Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective

I don't think God should be used to explain science which is not yet understood such as the big bang. A divine creator should rather be used for the answer ,''why'' instead of ''how''. Even if all the facts where found of how we got here, people will still wonder why.

format_quote Originally Posted by Converse02

I had the same questions as you did until I read Dawkins. That is one of the many reasons why he is popular along atheists.

Evolution is a fact. It is proven. Evolution has been accepted in the halls of science for a long time now, and every shred of evidence produced (birds to dinosaurs, hominid fossils, Tiktaalik, chromosome 2, etc) so far has further confirmed the fact of evolution. Not one shred of evidence has been discovered that refutes it. Every major science university on Earth accepts evolution. Where you have scientists, you have evolutionists. Going to a science department and saying you don't accept evolution is like denying global warming or saying that the Earth is round. It's is rejecting empirical evidence. It's rejecting science. The theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, and germ theory are all theories, but evolution, gravity, atoms, and germs are all facts.

Evolution cannot "disprove" God, Zeus, Feng Shui, etc. You can't really disproven a being that is said to have infinite magical powers and is determined to hide itself. However, if God showed himself, the argument for his existance would strongly tilt in his favor.

What evolution does is that it explodes the argument of design. It makes God unneccessary to explain how all the species arose, as non-random natural selection could have done it. Adding God becomes extra and unnecessary. Evolution is a "crane" explanation, meaning evolution is supported and builds on other scientific disciplines, like geology and paleontology. Saying "God did it," that he magically poofed everything in existance is a "skyhook" explanation. It doesn't build on anything, but simply inserted as an answer (or non-answer, depending how you look at it). This is why all modern atheists accept evolution. It has raised our consciousness to the power of science.

The universe exists, it's here. We don't know how it got here, and science is revealing that mystery each day. But to say "God did it" is really the God of the Gaps argument.

The end result of evolution is that life will continue to evolve and adapt to the changing conditions of it's surroundings until it cannot and becomes extinct, which happen to all non-avian dinosaurs. Life forms will have children that vary slightly from the parents, and they will select their mates. The "goal" of evolution is not some perfect immortal species, but merely beings good enough to be able to survive and pass on their genes, whether they be humans or insects.

What was the purpose of your post?

Even if all the facts where found of how we got here, people will still wonder why.

Science answers the how. But a divine creator doesn't answer the why any better than science.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ali_Cena

What was the purpose of your post?

To explain why evolution is not a belief system like a religion, but one based on empirical evidence and science. Why evolution can function on its own, without God. To explain why understanding evolution is an important step toward non-theism.

Living things evolve... so? Thats fine.

Islam does not deny evolution. We did not evolve from Monkeys.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamayun

Living things evolve... so? Thats fine.
Islam does not deny evolution. We did not evolve from Monkeys.

I agree, but some Muslims would disagree. Some Muslims say Islam denies evolution because it is said God created Adam and Eve, but evolution says we evolved from a group of hominids. The whole harun yahya thing. But I guess you can interpret it anyway you want and make "fit" evolution, if you like.

Yeah, we didn't evolve from monkeys, we just share a common ancestor. We evolved from hominids, who evolved from tetrapods, who evolved from amphibians, who evolve from fish, etc... Science and the fossil evidence is amazing, isn't it?

Greetings.

format_quote Originally Posted by Converse02

Science answers the how. But a divine creator doesn't answer the why any better than science.

First I would like to say I don’t think, I know you haven’t read the whole of this thread, because you wouldn’t have posted what you did previously, as everything that you said has been covered; such as you comparing “The theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, and germ theory are all theories, but evolution, gravity, atoms, and germs are all facts.” This issue of “theory” and “fact” has been dealt with, and I don’t know why you had to mention these issues in your nonsensical post

Secondly one big topic that I would like to touch on and I think root has touched on is philosophy and science. As root clearly mentioned science can’t explain using empirical data questions such as why are we here. See this is philosophy’s job, and what you said “But a divine creator doesn't answer the why any better than science”, that is not true, as science doesn’t say anything. NOTHING, why? You ask because it can’t. Whereas philosophy; God can.

“Science answers the how” fine I agree with that, but it doesn’t answer why. Just like root said abiogenisis; how life came from non-life, cannot be answer using science.

format_quote Originally Posted by Converse02

To explain why evolution is not a belief system like a religion, but one based on empirical evidence and science. Why evolution can function on its own, without God. To explain why understanding evolution is an important step toward non-theism.

Well let’s put it this way I understand evolution, Abdul Fattah, and Gossamer Skye we are nowhere near non-theism. Why would you say that evolution leads to atheism? I mean so what? It is not enough to make someone non-theist. I would say understanding evolution leads to the opposite: theism. I mean look at Anthony Flew, former atheist having studied evolution, then realising that it was his understanding of evolution that brought him to find truth in ID; an example of how understanding of evolution leads to theism ( and whatever you say about flew “how he is deist of whatever” it goes under the categories of theism(believe in God).
Here is an extract taken from: http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm on how evolution doesn’t really affect theist (well Muslims) at all.

“Let us say for the sake of argument that as an extreme example tomorrow every single little thing that falls under biological evolution turns out to be true! How would that influence the theist his paradigm? Well it wouldn't change a lot. Even in the worst case scenario that all turns out to be true, intelligent design (ID) still 'rescues' religion. Our current scientific knowledge on causality still leaves more than enough room for divine powers to be at the source of it. So from that viewpoint of science, a God that creates species in a metaphysical is just as miraculous as a God creating them trough his habitual enforcement of physical law. So this means nothing really changes, at least not for Muslims. So the reason that I reject some parts of evolution is not because of my religion, because I started to doubt some of those parts even before I became Muslim. I simply question some parts because they don't seem to be making any sense. Christians on the other hand would have some problems, since their scripture includes specific details that would be rendered false if every last part of evolution turns out to be true. However the late Catholic pope John Paul did publish an open letter stating that these specific details from the book of genesis were added by the Catholic Church when the Bible was being compiled, for the purpose of answering questions that weren't answerable at that time. The letter was being published at the time that Christians in the US were lobbying to introduce the theory of creation in science classes. To that subject I would like to state that although I myself am a creationist, I recognize that this theory has no place in science class. However at the same time as a scientist I must add that some parts of biological evolution don't belong in science class either!”

Peace, looking forward to your reply. Sorry if it was too long to read.

Greetings.

format_quote Originally Posted by Converse02

Yeah, we didn't evolve from monkeys, we just share a common ancestor. We evolved from hominids, who evolved from tetrapods, who evolved from amphibians, who evolve from fish, etc... Science and the fossil evidence is amazing, isn't it?

I think you have touched on Common Descent, and you should read this: taken from:http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm

Also, you might think I am just copy/pasting from websites, but as Gatoralways does(give links) I feel I should be atleast allowed to aswell.

"Evolution of mankind is a very specific and dominant part of common descent. Although several proposed links by the three of common descent can provide interesting debates, I feel that this one is most appropriate for two reasons. The firs reason is that it is most relevant in this context of religion. The second reason being that it is the alleged link in the chain that is most studied and documented out of all the links in common descent. Thus it provides for a much more in depth analysis. Some people are under the impression that this part of common descent is as good as proven, but that is far from true. I'll attempt to discuss some of the commonly used, flawed arguments.
Argument from comparison:

This is perhaps the most dominant argument. But it is a slippery slope. The argument holds that things who look alike, must undeniably have evolved from one another. That is off course uncertain. Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie. The similarity does not prove one viewpoint to be more likely than the other. So since multiple explanations are plausible for explaining these similarities, they cannot be used as evidence. It is often suggested, that although there are indeed several plausible explanations, that common descent is much more plausible due to Ockhams razor. I've already replied to that in my introduction page, where I discussed the weakness of Ockhams razor by example of the anthropic principle.

Also note that the comparisons are usually made in the wrong way. For example, many of the alleged intermediate species between ape and human, are argued to be human afterall. Here are some proposed missing links:

1. Genus Australopithecus
1. Australopithecus Anamensis (4.2 to 3.9 million years ago)
2. Australopithecus Afarensis (4 to 2.7 million years ago)
3. Australopithecus Africanus (3 to 2 million years ago)
4. Australopithecus Robustus (2.2 to 1.6 million years ago)
2. Genus Homo
1. Homo Habilis (2.2 to 1.6 million years ago)
2. Homo Rudolfenis (1.9 to 1.6. million years ago)
3. Homo Erectus (2 to 0.4 million years ago)
4. Homo Sapiens Archaic (400 to 200 thousand years ago)
5. Homo Sapiens neanderthalis (200 to 30 thousand years ago)

I. The Australopithecus
The false claims from Richard Leakey and Donald C Johanson that the Australopithecus walked erected has been refuted and it seems the Australopithecus is more closely related with orangutans which according to evolutionists is from a different branch then the one mankind originated from. So the entire Australopithecus genus can be refuted as intermediate link.

II. The Home Genus.
II.i. Homo Habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago (proposed in the 60's as first humanoid that walked erect and used tools). New discoveries in 80's showed a different picture and Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace said that this was in fact nothing more then An Australopithecus Habilis. So it's just another extinct African ape.

II.ii. Homo Rudolfensis 1.9 to 1.6 million years ago. It refers to a single fragmented skull found in Kenya. However most scientists have accepted it again as nothing more then Australopithecus Habilis.

II.iii. Homo Erectus 2 to 0.4 million years ago. Although this skeleton is exactly the same as some humans have, evolutionists have classified it as a transcending specie, based on the small skull contents (900-1100 cc) and because of the big eyebrows (of the skull). However, there are humans alive today with that skull contents (i.e. Pygmees), and that have such eyebrows (i.e. Australian aboriginals)! So there is no reason to assume these skeletons are a missing link, they are just humans. In fact the New Scientists of 1998 14 march even wrote an excellent article of how Homo Erectus had the technology to build and use transport ships.

II.iv. Homo Sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago. Again there's no reason to assume they weren't human, in fact many researchers have even concluded that they are exactly the same as Australian aboriginals. They even found skeletons of them showing that this race lived up to fairly recent times in villages in Italy and Hungary. The dramatic pictures of hairy human-like apes you found in school handbooks are just indulgence of imagination, remember we've only found skeletons.

II.v Homo Sapiens Neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago. Erik Trinkus, paleontologist of university of Mexico writes: detailed study of the skeleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intellect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man.
So as you can see, with two Genus failing as intermediate, since each consists of many links not holding up to scrutiny, we have quite a big gap in our line of descent. Now I'm not going to claim there's some sort of crazy conspiracy going on here, and that evolutionists purposely create false intermediate species. But perhaps people are just looking so hard for these missing links that they start to see things that aren't there. Also, we need to remember species have both a genotype and a phenotype. The genotype refers to the genes a specie carries, both the dormant as well as the active. The phenotype refers to the physicals characteristics a specie has. To give an example, a person can have the genotype for both blue as for brown eyes, in other words he has both the genes that causes eyes to be blue, as the gene that causes eyes to be brown. However he will only have one phenotype, he will have brown eyes since the gene for brown eyes is dominant over the gene for blue eyes. The reason I bring this up, since evolution takes place on a genetic level, it seems crucial that we'd compare genes, rather then say comparing skulls. I have already illustrated how easy a bias can influence a researcher in comparing morphology of skulls.

The stereotype reply you get to this is: well chimps do have 99% of there DNA in common with mankind right? Isn't that comparing genotype rather then phenotype? My answer is; "No, that is false information!". There is not a 99% similarity between human and Chimp DNA! In fact you will find that even two brothers will have less then 99% similarity except for of course identical twins. The 99% similarity is not with DNA, but with karyotypes! So what's the difference? DNA are long strings of Nucleic acids. However these strings are not stored in the nucleus like spaghetti's in a casserole. Instead the strings are wound up and held into position by histones to form Chromosomes. When you align all chromosomes of a specie straightened out in a row, you have what we call a karyotype. So when you compare karyotypes; what we are comparing is not really DNA. What you are comparing is the method in how DNA is packed. If chimps have similar karyotypes, that means they use histones in a similar method as we do, that does not mean we have similar DNA. In fact you could say that this comparison is just a comparison of phenotypes since the formation of histones is genetically decided. So comparing formations of histones makes just as much sense as comparing skulls rather then comparing genotypes.

In this image you see just how many steps it takes for histones to fold DNA (left) into Chromosomes (right). This should give a fair idea of how unrepresentative this comparison of karyotypes is. The end result is almost completely relying on the histones instead of the DNA.



Argument from ERV's:

ERV stands for Endogenous Retro Virus. This is a virus that has embedded itself into DNA and gets passed on generation after generation. We share some alleged ERV's with chimps. It is thus suggested as proof for our common descent, since it implies that we both must have originated from a same ancestor that was infected by that virus.

The first problem with this argument is that it's hard to tell what an ERV is when you meet one. It doesn't come with a tag attached saying: "This is an ERV". It could be that some genes which we expect to be ERV's aren't ERV's at all but something completely different. It could even be junk genes, byproduct. Or it could be something we don't yet understand the purpose off. The difficulty in recognizing an ERV, is that it's usually deformed from it's origenal virus form. That is because if a virus is embedded in it's complete form, its almost impossible to pass it down to further generations. To explain this, let my use a simplified example. Imagine a man who has a virus. This virus will not infect every last cell of his body, and even if it would, he would most likely die and that would be the end of the story. Now for this man to pass this embedded ERV down to a child, the virus needs to be embedded in a spermcell. Only then will the ERV be present in every cell of the childs DNA. Since all cells have their DNA copied from there on. If however the virus isn't deformed, the child would have a flu in every single cell of his body. His cells would constantly reproduce this virus, and spread it throughout it's body. You can imagine this fetus doesn't have a fighting chance from the start on. No, for an ERV to be passed down trough generations, it has to be rendered harmless first. So how do you recognize it as a virus after this rendition to harmless junk then?

A second problem of the argument, is the slippery slope fallacy again. What if both chimps and humans were infected by the virus, and both got ERV's in a similar fashion? After all, given their similar physiology, that seems reasonable enough right? Well the reply from evolutionists is, that the ERV is specific in a certain locus (place on the genes) and it is improbable for both chimps and humans to create an ERV at the exact same spot. However, I disagree. There is a recent discovery at the university of Pennsylvania US that shows a human DNA-associated protein that would dictate where on the DNA that AIDS is to be inserted. The protein called LEDGF would travel along with the retrovirus in it's mantel and then modulate where in the human genome the virus is inserted. So if retroviruses can be locus specific, then loci-specific ERV's is no longer a problem for this counterargument. It is then a matter of simple causality; chimps and humans have ERV at similar loci due to similar proteins. In other words similar results by similar processes.

Argument from unintelligent design:

This isn't really scientific but rather philosophical. The argument goes like this: "Creation is flawed, in the sense that it's poorly designed. There are many shortcomings and imperfections. If we would have truly been created, we would have been perfect rather then imperfect." Now since the argument is philosophical rather then scientific, my reply will also be philosophical rather then scientific. Let this not reflect as a weakness of my counter though; there are tons of things wrong with the premise. First of all, we need to look at the term perfection. Does it refer to an Utopian perfection, or rather as-good-as-it-gets kind of perfection? For those referring to an Utopian perfection, I gladly present my counter-arguments against the flawed argument from the paradox of omnipotence. The argument I use there can be extrapolated here, since the same flaw exists in the argument here. For the other interpretation of imperfection, we have to note that judgment of perfection and imperfection is very subjective. For example, would perfection include immortality? what if it is our purpose to stay here only temporarily in the first place, wouldn't a mortal design then be more appropriate over an immortal one? Who's to say that we aren't perfect, in the sense that this is as good as it can be? The only way to make this argument work, is to hypothesize an alternative design, and then illustrate the advantage such an alternative design would have over the current design. A completely different design from scratch is of course way to hard for our limited minds, let alone that we could do a meaningful comparison of such a design and the current. Therefor most proponents of this argument have restricted themselves to slight variation on the current design.

An example I have encountered in the past, is regarding the position of the vas deferens. The vas deferens is the duct that carries sperm to the ejaculatory duct. The problem with it is that it lies all the way around the ureter, which makes surgery at the prostate challenging. This positing isn't random though, it's because during development, the testicles drop down, thus pulling the duct around the ureter. Now to this argument I reply, bringing an alternative design is not as simple as making a drawing of how it should end up. If any proponents of unintelligent design feel that this alternative design is possible they should do a better job at defending their viewpoint and prove us that this alternative is possible in the first place. In other words, show us how your design is workable, from genotype to phenotype, not only in phenotype. From early development trough puberty and adulthood. When this is done, and we have a full script, only then we can begin discussing which of the two designs is best and keep all circumstances under consideration. Now even if the alternative design turns out to be workable I suspect that the difficulties and complexity that it brings with them will outweigh the surgeon's convenience. Especially when you take in consideration the small percentage of people, from the dawn of mankind up until now, who ever have surgery done at the prostate.

A second example I have encountered in the past is the blind spot of the eye. Here even more then in the case of the vas deferens, I question the possibility of a design without it. The blind spot is very intrinsic to the mechanism of the eye, and is an effect created by a very vital part of the eye. Designing an eye without a blind spot is thus very challenging. Furthermore, the blind spot of each eye is compensated by the second eye. So the "flaw" in design isn't really problematic if you look at the totality: a set of eyes. To avoid confusion; also note that there is a difference between the optical blind spot -a gap in the vision of the eye created by a spot where there are no visual receptors due to the positioning of the nerves- and the blind spot of a vehicle -a space around the vehicle that is from the driver's position despite the use of mirrors- in case you were wondering.

Argument from useless design:

This is a bit similar to the argument of unintelligent design, but more simplistic. It argues that species have body parts that have no use, which is a waste. Vestigial organs they call them. Of course adding a useless part in a design isn't the same as dumb design, but it wouldn't be considered as smart either. However I argue that there are no useless body parts, and that every part of our body has a function. Several parts have been suggested by proponents. Although I grant that some of those suggested parts are not vital for survival, that doesn't mean they are completely useless. People can even live after limbs have been amputated, but that doesn't mean a limb is vestigial. So just because one can survive without the organ doesn't make it vestigial. The most common example is the coccyx (tail bone). The story goes this is a remnant of our tail-carrying brothers, which is now utterly useless. But that's far from the truth. No less than nine muscles are attached to that bone. Without the bone a lot of our current movements would no longer be possible. And we do use this bone on a regular basis. It is used for defecation and keeps organs in place"

Like he said at the end of that "As always, if you feel I missed anything important here, or you have an argument which you think cut's the mustard, feel free to bring it up at my forum"
His forum is here:http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/feedback.htm

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

it isn't a fact short of your assertion.
You mistake adaptation for speciation.. you should browse all the pages of this thread, so you are not rehashing the same argument over and over, it gets boring after a while!

Why do we not find modern day animals such as lions or poodles in the same layer of earth where we find now extinct and ancient animals such as sabertooth tigers or dinosaurs? This must mean that either
a) God suddenley decided to create modern day animals after millions of years of creating the ancient ones or
b) the modern day animals have evolved from the prehistoric ones.

Which sounds more reasonable given the evidence that's heavily in favour for the evolution and speciation fo animals?

- There is no proof of the existence of a common ancestor.

- Fossil records do not necessarily prove that life evolved into other organisms, it only shows that certain animals were present within a certain part of the world during a certain time period. That's all. Creationists can just argue that God made these animals within a certain location during that time period.


- If there was so much animals which became extinct (and were the intermediaries between two species) - their fossils should have been in the thousands, remaining in the ground to prove their past existence. But these intermediary specie fossils are not always present underground [and due to this, some scientists even said that there probably wasn't intermediate species but massive jumps from one specie to another.]

So one has to question why so little fossils of such species are present if the process took thousands/millions of years [because surely there would be thousands of the extinct specie during that time period so thousands of these fossils should be found atleast to prove the case.] But this just doesn't happen.

more points can be found here;
My paradigm | Because everyone is entitled to have my opinion.

There are plenty of transitional fossils available to study the evolution of a certian lineage of species or genus. Just google search transitional fossils and you'll find ample supply of them. It's a bit of a creationist myth that there is a lack of or no intermediate fossils present.
You also have to understand that fossizilation is not a easy and defenitive process, and not every animal which dies will get fossiziled perfectly to be dug up thousands of years later. All the evidence there is in favour of evolution, be it in genetics, fossils, embroyology, biochemistry, anatomy far outweighs the so called negative evidences. One can only assume when taking a unbiased impartial observation of these supporting evidences that evolution is probably correct.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

miniaturization not speciation occured, as such something like a 400 million year old coelacanth STILL remains and swims a fish today and not some land reptile or a human being as previousely thought--again if you'll browse through this forum you'll find sourced scientific articles to the process of adaptation which indeedis proven, the same way your LES adapts to constant stress by turning columnar from squamous. Either way I don't really see a problem, God can create anew or he can enable to evolve.. burnden of proof however is for staunch advocates of evolution to show us how the process occured and it is easy to do so using either liposomes or E.Coli vectors etc. and simiulate the environmental magic that has brought us such an amazing change, and whilst at it discuss the origin of life using science not sci. fiction so we are not collectively deputizing one allegedly erroneous belief for another equally erroneous belief on the account it removes God from the equation or as 'Dawkin' put it something even bigger than God. Until such a day makes history, I really don't care to read some random bloggers' opinion!

all the best

What is minirization supposed to be? Nowhere I have heard that term before in discussions of evolution. Your talking about a coelcanth which has survived till this day and has not evolved. Of course, species which are perfectly suited to their environment don't need to evolve do they? Look at the modern great white shark or crocodile. They have been in existence in more of less the same form for millions of years, because they are so well adapted to their natural surroundings and have been at the top of their respective food chains.
Other sea creatures such as whales have evolved. Whales have the genes for making legs because their ancestors where once land mammals. Do you think this is a coincedence? Same goes for genes for making fully functional tails in humans, and chickens making teeth.

format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -

- Fossil records do not necessarily prove that life evolved into other organisms, it only shows that certain animals were present within a certain part of the world during a certain time period. That's all. Creationists can just argue that God made these animals within a certain location during that time period.

Interesting. God created millions of animals and plants in the right sequence making it look like each evolved from a previously existing form, but they didn't, it was just a set up?

That would be great if there was any way you could show it was true.

format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -

- If there was so much animals which became extinct (and were the intermediaries between two species) - their fossils should have been in the thousands, remaining in the ground to prove their past existence. But these intermediary specie fossils are not always present underground [and due to this, some scientists even said that there probably wasn't intermediate species but massive jumps from one specie to another.]

You're confused. Practically every fossil ever found is an intermediate. If you choose an organism which develops from one form to another in many stages, which stages are the 'species' and which the 'intermediates'? It's just a matter of how you name things.
As for the 'jumps', what they basically mean is that due to different conditions or events, organisms evolved very quickly at some times in history and slowly at others.

format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -

more points can be found here;
My paradigm

Concerning the falsifiability of abiogenesis and common descent:
Presumably you think that another mechanism produced the outcome that scientists ascribe to these hypotheses. If you were to show that another mechanism was at work then they would have been shown to be false, therefore they are falsifiable.

format_quote Originally Posted by Azy

Interesting. God created millions of animals and plants in the right sequence making it look like each evolved from a previously existing form, but they didn't, it was just a set up?

Oh God! You are back again!
Do you post just to wind people up or do you have anything useful to say?

Every post I read from you is just sarcastic and rude.

Well that's precisely what the fossil record shows along with genetic comparisons, embryological analysis, avitiams, etc. God did a very good job in making it ''look'' like species evolve.