A Question which Atheists could not answer

[Muhaba]

As I understand it, Wesson is not rejecting evolution, he is supporting it. However, he says that Darwin's proposed process for evolution (natural selection) is not the key mechanism. But he doesn't look for a divine explanation to replace it.
Instead he argues that a version of chaos theory accounts for what we see more accurately. Chaos theory seeks to explain through mathematical analysis how patterns and order can emerge from random, natural conditions - derived ultimately from the basic structural tendencies of matter. (For instance, chaos theory is used in analysing complex weather patterns.) Wesson argues that natural selection does play a role, but only in honing what has already resulted from chaos theory.
In other words, far from rejecting TOE, Wesson is offering an explanation that entirely sidesteps all the usual Creationist objections listed in this thread - eg how evolution can make big jumps to more complex structures as opposed to a stage by stage process. It's one of the reasons why it's wrong to reject TOE on the grounds of the 'how', because there are so many possible avenues for solutions.

To what lengths they will go to deny God, believing every impossible and unbelievable thing just so they can deny God! And they call themselves intelligent, even scientists!

 

[Muhaba]

@independant

The scientific method which AlHazen perfected off the flawed method which Ptolemy sponsored, saw to it that Muslims gave the wider world a better, more honest Scientific method to follow. One of these requisites was the "observation" of "change"...

...Neo-Drwinists have understood that there is NO observable change in evolution - and this is something that cannot be reconciled with fake skulls from piltdown man and other fraudulent cases. Not one such case of observable evolution has ever been witnessed and nor will it be - for Allah tells us in the Quran in very beautiful words that when HE decrees a thing, HE merely says to it BE, and it manifests.

SO why then, are you rampaging about the scientific method and its propagative nonsense about evolution when the truth is, no 2 proponents of ToE agree anyway?

Does this not spell a sign out for you? That they have been misguided to the point where they cannot even agree with each other?

They promoted chaos theory in space - how is that even possible when space itself is so finely balanced and the planets hung in orbits and the stars destined towards their ultimate destinations? HOW?

Do you not understand that Allah tells us in the Quran to look at creation, in wonderment, so you may worship the Creator - Allah, with joy and happiness that HE created you as a HUMAN BEING and not a pig nor an ape?

What is the reason for you to "believe" in evolution? please help me to understand so I can attempt to deconstruct your existing neuro-pathways which lead you border-line kuffar thought processes.

Scimi

EDIT: Independent, you've just brushed past posts which give you information which throws your ideas into the wastelands... why? Thought you wanted a good discussion which helps to get to the bottom of this ToE crap... you should at least try to read Zaria's long and funny post which puts Neo-Darwinists on the back foot BIGTIME easy as pie to do that.

And I can't believe you thought piltdown man was real

very well-said!

 

[observer]

But why limit long necks to giraffes? I assume long necks would be an advantage to many herbivorous animals. Why haven't other species evolved to have long necks as well?.

They wouldn't evolve like that unless it provided an advantage. If you're main food source is at ground level, then evolving a long neck is never going to happen. It would be a disadvantage.

 

[Scimitar]

which is exactly why the Giraffe cannot have evolved. It would have died during the *so called* evolution process, because it would not have been able to feed over the term (the neck would still be too short).

 

[observer]

which is exactly why the Giraffe cannot have evolved. It would have died during the *so called* evolution process, because it would not have been able to feed over the term (the neck would still be too short).

Why? Are you imagining that all of the trees they fed on spontaneously changed?

Imagine, you have a group of giraffes. All them have necks which vary slightly in length. They feed from trees. Those with longer necks have access to more food. This is not an issue if there is an abundance of food, but if there is a shortage then the longer necked animal can continue to eat whilst those with shorter necks struggle.

Therefore, the genetic propensity for a longer neck is passed on to its offspring (animals who can't feed die and don't reproduce). Over incredibly long periods of time, this process continues until we get the animal we see today.

 

[observer]

The key issue is that it would necessitate multiple, simultaneous mutations. This is what one website said:

Why simultaneous? The giraffe didn't suddenly develop a long neck which immediately needed other changes.

 

[observer]

People use TOE to try and destroy people's faith, again, I see this on atheist forums.

But not here in this discussion.

Likewise, I see many disgusting things espoused on Christian forums, but have never seen such from this forum's Christians. Ergo, I don't judge Christians from the ranting of certain sections of the internet.

 

[Scimitar]

Why? Are you imagining that all of the trees they fed on spontaneously changed?

Imagine, you have a group of giraffes. All them have necks which vary slightly in length. They feed from trees. Those with longer necks have access to more food. This is not an issue if there is an abundance of food, but if there is a shortage then the longer necked animal can continue to eat whilst those with shorter necks struggle.

Therefore, the genetic propensity for a longer neck is passed on to its offspring (animals who can't feed die and don't reproduce). Over incredibly long periods of time, this process continues until we get the animal we see today.

What I want to know is, what happened that required the proto-Giraffe to justify a longer neck? surely it was doing fine up til that point anyway you see, the Giraffe is so unique in the animal Kingdom that for proponents of ToE to justify the evolutionary process of this animal, is nothing short of an imaginative process.

The proto-Giraffe, (I call it a vegetarian dog) didn't need to grow a long neck. The so called evolutionary process does not account for jumps in evolution, but records variances in the evo process - of which none have been found in relation to the giraffe. Surely you've not thought this through properly.

Scimi

 

[observer]

What I want to know is, what happened that required the proto-Giraffe to justify a longer neck? surely it was doing fine up til that point anyway you see, the Giraffe is so unique in the animal Kingdom that for proponents of ToE to justify the evolutionary process of this animal, is nothing short of an imaginative process.i

A change in the environment - either too many giraffes eating leaves lower down so only leaving higher up leaves, or a gradual change in the trees.

The entire history of our planet is one of environmental change. Any species which can't adapt, dies.

There's nothing imaginative in it. It doesn't mean that god didn't guide the process of course, that can never be disproved (or proved).

 

[Independent]

very well-said!

This is a reply to Scimi's post as reposted by Dreamin. (NB is there a reason i can't see Scimi's posts in the thread as normal?):

And I can't believe you thought piltdown man was real
I have no idea why you think that's what I said. I said that I've always liked the story of what happened and the mystery of who did it, I didn't say I believed in the hoax. It's just a quirk of history of no consequence to TOE, except that it messed up paleontologists' thinking for a few years till it was disproved.

SO why then, are you rampaging about the scientific method and its propagative nonsense about evolution when the truth is, no 2 proponents of ToE agree anyway?
Not sure what you mean - do you mean they disagreed rather than agreed? And who exactly?

Independent, you've just brushed past posts which give you information which throws your ideas into the wastelands... why? Thought you wanted a good discussion which helps to get to the bottom of this ToE crap... you should at least try to read Zaria's long and funny post which puts Neo-Darwinists on the back foot BIGTIME easy as pie to do that.

I have answered an enormous number of questions already, although most of mine remain unanswered. As for Zaria's post,containing probably the least accurate article in this whole thread, I have addressed its conclusion in the post on Mitochondrial Eve. It would take a week to refute the whole thing.

What is the reason for you to "believe" in evolution? please help me to understand so I can attempt to deconstruct your existing neuro-pathways which lead you border-line kuffar thought processes

Along with the vast majority of scientists in the field I believe in the general principle of TOE (not necessarily all the detail) because it is overwhelmingly convincing and no satisfactory alternative has been presented, in this thread or elsewhere.

 

[observer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25713538

Another interesting evolution story in the news today.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer;

Imagine, you have a group of giraffes. All them have necks which vary slightly in length. They feed from trees. Those with longer necks have access to more food. This is not an issue if there is an abundance of food, but if there is a shortage then the longer necked animal can continue to eat whilst those with shorter necks struggle.

Those giraffes with fitter and stronger bodies; can walk further and find trees with lower leaves. I think it would be easier to evolve animals that could walk further, rather than evolve longer necks.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer;

Originally Posted by Eric H View Post

People use TOE to try and destroy people's faith, again, I see this on atheist forums.

But not here in this discussion.

Likewise, I see many disgusting things espoused on Christian forums, but have never seen such from this forum's Christians. Ergo, I don't judge Christians from the ranting of certain sections of the internet

I am a Christian, I try very hard not to quote from the Bible, when I post on this forum, I respect the faith of my Muslim brothers and sisters here, my hopes have always been for a greater interfaith friendship and understanding.

Whist I am pleased to say, there does appear to be a calmer approach; from our atheist friends on this forum, I do sense a kind of determination to push TOE. Once you rock a part of someone's faith, the chances are that more chinks will appear, possibly, this is how some of you may have come to atheism, so there might be a knowledge of what you are hoping to achieve.

At least for the tenth time, I bring up the evolution of the eye, and the evolution of a full skeletal system from a soft bodied ancestor, both are in need of a fuller explanation.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25713538

Another interesting evolution story in the news today

Thanks for the link, but the "Tiktaalik' has a fully developed skeletal system, the real question is how did this arise from a billion years ago. I see design in movement, we need some explanation of how biological needs, also coincidentally happen to also be a good shape for movement.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[~Zaria~]

A long list of references won't save this article from the ignorance of its author. Nor do your trips to 'the Cradle of Mankind' seem to have helped you much.

Let's have a look at his grand conclusion.

You've skipped the entire content of the article that pertains directly to evolution and its hoaxes, and went straight to a single comment in the conclusion?

Why am I not surprised? You have dodged all direct questions pertaining to evidence for evolution throughout this thread.

This article is referenced from accredited and leading journals in the field such as Nature.....yet you continue to label this author an 'idiot', 'ignorant', 'least accurate'.

Please provide a post that is at least half as well referenced and not based on conjecture, then perhaps we can take your posts seriously.



Where are the 'fossil evidence' for TOE that you have suggested?

We are still awaiting them.



Truly, the psychology of this fake science is actually becoming more interesting than the theory.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Why simultaneous? The giraffe didn't suddenly develop a long neck which immediately needed other changes.

It is simpler to imagine one characteristic like height increasing or decreasing, but when we consider other changes that are needed in conjunction, then the process becomes more complex. For not only do the giraffes require slightly longer necks each time, but also stronger hearts, thicker skin, and all other suggested requirements. What we are imagining is multiple changes occurring together as opposed to a single trait being inherited. It would be believable if we say God guided the process.

It's one of the reasons why it's wrong to reject TOE on the grounds of the 'how', because there are so many possible avenues for solutions.

If this is true, it would also make it easy to claim that all finds are 'exactly as one would expect' for TOE, thus reducing meaning in challenging creationists to find irregularities. Any time an anomalous result is pointed out, it is very easy to suggest a possible explanation to 'sidestep' the objection.

To reiterate: I am saying that TOE is a better explanation for the history of species than Creationism. In order to make that claim, I have to say something about Creationism.

It seems you are unwilling to accept a possible compatibility between areas of evolution science and creationism. Instead you insist that Creationism must be illogical based on equivocal observations like the pattern of species development.

I have answered an enormous number of questions already, although most of mine remain unanswered.

I think we have simply been going in circles, not that any particular issue has been answered. I doubt either side will be satisfied with the responses provided.

 

[Muhaba]

They wouldn't evolve like that unless it provided an advantage. If you're main food source is at ground level, then evolving a long neck is never going to happen. It would be a disadvantage.

Who said goats don't feed off trees? If you've had a goat you'd know that they absolutely love to eat directly from trees. of course they can't reach higher branches but they do like to eat from trees. They seem to get a lot of satisfaction when eating directly from the tree branches. So, in places with many bushes and plants, goats (and other herbivores) should've developed longer necks to be able to eat from higher branches of trees. Not all places where goats live are grassy plains. Many goats have to eat from bushes and low branched plants.

 

[Muhaba]

Why? Are you imagining that all of the trees they fed on spontaneously changed?

Imagine, you have a group of giraffes. All them have necks which vary slightly in length. They feed from trees. Those with longer necks have access to more food. This is not an issue if there is an abundance of food, but if there is a shortage then the longer necked animal can continue to eat whilst those with shorter necks struggle.

Therefore, the genetic propensity for a longer neck is passed on to its offspring (animals who can't feed die and don't reproduce). Over incredibly long periods of time, this process continues until we get the animal we see today.

So their necks didn't get longer but they were already born with long necks. The only thing that happened was that the ones with shorter necks, not being able to eat, died out while those with longer necks survived.

Here you also need to see what other sort of animals live in the same habitat as these giraffes. There will be many herbivores with short necks who feed on low lying branches and grass. That means that all of these should've died out too along with the short-necked giraffes. But that's not what happened, no doubt. Those animals continued to feed off the grass and low branches (which, according to you is why their necks remained short). Thus, the short-necked giraffes should've also continued to live. But are there short-necked giraffes like goats and horses? no. As far as I know, all giraffes have long necks.

the fact is that we always come down to the basic fact. That the animals already had the traits (short neck, long neck, weak short beak, long hard beak, etc etc). It is never the case that the conditions the animals are living in are affecting their physical traits.

 

[جوري]

I think we have simply been going in circles, not that any particular issue has been answered. I doubt either side will be satisfied with the responses provided.

I have given an example on the previous page of one theory which we find highly flawed yet accept anyway on the basis that it doesn't change the diagnosis nor the type of management for that particular dz.
Fact of the matter is theories are just that, they attempt to provide a tentative insight to things that can't be fully verified and no one lives or dies if they're true or untrue!
It doesn't change anything at all which renders the tirade from the atheist end utterly moot. What are they looking to do with TOE even if it a verifiable fact?
They only use it to branch into philosophy or to assert that God isn't needed or if he were needed then he just set things in motion and then they took charge of themselves and he forgot about us etc etc.. much like psychiatry (not neuro Psychiatry) is a substitute for religion. Attempts to give a logical explanation to some explicable things this is hypnopompic that is hypnagogic-- sure they tell you they happen but no explanation as to why.. then you can treat from there with whatever..
We should define the purpose of any discussion as well as intent.. you'll find that neither their method nor intent is noble, honest or even logical and that is if you were following all 20 some pages of this nonsense!

 

[observer]

So their necks didn't get longer but they were already born with long necks. The only thing that happened was that the ones with shorter necks, not being able to eat, died out while those with longer necks survived.

That is, essentially, the whole point of evolution! Those animals best suited to their environments thrive, those which are unsuitable die out. The characteristics which helped the animal survive are therefore passed on (longer neck here) and the population gradually changes (longer necks in general).