Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective

format_quote Originally Posted by root

It's so improbable as to be nearly impossible.

I rest my case lol

Your argument of "everything came from nothing" theory seems a lot more improbable than the idea of Intelligent design to a staggering number of people in the world.

Who is right? Obviously you think you are... but are you?

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamayun

I rest my case lol

Your argument of "everything came from nothing" theory seems a lot more improbable than the idea of Intelligent design to a staggering number of people in the world.

Who is right? Obviously you think you are... but are you?

Atheists do not claim to know where everything came from.

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamayun

I rest my case lol

Your argument of "everything came from nothing" theory seems a lot more improbable than the idea of Intelligent design to a staggering number of people in the world.

Who is right? Obviously you think you are... but are you?

Oh, dear. You just seem incapable of understanding that the theory of evolution DOES NOT seek to answer how anything came from nothing, it never has tried to answer that, further it's an entirely different theory that is NOT part of the theory of evolution....

format_quote Originally Posted by root

Oh, dear. You just seem incapable of understanding that the theory of evolution DOES NOT seek to answer how anything came from nothing, it never has tried to answer that, further it's an entirely different theory that is NOT part of the theory of evolution....

Where did I mention Evolution?

Are you even reading my posts???

format_quote Originally Posted by root

Oh, dear. You just seem incapable of understanding that the theory of evolution DOES NOT seek to answer how anything came from nothing, it never has tried to answer that, further it's an entirely different theory that is NOT part of the theory of evolution....

rawr!

format_quote Originally Posted by root

I think it's a tad absurd that you talk about "Technical Arguement" then try to ask us to swallow Evolution of the different species and biological evolution. I know you do that in the same manner as you do micro-evolution and macro-evolution except to all the top scientists in this field (which you are not one of them) and BTW the majority of them simply state that they are all part of the same brush.

However, I concede as I have to do that a probability remains that you are correct in as much the same odds that I to must concede that 4 + 4 = 9 and that everytime anyone does that sum they too get it wrong when they get 8. It's this that creationist's like to exploit, that science cannot and does not provide absolute proof for anything. It merely attaches a probability.

Despite the fact 4 + 4 = 9 has a probability of being correct, I also consider it a very miniscule probability compared to 4 + 4 = 8 having a greater probability.......

There is no probability that 4+4 could ever equal 9.

The fact that you would say this suggests to me a fundamental confusion about the logic of scientific discovery as opposed to the fundamentals of mathematics. One rests on inductive inferences and Modus Tollens and the other is constructed from set theory and deductive logic.

Why you like the throw around "probability" so much I do not know. I assume you wish to parrot Dawkins who made a similar claim about the probability of God. Nevertheless probability is actually a science built up by mathematicians and logicians and as such there is actually more entailed to determining "probability" that just throwing the term out there. It's a bit more complicated than a kind of half***** personal intuition.

format_quote Originally Posted by root

Oh, dear. You just seem incapable of understanding that the theory of evolution DOES NOT seek to answer how anything came from nothing, it never has tried to answer that, further it's an entirely different theory that is NOT part of the theory of evolution....

1-Either you believe all of what we see came from nothing
2-Either you believe that the world just exist and that's all.

The brother was saying "I think both those beliefs are far more impossible than the belief in God".

That's all.

exactly brother sami, the thing i find with atheist is that they well rely on science, becuase well you cant lie root, you have to that is the only alternative you cant say that we did not evolve and we were created and then say thier is no God, you have to rely on science, and the 2 theorys that explain why you are here (Evoluiton, and Big Bang) both of them do not state how Life/Universe started but only explaining how they evolved into human beings, or evolved into being stars and planets, so you must ethier belive that

1)everthing came from nothing or
2) everything just came and is just thier

both of with are "I think both those beliefs are far more impossible than the belief in God".

i will now post some reasons why the theory of evolution does not include how life came into existance take directly from Abdul Fattah's website for faster transfer lol:
Theory or hypothesis?

First one on the list is abiogenesis. Most evolutionists will avoid this theory claiming it is not a part of evolution. That is why I started of by pointing out the importance of correct terminology. Abiogenesis is not a part of "the evolution of the different species"; however the theory of abiogenesis it is a part of "biological evolution".

Well actually since there are a lot of gaps here -as stated before- abiogenesis is closer to hypothesis rather than a theory. Some scientists speculate that it happened, but they failed to explain in detail exactly how it happened. Since, it's strictly speculation at this point, no proof, no falsifiability and no testability; in all common sense, we should even label this as science. The confusion though, is that this hypothesis is backed up with some scientific speculation, which makes the hypothesis appear scientific in nature. But that however doesn't change the lack of falsifiability, testability and proofs. That being said, lets look at some of the challenges of this theory.


Criteria for the first life

At first one might suggest that the first life form was a virus, since that would have been the easiest to create, since it requires the least number of parts. However a virus is parasitic in nature, and needs a host to reproduce. Another problem with the idea of the first life form being a virus is, that even if there would find a way that this virus would reproduce, it would never be able to evolve into a one-celled-organism. As soon as it would do so, the new evolved organism would immediately be invaded by it's brethren viruses, and wouldn't stand a fighting chance to survival. For this and many more problems, most abiogenesists suggest that the first living organism was a single-cell organism. But even the most simple one-celled organism is incredibly complex when looked at from a chemical level. It requires very specific molecules to be build in very specific manners at very specific places. It's like suggesting that a fully operative factory with working personal included was created from a tornado passing trough a scrapyard and then passing trough a cemetery. Even if the explanation brings you the right components, the tornado lacks the methodology to make those parts into a working plant with living operators. I said "even if", because neither abiogeneses nor evolution can even account for all the necessary parts, let alone explain how they were used together to build a cell. So let us consider what criteria the first biological entity should have had in order to evolve into the different species we know today.

1. A container that keeps the different parts of the life form together.
2. A way to harvest energy.
3. An information carrier like RNA, DNA or another nucleic acid.
4. A way to reproduce.


1. A container that keeps the different parts of the life form together.

For the first part, the container, that sounds very plausible at first. From a chemical point of view, it's not that hard to create a membrane. And some promising work has been done in this field. However, that doesn't cut the mustard. A simple membrane enclosing all the parts would make it a closed system, we need our organism to have some basic interactions with its environment for the second criteria. If our organism should be able to harvest energy from it's environment, it needs "floodgates" in it's membrane that keeps harmful substances out but allows useful ones to enter. There can of course be many substances speculated on which this alleged first organism survived on. So depending on which form of energy it lived on, we need to adjust our membrane to allow that specific substance to pass.

2. A way to harvest energy.

We also need some organelles to harvest and convert this energy which again depends on which form of energy this system lives on. The energy will among other things be required to counter entropy at some point and guarantee the survival of the organism. Evolutionists propose that the first organism was a prokaryote; an organisms without any organelles in its cell that have a membrane-boundary. Most such organisms harvest energy by converting Dihydrogen (4H2) and Carbondioxide (CO2) into (CH4) and (2H2O). This is a process that requires very specific catalysts. Not only to convert the Carbondioxide and Dihydrogen to produce the methane; but also to fix a small remaining percentage of the CO2 into the cell structure.


3. An information carrier like RNA, DNA or another nucleic acid.

The biggest challenge to the theory is DNA or RNA. And without it, there can be no evolution, without it no progress of previous life can be past down. And without passing down information, you cannot build up something, you cannot have an evolution. Since all living things have RNA or DNA, abiogenesists would expect the very first alive being to have it as well..Those molecules however are immensely complex. So the biggest challenge to abiogenesis is explaining how it could have formed spontaneously out of lifeless matter. But we encounter a paradox a bit similar as the chicken or the egg problem. Organisms carry genetic information in these nucleic acids; in their RNA or DNA. This information is then used to specify the composition of the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each cell needs to make. The cell also relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. So these proteins are required for self-perpetuation. So the question is: How did such a circular system come to existence? This is a real paradox. Nucleic acids are made with the help of proteins and proteins are made with the presence of their corresponding nucleotide sequence. So which of those two was first? The chicken or the egg? Common sense suggests that they were both created independently; which is even harder to phantom.

In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids. However, much larger percentage of substances that are harmful to life also were created trough the process. Next to that the experiment didn't account by far for all types of amino acids required to make the needed proteins. Furthermore the experiment also failed to explain how these amino acids would then go on to form the required proteins. The experiment also showed some of the building blocks for nuclide acids, but again does not account for how they could have formed DNA/RNA. Furthermore, there were both left handed as well as right handed isomers in a 50% to 50% ratio, whereas only one type is used in our DNA.

Now, often people reply that this experiment only lasted a couple of days or a week, whereas the earth existed millions of years for this process to take place. But how does this change anything? The experiment was a controlled structured environment, whereas earth was an open unstructured chaotic environment, if anything the experiment should bring forth life a lot faster then the earth did, that is off course, if abiogenesis would be true. But let me expose the flaw in this counterargument by making a comparison. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would run a stretch of 100m on a track of 200m or 300m or even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run those 100m of that track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance because the additional length has no bearing on the likeliness of the performance. Likewise; the many years that the universe existed, and the many planets that were suitable for this process to occur does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. The amount of time available, as long as it is enough, doesn't make the chemically impossible into probable. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box.

But that's just the beginning. Next to the shortcomings of the experiment a lot of other criticism exists as to how representative it was. The experiment did not contain oxygen, since oxygen generally oxidizes anything it comes in contact with. This oxidation is quite destructive. Some scientists reply to this that the atmosphere didn't contain oxygen at that time. Be that as it may, no oxygen means that there also was no ozone, which is formed by oxygen. Ozone blocks us from UV light from the sun. Without ozone we'd be bombarded by it. And UV-light breaks down ammonia, one of the major components of the experiment. So I guess you're catching my drift by now. Either the experiment should have contained oxygen, to account for the presence of ammonium or we have to explain the high presence of ammonium despite the lack of ozone.

Another angle to looking at it -panspermia- is even more far fetched. Rather then only suggesting lightning struck at the exact same spot for a whole week, it also suggest that a meteor carrying amino acids also hit the very same spot. Now it is true that some meteors carry amino acids and that under unique circumstances the impact could cause peptides. But these peptides are short chains of amino acids, not the long proteins necessary for life. Furthermore it's even more unlikely considering not just any meteor would fit the bill. It has to be exactly the right size. Not to small so it doesn't burn up in the atmosphere destroying the amino acids, and not to big so the impact isn't to destructive either. At the same time delivering enough energy for the chemical process to take place. Also note, that this shifts part of the problem. It's true that some meteors carry amino acids, but how did those amino acids form in the meteor in the first place? This simply avoids the problem of having to explain how these molecules were formed trough natural processes.
4. A way to reproduce. Reproduction is obviously also a vital part.

If the organism just dies out without reproducing itself, the process of abiogenesis would just have to start all over again. As I said before we would have to have the right nucleic acids and the right proteins as well. The process of DNA reproduction, which is vital to cell division and reproduction is a very complex process which relies on different organelles.
Conclusion.

So I think you would see by now that the process of abiogenesis is most unlikely. And by unlikely I do not mean there are a number of different possible outcomes of which abiogenesis is just one. I do not mean it as a statistical implausibility. It is unlikely much rather because the circumstances allegedly giving this outcome are insufficient to explain the process at all.


now if you want to get technical becuase thats all my mind could absorb then you can argue with brother Abdul on his arguments.
Peace Root

LOL my next door neighbour can prove 4+4=8 and trust me he can prove it, so root you saying you cant even prove 4+4=8 can be proven try looking at "set theory". Or getting a degree in mathamatics or something.
Peace

hi all, by just looking around for "proof by condtrdiction theory"- so that you root can never use the argument of "you cant prove that 4+4=8 i found this, although you need a textbook to actually teach you this:

Let us look first to show that each of these proofs reduces to the same logic. In the following, p' is used to denote Not p, p+q to denote p or q. And we will need
(p and q)' = p'+q'.
p implies q has the logic q + p'. That is, either q is true or p is not true.
The contrapositive is q' implies p'. This has the logic
p'+ (q')' = p' + q. This is the same logic as before.
To prove by contradiction, we must prove that
q' and p is false
(q' and p)' is true
q + p' is true, again the same logic.
Here p is a|b and (a|c)'. q is a|(b+c)
To prove contradiction we must prove
a|(b+c) and (a|b) and (a|c)' false.
b+c=xa, b=ya, then c = a(x-y) implying a|c, in contradiction to (a|c)'.
Now for the contrapositive.
p' is (a|b and (a|c)')' = (a/b)' or a|c.
q' is a|(b+c) giving b+c=xa.
We have to prove q' implies p'.
If a|c, there is nothing to prove.
If (a|c)' then c=ya+r where 0<r<a
Then c = xa - b = ya +r.
b = a(x-y) - r, giving the other alternative that a does not divide b.

i dont understand this stuff, but yo might do. anyways do more reaserch on set theory and proof by contradiction theory and you will find how to prove 4+4=8 and not 7 or 6 lol anways Peace

Salaam, Peace to you all,
i was just noticing; after reading the whole thread, that every argument has been dealt with about evolution, by brother Abdul Fattah, and what mainly happens, is that brother Root and Abdul Fattah, always end with some sort of "Proof" dilemma, and basically i would just like to say next time the word proof comes out brother Root do not come to the conculsion that brother Abdul Fattah can prove that 4+4=8 because he can from now, on ok given the theorys stated above ok. anways Peace to you, so if you still think that evolution is the right thing then tell us why and we will get back to you lol
Peace.

Salaam, LOL true say brother Abdul, i took like 2 days or something, and at the end i got through it lol, it was like i had to do some courswork or something-it was exhausting but anywho,glad to see you are back, lol you dont come in IslamicBoard often umm, anways
Peace

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Ali_Cena

hi all, by just looking around for "proof by condtrdiction theory"- so that you root can never use the argument of "you cant prove that 4+4=8 i found this, although you need a textbook to actually teach you this:

Let us look first to show that each of these proofs reduces to the same logic. In the following, p' is used to denote Not p, p+q to denote p or q. And we will need
(p and q)' = p'+q'.
p implies q has the logic q + p'. That is, either q is true or p is not true.
The contrapositive is q' implies p'. This has the logic
p'+ (q')' = p' + q. This is the same logic as before.
To prove by contradiction, we must prove that
q' and p is false
(q' and p)' is true
q + p' is true, again the same logic.
Here p is a|b and (a|c)'. q is a|(b+c)
To prove contradiction we must prove
a|(b+c) and (a|b) and (a|c)' false.
b+c=xa, b=ya, then c = a(x-y) implying a|c, in contradiction to (a|c)'.
Now for the contrapositive.
p' is (a|b and (a|c)')' = (a/b)' or a|c.
q' is a|(b+c) giving b+c=xa.
We have to prove q' implies p'.
If a|c, there is nothing to prove.
If (a|c)' then c=ya+r where 0<r<a
Then c = xa - b = ya +r.
b = a(x-y) - r, giving the other alternative that a does not divide b.

i dont understand this stuff, but yo might do. anyways do more reaserch on set theory and proof by contradiction theory and you will find how to prove 4+4=8 and not 7 or 6 lol anways Peace

I'm confused. How does posting something you don't understand help make your point?

As it stands, the logic you've quoted above is irrelevant to whether or not it's possible to prove 4+4=8.

Peace

Greetings, well firstly my point was that you can prove 4+4=8, and whether or not me understanding it becuase of it being university level work, me being 16 what do you think? should i be able to understand and know university stuff?-no. secondly if you think that people can not prove 4+4=8 then you are wrong, my post might be irrelevent-as i was not aware of what was going on with the math, you might be, and if you think it doesnt well state how, if you are a mathmatician that is.
Well lets put it this way, 4+4=8 can be proven, if you think it cant then learn proof by contradiction, and set theory.

you state "whether or not its possible to prove 4+4=8" it is 100% likely that you can prove 4+4=8.

Example: Divisibility is Transitive
If a and b are two natural numbers, we say that a divides b if there is another natural number k such that b = a k. For example, 2917 divides 522143 because there is a natural number k (namely k = 179) such that 522143 = 2917 k.

Theorem. If a divides b and b divides c then a divides c.

Proof. By our assumptions, and the definition of divisibility, there are natural numbers k1 and k2 such that

b = a k1 and c = b k2.

Consequently,

c = b k2 = a k1 k2.

Let k = k1 k2. Now k is a natural number and c = a k, so by the definition of divisibility, a divides c.

If P, Then Q
Most theorems (homework or test problems) that you want to prove are either explicitly or implicity in the form "If P, Then Q". In the previous example, "P" was "If a divides b and b divides c" and "Q" was "a divides c". This is the standard form of a theorem (though it can be disguised). A direct proof should be thought of as a flow of implications beginning with "P" and ending with "Q".

P -> ... -> Q

Most proofs are (and should be) direct proofs. Always try direct proof first, unless you have a good reason not to.
It Seems Too Easy
If you find a simple proof, and you are convinced of its correctness, then don't be shy about. Many times proofs are simple and short.

In the theorem below, a perfect square is meant to be an integer in the form a2 where a itself is an integer and an odd integer is any integer in the form 2a+1 where a is an integer.

Theorem. Every odd integer is the difference of two perfect squares.

Proof. Suppose 2a+1 is an odd integer, then
2a+1 = (a+1)2 - a2.

Where's the proof? It's there. It's just very short.
Another Simple Example

Recall that a natural number is called composite if it is the product of other natural numbers all greater than 1. For example, the number 39481461 is composite since it is the product of 15489 and 2549.

Theorem. The number 100...01 (with 3n-1 zeros where n is an integer larger then 0) is composite.

Proof. We can rewrite our number as 100...01 = 103n + 1 where n is an integer larger than 0. Now use the identity a3 + b3 = (a+b)(a2 - a b + b2) with a = 10n and b = 1, to get

(10n)3 + 1 = (10n + 1)(102n - 10n + 1).

We will be done once we have shown that both factors (10n + 1) and (102n - 10n + 1) are greater than 1. In the first case, this is clear since 10n > 0 when n > 0. In the second case, 102n - 10n = 10n (10n - 1) > 0, when n > 0. This completes the proof.


Make sure you understand why it was neccessary to discuss the two cases at the end.
One-to-One Functions
A function f:X->Y is called one-to-one if for any pair a, b in X such that f(a) = f(b) then a = b. Also, if f:X->Y and g:Y->Z are two functions then the composition gf:X->Z is the function defined by gf(a) = g(f(a)) for every a in X. Note that the composition gf is only defined if the domain of f is contained in the range of g.

Theorem. If two one-to-one functions can be composed then their composition is one-to-one.

Proof. Let a and b be in X and assume gf(a) = gf(b). Thus, g(f(a)) = g(f(b)), and since g is one-to-one we may conclude that f(a) = f(b). Finally, since f is one-to-one, a = b.

Roots of Polynomials
A number r is called a root of the polynomial p(x) if p(r) = 0.

Theorem. If r1 and r2 are distinct roots of the polynomial p(x) = x2 + b x + c, then r1 + r2 = - b and r1 r2 = c.

Proof. It follows from our assumptions that p(x) will factor

p(x) = (x - r1) (x - r2)

If we expand the right hand side we get

p(x) = x2 - (r1 + r2) x + r1 r2.

Compare the coefficients above with those of p(x) = x2 + b x + c to get r1 + r2 = - b and r1 r2 = c.

now if you input the values of lets say 4 and 8 into for example P and Q or X you will be able to prove 4+4=8.
Peace out,

the f-with the smily is f(x)