A Question which Atheists could not answer

[Independent]

How does that show or prove we came from apes or fish or whatever was between fish and apes???

You are avoiding the question by making it too big. Obviously, this is specific evidence for a family relationship between a few human and near human species, not wider than that. However, once it is proven even in a single instance it's no longer relevant to argue that it is 'impossible', as has been said by Creationists.

According to anti-TOE followers, we are not supposed to be related to Neanderthals or any other extinct species. But now we know that we are.

How would you explain this?

 

[Muhaba]

^I couldn't care less who we are related to or not related to. It really makes no difference to me and doesn't prove anything. Descriptions of Neanderthals and others are just assumptions and don't show anything. A lot of it is far-fetching the observations. For example, it is stated that early humans (or Neanderthals, I am unsure which) had elongated skulls similar to this image

and that the earliest humans came from Africa (possibly the elongated skull is of African origin). Well I have seen many ALIVE Africans with elongated facial features (similar to those depicted by evolutionists)! So such a skull doesn't prove anything.

The fact is that no matter how many fossils you have, you still can't prove that one came from another and was not individually created. Also, you first need to find out how the first particle came about. If you don't have the answer to that, everything else falls apart because it's pointless. Even if one organism came from another, it doesn't mean it happened by itself without intervention by God. And when God comes into the picture, the study of evolution is useless.

You should stop wasting your time researching evolution and focus more on your fate in the Afterlife. The God Who created the first particle (and thereafter everything else) is going to question you.

 

[Muhaba]

The skull image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ferrassie_skull.jpg . Don't know why it didn't show up above.

 

[Independent]

The fact is that no matter how many fossils you have, you still can't prove that one came from another and was not individually created.

But that's exactly what this dna evidence does prove. We are related to at least 3 extinct species, which are otherwise known to us only by their fossilised remains. Right now I can't think of another possible explanation.

Of course, it could still be the case that God created each species individually and simply decided to give us all related dna just to make us think TOE was true. But why would He do that?

It makes more sense to me to assume that God, if He exists, has set the evolution mechanism is place, the same as other physical laws etc are in place. Why would He treat evolution differently? it's not logical.

Also, you first need to find out how the first particle came about.

As I said in my first post, a theory of origins is NOT part of TOE. TOE describes how organisms changed, not how life originated in the first place. It's possible to believe in TOE and a divine origin for life without contradiction (and many Muslims and Christians do).

I couldn't care less who we are related to or not related to.

Ok - then perhaps this thread is not for you....

 

[Muhaba]

But that's exactly what this dna evidence does prove. We are related to at least 3 extinct species, which are otherwise known to us only by their fossilised remains. Right now I can't think of another possible explanation.

First of all we don't know that those are different species of humans. Just because some scientist says so (or some webpage says so) doesn't mean it is true.

Second, we don't know whether we really are related to some other species through DNA.

Third, if you can prove from DNA that we're related to some other species of humans then why don't they show from DNA that we're related to apes and fish and all those transitional species that are supposed to be there between fish and apes (but whose fossils are for some reason not there).

Of course, it could still be the case that God created each species individually and simply decided to give us all related dna just to make us think TOE was true. But why would He do that?

It makes more sense to me to assume that God, if He exists, has set the evolution mechanism is place, the same as other physical laws etc are in place. Why would He treat evolution differently? it's not logical.


As I said in my first post, a theory of origins is NOT part of TOE. TOE describes how organisms changed, not how life originated in the first place. It's possible to believe in TOE and a divine origin for life without contradiction (and many Muslims and Christians do).


Ok - then perhaps this thread is not for you....

Studying evolution is all useless, especially with the current premise that it happened by itself. So much time is wasted on it for no reason. And what is the point? Who cares how it all happened! We Muslims believe in God and that God created everything whether He created it individually or through evolution. The knowledge of that is with Allah. We do know that human beings were NOT made from apes but were created separately by God. it is possible that the humans of centuries ago were not exactly like the humans of today and that there was adaptation and changes in human structure but that doesn't mean we evolved from a different species. God specifically tells us in the Quran that humans came from one man and one female and that the first human was made by God Himself. We also know from hadith that the first humans were very large in size (70 feet height I think - and that is what a scientist also stated). We also know from science that all humans came from one pair of male and female.


We accept what God tells us in the Quran. Who would know how humans were created more than the Creator? Scientific study is incomplete and can not be wholeheartedly trusted. Today it is telling you all these things in proof of evolution. tomorrow it will tell you something that altogether disproves evolution. why base your fate on such a study based on observations and assumptions? When you know that the first particle came from somewhere - before the big bang there was nothing, after the big bang there was the universe- showing that a GREAT CREATOR brought about its origin, then instead of researching something pointless like evolution, why not research religion islam and work to improve your fate in the afterlife?

 

[Muhaba]

You can't separate theory of origin from theory of evolution. Theory of evolution states that changes take place by themselves, without intervention by God ( a claim for which there is no proof). By making such a claim and then trying to prove it, TOE is saying that God doesn't exist. Why are so many people atheists? because of theory of evolution.

Everything in life is interrelated. TOE states that organisms adapt to their environment, those that are the fittest survive, etc. But why should the environment change? what brings those changes? It is proven that the earth today is not the same as the earth thousands / millions of years ago. What brought about those differences? Why did the atmosphere change? etc etc. All of it points to the existence of God. God created the first particle. He brought about changes in whatever He wanted however He wanted. Nothing happens without God's decree.

 

[greenhill]

'Survival of the fittest' is one of the most misunderstood phrases in evolution (and actually didn't come from Darwin).

Yup, I understand. Even the Evolution theory didn't come from Darwin, either. ^o)

Funny thing is that the title relates to Atheists. It almost defines 'scientists' as being non religious and that Darwinism is science? Yes he makes a point in the interview, but it is just a point. It is about 'faith'. But you must also research. I believe you can be a scientist and a muslim at the same time. There is no way that the scientific findings can ever contradict the Qur'an.

Again, that is my opinion.

Peace :shade:

 

[Independent]

First of all we don't know that those are different species of humans

We always knew they were different species. But now we know they are different species of humans.

Second, we don't know whether we really are related to some other species through DNA

That's exactly what dna can tell us. It was the absence of this evidence before that left doubt.

Third, if you can prove from DNA that we're related to some other species of humans then why don't they show from DNA that we're related to apes and fish and all those transitional species that are supposed to be there between fish and apes

Recovering dna from ancient remains is extremely difficult. It's only the last few years we've managed to get back as far as Neanderthals etc. We will certainly never be able to get it from millions of years ago.

You don't seem to be aware of how extremely unlikely it is that anything gets fossilised. Of all the species that have existed, perhaps just 1% have left any fossil trace (and that excludes most soft tissue species altogether). So it's like trying to read a book with only one in every hundred pages still surviving.

This means we can see broad developments, but tracing a single line of ancestry with certainty for an individual species is next to impossible. However, there are plenty of things we can see that are consistent with TOE but no other theory (eg the progressive appearance of key features such as bones, eyes etc over millions of years).

We do know that human beings were NOT made from apes

TOE does not say we are descended from apes. It says apes and man have a common ancestor.

We also know from hadith that the first humans were very large in size (70 feet height I think - and that is what a scientist also stated

There is no fossil evidence for anyone so tall. In fact it is impossible for a such a huge human to live on earth for other physical reasons (gravity etc). They wouldn't be able to move.

When you know that the first particle came from somewhere - before the big bang there was nothing

Why do you believe the astrophysicists but not the biologists? They're all scientists.

We also know from science that all humans came from one pair of male and female

Interestingly enough, we can trace a single common male and female ancestor for all non African peoples. However, they didn't live at the same time. (There were other males and females but their line did not survive to the present day.)

 

[Independent]

But you must also research. I believe you can be a scientist and a muslim at the same time. There is no way that the scientific findings can ever contradict the Qur'an.

Personally, I think that if you are to be a great scientist, you must discover what is there to be discovered no matter what it is. If it exists, how can it be wrong?

 

[Independent]

You can't separate theory of origin from theory of evolution.

Yes you can although many people treat them together. I repeat, TOE describes how one species evolves into another. It does not describe the origin of life.

Having said that, TOE is most certainly a starting point for anyone looking into origins.

 

[tearose]

We always knew they were different species. But now we know they are different species of humans.

What proof do you have that they are different species rather than (for example) different ethnicities?

If they did find some remains, all they are doing is speculating about them, giving them different names and so on. They don't know.

 

[Muhaba]

We always knew they were different species. But now we know they are different species of humans.

So now we know that they aren't different species but part of the human race. That's a blow to evolution theory which tries to prove that humans came from nonhumans. Eventually with all the study, it will be proven that humans didn't come from nonhumans just as it is now shown that Neanderthals and others are humans and not a different species!

That's exactly what dna can tell us. It was the absence of this evidence before that left doubt.


Recovering dna from ancient remains is extremely difficult. It's only the last few years we've managed to get back as far as Neanderthals etc. We will certainly never be able to get it from millions of years ago.

You don't seem to be aware of how extremely unlikely it is that anything gets fossilised. Of all the species that have existed, perhaps just 1% have left any fossil trace (and that excludes most soft tissue species altogether). So it's like trying to read a book with only one in every hundred pages still surviving.

When there is so little information that much is left to assumptions, then why entrust your faith to it?

This means we can see broad developments, but tracing a single line of ancestry with certainty for an individual species is next to impossible. However, there are plenty of things we can see that are consistent with TOE but no other theory (eg the progressive appearance of key features such as bones, eyes etc over millions of years).



TOE does not say we are descended from apes. It says apes and man have a common ancestor.


There is no fossil evidence for anyone so tall. In fact it is impossible for a such a huge human to live on earth for other physical reasons (gravity etc). They wouldn't be able to move.

Your reply is based on current conditions. In the past the conditions on earth were not the same as today.

Why do you believe the astrophysicists but not the biologists? They're all scientists.

I believe what is in line with the Quran. I don't believe what goes against it. The Quran says in 21:30 : Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? This verse points to the big bang theory. Had the Quran told us that organisms came from one another, I'd accept that too.

 

[Independent]

What proof do you have that they are different species rather than (for example) different ethnicities?

If they did find some remains, all they are doing is speculating about them, giving them different names and so on. They don't know.

As far as I know, not many people have previously disputed that they are different species. That includes Creationists. Some of them may have decided to dispute it now that it's inconvenient.

You can google more information about Neanderthals, about which we have quite good information.

Neanderthals were physically different from us many ways. Average 5ft 6in, much larger eyes and eyebrows, similar brain size but radically different skull shape. Heavy, stocky build.

In terms of behaviour....lived in small groups. Almost exclusively hunting/meat eating. Limited language but this is disputed. Some evidence of burial ceremony, but no clear religious indication.

They became extinct as modern man moved into Europe. It's disputed whether we killed them, or climate change.

 

[Independent]

So now we know that they aren't different species but part of the human race.

No, they are a related species. A side branch which is now extinct. See my reply to tearose - in physique and behaviour they are unlike us. They lived in Europe until modern man arrived, then disappeared.

Your reply is based on current conditions. In the past the conditions on earth were not the same as today.

Why on earth would you think this contradicts TOE?

I believe what is in line with the Quran. I don't believe what goes against it.

There is an Islamic teaching I can't remember exactly - but it's along the lines of not contradicting proven, observable reality?

 

[Independent]

So now we know that they aren't different species but part of the human race

Actually, let me answer that again in more detail.

This is not about mere tribal differences. If you looked at all the tribes of Africa from a dna point of view, you would barely be able to tell them apart (aside from the occasional defective gene in small populations).

Whereas, Neanderthals or Denisovans would be utterly and conclusively distinct.

They are different, but related, species.

 

[tearose]

As far as I know, not many people have previously disputed that they are different species. That includes Creationists. Some of them may have decided to dispute it now that it's inconvenient.

The fact that not many people disputed it doesn't count as proof.

You can google more information about Neanderthals, about which we have quite good information.

I looked it up on Wikipedia. I am surprised that you would class it as having information. These are clearly the speculative theories of scientists and researchers who are trying to reconstruct an idea of the environment where they found the bones and remains as it would have been at the time. It is not information.

Neanderthals were physically different from us many ways. Average 5ft 6in, much larger eyes and eyebrows, similar brain size but radically different skull shape. Heavy, stocky build.

These are all very superficial differences. Aborigines have different eyebrows from the rest of the human race. Many ethnic groups in Central Africa are significantly shorter than the rest of the human race. These people are still alive today but they are not a different species.

In terms of behaviour....lived in small groups. Almost exclusively hunting/meat eating. Limited language but this is disputed. Some evidence of burial ceremony, but no clear religious indication.

This is pure speculation and apparently one researcher found cooked vegetable remnants. Even if it was true how does it show they were not human? I saw a documentary recently about a mass grave that was found from a couple or few thousand years ago, and some scientists were trying to examine the bones to work out what happened to them, and even though it was more recent than what you are talking about and in a society whose history we know quite a bit about, they still couldn't conclusively say who the people were or what happened to them.

By the way, I'm not committing myself to any belief or theory about these so-called Neanderthals. Muslims should investigate scientific evidence and check possible theories in relation to the Qur'an and Sunnah. I can't do it as I am not a scientist. I'm just trying to point out some of the flaws in your theory and that you are dismissing some possibilities too hastily.

 

[Independent]

These are all very superficial differences. Aborigines have different eyebrows from the rest of the human race. Many ethnic groups in Central Africa are significantly shorter than the rest of the human race. These people are still alive today but they are not a different species.

All the people in the world today have minimal differences at the genetic level. Such things as skin colour, height etc are entirely superficial. We are an amazingly homogenous species.

Whereas, Neanderthals and Denisovans are unmistakably different and could never be confused. In the past, many people would have considered Neanderthals as the quintissential ape man. In the past, many Creationists would have boasted that that they were not human, we are not related, and it could never be proved otherwise. It is necessary to revise that view.

I looked it up on Wikipedia. I am surprised that you would class it as having information.

I said google it, I didn't say you had to confine yourself to wikipedia. Useful as it is as a starter.

By the way, I'm not committing myself to any belief or theory about these so-called Neanderthals. Muslims should investigate scientific evidence and check all theories in relation to the Qur'an and Sunnah

Very good attitude to have. As i repeatedly say, TOE does not have to be incompatible with belief in God. I strongly believe that evidence for TOE will accumulate to such a degree that ultimately it will be officially accepted by Islamic scholars.

 

[tearose]

Such things as skin colour, height etc are entirely superficial. We are an amazingly homogenous species.

Yet you have cited the average height, build etc of the Neanderthals as evidence that they were a different species

TOE does not have to be incompatible with belief in God. I strongly believe that evidence for TOE will accumulate to such a degree that ultimately it will be officially accepted by Islamic scholars

It cannot be, because we as Muslims know that the idea that humans evolved from a common ancestor is false. The way humans were created is mentioned in the Qur'an. This belief cannot change.

By considering scientific evidence I did not mean that we would ever consider the theory of human evolution. I edited my post as I didn't realise the wording was ambiguous.

 

[Independent]

Yet you have cited the average height, build etc of the Neanderthals as evidence that they were a different species

If you were looking at at the dna of any modern human, with no other clue, you couldn't tell one from another. Yet any Neanderthal would be distinct. If it were a modern rape case, and they were cheking the dna of the accused, it would be said that this person is not human.

We know they separated from the main human population in Africa about 350-400,000 years ago and afterwards developed in isolation until a later emmigration from Africa by modern man. The African population that remained did not interbreed with Neanderthals or Denisovans.

The suggestion is not that we evolved from Neanderthals or Denisovans. They are both evolutionary dead ends. However, some of their dna survives in us because of interbreeding.

By considering scientific evidence I did not mean that we would ever consider the theory of human evolution.

There are many things accepted today that were once denied. There's no rush.

 

[RedGuard]

I would like creationists to answer one question - if all creatres were designed just perfectly by a perfect being, how come they have flaws in their design? Human spine for example is no different from a spine of e.g. a horse but it withstands completely different kind of force - it is "squeezed", not twisted as in other animals. Engineering structures designed to withstand such forces are designed in a completely different way.