A Question which Atheists could not answer

[Independent]

And why not? "Be! And it is!"

Like i say, the idea that God created the mechanism of TOE, rather than mimicking the result by creating each species one by one, is far more logical and consistent with the idea of God as expressed generally in Islam and Christianity.

 

[greenhill]

The muslim belief is that nothing happens without the Will of Allah. Nothing I do is without the Will of Allah and there is a saying -

Laa haula wala quwata ilaa billah which roughly translates to 'there is no power or might except by the Will of Allah' that it happens. So when there is a 'need' for change He merely Wills it to happen and it does. Following from the basic fact that everything is made from water and the other basic building blocks, a minor change in the make up and 'Kun fayakun' - we have something else, which over a long period of time will show up in TOE.

In the meantime, Syaitan 'whispers' to to mislead people from the true path, very much like what he did to Adam and Eve and the rest of his descendants.

Peace :shade:

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

Originally Posted by Eric H
The evolution of the eye, is pretty much a done and dusted subject with TOE, but I believe it is dishonest in its claims.

i understand your objections and I don't think the issue is done and dusted either.

I have spent about the past hour, looking at the evolution of the eye, at sites that link Dawkins, schools and the BBC, this seems to Give Dawkins an overrated credibility. Dawkins talks confidently that the eye evolved ‘quickly and easily; he repeatedly uses words like imagine, perhaps and if; to explain how it happened.
He has not described how any of these stages contributed any biological benefit to the species, He does not mention the brain, or how anything else evolves alongside the eye, to make it a beneficial mutation, this seems dishonest, he is a scientist. What he has described is how an isolated piece of junk evolved over half a million years’

He might have explained how a Box Brownie Camera evolved, but if there is no one to pick up the camera, take photos and develop the pictures, the camera is a heap of junk, it might just as well be in a council land fill site, with a load more junk.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/schools/...acherspack_lesson_7_evolution_and_the_eye.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/teachers/bang/series_3_4/videos/lesson7_evolution_and_eye.shtml

On the same website they describe how the compound eye works, it is like looking through a bundle of thirty thousand straws. Fine they have described how it works, but they do not dare to mention how it evolved, or how a brain evolved that would collate information from thirty thousand sources, these eyes are found on insects.

But for me, the evidence that TOE has happened is beyond doubt.

I believe much of Darwin’s work; has made a contribution to understanding our world today. The problem becomes apparent; when you take this theory; and extrapolate back to single cell life.

How it happened still needs working on.

I look at Dawkins thoughts, and wonder where his motives and intentions lay, does he want to promote evolution, or does he want to destroy religion. My own feelings lead me to think Dawkins motives are to destroy religion, more than he wants to promote evolution.

What it does not need is the extraordinary hostility and aggression deployed against it.

You are right, both sides fuel an argument, I think we need to sort this out in the old fashioned way with honour, pistols or swords

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Independent]

The muslim belief is that nothing happens without the Will of Allah.

Yes, but this could be in the sense that He made the laws that govern evolution, in the same way as the laws that govern gravity etc. Either way we can take TOE at face value as the best description of observable available.

 

[Independent]

I look at Dawkins thoughts, and wonder where his motives and intentions lay, does he want to promote evolution, or does he want to destroy religion. My own feelings lead me to think Dawkins motives are to destroy religion, more than he wants to promote evolution.

I read 'The Selfish Gene' when it came out and really enjoyed it. It's a brilliant and stimulating concept, whether it stands the test of time or not. At a stroke it transforms the way we look at evolution.

As far as i remember it made no mention of religion in any direction, but i could be wrong. That is a battle he has taken on later. i think the primary reason is in reaction to Christian fundamentalism in the US and the attempt to replace TOE with Creationism in schools. Today there's no doubt Dawkins is on a mission to combat Creationism and therefore religion. Because he has actually contributed some original thought along the way I still like to read him but I can see why you wouldn't.

 

[CosmicPathos]

This has been in the news very recently. The capacity to extract ancient DNA answers some questions which may otherwise have always remained unanswerable. Exactly how closely are Neanderthals and Denisovans related to us, or are they completely different species - non man, apes? The answer is 'close enough to breed successfully at least some of the time'. The dna evidence shows a small amount of interbreeding, mostly likely between a relatively small number of individuals at an early stage, when populations were smaller.

'Though Denisovans and Neanderthals eventually died out, they left behind bits of their genetic heritage because they occasionally interbred with modern humans. The research team estimates that between 1.5 and 2.1 percent of the genomes of modern non-Africans can be traced to Neanderthals.

Denisovans also left genetic traces in modern humans, though only in some Oceanic and Asian populations.
About 6% of the genomes of Aboriginal Australians, New Guineans and some Pacific Islanders can be traced to Denisovans, studies suggest.
The new analysis finds that the genomes of Han Chinese and other mainland Asian populations, as well as of Native Americans, contain about 0.2% Denisovan genes.'

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a...a+bbc&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10

More here and on many other sites if you google:

http://www.livescience.com/42218-2013-human-origins-discoveries.html

This presents creationists with a dilemma. Most now choose to redefine Neanderthals, Denisovans and the third unknown species (possibily homo erectus) as 'human'. However, they diverge in dna more considerably than any human yet analysed. They don't look the same, and they don't seem to have behaved the same (which is why they are extinct and we are not). It makes creationism look very awkward, trying to explain them. And because this is human descent, it's far more significant than an animal.

What news? Which newspaper? Written by a journalist (haha!)? In which language? From which country? That is not scientific evidence.

All you have done is presented far-fetched claims and statements and conclusions from news websites with no actual substantiating evidence.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

I read 'The Selfish Gene' when it came out and really enjoyed it.

A worrying title for a book, Dawkins seems to have made a small fortune, promoting his selfish gene, no comments on the book, as I have not read it, but he is an interesting man.

As far as i remember it made no mention of religion in any direction, but i could be wrong. That is a battle he has taken on later. i think the primary reason is in reaction to Christian fundamentalism in the US

Dawkins seems to challenge Christian fundamentalism, with atheist fundamentalism, making even more fundamentalists. I am not sure how you can defeat fundamentalism, by increasing their numbers?

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Signor]

Surprising Number Of Americans Don't Believe In Evolution

​

One in three Americans doesn't believe in evolution, according to new survey results from the Pew Research Center.


The results, released Monday in report on views about human evolution, show that 33 percent of Americans think "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

Among Americans who said they believe in evolution, a quarter said “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.”

While six-in-ten Americans said they believed that “humans and other living things have evolved over time" and about half of them said processes such as natural selection -- not God -- that led to evolution, religion continues to play a significant role in how it's viewed.

White evangelical Protestants were most likely to not believe in evolution, with two-thirds saying humans have existed in their current form since the beginning of time. Half of black Protestants said the same. Only 15 percent of mainline Protestants agreed.


Views among the general population have remained roughly the same since Pew last surveyed on evolution in 2009, although the gap between Republicans and Democrats on the issue has grown. Currently, 43 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats believe in human evolution, while in 2009, 54 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Democrats held that view.

Monday's results were based upon a national survey Pew conducted between March 21 to April 8 with a representative sample of 1,983 adults. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.


A September HuffPost/YouGov survey also asked about views on evolution. That poll found that a quarter of Americans believe humans and other species evolved "without the guidance of God," while 14 percent didn't believe in evolution. About 46 percent of respondents said evolution happened "over time with the guidance of God."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/evolution-survey_n_4519441.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

 

[Independent]

A worrying title for a book, Dawkins seems to have made a small fortune, promoting his selfish gene

It's a provocative title but a good one - designed to make you think and encapsulating the core of the idea in three words. His contribution is to look at the issue of survival from the point of view of the gene, rather than the individual creature. Surprisingly, this gives new meaning to many behaviours. For instance it explains why many altruistic behaviours are positively reinforced by selection (eg close relatives helping with children). The individual may be disadvantaged, but the gene survives and it's the gene that lives on, not the indidividual.

 

[Independent]

What news? Which newspaper? Written by a journalist (haha!)? In which language? From which country? That is not scientific evidence.

All you have done is presented far-fetched claims and statements and conclusions from news websites with no actual substantiating evidence

A strange objection. The discoveries have been widely reported by many major organisations such as the BBC (as they should be, because they are very important). I would expect every country's major news source would have reported it but I'm not doing a survey to find out.

They are reporting on the release of scientific articles which have been published in special science journals. You can find these too if you want although some of them have to be paid for and they are not an easy read for the non specialist.

Why on earth would you dismiss such sources out of hand? The core of the story is dna evidence which is entirely factual. You don't have to agree with their comments if you find them inaccurate. But if you refuse to accept the report as a whole, even the factual core, I don't know how you can believe in anything at all.

What quality of information would you accept? What's left?

 

[Independent]

One in three Americans doesn't believe in evolution, according to new survey results from the Pew Research Center.

Yes, I've seen the survey (most but not all Islamic countries also have a low rate).

The US is a strange country. When people talk about 'the West' they primarily have the US in mind. Yet I would argue it's the least characteristic of all western countries. In particular it remains very influenced by the spirit of the various religious groups who left Europe for the New World who developed on a different path from those who remained behind.

Dawkins has taken on this battle primarily because of what's happened in the US rather than Europe or elsewhere. But of course, the issue itself knows no boundaries.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

i think the primary reason is in reaction to Christian fundamentalism in the US and the attempt to replace TOE with Creationism in schools. Today there's no doubt Dawkins is on a mission to combat Creationism and therefore religion.

I agree with Dawkins that creationism is not science, and it should not be taught in science classes in school. It should not be replaced by more dubious science, like the evolution of the eye. Dawkins is misleading people with his explanation that the eye could evolve quickly and easily. He is more misleading by omitting the need for the brain, etc to evolve with each beneficial mutation of the eye.

He might be convincing in the short term, but I believe this incomplete theory will crash

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[RedGuard]

What's wrong with the evolution of the eye? The mechanism of its evolution was already proposed by Darwin and later proven right.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you RedGuard;

What's wrong with the evolution of the eye? The mechanism of its evolution was already proposed by Darwin and later proven right

The evolution of the eye seems to stem from the 1994 Nilsson and Pelger paper.

In 1994 Nilsson and Pelger published what was to become an oft-referenced classic paper on the evolution of the complex camera-type eye starting from a simple light sensitive eyespot.22 In their paper they argued that a series of insensible gradations, 1829 steps in all separated by 1% changes in visual acuity, could be crossed by an evolving population in about 350,000 generations - - or around 500,000 years. The following figures illustrate their theory:

It took a mere 1,829 steps for the eye to evolve, but how does the brain evolve 1,829 times to understand each beneficial mutation, how is each new improved vision passed on to limbs, so it will respond to the eye?

Omitting this minor problem, does not seem very helpful to science.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[greenhill]

What's wrong with the evolution of the eye?

the need for the brain, etc to evolve with each beneficial mutation of the eye.

In other words, things need to evolve in conjunction with its surroundings and supporting network.

The mechanism of its evolution was already proposed by Darwin and later proven right.

Not sure if it can be said 'proven right' because it is merely stating observations and findings, articulating the process, not inventing the process. Like what Independent says, it has the 'appearance of TOE' based on observations and findings. But still, it does not mean that we, humans evolved from the sea, or even apes. Changes occur within a specie, yes. Not into another specie.

Peace :shade:

 

[Independent]

Like what Independent says, it has the 'appearance of TOE' based on observations and findings. But still, it does not mean that we, humans evolved from the sea, or even apes. Changes occur within a specie, yes. Not into another specie.

To clarify, I am using the term 'TOE lookalike world' (a world with the appearance you would expect if TOE were correct) in order to separate two areas of debate, not because I don't think TOE is real.

One area of debate is the mechanism. This is the least finished from a science point of view, yet it is almost the only area that gets talked about by Creationists (who attack the notion that beneficial mutations could happen fast enough by chance to account for complex organisms). Bear in mind that in Darwin's day, the study of genetics hadn't even begun so this was not the reason for TOE. Even if the suggested mechanism is proved wrong, it doesn't disprove TOE, only the suggested mechanism. However, TOE could be proved wrong by contrary evidence in the second area of debate.

The second area, which was the reason for TOE, is the vast set of observable data that tells us that 100% of all known species have occurred in the correct time, the correct place, and with the correct characteristics, to remain consistent with TOE. This evidence has increased vastly since Darwin's day (more fossils etc) and is mostly accepted even by many Creationists. Therefore they need to account for it if they are to claim that the cause of this was Creationism, not TOE.

The issue is not whether one fossil is the descendent of another (which is hard to prove) but whether each fossil fits with the overall trend and expectation of TOE - which is easy to prove.

This in turn leads to the dilemma of what kind of God could create a world with all the evidence for TOE, knowing it would deceive so many people? It makes more sense for God to create the mechanism of evolution, or TOE, than to imitate it step by step, creature by creature. For this reason I suggest that disbelief in TOE is incompatible with belief in a Christian or Muslim God. (Obviously this is a controversial thing to say and I'm not expecting people to agree to that easily. But I cannot see any other logical explanation for the information we have.)

I personally don't see religion as having anything to do with TOE, or vice versa. But regrettably it has become increasingly contentious in recent decades, just when you'd think the issue would be receding, having been largely accepted in the west a long time ago.

 

[Muhaba]

Our problem is not with evolution but with the belief that it all happened by itself without any intervention from God. If some species evolved, then God 'programmed' them to evolve, gave them the ability to evolve. Nothing happens without God's Will or permission. The problem is that when atheists speak about evolution, they make it seem like it happened from start to end all by itself (without God). They believe that God doesn't exist (which is why they claim to be atheists) and that matter/organism has the capability to evolve all by itself without involvement of God.
As for humankind, it is clear from the Quran that humans were created in their human form by God directly and they did not evolve from another organism.

 

[جوري]

I do have a problem with 'evolution' as in speciation - it's not observed adaptation is and not always for the better btw when squamous cells adapt in the esophagus to become more columnar from repeated insults it's an impending sign of cancer.
So don't be fooled by the BS atheists peddle, it's their religion and they preach problem is they can't fully describe its tenets so that it has a logical consistency and if they did it wouldn't require that many pages.
It would require one or two pieces of reproducible evidence not conjecture and fill in the blanks!

 

[RedGuard]

IF you think that speciation cannot take place then what's your methodology for distinguishing whether it took place or not? Are you sure that humans living today are the same species as the ones living e.g. in the times of Jesus? Maybe someone "transformed" them?

 

[جوري]

IF you think that speciation cannot take place then what's your methodology for distinguishing whether it took place or not? Are you sure that humans living today are the same species as the ones living e.g. in the times of Jesus? Maybe someone "transformed" them?

That's a non-question and a non-assertion. I don't know where you're going with this and don't care to humor delusions of your psyche.