Evolution

This question keeps coming up again and again, we had a whole discussion here http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...cts-quran.html

I chose to put question about human evolution in the box of unsolved mystery.

format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto

I chose to put question about human evolution in the box of unsolved mystery

I would imagine that box will never be empty during our experience on Earth.

I sometimes still hate not knowing the answers to such things, but I have learned to shrug, smile and say: "I don't know". Some things are just not that important.

format_quote Originally Posted by GodIsAll

I would imagine that box will never be empty during our experience on Earth.

The "unsolved mystery" box is only for human evolution. For other mysteries like universe, human behavior, etc, there is "should be solved mysteries" box.

But I also have a trash bin, special for silly questions like "how to get rich without work".

format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze

The Theory of Evolution

I thought that this was a very informative article. I believe that ToE is hogwash and is a feeble, pseudo-scientific attempt to explain the origin of man without the need for a Creator. I believe those who believe in naturalistic evolution without any Intelligent Design or involvement of the Creator are disingenuous or they lack an understanding of biology and probabilities.

format_quote Originally Posted by Tragic Typos

Salaam,

How come they lack understanding of biology and probability? Just curious because this is an area that I'm not familiar with.

Consider the fact that a protein is the result of DNA being translated, but DNA replication requires enzymes (proteins). I am sure that seems like a puzzle and a play on words, but the point is that both are simultaneously required for the other to exist. Now evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life as that is a related theory called abiogenesis, but if you go further back than a seminal 'Common Ancestor' then one must ultimately solve where it came from and that would be by chance occurances of inorganic molecules coming together that, however miniscule those probabilities are, over enough time they would become a reality. The development of a single amino acid can be generated in the lab and sequential addition of amino acids in a highly controlled manner could produce a simple polypeptide chain (protien), but my contention is that this set of circumstances would never occur in nature by random chance particularly not to the point of producing a living organism.

Getting back to evolution, it claims that organisms adapted to variation in the environment through natural selection acting upon chance mutations that conferred a selective advantage. The basic premise is that these changes were gradual and occured over extensive periods of time. However, there are many organs that are non-functional with any element missing. Examples of this are the eye and the ear. I have very poor eyesight, but I can still see a little without glasses. Now I have all of the elements for my eyes and my vision can be corrected with thick glasses, but what do you think my chances of seeing would be if I lacked an iris, a lens, a cornea or an optic nerve? In that case my eyes would be completely non-functional.

The point about abiogenesis is that although it is not an element of evolution, if one is to explain the origin of species from a common unicellular ancestor such as an amoeba, then the logical extension is to explain the origin of this Common Ancestor. To get the seminal Common Ancestor then one must start with elements that exist apart from previously existing organisms such as carbon, hydogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc as they exist in common simple compounds such as carbon dioxide, water, ammonia, etc. Organic compounds found in living organisms such as DNA, proteins, lipids, etc don't occur naturally in the environment. If someone purified an enormous number of a simple living organism such as an amoeba and then fractionated this isolate into the various organic compounds that make up the amoebas composition, no conglomeration of scientists can reassemble in a priomordial-type environment even the most basic living organism and cause it to come alive again.

Likewise with life and life systems rarely are they even partially functional without all of the elements already existing together in the most intricate arrangement. If one disassembled a car and randomly recombined the thousands of pieces, then the chance that they would become reassembled exactly in a functional car is not infinitely small, but rather the probability is zero as it is an impossibility to do so. The point again is that life systems and the various species of life are infinitely more complex than a modern car.

Naturalistic evolution is the most widely believed lie that exists today.

format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Jamal

Many people Christians today believe in Evolution. What are your views on it? is it true, or complete rubbish???

What now goes by the name of "evolutionary theory" includes an ancient observation described by Al-Jahiz almost 1200 years ago, which was later rediscovered by Charles Darwin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jahiz

The word "Evolution" really only describes any change over time, even automobiles. The word is not a "scientific theory" even though there is a theory named "Evolutionary Synthesis" that covers what Charles Darwin explained about mutation and selection.

Scientifically speaking, the observation that something "unfit" to survive will not survive as well as something that is "more fit" is a concept that even a child can understand, common sense, not a theory that requires modern science to discover or explain.

There are many who exaggerate its scientific importance. The theory was not needed to discover DNA and other things that came after Charles Darwin. 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 "complete rubbish" comes from not understanding its limitations because of being led to believe that there are none, when there most certainly are limits to its usefulness that they are unaware of.

format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar

I don't believe in evolution for one reason - and it's the best reason ever:

For Allah says "Kun faya Kun" - "Be, and it becomes"

Simple...

Scimi

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?