Printable View
see- DNA of Human and chimpanzeeQuote:
Originally Posted by Lucozade
DNA of Human and chimpanzee
Atheists claim that chimp and human possess 98% similar DNA. But truth is,there lies a huge difference. Because, calculation of percentage is not accur...
We have no problem with evolution, other than saying homo sapiens came from monkeys or that life started randomly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucozade
Yasir Qadhi has some interesting talks on the topic, and the Deen Institute has this whole several hour discussion on the matter (it's on YouTube).
By the way, macroevolution is not fact. It cannot be observed, only microevolution can be observed. Just because fossils look similar doesn't mean a thing, loads of animals have similar looking bones despite being related to each other. Also, fossils have been forced to suit the agenda of evolutionary scientists (search up Piltdown man).
Genetics can just be argued as the creatures being made from very similar materials. It doesn't provide concrete evidence monkeys and humans have a common ancestor.
Different scientists have also made different conclusions based on the same observations. For example, other than Darwinian evolution, you also have James Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engineering, and the theory of evolution (just like everything else in science) can and does change, like how the tree of life became a web of life.
There are also several problems with the theory of evolution, such as Haldane's dilemma (never been solved to this day), the fact some of the evidence doesn't 100% hold up to scrutiny (Chimp 2 genome).
Also, several major scientists such as James Tours have expressed their doubts over evolution, and I'm sure many others also hold this view, but they risk total isolation from the scientific community if they express such doubts.
- - - Updated - - -
*despite NOT being relatedQuote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
*fossils have been FORGED
To solve the problem of different number of chromosomes between apes and humans, Darwinists suggested the ‘chromosome 2 fusion model’. This scenario involves the claim that the fusion of two small chimpanzee-like chromosomes (2A and 2B) formed one chromosome in humans, leading to the difference in diploid chromosome numbers between humans and great apes. While the chromosome 2 fusion model is routinely touted as dogma, very little new genomic data, although readily available for analysis, has been presented as evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
Wikipedia mentioned that the model is "widely accepted":
https://www.islamicboard.com/images/...8/02/ch2-1.png
But, What you need to know is:
1- A majority of the data for the fusion model is based on DNA hybridization and chromosomal staining experiments conducted prior to the sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes.
2- Synteny (shared ordering of genes between organisms) of the chromosomes is not a surprise. We already knew there was a vast amount of similarity between humans and primates both in terms of physical characteristics and genetic material and structure. It is a mistake to assume that observing similarities necessarily brings you to the conclusion of common descent. Taxonomy based on physical characteristics was already a very well established science when the idea of common descent came on the scene.
3- The telomere region involves a complex and dynamic framework of DNA motif repeats 5’ to 3’ (TTAGGG)n , structural loops, structural and a wide variety of proteins. and it confer stability and preventing fusion or shortening of the chromosomes. It's in perfect tandem of DNA from about 10 to 15 kb (10,000 to 15,000 bases) and contains1,667 to 2,500 telomere repeats at each chromosome end.
4- In a head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes, we would expect at least 5,000 bases of (TTAGGG)n repeats in tandem, we would also expect the orientation of the plus-strand repeat to change to the reverse complement (CCCTAA)n, which should also occur in near-perfect tandem for approximately 5,000 or more bases. The area containing the suspected ‘fusion region’ is often called 2qfus or 2chr2fus and occupies the genomic area between 2q13 and 2q14.1.
5- Within the 10 to 30 kb window of DNA sequence surrounding the hypothetical fusion site,a glaring paucity of telomeric repeats exist that appear mostly as independent monomers, not tandem repeats. The TTAGGG repeat to the left of the fusion site, less than 35 motifs exist. For the CCCTAA reverse complement sequence, to the right of the fusion site, less than 150 telomere motifs can be found.
6- The only research group to seriously analyze the actual fusion site DNA sequence data in detail were confounded by the results which showed a lack of evidence for fusion—a genomic condition for this region which they termed ‘degenerate’.(Fan, Y. et al., Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes, Genome Research 12:1651–1662, 2002. )
7- Fairbanks said that 44 out of 158 repeats match (28%) and that the rest of the sequences are ‘close’. The problem is, to obtain even this low match level, the consensus reading frame is entirely ignored and ambiguous matches are contrived by assuming many insertion and deletion mutations of varying sizes.
8- There are genes throughout the alleged fusion region. In an analysis of a 614 kb area encompassing the postulated chromosome fusion site, Fan et al. found evidence of “at least 24 potentially functional genes and 16 pseudogenes”.(Fan, Y. et al., Gene content and function of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in human chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions, Genome Research 12:1663–1672, 2002.). In the 30-kb region directly encompassing the fusion site, which should definitely be devoid of any genes, there exists two actively transcribed genes, each in a flanking position in regard to the fusion site (one on each side). There are also at least two other genes in the immediate vicinity of the fusion site thought to be inactive due to frame shift mutations. However, research related to the human ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project has shown that many genes thought to be inactive (pseudogenes) are actually functional due to a variety of newly discovered regulatory mechanisms.(Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project, Nature 447:799–816, 2007)
9- If the telomere motifs that populate internal areas of chromosomes serve some important, yet unknown function, the chromosome fusion model actually impedes research aimed at determining possible function in these regions.
10- telomeres are designed to prevent fusion. Broken chromosomes at any location immediately invoke the cell’s double-stranded DNA repair machinery where the aberrant fusion of fragments actually triggers cell fault tolerance mechanisms.6 In the case of an aberrant fusion, a senescence response or programmed cell death (apoptosis) cascade is normally triggered, effectively eliminating the damaged cell from the system.
A cell with telomeres that have progressively shortened over time and reached a threshold length will also activate the double-stranded DNA repair machinery; inducing cell senescence and/or death. When in certain types of germline cells, telomerase adds telomere repeats to shortened telomeres, chromosomes are ‘healed’ and can again become stable. The telomeres cap the ends of linear chromosomes and effectively prevent fusion or trigger cell elimination if the telomere is shortened to a certain point, damaged, or aberrantly fused.6 According to the fusion model, this protective process was somehow bypassed in early humans.
11- Telomere sequence is not unique to the telomere. the existence of telomeric repeats in internal sites is not unusual or unexpected. We know that ITS (interstitial telomeric sequences) present in Chromosomes 1,4,5,9,12,16, and 17 (http://www.ncbi.nlm....4?dopt=Abstract)
12- The evidence for a second remnant centromere at any stage of sequence degeneracy is negligible.The supposed evidence includes the finding that “every human and great-ape chromosome centromere contains a highly variable DNA sequence that is repeated over and over, a 171 base-pair sequence called the Alphoid sequence.”3 Fairbanks adds that scientists have “searched for Alphoid sequences in human chromosomes and found them at every centromere, as expected. They also found Alphoid sequences at the site in human chromosome 2 where the remnants of this second centromere should be. These remnants are evidence of a now-defunct centromere.” problem is that, although research has been done on some primates, no systematic study of centromeres exists to determine how common alphoid DNA is in mammals.(Baldini, A. et al., An alphoid DNA sequence conserved in all human and great ape chromosomes: evidence for ancient centromeric sequences at human chromosomal regions 2q21 and 9q13, Human Genetics 90:577–583, 1993) Baldini et al. found that the “highest sequence similarity between human and great ape alphoid sequences is 91%, much lower than the expected similarity for selectively neutral sequences.”
13- Alpha-satellite DNA or alphoid DNA, although found in centromeric areas, is not unique to centromeres and is also highly variable. Because highly variable alphoid DNA is also commonly found in non-centromeric regions of human chromosomes, their presence does not indicate the remnants of a degenerate centromere. Based on the reasoning of Fairbanks and others promoting the human chromosome 2 fusion model, one could conclude that human chromosomes contain literally hundreds of degenerate centromeres.
14- The site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.( source )
http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot....ion-model.html
Asalamu AlaikumQuote:
Originally Posted by Good brother
Scientists themselves have discussed the problems with the Chimp 2 genome being used as evidence. It's nowhere near as concrete as keyboard warrior atheists will have you believe.
Darwinist Scientists themselves, unlike brainwashed atheists, don't have solid faith in the current theory. Take this one as an example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
Gerd B. Müller1,2
1Department of Theoretical Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
2Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research, Klosterneuburg, Austria
"A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution [2–14], indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/
"Indeed, a growing number of challenges to the classical model of evolution have emerged over the past few years, such as from evolutionary developmental biology [16], epigenetics [17], physiology [18], genomics [19], ecology [20], plasticity research [21], population genetics [22], regulatory evolution [23], network approaches [14], novelty research [24], behavioural biology [12], microbiology [7] and systems biology [25], further supported by arguments from the cultural [26] and social sciences [27], as well as by philosophical treatments [28–31]. None of these contentions are unscientific, all rest firmly on evolutionary principles and all are backed by substantial empirical evidence."
"Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous [32], but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory, which they see as having ‘co-evolved’ together with the methodological and empirical advances that already receive their due in current evolutionary biology [33]. But the repeatedly emphasized fact that innovative evolutionary mechanisms have been mentioned in certain earlier or more recent writings does not mean that the formal structure of evolutionary theory has been adjusted to them."
"A subtler version of the this-has-been-said-before argument used to deflect any challenges to the received view is to pull the issue into the never ending micro-versus-macroevolution debate. Whereas ‘microevolution’ is regarded as the continuous change of allele frequencies within a species or population [109], the ill-defined macroevolution concept [36], amalgamates the issue of speciation and the origin of ‘higher taxa’ with so-called ‘major phenotypic change’ or new constructional types. Usually, a cursory acknowledgement of the problem of the origin of phenotypic characters quickly becomes a discussion of population genetic arguments about speciation, often linked to the maligned punctuated equilibria concept [9], in order to finally dismiss any necessity for theory change. The problem of phenotypic complexity thus becomes (in)elegantly bypassed. Inevitably, the conclusion is reached that microevolutionary mechanisms are consistent with macroevolutionary phenomena [36], even though this has very little to do with the structure and predictions of the EES. The real issue is that genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity, not only of something vaguely termed ‘macroevolution’. Hence, the micro–macro distinction only serves to obscure the important issues that emerge from the current challenges to the standard theory."
"As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences."
@Good brother , I request you to post these valuable replies of yours in my thread.it would be easier for others to find all information in one place together. jajhakallah khair
Brother, copy whatever you want whenever you find it helpful. No problem at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahir Adnan
if you look at a car sy a mercedes and you have the latest model. you say wow this is the best car.
But before this version there were many older models made by mercedes, which may share many features to the new one. you will say look this new model is very similar to the old version but its not the same.
In same manner maybe God made many creations before he made man. Maybe he maybe chimpanze before man. he then borrowed things from chimpanze when making men.
Evolution might have some truth in it but that could be due to God. We dont know what God made and when etc... Allah knows best.
Evolution proof does NOT go against islam in some cases it may support it.
For example look at ALL other species on Earth..... They all live more or less in harmony with the Earth. They have all they need. They dont transgress beyond their defined roles. Because the Earth is their natural habitat, they know its their home.
But with Humans we dont follow these rules, we always trying to change the environment and ourselves, we want to explore space and beyond, we dont exactly live in harmony with nature. The reason is because we dont belong on Earth, its isnt really our home and we were not originally designed to be on Earth. Why because the original home of man was heaven. Some would say we are the aliens of planet earth...
Educate Darwinists about their own conjecture !
Did Neo-darwinists evolve from monkeys ?
By: Holly Dunsworth
(Associate professor of anthropology at the University of Rhode Island, where she teaches courses on human origins, evolution, and variation.)
Everyone’s likely heard it or seen it written on a protest sign: “I didn’t evolve from a monkey.” It’s a well-worn refrain of those who resist the evolutionary perspective. The pat response we often hear is, “You’re right! We didn’t evolve from monkeys. We share ancestors with them.” However, this talking point isn’t entirely honest.
Yes, we share ancestors with monkeys; we share ancestors with every living thing. But, also, to be clear: We did evolve from monkeys.
Around 20 million years ago, many of those lineages of fossil monkeys kept evolving as “monkeys,” but the lineage that led to us shifted to a different branch on the evolutionary tree, which we have decided to call “apes.” Those fossil apes led to present-day ones including gorillas, chimpanzees, and us. Evolution is occurring constantly, generation upon generation, creating a spectrum of inherited variation over time. To investigate and understand that variation, we often divvy up the continuum into families, or branches on the tree of life. Because they are human inventions, the boundaries around the definitions of “monkey” and “ape” warrant scientific discussion. The necessary but ultimately arbitrary practice of taxonomy is why biological classification is so often debated. Take, for instance, arguments over whether new fossil finds are newly discovered species or variations on known ones, or the row over whether we should call ourselves “apes.”
Along with the other apes (which include chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans), we evolved from ancient apes. Like modern-day apes and monkeys, we evolved from ancient monkeys. And like all vertebrates with four-limbs, known as tetrapods, we evolved from the same ancient fishes.
The more living relatives we include in a family, the farther back we must go to find that family’s common fossil ancestors. Those ancestors often have more traits in common with some living family members than others. The earliest primates, dating back to over 65 million years ago, resemble lemurs more than they resemble chimpanzees. But, of course, they’re neither. The earliest tetrapods resemble fishes more than they resemble salamanders, but they’re neither. So let’s stop pretending that our ancestors weren’t monkeys, fishes, and slimy single-celled critters. Tip-toeing around common ancestry with monkeys isn’t helpful. To one degree or another, existential questions about life’s ultimate origins run deeper than any raised by evolution.
And, of course, questions that are raised by evolution tend to lead to more questions. Scientific inquiry is a process, and one that is ongoing and incomplete. By definition, science involves uncertainties—questions without known answers. And so perhaps scientists, more than others, are comfortable with the undiscovered. Like when it comes to impenetrable questions about the origins of the universe, some of us can chalk it up to “turtles all the way down” (an infinite tower of stacked-up turtles), chuckle to ourselves, and be done with it. Others cannot, but it’s not because there’s anything wrong with them. The same is true when it comes to feelings about evolutionary thinking and those monkeys we have for uncles. Many people who struggle with these concepts are deeply thoughtful, and being dismissive of them is unhelpful at best. (https://www.sapiens.org/column/origins/monkeys-all-the-way-down/)