VIDEO: The flaws of Darwinian Evolution (by Dr. David Berlinski)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hamayun
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 27
  • Views Views 6K
Nathaniel said:
Yes there is a lot there: as I said, the evidence is overwhelming. Do you disbelieve in evolution simply on "lack of evidence", or do you think it conflicts with Islam?
Click to expand...

I cannot speak for whether it conflicts with Islam or not as I am not a scholar of Islam. From the scholarly opinion I've seen, most scientists-turned-Islamic students of knowledge (including reputable scientists with peer-reviewed publications) have denied the possibility of evolution. For example, Dr. Saleh el-Saleh, may Allah grant him Janna. At the same time, there are credible scholars who openly accept evolution as the work of Allah (swt) citing that one attribute of Allah is The Evolver and also the fact that when a baby is born it is said that Allah (swt) created it but it just followed some basic biological processes of mating and gestation and labor. For example, Dr. Israr Ahmed.

My concern with evolution is purely based on evidence. I do not have any problem with "evolution" as it is defined, for example, to explain the mechanism of emergence of MRSA or even VISA strains of S. aureus. In the human realm, this is very similar to a production of a human child who has lets say smaller lungs than average due to genetic reasons. Or to a certain population of humans who are resistant to R5 tropic HIV because they have mutation in CCR5 receptor. My issue specifically is with human evolution from primates. Other animals could have gone through evolution in the sense of descent from modification from primitive bacteria, evidence for that is scanty too, but human evolution (human species emerging for the first time from primitive apes) is tough to push down my brain.
 
Last edited:
:sl:

I don't know much about this topic but I watched a documentary which showed that the 'missing link' had finally been discovered. It was a fossil of a fish-like creature which began life in the water and then grew limbs as it evolved to adapt to its environment.

In another documentary, that had nothing to do with evolution, I saw fish with limbs that can crawl out of the sea just as the fossilized one had. All that the so-called 'missing link' did was prove that these creatures existed, while the other documentary proved they still do. In no way does that prove that humans evolved from a common ancestor by way of natural selection. I thought it was funny they were trying to make us believe that. ;D
 
Scents of Jannah said:
:sl:

I don't know much about this topic but I watched a documentary which showed that the 'missing link' had finally been discovered. It was a fossil of a fish-like creature which began life in the water and then grew limbs as it evolved to adapt to its environment.

In another documentary, that had nothing to do with evolution, I saw fish with limbs that can crawl out of the sea just as the fossilized one had. All that the so-called 'missing link' did was prove that these creatures existed, while the other documentary proved they still do. In no way does that prove that humans evolved from a common ancestor by way of natural selection. I thought it was funny they were trying to make us believe that. ;D
Click to expand...

the missing link, did it adapt those legs in the same individual? If yes then it might not contribute to evolution because unless the emergence of new traits is in sex cells, evolution cannot take place. For example, a human can go start living on the top of mountains. His rbc count will increase, heart rate increase etc. All these changes will not mean that his child will be produced with increased RBC. it might but that would be due to the fact that his body produced more RBC to compensate for lower oxygen pressures, not because changes had been made in father's DNA.
 
Wa7abiScientist said:
My issue specifically is with human evolution from primates. Other animals could have gone through evolution in the sense of descent from modification from primitive bacteria, evidence for that is scanty too, but human evolution (human species emerging for the first time from primitive apes) is tough to push down my brain.
Click to expand...

You might find this page a useful source of information about human evolution.
 
Gossamer skye said:
you might find these:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf

equally useful on human evolution!

all the best
Click to expand...

I see no issue with these two papers:

In the first: "We evaluate the probability Pr that the RNA of the first cell was
assembled randomly in the time available (1.11 billion years
[b.y.])." I see no reason to assume randomness (from a theistic perspective).

In the second, the conclusion in no way contradicts evolution - indeed theistic evolutionist do believe that evolution is directed (or "deterministic") towards a particular aim, namely human beings.
 
Nathaniel said:
I see no issue with these two papers:

In the first: "We evaluate the probability Pr that the RNA of the first cell was
assembled randomly in the time available (1.11 billion years
[b.y.])." I see no reason to assume randomness (from a theistic perspective).

In the second, the conclusion in no way contradicts evolution - indeed theistic evolutionist do believe that evolution is directed (or "deterministic") towards a particular aim, namely human beings.
Click to expand...

I doubt very much that you have taken the time to read all forty two pages of the first or even glanced at the second. Whatever the mechanism (directed or random), the tools used (Aka, DNA breaks, mutations, jumping genes) etc wouldn't yield Ape to human in fact, you are free to google any of them and see exactly what the outcome is of something like a frame-shift mutation or a 9,22 translocation. When you hypothesize with a certain set of data, said data should in fact yield a determined outcome for the theory to be correct and not some pipe dream!

The tools of creation belong to God and you only delude yourself into believing you know how without adhering to some other faulty belief!


all the best
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top