Where does God fit in?

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

When you say random mutation, what tools does nature have to bring about these mutations?

You just need self-replicating genetic material. Errors in replicating these materials are mutations. Have a look at the page I provided, it should help a lot.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

You mention RANDOM mutaion which must also take error into account.

And it does. Like I said, random mutation is giving you a piece of new trait. If this trait is beneficial to the organism, it will help it survive, reproduce and become dominant (over time of course). If it is harmful, it'll die and with its death, the mutation will disappear.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

If you compound all these odds together, there seems to be no way nature could do this without help.

Evolution doesn't work that way at all. Nothing is instantaneous, nothing is built up fully-functioning by chance. If you want, I could provide some more information to clarify things out.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

If the unicellular organism had a mitotic failure and the spindle fibers didn't attach to the centromeres to divide resulting in a diploid, that implies a deleterious mutation had occurred that would continue (haploid>diploid>tetraploid>octaploid) indefinitely or be eliminated immediately as conferring a selective disadvantage.

This would kill the cell, stopping the mutation from spreading.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

I am unaware of any real world examples for this. Can you give a few?

Well, the ploidy cycle is a characteristic of any cell undergoing meiosis. It's doubling the amount of DNA in a cell, and meiosis, which halves it. The result is a 'ploidy cycle' of alternating diploid and haploid phases. This would have been beneficial to early cells as doubling the amount of DNA would give the cell the advantage of having "spare parts" in case a molecule gets damaged, so it could fix it. You can read more here (it's short but got loads of sources): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v370/n6486/abs/370213a0.html

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

You are assuming that the change went instantly from mitosis to fully functional meiosis which is counter to the ToE MO.

No, I didn't. It probably sounded that way but what I meant was not today's complicated process of meiosis, but a basic ancestral process.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Insha'Allah I will watch later when I have more time.

Please do. I assure you they explain things WAY better than I do, as the person who made the videos is an actual biologist, I'm not.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

My perspective and opinion is that ToE is no more than a semi-plausible theory that is actually more of a hypothesis.

It really isn't, though. There's loads of evidence supporting evolution and loads of evolutionary predictions that are met by nature. It makes the best explanation of life given the evidence. And it is one of the world's most influencial theories since, as the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, "nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution. If you'd like me to present examples of evidence for evolution, please say so.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

What repeatable scientific testing has been conducted and what data has been collected to support ToE on a macro scale?

There is a lot of pieces of evidence for evolution everywhere. Forget fossils and physical similarities. DNA evidence shows it (the way DNA diverges and changes between species which evolution predicts recent common ancestry for), physical, anatomical and behavioural vestiges, ERVs that match in two species' genomes, chromosomal fusion in, for example, humans, and many more. Once again if you want to know more I'd love to provide info.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

You are comfortable with the mythical creating capacity of 'Mother Nature' and 'Father Time' while I am comfortable with a supernatural, unperceivable 'Creator'.

The thing is, the theories I propose are tested and verified in labs. Scientists have won Nobel Prizes over these. That is how we know that these theories are plausible and highly possible. But there is no such procedure or evidence for a supernatural. Otherwise, it wouldn't be supernatural, would it? Remember that what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

I am content to leave it be that 'God did it' as I have no need or desire to prove that He didn't do it.

I respect that but such attitude would never mean progress. Had we stuck to God did it, we'd still be reading blessings upon sick people and asking God to forgive them and raise the curse off them, as God put that curse. But thanks to the opposing attitude, we now know that germs did it. And sure as hell we can kill those germs, correct?

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

You have faith

It is anything but that.. I do not have faith with science, I acknowledge it. If a scientist came to me and claimed something without showing me how he knew such thing or how he got to it, I wouldn't believe them. That's the difference between faith and acknowledgement/acceptance.

Thanks for your participation MustafaMc. Much appreciated.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar

And it does. Like I said, random mutation is giving you a piece of new trait. If this trait is beneficial to the organism, it will help it survive, reproduce and become dominant (over time of course). If it is harmful, it'll die and with its death, the mutation will disappear.

However, most mutations are deleterious and lead to an impaired as opposed to improved function. Furthermore, most mutations are recessive and expressed only when homozygous. This means that the mutation would not be expressed unless it was passed on from both parents, both of which did not benefit (or be harmed) by the mutation. Let's say the frequency of a mutation in the population is 1:1,000 (0.001) and the frequency of both parents carrying the mutation would be 0.001 X 0.001 or 1:1,000,000. The frequency of a progeny from this mating (1 normal:2 heterozygous:1 mutant) being homozygous for the mutation is 1/4. In other words the frequency of an individual expressing the mutation that occurs at a frequency of 1:1,000 is 1:4,000,000. As evidence for mutations mostly being deleterious, when was the last time that close incest resulted in a child that was more fit, stronger or smarter than the parents?

Evolution doesn't work that way at all. Nothing is instantaneous, nothing is built up fully-functioning by chance.

However, the fossil record indicates that speciation has occurred in leaps as opposed to gradually.

No, I didn't. It probably sounded that way but what I meant was not today's complicated process of meiosis, but a basic ancestral process.

Yes, I understand that the change would need to be gradual, but as I indicated earlier, I don't see a selective advantage unless we have a fully functional process. It is sorta like building a car and stopping at putting the tires on. The car is worthless as a mode of transportation without the tires.

It makes the best explanation of life given the evidence. And it is one of the world's most influencial theories since, as the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, "nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.

I don't deny that ToE is widely known and reasonably well accepted in the scientific community; however, I disagree with your statement that 'nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution'. I am a plant geneticist and I work with some pretty amazing stuff. For example, I work with genetically engineered plants that express genes isolated from bacteria. In a strange sense of the word, I am a practicing evolutionist.

The thing is, the theories I propose are tested and verified in labs. Scientists have won Nobel Prizes over these. That is how we know that these theories are plausible and highly possible. But there is no such procedure or evidence for a supernatural. Otherwise, it wouldn't be supernatural, would it? Remember that what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.

I personally don't get the big deal about trying to prove the origin of things. Assuming that someone is able to eventually prove ToE beyond a shadow of doubt and it becomes the Law of Evolution, what will be the practical application of it to everyday life. Is the objective to prove there was no creation and everything that exists just happened to come into being by natural processes and chance occurrence? Is the objective to prove that God does not exist except in the minds of theistic people? For myself, the world as we know it is evidence enough of a Creator and my choice is to believe in Allah as the One God without father, mother, son, daughter or equal. I accept Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the last messenger of Allah and the Quran as the literal Word of Allah. I accept what the Quran says about the creation of the worlds without having a need to know the how of it.

To ask 'Where does God fit in?' is actually a blasphemous question. God does not fit in the works of nature. It is in fact quite the opposite. Allah SubHanahu wa Ta'ala is the One who created the nature. He is the One who assigned different roles to the forces of nature. He is the One who created the outcomes of the different activities. He is One who controls each and every activity of His creations. He is the One by Whose permission any creation can produce an effect. As we already agreed earlier, He is the One who created the cause and He is the One who assigned the effects of the cause as we know them now.

He is the One Whose knowledge encompasses everything. He is the One who created everything out of nothing. He is One who designed everything which had no design. He is the One who kept everything in its perfect measure.

He is the One who, when he decided to create man, created everything for his sake. He is the One who perfected the conditions of earth before sending the man to earth. He is the One who kept the distance between the sun and the earth optimal for man's survival. Was it science that measured the optimal distance? Or was it nature that rolled the earth at its optimal distance? What is nature but the command of Allah?

He is the One who created the blanket of atmosphere on the surface of the earth. Who decided to create the ozone layer to protect man from harmful rays?
He is the One who created the perfect gravitational pull of earth required by man to walk. He is the One who provided the means of life to man on earth. He is the One who created oxygen in its fixed proportion. He is the One who tilted the axis of the earth to cause change in seasons, and prevented the global glaciation. He is the One who fixed the duration of day and night and keeps increasing and decreasing it slightly throughout the year. Was it nature that decided the day to be of 24 hours on its own?

He is the One who created the moon, a light for the night, and adorned the sky with stars. He is the One who knew man would marvel at the sparkling stars so created them hundreds and thousands of light years before man. He is the One who created the rivers to irrigate the land, and drain the waste in sea. He is the One who created the sea salty and keeps the salinity in fixed proportion. He is the One who prevented the mixture of salt and sweet water. Who would have provided you water to drink had He not kept the land water palatable?

He is the One who granted you eyes to see and ears to hear. He is the One who granted the eye lens the ability to adjust its focal length to focus properly on distant and closer objects. He is the One who limited the human hearing range in terms of distance as well as in terms of frequency. Had it been unlimited, the noise pollution would have made it impossible for man to live.

He is the One who allows the sun to evaporate water and then holds it high above the ground in the clouds. He is the One who allows the wind to push the clouds to waterless areas. He is the One who creates the potential difference between the clouds by which the clouds attract themselves and collide on to each other. He is the One who sends down rain in the form of droplets. He is the One who controls the speed of droplets falling on crops and land. Had He not controlled them, they would have completely altered the landscape by their forceful impact.

He is the One who created each and everything to serve man. He is the One who sent man as His vicegerent on earth. He is the One who sent Prophets and Messengers to guide mankind whenever they went astray. He is the One who sent Muhammad as the last and final Messenger. He is the One who completed His religion on Muhammad . He is the One who gave us a perfect way of life through Muhammad . He is the One who will gather us all on the Day of Resurrection. He is the One who will judge our actions on that day. He is the One who created everlasting paradise for those who believe in Him. فَالْيَوْمَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنَ الْكُفَّارِ يَضْحَكُونَ


Allah SubHanahu wa Ta'ala is recognised by His signs and bounties. I already linked a thread to you. Here's another one: http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...gns-allah.html

سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

However, most mutations are deleterious and lead to an impaired as opposed to improved function.

Actually, most mutations are neutral. And beneficial mutations aren't that scarce. We've seen too many within our own lifetimes. The mutation that gave bacteria the ability to digest nylon, mutations that occur to pathogens that make them resistant to antibodies (biggest example is HIV). I could give plenty more if you'd like.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

This means that the mutation would not be expressed unless it was passed on from both parents,

Not necessarily. Mutations are changes in the DNA. A mutation can change a gene slightly, giving a different allele. The new allele can code for a slightly different protein. If the normal allele codes for an active enzyme, the new allele may still code for the same active enzyme, may code for an inactive protein, or may code for an active enzyme that catalyzes a different reaction. Of these options, coding for the same active enzyme may be the most common, but then we don't usually notice there's been a mutation. Coding for an inactive protein is the next most likely outcome. So, most of the time when there is a mutation that produces any noticeable effect at all, it produces an allele that codes for an inactive protein. A heterozygote Aa produces some active enzyme and some inactive protein. Most often, one "dose" of active enzyme catalyzes the normal reaction enough to produce a normal appearance, so we say that the allele A is dominant, and the mutant allele a is recessive. Remember that not all genes are Mendelian. And you forgot that most mutations occur after fertilization, and this negates the need of both parents having the same mutation. In future generations, the offspring that express that mutation (if beneficial) the most, would have survival advantage over the others.
Nonetheless, there are plenty of exceptions. Certain types of dwarfism in humans are caused by a dominant mutant allele, for instance.
Just a side note.. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations. Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations.
These are real scientific findings produced by real scientists. You can find the above numbers in these two books:
Drake, J. W., B. Charlesworth, D. Charlesworth, and J. F. Crow. 1998. Rates of spontaneous mutation. Genetics 148: 1667-1686.
Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

However, the fossil record indicates that speciation has occurred in leaps as opposed to gradually.

The fossil record has huge gaps. We are lucky enough with what we find, seeing how hard the process of fossilisation is. However, still though, we do find many, MANY intermediate fossils that show gradual evolution in almost every single class of animals out there. You ask for it, I name it.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

I don't see a selective advantage unless we have a fully functional process.

Each step along the way had its own selective advantage, like I briefly explained above. Did you watch the two attached videos? It really is useless to discuss this point before you do.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

I don't deny that ToE is widely known and reasonably well accepted in the scientific community

Well over 99.85% of biologists in America alone accept evolution as a true theory. (Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation.)

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

I disagree with your statement

Not mine, mate. It's Dobzhansky's. And he's a biologist.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

In a strange sense of the word, I am a practicing evolutionist.

True. That makes me even more surprised that you don't accept evolution. o.O

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Assuming that someone is able to eventually prove ToE beyond a shadow of doubt and it becomes the Law of Evolution

No no no no no no no.. First of all evolution IS proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be true. Ask any honest biologist and they will tell you so, even the religious ones. Second, theories don't become laws.. Theories use laws to explain facts, in the broadest sense. Evolution is a theory. And even if you had a time machine and fast-forwarded the last 65-million years to see mammals and birds evolving from reptiles with your very eyes, it would still be called a theory. A law is a law, like the law of natural selection, which the theory of evolution uses to explain the many relevant facts.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

what will be the practical application of it to everyday life.

Here's some of what understanding evolutionary theory is good for:
1. Wider biology: The evolutionary approach is key to much current research in biology that does not set out to study evolution per se, especially in organismal biology and ecology. For example, evolutionary thinking is key to life history theory. Annotation of genes and their function relies heavily on comparative, that is evolutionary, approaches. The field of evolutionary developmental biology investigates how developmental processes work by using the comparative method to determine how they evolved.
2. Medicine: Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony. Also, understanding the changes that have occurred during an organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders. For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.
Computer science: As evolution can produce highly optimised processes and networks, it has many applications in computer science. Simulations of evolution using evolutionary algorithms and artificial life started with the work of Nils Aall Barricelli in the 1960s, and was extended by Alex Fraser, who published a series of papers on simulation of artificial selection. Artificial evolution became a widely recognised optimisation method as a result of the work of Ingo Rechenberg in the 1960s and early 1970s, who used evolution strategies to solve complex engineering problems.

I could write a whole book on what benefits we gain from understanding evolution.. Just Google "Applications of evolution."

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Is the objective to prove that God does not exist except in the minds of theistic people?

Not at all. God and evolution are perfectly compatible. Even Islam and evolution are compatible. Evolution only contradicts the literary interpretation of the Bible.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

without having a need to know the how of it.

This is the only part I don't agree with. Even the Quran tells Muslims to work out the how's of things..

That's very poetic, AabiruSabeel. Thanks.

format_quote Originally Posted by Riham

All scientists are in agreement that the earth is round in shape.

You mean geoidal. :P
And still, no. You'd still find those minority who believe earth is flat. Just as much as there are those minority of scientists and even geologists who still believe the earth is 6000 years old. But those people (along with scientists who don't accept evolution) are as little as less than 1% (read my last input for the exact figure).

format_quote Originally Posted by Riham

This happens when you are faced with the 100% truth.

Well, nobody disputes facts. Milk being white is a fact. Objects falling on the ground is a fact. Hot air rising is a fact. However, gravitational theory is a theory. Air density and expansion is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Theories are explanations of facts. Those are things that people are allowed to think differently of. (as long as they offer an alternative theory). Newtonian gravity was partially replaced for Einstein's relativity theory. It didn't turn Newtonian gravity up-side down, it just refined it. Like you sharpen a pencil.

format_quote Originally Posted by Riham

Truth is not determined by the majority.

That's right. Don't be fooled by numbers. But what those majority say about what they accept is what makes it true. Not because they are a majority.

Thanks for your answer. I appreciate that.

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Riham

Where "all scientists" are in agreement.... "all people" are also in agreement. This happens when you are faced with the 100% truth. You cannot but agree with the 100% truth.

Please have a look at the Flat Earth Society's website. Read a few forum posts there. Strange as it seems, these people are not kidding.

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan

This year, CERN found out through data from their experiments that some particles traveled faster than light.

Not really.. http://news.yahoo.com/faster-light-p...210205193.html

I read the whole article, thank you. I don't need you questioning that.
My point is that this is not yet a confirmed scientific finding, as opposed to what you suggested.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм

Can you post reference to where the Qur'aan states muslims should work out the 'how' to everything?

2:164: Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, and the [great] ships which sail through the sea with that which benefits people, and what Allah has sent down from the heavens of rain, giving life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness and dispersing therein every [kind of] moving creature, and [His] directing of the winds and the clouds controlled between the heaven and the earth are signs for a people who use reason.

22:46: So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.

3:190: Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding.

Just to name a few..

And there are literally tens of verses in the Quran that end with "will you not reason?" and "will you not remember?" and Muslims at some point were masters of the art of discovering the what, the how and the when of everything they knew from medicine to engineering, from chemistry to astronomy. Don't try to tell me that the Quran discourages critical thinking. In fact, if it did, it would be a big black mark on Islam, dear.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм

and even if this research is correct it is only their research, they will only provide evidence to what they conclude, it is their research and not their creation.

There is a strict scientific method which every single scientific hypothesis has to pass through if it is to be taken seriously. One of the rules in the scientific method, is that the tests done should be re-done by other scientists all over the world and yield the same result. Otherwise, the hypothesis would be binned.
As for the certainty of a scientific theory, there is a mathematical theorem called the Bayesian Inference in which evidence is used to infer the probability that I hypothesis is true. Using this theorem, the theory of evolution, for example, passes the test with an astonishing near-100% probability to be true. That is because evolution makes predictions that are later confirmed. Evolution makes hundreds of predictions that are confirmed day in and day out. If you want to learn more about evolutionary predictions or the Bayesian Inference, let me know.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм

who would know better than the creator!

And how would you know that it is the creator that's talking to you?

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм

the brain alone-

-has a complete record of an evolutionary past on which countless peer-reviewed books and papers have been published. We know EXACTLY how the vertebrate brain evolved from very primitive chemical compounds to its present state. Want more? Ask me for it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм

you believe all that science says

Correction: I believe all that science proves. i.e., hypotheses that pass the excruciating scientific method and are verified by predictions and falsified by none of the related facts and pieces of evidence. If a scientist comes up to me and says: X happened. I'd say: where's your evidence? Once they provide this evidence, I too can say: X happened and is true.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм

how was the very first human or even living thing placed on this earth? What does your science say about this? does it have an answer?

Yes, it does. There is a whole branch of science called abiogenesis where Nobel-Prize-winning scientists make, test and verify hypotheses as to how life arose on earth. Now, humans evolved gradually from more primitive life forms over the past three and a half billion years. The very first form of life was a simple self-replicating organic molecule that was proven to form spontaneously within the pre-biotic environment. Dr Jack Szostak is one of the most noted scientists to work in this field. He won the Nobel Prize, by the way. If you want the full answer to your question (which would take an essay to write here), have a look at this video, which is a demonstration of Dr Szostak's confirmed work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Thanks for your reply.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan

2,000 years ago, the scientists (or philosophers, basically the smartest people around of the day) concluded that earth was flat.
And people who trust and have belief in those smart people also believed that earth was flat. There were civilizations who believed that their science and technology were all there is (witness egyptians even thousands of years earlier)

fast forward 2,000 years.

Today, there are also people who believe what scientists concluded and think that science is all there is and human knowledge has reached pinnacle.

in the past half century people believe that absolutely nothing can travel faster than light, thanks to Einstein.
This year, CERN found out through data from their experiments that some particles traveled faster than light.

What's new?

Just going to point out that the claim that all scientist believed the earth was flat 2000 year ago is incorrect. In fact, they were able to measure the circumference of the earth with pretty good accuracy.

Just a bit of fact checking.

Thanks.

format_quote Originally Posted by Riham

People are free to believe whatever they like... if they want to believe that the sun, moon, cloud, cow, bull, snake, ram.... is their god,I have absolutely no problem with it.

Neither have I. I only stand against these people if they start shoving their beliefs down their children's throats and down the throats of others, start demanding secular states to incorporate their religious beliefs into the state's laws and start holy wars just because their religion tells them to. As long as people keep it to themselves, they are free to believe whatever they like.