory function. These represent examples of very rare favorable mutations, a class that creationists often claim cannot exist. We know that sequences are randomly being inserted into our DNA by retroposition even today, as genetic accidents without apparent divine intervention, including insertions that can cause inherited diseases in subsequent generations or induce cancer in the individual in which they arise. If these insertions have no beneficial function, there is no reason to suspect any function for the similar insertions that are shared between species.

    (c) As scientists, we do not declare dogmatically that no function will ever be found for most pseudogenes. However, we base our current conclusions on currently available data. And those data indicate that shared retroposons/pseudogenes are functionless genetic accidents and can best be explained as originating in a common ancestor. Indeed, no other credible scientific explanation has been proposed either in the scientific literature or in creationist or mainstream scientific responses to my Web article.

    Because my Web article already links to sites with opposing points of view (and includes my responses to those sites) I plan to ask the Webmaster of Talk.Origins to include a link to your site, and a link to a copy of this response to it. I would appreciate any comments you might have to this response, and am sure that Talk.Origins would be willing to include a link to your comments. If you have any interest in providing the readers of your site with an opposing point of view so that they can make up their own minds based on a comprehensive review of the data, you might want to consider linking to my site.

    Sincerely,

    Edward E. Max

    [Note added later:
    Shortly after receiving this letter, Carl Wieland responded cordially, agreeing that his page on Answers in Genesis might have been misleading. He stated that he would remove his page, and it promptly disappeared from the Answers in Genesis site. ]
    Source:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molg...ielandRetracts

    I would link to the initial rabbutle. But the author removed it after reading the above!

    Regards

    Root
    Last edited by root; 08-23-2005 at 08:42 PM.

  7. Report bad ads?
  8. #45
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,348
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    774
    Rep Power
    90
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Re: Time for a modern progressive islam

    This has been a real engaging thread to read, and highlights the differences within differing groups of Islam. The link to http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ with "An invitation to discover Islam", has a small "tucked away in the corner" refutations to evolution.

    Being interested in an article on this site I clicked the link then randomly chose a subject which in this case was titled "A professional chemical weapons expert".

    The page has no direct link to it, however it makes a claim that since the Beetle uses two explosive mixing chemicles, such a creature could not evolve and thus scientific evidence of a creation.

    As soon as these materials interact, an explosive reaction occurs and an irritating chemical named quinone at 120 C is squirted at a tremendous speed. It is impossible for an enemy that is exposed to the dreadful weapon of the bombardier beetle to escape
    Blatant Innacuracy ^1

    The two chemicals being refered to are Hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide. which when mixed DO NOT cause an explosion, but you don't have to take my word for it and there is little point me posting any rebuttle page since these two chemicals can be purchased legally. Hydroquinone can be sourced from a photography shop and Hydrogen Peroxide from a basic chemist. Go buy them and mix them together yourself.............

    It is impossible for this marvelous system in the beetle to have formed as a result of coincidences. These chemicals, which explode the moment they interact, are kept separately in special chambers and mixed only at the moment of attack.
    Blatant Innacuracy ^2

    That description of bombardier beetles' physiology is inaccurate. It is based on a sloppy translation of a 1961 German article by Schildknecht and Holoubek (Kofahl 1981).

    Before I am accused of being "off-topic" my point here is mis-representation of the truth and a dogmatic attitude to be seen as credible by such Islamic sites as this. progress, perhaps is to acknowledge when one can clearly see the blatant lies that are misrepresenting the true discovery of Islam and it's forward thinking attitude.

    Regards

    Root

  9. #46
    Ansar Al-'Adl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    4,680
    Threads
    188
    Reputation
    16663
    Rep Power
    101
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    79

    Re: evolution refuted simply

    Your post has been moved here, Root. Please do not go off-topic in threads again. Allaahuakbar.net was never quoted as an authority on biological sciences.

    Regards
    evolution refuted simply

    The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
    "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]


    Visit Ansâr Al-'Adl's personal page HERE.
    Excellent resources on Islam listed HERE.

  10. #47
    Bittersteel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,546
    Threads
    118
    Reputation
    1213
    Rep Power
    87
    Likes (Given)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    4

  11. #48
    Abdul Fattah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Belgium, Gent
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,931
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    12990
    Rep Power
    94
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    70

    Re: evolution refuted simply

    I haven't been around for a while, got a full time job 6 days out of seven 7+ hours a day so I have lil time to reply here. I have noticed though in a quick scroll that as interesting as these things may be they have lil or even nothing to do with the arguments i raised angains evolution. It's not because the argumets of some creationists are defeated that threfor all creationists arguments are wrong, wright?
    evolution refuted simply

    Check out my website for my conversion story.
    Check out my free e-book if you like reading drama-novels.

  12. #49
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,348
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    774
    Rep Power
    90
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Re: evolution refuted simply

    Steve - It's not because the argumets of some creationists are defeated that threfor all creationists arguments are wrong, wright?
    I think with reference to the fire cracking beatle which was used to support a creationist view until it was proved false highlights the disinformation there is within the creationist cramp.

    P.S, Too much work and no play is not good for you Steve.

    Regards

    Root

  13. Report bad ads?
  14. #50
    azim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    660
    Threads
    43
    Reputation
    1024
    Rep Power
    85
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1

    The Eye - Evolution

    Salamu alaykum.

    Nay! Verily, man does transgress all bounds (in disbelief and evil deed, etc.).
    Because he considers himself self-sufficient. (Chapter 96, Verse 6-7)


    I just posted these lines of the Quran because to me, they illustrate a point. We're all taught in school about the theory of evolution. Which, despite its many flaws, is 'religiously' defended by some scientists. To me, the zealous nature in which they defend it has a lot to do with the belief that evolution makes mankind 'self-sufficient'. Why do we need Allah if evolution gives us all we need to survive?

    Evolution is actually adaptation. You only hear about evolution on the small scale. For example - a giraffe could eat more leaves with a longer neck, so the ones with longer necks survived and you end up an animal with a longer neck than body. Yet, scientifically speaking, that's adaptation, not evolution.

    If evolution was true, then you could logically give a reasonable account of how a single-celled organism could evolve into ANY creature with an eye. I have really tried to do this, but it's not possible. Try it yourself. No matter how many steps you take, you can not logically imagine any way that a cell could become an animal with an eye.

    It is He, Who has created for you (the sense of) hearing (ears), sight (eyes), and hearts (understanding). Little thanks you give. (Chapter 23, Verse 78)

    This is the same with so many things. The double-circulatory system is another example. Most animals have a single-cirulatory system (blood goes to heart, the heart pumps to the lungs, they receive oxygen, leave carbon dioxide and carry on the journey around body). Some highly developed animals (such as birds) and humans however, have a double circulatory system (blood goes to one valve in the heart, is pumped to the lungs, recieves oxygen, returns to the heart and is then given another pump for its journey around the body). No mutation or evolutionary step could take something from having a single-circulatory system to having a double-circulatory system. It is completely and scientifically impossible.

    Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding. (Chapter 3, Verse 190)

    I know the Religion vs. Evolution debate is an old one, but I was wanted my little say on it . Jazak'Allah khaiyran for reading.

    PS: The option to try and explain the evolution of the eye and double-circulatory system is open to all.

  15. #51
    Danish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    665
    Threads
    31
    Reputation
    896
    Rep Power
    87
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Re: The Eye - Evolution


    i seem to recall darwin saying in his book "the thought of the eye makes me cold all over"

    mashallah good post

  16. #52
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,348
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    774
    Rep Power
    90
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Re: The Eye - Evolution

    Darwin argued the key to the puzzle was to find "eyes" of intermediate complexity within the animal kingdom which could demonstrate a possible path from simple to complicated.

    An example of this intermediate stage can be found with the species "Tripedalia Cystophora" (Box jellyfish) which has 24 eyes. 16 of these eyes are just pits of light sensitive pigment with 8 eyes of surprising complexity...........

    The lens structure in the complex eyes are unusual because of a refractive index that blurs the image. From here it would be an easy step to evolve an "Image forming eye". Evolutionists beleive that the very first "eye's" were cells that were sensitive to light, nothing more and nothing less. Such a mutated cell would carry a distinct advantage within it's environment almost immediately.

  17. #53
    azim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    660
    Threads
    43
    Reputation
    1024
    Rep Power
    85
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Re: The Eye - Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by root
    Darwin argued the key to the puzzle was to find "eyes" of intermediate complexity within the animal kingdom which could demonstrate a possible path from simple to complicated.

    An example of this intermediate stage can be found with the species "Tripedalia Cystophora" (Box jellyfish) which has 24 eyes. 16 of these eyes are just pits of light sensitive pigment with 8 eyes of surprising complexity...........

    The lens structure in the complex eyes are unusual because of a refractive index that blurs the image. From here it would be an easy step to evolve an "Image forming eye". Evolutionists beleive that the very first "eye's" were cells that were sensitive to light, nothing more and nothing less. Such a mutated cell would carry a distinct advantage within it's environment almost immediately.
    I had read about the jellyfish before, but they don't really explain anything. Evolutionists have argued that the lens which blurs the image, is actually a product of advanced evolution as it helps the jellyfish make more sense of their surroundings then an eye with more detail.

    Also, a cell could never 'mutate' to become sensitive to light, that is to say, it would not be the product of a single mutation. There would have had to have been several mutations along the way.

    The evolutionary process doesnt however make anymore sense if we include the jellyfish eyes.

    Singe Cell
    More Developed Cells
    Cells which are made up of some Light Sensitive Cells
    >
    >(Somewhere around here, the light senstive cells would need to
    >somehow connect to the brain of the animal to interpret prescence/absence of >light)
    >
    >(Around here, a lens would have to develop, such a mutation is impossible)
    >
    Jellyfish with blurred vision.
    >
    >(A whole host of complexities would develop around here).
    >
    Human eye or a better example, a bird's eye (which is more developed).

    None of the steps in between seem any more or less likely if the jellyfish eye was some sort of intermediate step.

    There is also the question of the double circulatory system which causes evolutionists a lot more grief.

    Thank you for your post root. Even if you do not agree with my view, I hope you agree that evolution has discrepencies which should be taught in education, if only to try and find a more permenant and sound theory in the future.
    Last edited by azim; 09-14-2005 at 09:08 PM.

  18. #54
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,348
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    774
    Rep Power
    90
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Re: The Eye - Evolution

    Cool, glad you took the time to read it.

    At the moment I am looking into how clay geot into comet Temple 1, However I do have some questions if you don't mind.

    Also, a cell could never 'mutate' to become sensitive to light,
    How sure are you about this?

    Human eye or a better example, a bird's eye (which is more developed).
    Why do you believe a birds eye is more developed?

    There is also the question of the double circulatory system which causes evolutionists a lot more grief.
    Not really heard of this one! have you a source?

    I hope you agree that evolution has discrepencies which should be taught in education, if only to try and find a more permenant and sound theory in the future.
    can you expand.

    Also, I wonder how you feel about a type of bat and a type of mole who now are evolving losing sight as the eyes sink into the fur and show actual signs of diminishing. I am interested how you account for such a happening.

    I don't have a problem with the evolution of eyes, they are varied amongst species and all have seem to be perfectly (within reason, since the Human eye is not perfect). Why are all the eyes of species perfectly suited to thier current environment, and why when they change environment do the eyes change accordingly! (In your opinion)

    Finally, and I hope you take the time, for I am interested. can you give me a clue in your opinion to what you mean here:

    if only to try and find a more permenant and sound theory in the future.
    Regards

    Root

  19. Report bad ads?
  20. #55
    azim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    660
    Threads
    43
    Reputation
    1024
    Rep Power
    85
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Re: The Eye - Evolution

    Thanks for the reply root.

    I’ll just reply to the points you mentioned one by one.

    1) Mutating to become sensitive to light.

    A mutation is technically a defect in the genetic information of a cell. If we imagine the information contained in the DNA to look something like this.

    A-B-C-D-E-F-G

    Then a mutation would be this: -

    A-B-C-E-F-G
    or in other cases
    A-B-X-C-D-E-F-G

    There a several different types. In most cases, a mutation is negative. As far as human mutation goes, it’s always negative. In all cases of mutation in a child’s genetic information, the child is born with a disease, for example, cystic fibrosis.

    Evolution holds the assumption that mutation can lead to beneficial products in some instances. These beneficial products lead to an advantage for the creature with the mutation, which means creatures with that mutation survive and procreate, passing on the mutation.

    The very first cell created (which in itself is highly improbable) would not be sensitive to light. So somehow, a mutation would have to provide with the ability to react to light. It is impossible for a single mutation to provide with this ability. So the only way it’s possible is if several mutations lead to it. I could not answer what mutations could lead to a cell having this ability.

    2) Bird’s eye being more developed.

    A bird’s eye is more developed than a human eye as a fact. A bird can spot a mouse from the sky several hundred meets high (well some birds, for example, owls/eagles).

    3) Double circulatory system.

    You want a source on the double circulatory system? Type it into google, take you’re pick.

    4) “I hope you agree that evolution has discrepancies which should be taught in education, if only to try and find a more permanent and sound theory in the future.”

    If discrepancies in the evolutionary theory are taught, then at least the youth who grow up to be the scientists of the future can work to a solution to these problems. Why ignore them?

    5) Moles and Bats with diminishing eye-sight.
    This is the first I have heard about this topic.

    I will say that although a bat uses hearing as there main sense, their eyesight is not useless to them. Certain bats use their eyes to find very specific flowers for example. Say their habitat changed, and they no longer found these flowers, and so changed their diet to adapt to the new circumstances, then there is no benefit in having the eyesight. Yet if they moved back into an area with the certain flowers they feed from exist, then they could quite easily start using their eyesight for this purpose again. This is adaptation, I do not deny adaptation.

    I hope I have explained the final quote you used in the earlier point, if not, then I will go into further detail.

    Just to explain my standpoint, I am a Muslim and so believe Allah created the universe. I believe personally that evolution is impossible without a creator. The Quran neither affirms nor negates the evolution of animals. What it does do however is firmly negates the evolution of mankind, as Allah created Adam (as). Therefore, that is what I believe.

    Thank you for discussing the topic in such a friendly manner with me. I hope this has cleared up what I meant and look forward to a reply.

  21. #56
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,348
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    774
    Rep Power
    90
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Re: The Eye - Evolution

    Hi Azim.

    Thanks for the response. I feel we should at this point (before going further), clear up what IS and IS NOT truthful.

    There a several different types. In most cases, a mutation is negative. As far as human mutation goes, it’s always negative. In all cases of mutation in a child’s genetic information, the child is born with a disease, for example, cystic fibrosis.
    OK, cool. Firstly, here is the evolutionary mutation driven currently evolving bird flu.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6125

    Anti-biotic resistent bacteria is the classic of beneficial mutation, Bacteria replicate extremely fast, and are thus a good model for studying genetic diversity and adaptation.

    Nonetheless, you seem to be looking for a beneficial genetic mutation in humans:

    Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998 Apr;18(4):562-567. "PAI-1 plasma levels in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis: relation to environmental and genetic determinants," by Margaglione M, Cappucci G, d'Addedda M, Colaizzo D, Giuliani N, Vecchione G, Mascolo G, Grandone E, Di Minno G; Unita' di Trombosi e Aterosclerosi, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy.

    Abstract:

    Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) plasma levels have been consistently related to a polymorphism (4G/5G) of the PAI-1 gene. The renin-angiotensin pathway plays a role in the regulation of PAI-1 plasma levels. An insertion (I)/deletion (D) polymorphism of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene has been related to plasma and cellular ACE levels. In 1032 employees (446 men and 586 women; 22 to 66 years old) of a hospital in southern Italy, we investigated the association between PAI-1 4G/5G and the ACE I/D gene variants and plasma PAI-1 antigen levels. None of the individuals enrolled had clinical evidence of atherosclerosis. In univariate analysis, PAI-1 levels were significantly higher in men (P<.001), alcohol drinkers (P<.001), smokers (P=.009), and homozygotes for the PAI-1 gene deletion allele(4G/4G) (P=.012). Multivariate analysis documented the independent effect on PAI-1 plasma levels of body mass index (P<.001), triglycerides (P<.001), sex (P<.001), PAI-1 4G/5G polymorphism (P=.019), smoking habit (P=.041), and ACE I/D genotype (P=.042). Thus, in addition to the markers of insulin resistance and smoking habit, gene variants of PAI-1 and ACE account for a significant portion of the between-individual variability of circulating PAI-1 antigen concentrations in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis.

    N Engl J Med 1998 Jan 8;338(2):79-85

    Polymorphisms in the coagulation factor VII gene and the risk of myocardial infarction.

    Iacoviello L, Di Castelnuovo A, De Knijff P, D'Orazio A, Amore C, Arboretti R, Kluft C, Benedetta Donati M Department of Vascular Medicine and Pharmacology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Santa Maria Imbaro, Italy.

    BACKGROUND: High blood levels of coagulation factor VII are associated with a risk of ischemic vascular disease. Although factor VII levels may be genetically determined, the relation between genetic polymorphisms of factor VII, factor VII blood levels, and the risk of myocardial infarction has not been established. METHODS: We performed a case-control study of 165 patients with familial myocardial infarction (mean [+/-SD] age, 55+/-9 years) and 225 controls without a personal or family history of cardiovascular disease (mean age, 56+/-8 years). The polymorphisms involving R353Q and hypervariable region 4 of the factor VII gene were studied. Factor VII clotting activity and antigen levels were also measured. RESULTS: Patients with the QQ or H7H7 genotype had a decreased risk of myocardial infarction (odds ratios, 0.08 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.01 to 0.9] and 0.22 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.08 to 0.63], respectively). For the R353Q polymorphism, the RR genotype was associated with the highest risk, followed by the RQ genotype and then by the QQ genotype (P<0.001). For the polymorphism involving hypervariable region 4, the combined H7H5 and H6H5 genotypes were associated with the highest risk, followed in descending order by the H6H6, H6H7, and H7H7 genotypes (P<0.001). Patients with the QQ or H7H7 genotype had lower levels of both factor VII antigen and factor VII clotting activity than those with the RR or H6H6 genotype. Patients with the lowest level of factor VII clotting activity had a lower risk of myocardial infarction than those with the highest level (odds ratio, 0.13; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that certain polymorphisms of the factor VII gene may influence the risk of myocardial infarction. It is possible that this effect may be mediated by alterations in factor VII levels.


    Further to this, you will also note the recent post I made "Proof, our brains are evolving:

    Quote:
    University scientists say they have found strong proof that the human brain is still evolving. By comparing modern man with our ancestors of 37,000 years ago, the Chicago team discovered big changes in two genes linked to brain size.

    Quote:
    One of the new variants emerged only 5,800 years ago yet is present in 30% of today's humans, they believe. This is very short in evolutionary terms, suggesting intense selection pressures, they told Science.

    Quote:
    Each gene variant emerged around the same time as the advent of so called "cultural" behaviours. The microcephalin variant appeared along with the emergence of traits such as art and music, religious practices and sophisticated tool-making techniques, which date back to about 50,000 years ago.
    It is now present in about 70% of humans alive today


    http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=5025

    Evolution holds the assumption that mutation can lead to beneficial products in some instances. These beneficial products lead to an advantage for the creature with the mutation, which means creatures with that mutation survive and procreate, passing on the mutation.
    It's not an assumption. See above

    The very first cell created (which in itself is highly improbable) would not be sensitive to light. So somehow, a mutation would have to provide with the ability to react to light. It is impossible for a single mutation to provide with this ability. So the only way it’s possible is if several mutations lead to it. I could not answer what mutations could lead to a cell having this ability.
    OK, firstly. The theory of evolutuion does not involve how the first cells came to be. This is another matter. Additionally, it is your assumption that (physical eyes) mutated as a result of randomness. Do you realise that we have light sensitive cells in our brains even today, indeed a living marine worm of today that still resembles an early ancestor up-to 600 million years ago contains cone like rods within the brain cells. I just do not understand for the life of me that the world you live in is subject to chemical laws, (We call it chemistry) and we don't need to mutate light sensitive cells we need to formulate them, adaptation does the rest. Mutations, can simply be the same componants but in differing quantities. Unless perhaps we should also point out "Gaps" in the Chemistry class also.

    A bird’s eye is more developed than a human eye as a fact. A bird can spot a mouse from the sky several hundred meets high (well some birds, for example, owls/eagles).
    This is simply a false premis. Birds eyes are adapted for thier environment, primates for theirs. Have you considered the consequences of having Bird's eyes as humans!!!!!!!! You just cannot make such a ridiculous claim and try to stay "credible"

    3) Double circulatory system.
    I took a look into this, and it has nothing against an evolution model. It's part of the circulatory system that is one system out of 8 other systems of our bodies. Besides, primates birds and mammals have the same system. All warm blooded life formas share the same system, it is not unique in anyway. Perhaps you could enlighten me why you see it to be as "special" to revoke the theory of evolution.

    If discrepancies in the evolutionary theory are taught, then at least the youth who grow up to be the scientists of the future can work to a solution to these problems. Why ignore them?
    What discrepencies are you refering to! True, we don't know everything such as the full evolutionary eye, but does that not mean we will never know. Based on current knowledge I would say personally that it does NOT mean we will never know. The eye shows tell tale signs of not being an "Intelligent Design", we have enough scientific data ("Light sensitive cells in Human brain" and "Chemisty") we can find intermediate living eye stages (Box Jelly Fish). Micro-Evolution is accepted in full, creationists claim multi cellular life is "Different", why they draw this conclusion I do not understand and nor does the scientific community.

    If discrepancies in the evolutionary theory are taught, then at least the youth who grow up to be the scientists of the future can work to a solution to these problems. Why ignore them?
    Do you really think so & what discrepencies. Perhaps we should just state "Our eyes are here because they were intelligently designed by an Intelligent designer (in your case Allah, for others by thier version of god differs to yours). Should this be taught in science, is this what you are suggesting..........

    Just to explain my standpoint, I am a Muslim and so believe Allah created the universe. I believe personally that evolution is impossible without a creator. The Quran neither affirms nor negates the evolution of animals. What it does do however is firmly negates the evolution of mankind, as Allah created Adam (as). Therefore, that is what I believe.
    Yes, that is your right. and as you say that is your belief, however faith is taught in Religous education & evolution is taught in the science class. The two should not cross paths........... We don't throw a bunch of magnets into a bin and shake it then say "Look at the complexity of the pattern. Such complexity of each magnet precisely located to form this marvelous structure. Why such complexity must only be the result of an Intelligent Designer" What an odd world that would be!

  22. #57
    azim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    660
    Threads
    43
    Reputation
    1024
    Rep Power
    85
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Re: The Eye - Evolution

    Thanks for the reply root.

    You mentioned the bird flu as an example of beneficial mutation. Mutation leading to a strain which is resistant to antibiotics is a completely different matter than mutation leading to new ability, or something that wasn’t present in the original. The bird flu has significantly changed itself to be immune to the antibiotics, it hasn’t gained any new abilities or qualities. It’s simply changed.

    In regards to the beneficial mutations in humans you have shown, in both cases, they are not single mutations, but whole genes. Which simply leads back to the comment I made earlier, that it is not possible for a single mutation to lead to a beneficial end product, it must be several beneficial mutations all working towards one end.

    Say the chromosomes in a gene are people of different height standing in order. Now say if the people were arranged in order of age, then the gene would be beneficial. If all the people randomly started moving around, it is highly improbable they would end up in order of age. The only way that could happen is if each person moved with the said aim.

    The theory of evolution relies on how the first cell came to be. Saying they are separate is like saying its fine to build a house on water, since the fact it’ll sink has no bearing on the house itself. This obviously isn’t true. You can not consider evolution without considering the very first cell.

    This is simply a false premis. Birds eyes are adapted for thier environment, primates for theirs. Have you considered the consequences of having Bird's eyes as humans!!!!!!!! You just cannot make such a ridiculous claim and try to stay "credible"
    So saying a dog has a better sense of smell is also a false premise as dogs have adapted for their environment and humans for ours? A dog can smell better than me, a bird can see better than me. Never will I need to smell as well as a dog does, nor will I need to see as well as a bird does. This does not negate the fact they have more acute abilities of eyesight and hearing.

    I took a look into this, and it has nothing against an evolution model. It's part of the circulatory system that is one system out of 8 other systems of our bodies. Besides, primates birds and mammals have the same system. All warm blooded life formas share the same system, it is not unique in anyway. Perhaps you could enlighten me why you see it to be as "special" to revoke the theory of evolution.
    I’m glad you took a look into it, but obviously not well enough.



    (Move counter-clockwise)

    Please explain to me how this system evolved, or show me an intermediary stage, or show me any some proof as to how this ‘has nothing against an evolution model’. Or retract your statement.

    What discrepencies are you refering to!
    The one’s we’ve just been taking about ??

    I don’t believe religion should be taught in science. But I don’t understand why so many people believe in the theory of evolution as flawless, and not be questioned. Anyone who does is an ignorant creationist. This topic is leading to a debate between evolution vs. creation. The topic has been argued, by so many other people, so many times and is not one I would like to get into as it will lead nowhere. The point I made at the start of this thread is still valid, and has not been disproved. It was mainly a message to the members of this forum to not accept things as fact, and to question what is taught, as science deals with unquestionable facts, not loose theories.

    I look forward to your reply.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  23. #58
    Abdul Fattah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Belgium, Gent
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,931
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    12990
    Rep Power
    94
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    70

    Re: The Eye - Evolution

    Don't take this personal Root, but it never seize to amaze me how you'll bend over backwards trying to defend evolution. I mean it's one thing to say: well personnally I think this and that... But why do you insist when we make a claim we cross the t's and dot the I's. Sometimes it feels like you'r picking discussions for the sake of argueing and discredeting the other person. As if you know there's an answer ready, but if you'r lucky, the opposite party just might give up and no longer care to answer...
    evolution refuted simply

    Check out my website for my conversion story.
    Check out my free e-book if you like reading drama-novels.

  24. #59
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,348
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    774
    Rep Power
    90
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Re: The Eye - Evolution

    Steve = Don't take this personal Root, but it never seize to amaze me how you'll bend over backwards trying to defend evolution. I mean it's one thing to say: well personnally I think this and that... But why do you insist when we make a claim we cross the t's and dot the I's. Sometimes it feels like you'r picking discussions for the sake of argueing and discredeting the other person. As if you know there's an answer ready, but if you'r lucky, the opposite party just might give up and no longer care to answer...
    Your point being, other than I dismiss creationism and enjoy debating it is!

    Azim

    I am quite busy and want to continue this, so please allow me a little more time for a response.

    Regards

    Root

  25. Report bad ads?
  26. #60
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,348
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    774
    Rep Power
    90
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Re: The Eye - Evolution

    I am very sceptical as to your wording here.

    You mentioned the bird flu as an example of beneficial mutation. Mutation leading to a strain which is resistant to antibiotics is a completely different matter than mutation leading to new ability, or something that wasn’t present in the original. The bird flu has significantly changed itself to be immune to the antibiotics, it hasn’t gained any new abilities or qualities. It’s simply changed.
    I agree with you, it is mutational "Change" and "Change" in essence is Evolutionary change. So I fail to see your objection.

    The virus is closely related to the H5N1 flu that was the first bird flu to kill people, in Hong Kong in 1997. The team from Shantou University in Guangdong, China and Hong Kong University report that since 2000, genetically similar viruses have increasingly been infecting chickens as well as their normal hosts, ducks, in southern China.

    But since 2002 one family of these viruses, which the team calls genotype Z, has replaced all the others, indicating it possesses a massive selective advantage. Its mutations suggest that this advantage involves greater adaptation to chickens.


    source:http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6125
    In regards to the beneficial mutations in humans you have shown, in both cases, they are not single mutations, but whole genes. Which simply leads back to the comment I made earlier, that it is not possible for a single mutation to lead to a beneficial end product, it must be several beneficial mutations all working towards one end.

    Say the chromosomes in a gene are people of different height standing in order. Now say if the people were arranged in order of age, then the gene would be beneficial. If all the people randomly started moving around, it is highly improbable they would end up in order of age. The only way that could happen is if each person moved with the said aim.

    The theory of evolution relies on how the first cell came to be. Saying they are separate is like saying its fine to build a house on water, since the fact it’ll sink has no bearing on the house itself. This obviously isn’t true. You can not consider evolution without considering the very first cell.
    This is the guts of our debate in reference to the Evolution of the human eyes. Firstly, I would like to express what mutation actually can be within evolutionary fields. Organisms carry an enormous arsenal of inactive genes and residual DNA. I think some of the mutations that we find that have resulted in beneficial changes occur when a gene that was once active and beneficial millions of years ago for an ancestor with a different niche becomes active again and provides a new advantage now that the organism has again changed environments.

    a mutation that occurs in a developmental gene that regulates bone growth. This gene produces a protein that acts as a hormone that induces bone growth for the early stages of the developing animal. When this animal's ancestors were on the ground he needed dense bones to sustain all of the activity of tumbling around on the ground. So this gene was regulated to produce 50 copies of the protein per milliliter of blood to induce the correct density of bone. However, since the animal now leaps from tree to tree he would benefit greatly from having lighter bones. Now when a mutation occurs that causes greater regulation of that gene that produces a protein that regulates bone growth and results in only 30 copies of the protein per milliliter of blood it spreads throughout the population because lighter bones have now become an advantage

    The point of all that was to show that small mutations in developmental genes can cause great and sometimes beneficial changes in the phenotype of an animal, animals keep large warehouses of old genes and DNA that can be reactivated for future use, animals often have several copies of genes that can be increased or decreased to need, animals have a variety of steps during development and regulation that are subject to mutations and can cause a range in protein amounts and phenotypic changes, and that variations caused by these mutations already exist within populations and are constantly acted on by natural selection and can work together simultaneously to create a synergistic effect causing an adaptation to a new environment. Evolution does not have to create from scratch and it rarely does. We have to bear in mind that ALL LIFE SHARES A BIG GENETIC MATCH.

    Now this "Mutational" adaptation is more clear we need to go back to your original point.

    If evolution was true, then you could logically give a reasonable account of how a single-celled organism could evolve into ANY creature with an eye. I have really tried to do this, but it's not possible. Try it yourself. No matter how many steps you take, you can not logically imagine any way that a cell could become an animal with an eye.
    If we now go back to known evolutionary beginnings then firstly (and I do not know myself) why does it have to be a single celled organism that developed light sensitive cells. At this stage so early in the evolution of life, the development of light sensitive cells is a chemical mutational change that could easily have occured in early multi-cellular life. Secondly, early light sensitive cells are not yet "eyes" but the ability to react to light will bring a massive evolutionary advantage and would quickly come to dominate nearly all life. From here time and adaptation will do the rest. Eyes would have been at an advanced level well before the very first fish started to occupy dry land.

    My final point is to do with the double circulatory system. As you quote here:

    Please explain to me how this system evolved, or show me an intermediary stage, or show me any some proof as to how this ‘has nothing against an evolution model’. Or retract your statement.
    OK, here is an intermediate stage:

    An ancient family of fish thought to be the direct ancestors of land vertebrates takes this adaptation one step further. The three living lungfish, one in each of Australia, Africa and South America, live in muddy streams that are prone to drying. Oxygen levels are low and the fish must sometimes burrow in the mud to survive droughts. Clearly, gills are not the best respiratory surfaces under such circumstances. The lungfish have adapted the swim bladder as a lung by diverting the artery from the sixth gill arch directly to it. Thus it receives deoxygenated blood under fairly high pressure. The vein returning from the lung then adds oxygenated blood to the heart, reducing the amount of oxygen that must be picked up in the gills.

    Finally, The closure of the ventricular septum (a wall between two cavities)
    created the double circulatory system toward, the last step in heart
    evolution. Closure of this valve is not a giant leap of faith by any stretch of the imagination. Four-chambered hearts have the advantage re-pumping blood after
    its passage through the lungs, without mixing oxygenated
    and non-oxygenated blood. The blood that is pumped by the heart of a
    mammal or bird into the systemic arterial system if fully
    oxygenated.

    Regards

    Root

    PS. Yes dogs have a better sense of smell, birds do have better vision. My point is merely that they are not "Better" than ours, just better adapted to their environment. This follows that humans with bird sight or dog sense of smell is a BIG disadvantage to us.


  27. Hide
Page 3 of 9 First 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last
Hey there! evolution refuted simply 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. evolution refuted simply
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Creationism vs Theistic Evolution vs Evolution
    By Camilla in forum Health & Science
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-27-2018, 05:19 AM
  2. Rhymes By Simply Logical
    By Simply_Logical in forum Creative Writing & Art
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 01-26-2016, 08:31 PM
  3. I simply want to have a conversation about Islamic beliefs
    By cocomir75 in forum Clarifications about Islam
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-29-2014, 12:30 PM
  4. Just simply walk away from depression & anxiety!
    By جوري in forum Health & Science
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 06-27-2010, 02:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
create