Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective

format_quote Originally Posted by Vampairious

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time.The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Matt, did you write that? Or did you copy and paste it? Anyway, welcome to the forums, and I think that you did spell your name wrong. From what you told me it was 'vamperios'.

format_quote Originally Posted by Vampairious

no i wrote that, y do u ask?

'Cause it was good!
I wanted to give you rep for that, but the rep thing didn't let me.

Root
Do you remember the discussion we had about endogenous retrovirus serving as proof for humans as descendant from apes? And how I said it's more likely that both partys obtained the virus in the same proces independant of one another because that would solve the issue of how the ERV got wide spread over the whole population in both species. To this you replied that it would be unlikly for the virus to place itself at the same place in both species. And I replied that Certain places in teh DNA Would probably be more prone to obtain this retrovirus.
You asked me to prove that. But I couldn't. The best I could do is suggest that the delta-negative charges caused by the electrons which is difrent for the endmolecules would create higher or lower afinity. It was a posibility, but a long shot. Today I read something that confirmed my educated guess.
New discovery in DNA

Take special note of this particular fragment:
Biologists have suspected for years that some positions on the DNA, notably those where it bends most easily, might be more favorable for nucleosomes than others, but no overall pattern was apparent. Drs. Segal and Widom analyzed the sequence at some 200 sites in the yeast genome where nucleosomes are known to bind, and discovered that there is indeed a hidden pattern.

format_quote Originally Posted by hongi

Why single out evolution? Reading a statement out before the start of the class will make the students think that evolution is special or somehow different from other theories they are taught, like the atomic theory of matter (that things are made out of atoms), or the germ theory of pathogens (that bacteria and viruses cause diseases).

Clearly it is not. Evolution is both fact and theory.

Well mutation of species is both fact and theory and shouldn't be treathed "special" but abiogenesis and common descent isn't factual, isn't even worked out well enough to be considered a "theory". And those two are generally thought alongside of evolution. And we should stress those aren't that certain.

Well the main reason I brought this up is because this article conforms the possibility of these so called hotspot who would be prone to ERV.
Of course this alone does not suffice. But do note that I did raided a lot of answers besides this.
1. It's not certain all ERV's are actually ERV'S they don't come with name tags, and are deformed from their origenal form, if they wouldn't be deformed, that would mean your body produces these retrovires 24-7 since your cells are constantly copying DNA. So obviously these partial dna strings can no longer function as virusses. Which begs the question, how can we tell they actually are virusses. Remember that a lot of the function of teh DNA is still a mystery. We've only mapped it so far, and here we see yet another code arising. What aperas to be "junk DNA" may very well have a good function. Likewise, what apears to be an ERV, might very well be a cleaver design.
Furthermore I don't consider it unlikely for a virus to spread among a whole population, espacially back in the days we run around as cavemans having no hyghene, not coocking our meat, etc. And if a certain virus is prone to install itself into the DNA, then that solves the problem.

I know there's some "if's" here. But the same goes for the classical theory.

Well the main reason I brought this up is because this article conforms the possibility of these so called hotspot who would be prone to ERV. Of course this alone does not suffice. But do note that I did raided a lot of answers besides this.

I quite agree that your article is looking relavent to "hot spots", which has already been covered;

hot spots, where the odds of a virus being inserted are slightly higher than other places, but there are still a great number of hotspots throughout the genomes, and given the above points, there is no reason why multiple infections would result in the same ERVs being inserted in the same locations with the same crippling errors and showing the same pattern of change with time. Again if there are multiple hotspots and multiple infections, there is no reason that there should not be ERVs that do not match the phylogenetic tree. again we see no deviances from expected inheritance patterns.

1. It's not certain all ERV's are actually ERV'S they don't come with name tags, and are deformed from their origenal form, if they wouldn't be deformed, that would mean your body produces these retrovires 24-7 since your cells are constantly copying DNA. So obviously these partial dna strings can no longer function as virusses. Which begs the question, how can we tell they actually are virusses. Remember that a lot of the function of teh DNA is still a mystery. We've only mapped it so far, and here we see yet another code arising. What aperas to be "junk DNA" may very well have a good function. Likewise, what apears to be an ERV, might very well be a cleaver design

They have simply mutated and became crippled by their own mutation whilst retaining their genetic identification. as I already stated above:

the retroviruses are crippled, but still identifiable as retroviruses.

Furthermore I don't consider it unlikely for a virus to spread among a whole population, espacially back in the days we run around as cavemans having no hyghene, not coocking our meat, etc. And if a certain virus is prone to install itself into the DNA, then that solves the problem.

I think you missed the point entirely, what conclusion are you drawing in reference to 12 misfired ERV's spread amongst seven different species all of whom show the exact same crippling error sequence and same degradation over time

Additionally, this virus did not spread. It harmlesly misfired into a gamet of a single animal and is now embedded into every human Chimpanzee Orangutan Gorilla Gibbon old world monkeys and new world monkeys DNA by species reproduction and NOT infection. Your trying to suggest multiple different species were infected on seperate occasions all of which misfired in a genetic mutation identical to one another at the exact same genetic letter within multiple primates.

That's like a Boeng 747 being assembled as a result of a tornado ripping through a junkyard

I know there's some "if's" here. But the same goes for the classical theory.

That is an understatement. ERV insertions are not the sole mechanism for Phylogenetic tree construction (AKA - Common Descent) for they are also constructed in similar fashions by looking at ALU sequences (long sequences of repeating DNA) and transposons (kind of like internal viruses that only ever exist within the nucleus and copy themselves around the DNA). It's an excellent cross reference mechanism.

To claim your "educated guess" on the same par as the classic theory is in my humble opinion completely nuts.........

ok have it your way

the reason I'm simply answering: have it your way, is because your teling me your personal opinon and interpretation, not the science. So I don't feel like looking for source and disproving you, so I take a step back and say: have it your way ...

I don't see how it is referring to evolution when the context of the verse shows it to be a punishment for people who disobeyed Allaah, as opposed to a stage of creation:

And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). We said to them: "Be you monkeys, despised and rejected." So We made this punishment an example to their own and to succeeding generations and a lesson to those who are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious). [Qur'aan 65-66]

Wallaahu A'lam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Skakeen

Well I heard that some scientists have found bones which prove their theory and it might be the bones of those Jews that Allah punished . In other words they understood the opposite of what really happened.
This what I am trying to say .

Wa Allah A3lam.

I see what you are saying now. But I'm not sure whether the bones were limited to only those of ape-humans, maybe there were some involving birds or fish, according to the theory?

and Greetings,

The posts regarding evolution in relation to the afterlife have been moved to a new thread here:

Evolution and the Afterlife

My posts before in this thread were all assigned a thread of their own because I was writing to the future possiblities of evolution rather than the existing sciences. So here I will be stricter with my self.

I know quite a few persons whom are familiar with the wide range of popularist literature in the English language that has speculated upon the possiblities of what caused evolution. One such persons told that the aspect of such reading that stimulated his wonderment was the fact that of all the huge variety of different shaped micro-organisms, it was that one with potential to evolve biology with two eyes and one mouth etc, that came to evolve. Such literature has an admirable place upon the bookshelves of persons whom are not educated in Islam, in that it can stimulate such wonderment into a certainty in Allah. So it is very much worthy of Islamic discussion and for Muslims to influence such modern popular literature.

Indeed, often such literature is where are found reports of scientific discoveries that are otherwise not being made accessible to the general population whom are not likely to be reading scientific journals. It is that some forms of scientific discovery are difficult to get out in to the public spectrum of understanding in 'the west' simply because Rosicrucian occultists want to hide that information which can verify Qur'an.

But what I am really wanting to contribute to this general discussion is that there is a set of almost common place known facts, that are seldom placed together in the minds of ordinary folk without any education in Qur'an, and sometimes even in the minds of folk with education in Qur'an, simple sets of known scientific facts have not yet been enabled to become placed together.

My example here is the following:
the arguments for an evolutionary stance based in science alone and that seem to refute Allah as creator, depend upon an understanding that over time our genetics become modified;
the arguments for a creationist approach are more simply that we are instructed to at all times sustain Faith in Qur'an and Torah and Gospels, yet such are not instructing us specifically as to what we should make of the quantity of scientific data we are being presented with;
there is however, an additional fact, that the genetics of any one of us, and every plant and animal and microbe, contain the genetics of every disease of our ancestors, and of every state of evolution that has gone before.

In that third point, it is that case that the genetic map in a Human being for being able to determine that food goes into the mouth and faeces come out of the anus, instead of the other way around, is in fact the exact same genetic that worms have for knowing which end is which. So should we be questioning why or merely accepting that in Allah's grace it is that there was not need to ever form more than a single genetic structure for knowing which end of the digestive organ is which.

Then consider this: my great grandfather survived Bubonic plague. Therefore, the genetics of Bubonic plague are present in my own body. But how is it determined that such genetics are at any time switched 'on' or 'off'? The RNA molecules that read off the DNA and thereby determine the sequences in which amino acids are being assembled into proteins, are the changeable factor.

So then why is it, that in my past I exibited behavioural symptoms that are compatible with the preconditions of Bubonic plague, but that I am caused to be motivated that such behavioural symptoms, are at this time, (and at every time in respect of my children), being overridden by a better set of genetic patterns? Only in Allah can it be that I am being enabled that the RNA in my body is not reading the Bubonic plague genetics.

Therefore it is clear that Creationism is in fact a simply key to the science of evolution.