Evolution

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Science101;

That gave me an idea for an interesting question for you. If we assume (as I also do) that there was a first human couple (Adam and Eve) then why are there now regional differences in the way we look (Asian, European, African, etc.) when no "evolutionary change" like this is possible?

Like our bro Scimitar, I just accept that God created everything according to its kind, and this does not leave me any room to believe in TOE. If God can create the universe and all life, he can make these variations, but I guess this is where science and faith part company. Faith just accepts it is the will of God, and he knows best, faith might ask the ‘why’ questions, where science is more concerned with the how questions.

The lessons to be gleaned from evolution endorse the survival of the fittest, strongest, richest, greediest the selfish and the power hungry.

Faith in God should inspire love, forgiveness, mercy, kindness, families and community. Sadly the evolutionary traits seem stronger.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Science is the observation of man. I dont trust it over Quran and Hadith.

Quran says that the first of man was Adam created by Allah.


Lol i find it funny ( and quite worrying) that people go so indepth into studying what Allah has already denied (Evolution of man)

 

[Science101]

Science is the observation of man.

Yes, and in science is there is usually much disagreement before all of man can come to agreement on the same thing.

I dont trust it over Quran and Hadith.

Scientists usually get upset from reading things like that, but after my having seen what happens when scientific information is too much trusted I think it is good that you are well doubtful.

Quran says that the first of man was Adam created by Allah.

That is an excellent sentence for me to reword from the language of religion, to the language of science, for the two scientific theories we have for comparison. First I will show the theory I explain, so you can see that it supports what you said:

The Theory of Intelligent Design holds that the first of man was Adam created by an intelligence.

I first had to state which theory is being used, then end by being clear that the theory explains “intelligence”. The name “Adam” is allowed because the theory describes DNA evidence of a sudden genome rearrangement that would result in an Adam, and an Eve, a human couple at the very beginning of our lineage that science allows be given the “colloquial” name found in human culture/religion.

For the next below with Evolutionary Theory it is important to be specific to what is now common which is “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis” that includes more than Charles Darwin described but at its center is the same two part Mutation/Selection relationship that results in this:

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis indicates that there was no first of man (Adam could not exist) and humans were not created by an intelligence.

As you can see, both are scientific statements but they say something very different. And I could easily enough rephrase this one to include some of the insults that get added to statements like these but I am sure you already have a good idea what that ends up looking like.

This seems to highlight why I do not promote “evolution” or any of its similar but slightly different evolutionary theories, my purpose is to explain scientific theory that does not use generalizations which lead to science indicating something else entirely. Besides, if you already accept that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of the different tribes/regional-variations then you cannot be an “evolution denier” because that’s all that evolution is, Adam and Eve having more than a single tribe/variation inside of them. That’s really all “evolution” is but some make it seem like it’s much more than that, so they can say you are all wrong, when you are just saying the same thing but in different words.

I have to be happy that you think the last sentence is horrible and looks wrong, because I agree. In fact in the entire text from Introduction on the theory never once is the word “evolution” ever used to explain how something works or happened, that word is from another theory that cannot explain intelligence. The phrase “natural selection” becomes a problem because in a perfect world intelligent life is able to exist without it, becomes just a way of saying that it is not a perfect world with a limitless supply of everything, when the climate changes so do the animals living there. We do not need a scientific theory just to realize that is true, we can see what lives in a jungle compared to Antarctica and more or less figure that out on our own. It’s then not that “evolutionary theory” is wrong the problem is that it is based on a many hundreds of year old observation about environment and what lives there, does not explain all that some think it does, or can say how life was first created.

 

[MustafaMc]

So yes "Evolution" is no doubt true, we would have to be a clone of either our mother and father and all males/females on this planet look exactly the same for it to be false.

The Theory of Evolution as the means by which all extinct and extant species of life arose from a Common Ancestor (unicellar presumably) is not "no doubt true". There is no scientific evidence even that a donkey and a horse 'evolved' through naturalistic methods from a common ancestor. Despite significant commonality in the DNA structure of these two species, the translocations and other genetic changes would have rendered the individual in which it presumably occured sterile. One can presume that the mutation would have occured in either the sperm or the egg of one of the parents and this would render the resulting individual with a normal and a mutated chromosome. The lack of proper pairing of these chromosomes in meiosis would have occured in the same manner as in a mule today which is sterile. The claim that evolution is the source for variation within a species and that this is evidence for macro evolution of diverse species at large is utterly false.

 

[Scimitar]

faith might ask the ‘why’ questions, where science is more concerned with the how questions.

This is a very important statement and I wholly agree with it.

Philosophically, the "WHY" question is a better one. The "HOW" question just seems too foolish without understanding the "WHY" question.

Scimi

 

[Science101]

Greetings and peace be with you Science101;

And Greetings to you Eric.

Like our bro Scimitar, I just accept that God created everything according to its kind, and this does not leave me any room to believe in TOE.

At least we share a similar disbelief in the TOE (and other names that it goes by) with the difference being that the scientific reasons alone are enough for me to not put my faith into that. It does not help explain how intelligence works, and that has always been one of favorite fields. A theory that does not explain what I need to know is of no help to me, have to use other theory that came from ones like David Heiserman which does pertain to intelligence and fits in with other theory to become a new one that covers more scientific territory.

If God can create the universe and all life, he can make these variations, but I guess this is where science and faith part company. Faith just accepts it is the will of God, and he knows best, faith might ask the ‘why’ questions, where science is more concerned with the how questions.

Yes, science explains “how” things work, using experiments which can include observation. Requires proper terminology and qualifying terms like “intelligence” or “Adam” before using in a sentence. Religion gives our Creator a name like “Allah” or simply “God” and faith is enough for it to be accepted as true, do not need experiments and observations. Each has a different method of wording statements, but when science and religion are properly working together they are each part of the same search for knowledge of how our Creator works, and why our creation was good.

Religion does not need science, but where science were taken out of religion some of the most useful and fascinating things the Prophet ever said would have to vanish from Islam. Where we qualify Adam and Eve as human ancestry (which it is) then all scripture mentioning them has to vanish also. In this way, science and religion cannot be so easily separated. You can here see the part I earlier mentioned where they ultimately explain the same thing, just in different ways, and in that respect are much the same thing but different writing methods and such.

The lessons to be gleaned from evolution endorse the survival of the fittest, strongest, richest, greediest the selfish and the power hungry.

I never much liked the “survival of the fittest” thinking either. It works with lions chasing their next meal but in the rest of biology there are complex cooperative social systems all over where even bacteria have an amazingly complex shared-information society where they exchange coded information to help each other survive something that they never experienced before. Ants, bees, wolves, humans, even lions work together. When greed takes control there is soon enough trouble from it so that does not give as much of an advantage as it seems either.

Faith in God should inspire love, forgiveness, mercy, kindness, families and community. Sadly the evolutionary traits seem stronger.

You listed the traits we usually most value that unfortunately do not get much credit in evolutionary biology. But thankfully for me I’m not an evolutionary biologist because I’m sure glad that’s not my problem to correct! I can say the word “traits” but all that the word “evolutionary” implies is something for them to work on, while I work on theory with no “evolutionary” in it either, needing to be operationally defined.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Thanks Eric for adding your very constructive thoughts that helped us get a little further down the path that leads to where we all want to go. In this case we reached a point where there are ToE’s and ET’s of all sorts blocking the pathway. From my experience it is here best just use ToID robotics to clear them all out of the way ahead of us while making sure the stumps are well ground out so none behind us will have to worry about tripping over them. Only needed to fully know what is actually in our way and the science that makes them vanish as a problem from where they do not scientifically belong.

 

[Science101]

The Theory of Evolution as the means by which all extinct and extant species of life arose from a Common Ancestor (unicellar presumably) is not "no doubt true". There is no scientific evidence even that a donkey and a horse 'evolved' through naturalistic methods from a common ancestor.

Even the best Evolutionary Synthesis has a problem with macroevolution, but where kept within limits it is impossible to argue that the animals of Brazilian jungle look like those in Antarctica. Environment does favor one kind over another, so that part is true.

Despite significant commonality in the DNA structure of these two species, the translocations and other genetic changes would have rendered the individual in which it presumably occured sterile. One can presume that the mutation would have occured in either the sperm or the egg of one of the parents and this would render the resulting individual with a normal and a mutated chromosome. The lack of proper pairing of these chromosomes in meiosis would have occured in the same manner as in a mule today which is sterile. The claim that evolution is the source for variation within a species and that this is evidence for macro evolution of diverse species at large is utterly false.

Although they are not nearly as much a rearrangement these fusions happen in even the human population. Unlike trying to cross two different kinds of animals with different genomes which is often (but not always) sterile the parents are here of the exact same kind and the chromosomes that are now stuck together still normally divide properly.

 

[Science101]

May be happened it very quickly. It's true. thanks.

It is funny how Charles Darwin predicted slow change, then later there was evidence of fast change, so scientists added the phrase “punctuated equilibrium” to use with the “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis” theory that corrected such mistakes. Now that epigenetics is changing things again some scientists think it’s time to rethink the theory all over again!

There is a good article on the problem here:

http://classic.the-scientist.com/article/display/56251/

 

[Scimitar]

Allah does whatever he wants. Human Beings are special. According to Qur'an The first Human was Adam. But Qur'an does not rule out the possibility that human-like vicegerents with blood existed in this earth before Adam (A). So, I can't see any reason why we should only believe that humans must have come from ape-like ancestors.

The viceregents of this earth before humans were Jinn...

...go read Qisas al Anbiyya by Ibn Kathir, instead posting David Icke-esque dribble me lad.

Scimi

 

[Science101]

The viceregents of this earth before humans were Jinn...

...go read Qisas al Anbiyya by Ibn Kathir, instead posting David Icke-esque dribble me lad.

Scimi

In science the proper word to use for Adam (that also works for Eve) is “progenitor” as defined here:

From: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/progenitor

progenitor (plural progenitors)
A forefather, any of a person's direct ancestors
An individual from whom one or more people (dyansty, tribe, nation...) are descended.
Abraham alias Ibrahim is the progenitor of both the Jewish and Arab peoples.
(biology) An ancestral form of a species
(figuratively) A predecessor of something, especially if also a precursor or model.
ARPANET was the progenitor of the Internet.
(figuratively) Someone who originates something.
A founder

I spent years looking for the best possible word to use in scientific theory, and have not found any better.

This word cannot explain where Adam and Eve came from, it establishes common English Language terminology that works in both science and religion to define their relationship to us without mucking them up with a loaded word or phrase evolutionary biologists might rather we used like “common evolutionary ancestor”. Using this evo-free word right away clears another stretch of the path of theoretical overgrowth meant to stop our progress. As you know, my tactic is to find simple ways like this to make all that go away ahead of us. Science allows it. And I’m relatively sure that is what The Prophet would do too!

 

[MustafaMc]

Even the best Evolutionary Synthesis has a problem with macroevolution,

I agree with you 100% that so-called macroevolution or the evolution of new, more complex species from more basic and simple ones is not adequate. I contend that ToE goes beyond the bounds of the scientific method and it is in this respect a faith-based religion as is Islam.

I do not disagree that the elements of ToE are at work within species to adapt to changes in their environment. For example, I work in agriculture and there are many examples of pesticides that were once highly effective in killing both weeds and insects, but are now ineffective. The extensive use of these pesticides exerted a very strong selection pressure on the existing genetic variation within those populations. The result was that those pests that survived could reproduce and spread throughout the areas previously populated by individuals of the same species that were susceptible to those pesticides. So, yes, microevolution, or changes within a species, has been documented and is an illustration of some of the principles of ToE.

My contention is that science has no business in trying to solve the mystery of how we came into existence and that efforts to put forth hypotheses and theories to explain it are woefully inadequate yet they are being taught as fact to children. I don't believe that Creation per se should be taught in schools and that if ToE is taught as a possible theory, then Intelligent Design should also be taught as a possible explanation for the inadequacies of ToE. However, this touches upon the existence of God which is outside the realm of the Scientific Method.

 

[Scimitar]

However, this touches upon the existence of God which is outside the realm of the Scientific Method.

It is also out of the realm of their agenda to preach a Godless doctrine.

Scimi

 

[MustafaMc]

It is also out of the realm of their agenda to preach a Godless doctrine.

Scimi

Assalamu alaikum, akhi. Somehow I believe that you captured the essence of ToE in a nutshell. It all boils down to either 1) God created life and all species of life or 2) life just randomly happened and the various higher life forms developed from simple ones merely by chance and naturalistic processes.

 

[Science101]

I agree with you 100% that so-called macroevolution or the evolution of new, more complex species from more basic and simple ones is not adequate. I contend that ToE goes beyond the bounds of the scientific method and it is in this respect a faith-based religion as is Islam.

Yes, the theory is regularly used to promote many religions like Theistic Evolutionism and Atheism.

I do not disagree that the elements of ToE are at work within species to adapt to changes in their environment. For example, I work in agriculture and there are many examples of pesticides that were once highly effective in killing both weeds and insects, but are now ineffective. The extensive use of these pesticides exerted a very strong selection pressure on the existing genetic variation within those populations. The result was that those pests that survived could reproduce and spread throughout the areas previously populated by individuals of the same species that were susceptible to those pesticides. So, yes, microevolution, or changes within a species, has been documented and is an illustration of some of the principles of ToE.

That is an excellent example of where the theory has some explanatory power. One limitation is that the theory does not predict how the mechanism producing this variation works, the theory just states that such a mechanism exists.

And on pests and insects, I hope you saw the new research showing resistance from bacteria that live in thegut of the insect, at least in these cases not the insect itself:

http://the-scientist.com/2012/04/23/bacterial-insecticide-resistance/

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/04/19/1200231109.abstract

The ToE sure did not predict that happening, but the one I write explains complex social systems like this where one thing cannot be explained without considering all others living with them in the same environment.

Unfortunately, many describe the theory like it includes all in biology, and believe that a better explanation than that is impossible.

My contention is that science has no business in trying to solve the mystery of how we came into existence and that efforts to put forth hypotheses and theories to explain it are woefully inadequate yet they are being taught as fact to children.

The mystery of how we came into existence is certainly one of the biggest questions of them all, and is source of much conflict. But with science beginning to make more sense according to Islamic and Christian scriptures I have reason to be hopeful for future science classrooms.

It is good that students know its basics but they also need to know its limitations. Best way to precisely know what it is a model of is to know how a Genetic Algorithm works, which is actually rather simple and can randomly try many variations of fan blades to find one that works better than another, but it’s really no big deal. I personally think GA’s are totally boring. Avida is considered one of the best for biological cells, which is here in case anyone wants to see or maybe for some reason try it on their computer, like I years ago did, then again found a GA boring:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/Nature03_Complex.pdf

I don't believe that Creation per se should be taught in schools and that if ToE is taught as a possible theory, then Intelligent Design should also be taught as a possible explanation for the inadequacies of ToE. However, this touches upon the existence of God which is outside the realm of the Scientific Method.

You can be more much more optimistic than that MustafaMc because it is not the fault of science that some use scientific theory religiously. We all like to see evidence “go our way” and I’m a little guilty of being glad it did NOT go where the Atheism camp predicted. And I think you rather that too, even though that makes us both kinda guilty of the same thing, but we don’t need to apologize. Once a theory establishes itself in science the rules are the same for each side, therefore Atheists and all else who need the theory to remain in science need to stop complaining about another being used the same way, by us. As long as we do not exaggerate what a scientific theory is able to explain and are clear what is science and what is religion there is nothing unscientific about it at all. So yes Atheists can get away with it, but as a result all you have heard about Intelligent Design not being a scientific theory because of that is based upon information from before there was even a Theory of Intelligent Design in existence, being experimented with.

Not to brag or sound like a spammy sales pitch, but when the Intelligence Design Lab at Planet Source Code is objectively compared to the Avida paper there is no contest as to which is most awesome for making things that come alive on the screen. I’m still happy that the authors were able to get their hard work published in such a prestigious science journal, but it is another GA not something scientific minds of all ages recognize as vital to know about for virtual-life type experiments, as I did. The real test is how well Avida would do after a similar protest against it being brought to Planet Source Code, whether it would still become an award winner in peer review from ones who know how to code in that language and know what they are useful for. If it cannot show that then it is not the kind of computer model to find such a wide-acceptance. In this case it is something students who are entering universities would more likely already know, not something they first learn there. This is much better, for a scientific theory.