A Question which Atheists could not answer

[Muhaba]

Trying to put this simply: we start from a single celled creature. It multiplies into millions. But they don't always replicate exactly the same, little differences appear. Some of them mutate in multicelled creatures. But the laws of physics and chemistry won't allow infinite combinations - perhaps there are 10 possibilities this first time. Most of them willl eventually occur however because there are so many billions of opportunities.

Now we have a number of slightly different creatures. This process continues with further stages of development, each time with a different set of permutations. But each new development has to be built on the frame of what's happened before. After awhile the gap, the divergence becomes too big to bridge. That's why a cow can't turn into a wolf, there are just so many steps taken along their different paths.

All these creatures are living in the same world but are now differentiating. And as they move into the huge range of environments around the world, their differences will turn out to be advantages or disadvantages.


If I kept asking you questions about Islam, sooner or later you're going to tell me to read a book. The Qur'an.

You're going to say I don't understand enough about Islam to make a fair criticism. If TOE is my religion (as people ridiculously keep repeating) then it's my right to ask the same of you.

I haven't seen a more unscientific response! How about some clear-cut explanation of how it happened, which species developed first from which based on the fossil record. And if the fossil record has two different species in the same place and time period, then explaining why those species evolved differently.

You can start by telling us what species fossils are found in a particular place and associated with a particular time period and we can go from there, determining how different they are and why they evolved so differently.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer;

Quote Originally Posted by Eric H View Post

Maybe I could ask you a similar question, 'if we discover the complete process of skeletal formation, would you accept God?

Why would that prove god? You've made skeletal formation something of a be-all-and-end-all issue for yourself and evolution, I don't se why it would make me believe in god.

Too many separate components have to come together, in order to make a full skeletal system, 500 muscles, 200 bones. 500 ligaments and a 1000 tendons. Each and every new component would need to be under the command of a brain, nervous system, sensors like eyes, radar, smell.

I read your links for the formation of bones, it said what HAD to happen, in order for evolution to work, but it did not say HOW it happened.

It read very much like the explanation of how the eye might have evolved, it overlooked the need for a brain, the nervous system, to evolve at the same pace, it overlooked how the eye would have to influence movement in the limbs. For a scientific paper, it seemed sadly lacking in detail.

It was this huge amount of detail in the skeletal system, that convinced me years ago, that God had to be in control, it could not happen without God.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer;

So hang on Eric, you're challenging evolutionists to prove the development of the skeleton if they want to justify their argument,

Sounds reasonable,

and then you say that you wouldn't accept it even if they did? So why ask them to do it?

The science that is used to justify TOE, just do not sound convincing to me, I do not believe it will be convincing in my life time. I also believe there will be radical changes to the theory, something is radically wrong.

These are my thoughts, I know you and many others have conflicting thoughts, we just have to avoid coming to blows.

In the spirit of praying for a peaceful solution

Eric

 

[Independent]

Greetings Muhammad

A number of points:

The order may show which creatures lived at which time, but it does not prove common ancestry

It doesn't necessarily prove direct ancestry between specific species (unless there is other supporting evidence) but it does strongly indicate common ancestry - especially when allied to molecular biological and other evidences.

A balance of probability is far from being fact.

100% of the many millions of fossils so far discovered are consistent with TOE, none disprove it. At some point the 'balance of probability' tips so far that it's reasonable to treat it as fact.

The point about the Cambrian explosion is that new theories have to be synthesised to account for unexpected findings. This is in contrast to what you say about everything appearing in the way TOE predicts.

There is nothing here that is different in kind than the problems that still need or have needed to to be solved in other sciences which you support (eg dark matter in cosmology). The Cambrian Explosion raises questions but there are a number of plausible answers, and every prospect that a scientific consensus will ultimately be reached.

If you reject evolution on the ground that it's 'unfinished' or changing, you must logically reject all science. (And some of the posts in this forum come very close to that.) So why do people quote science in an attempt to 'prove' religion? This is just pick and mix.

Creationists do not oppose the notion of God creating laws in the universe, so the fact that development follows stages is totally consistent with a Creationist worldview

Yes, but what we see are not the right stages.

God has told us very clearly about our origins. If people have chosen to ignore that and fallen into confusion as a result of placing their faith elsewhere, they have only themselves to blame

God told Muslims about our origins. He didn't tell Darwin or any number of other people.

It still doesn't make sense to use this particular order, this pattern, unless it were actually a reflection of genuine underlying laws.

The number of possible solutions and the quality of the analysis was irrelevant (one could argue that future improvements in analysis may change the theory yet again)

The quality of observations was not irrelevant, it was crucial. The number and accuracy of astronomical observations was essential to Kepler's reasoning.

The bottom line from this is that observations can have more than one interpretation and it is valid to question the 'how' before making judgement

No. The mathematical data which Kepler uses to prove his theory of elliptical orbits cannot be solved by any other theory, no more than any maths sum can be made to add up to something different.

Just because science continues to change in some aspects, that doesn't mean the whole thing is fluid. There are any number of aspects of science which are complete, finished and unchanging.

In the case of evolution, anatomical or genetic similarities between species can just as well mean they were created by the same Creator rather than indicate common ancestry. It is not true that there is only one possible solution based on the observation.

There are two competing theories on the table. Evolution and Creationism. One of them fits the data much better than the other.

It is strange... science progresses through asking questions and yet here you insist that only one solution is possible, questions should not be asked and that estimating and inferring is an infallible process.

I don't say questions should not be asked, either in the quote you give or elsewhere. But many Creationists are not asking questions - they are claiming evolution is impossible. Which itself is an impossible claim to justify with our current state of knowledge.

There are hundreds upon hundreds of scientists who believe that careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. Clearly they too are not convinced by being told to ignore the 'how'.

I don't understand why anyone makes the appeal of authority for Creationism. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of specialists in the field support TOE, as well as most other scientists. Many scientists quoted as anti TOE are based in other disciplines. Also, it's interesting to note that almost everyone who opposes TOE are religiously motivated. The argument is not persuasive in itself. Whereas TOE is supported by large numbers of Christians, Muslims and people of every faith.

You are also stretching the analogy too far. Celestial movement is something that all of us can see and witness for ourselves but macroevolution is not. It is far easier to test claims about phenomena we see every day than claims of occurrences millions of years ago.

There are many things we can see today consistent with macroevolution, just as observations of the sun were/are consistent with heliocentricity.

We can't 'see' the Big Bang either, an unimaginably more distant event. We can only see some things consistent with it having happened. Yet many Muslims believe in the Big Bang.

 

[Independent]

We can accept that everything that we see around us has a developer/ 'maker' who is identifiable and who provides an instruction manual for the use of the item.

Yet, when it comes to the development of the universe and ourselves, we find it difficult to believe that our Creator has indeed identified Himself and that He has sent down revelation to teach us about Himself, our origins and purpose.

Naive. We can always tell the difference between man-made and naturally occurring objects. So the example you give is evidence against creationism, not for it.

There is no biologically plausible explanation for the process of evolution to occur, at all.

Factually incorrect. Current explanations are not proven, but they are plausible. There is absolutely no reason to assume that this won't be solved as other scientific problems have been solved in the past. A defeatist attitude.

Not a single creature has been observed to be in the phases of evolving into a completely new species

You think it's going to happen in front of your eyes? What's the point in talking about TOE if you haven't attempted to understand the basics?

Im yet to hear a creationist make this argument.

The argument of 'irreducible complexity' is exactly that, and it's made all the time.

Before any scientific information/ 'evidence' is released for public consumption, it remains the responsibility of the investigators to verify, and then re-verify, their findings.

They were trying. That's why they managed to debunk their own theory, because they went back to the site to look for more evidence. They debunked their own theory - not Creationists.

Its difficult enough to identify an animal from a single tooth.
Let alone an extinct species. This in itself indicates how ridiculous the entire premise was.

This makes no more sense than saying you can't identify an individual from a fingerprint.

This was Osborns initial reaction: "The instant your package arrived, I sat down with the tooth, in my window, and I said to myself: “It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid.

Osborn did not think the tooth was from a human ancestor (not that it matters any more what he thought about this footnote in history). Why are you repeating this?

^ This is not a mistake.

This is called intentional deception and fraud.

Where is your evidence that this was a deliberate fraud as opposed to error? You haven't shown any. What is your moral right to make such accusations without evidence?

^ The fact that they can still reference "Lucy" - a fossil that was shown to belong to a chimpanzee, and continue to classify it as well as this specimen under the fancy name of Australopithecus afarensis, tells us alot.

This was 'shown' by the idiot in the article you quoted earlier, a man with zero scientific reputation.

It's ---- to simply call Lucy literally a 'chimpanzee' as it is anatomically different and is plainly of an extinct species, whatever you choose to call it.

How does an uninstructed, unsupervised system predict this?

I've already said this. Sheer number of opportunities (ie replications) means it is statistically inevitable.

Does this occur by chance? ......to result in the balanced, perfect order that we see today?

Snowflakes are beautifully ordered and all unique. Yet all these structures come from underlying physical laws. You can say God made the laws, but it's the laws that made the snowflake. Similarly with TOE.

^ Its all hypothesis, and will always remain so.
Lets not make it into fact as has been attempted numerously in this thread

Yes, let's all give up science altogether.

Even the broad theoretical principles for evolution to occur are not biologically feasible, not reproducible.....in fact, impossible.

---

 

[Independent]

Indeed these figures and proposed order of events can be changed with any subsequent finding.
It truly is an imprecise science, if it can be called one at all.

It's well understood that the information is not complete and will continue to be added to as new discoveries are made. But what you continually fail to understand is that those revisions are still consistent with TOE. They revise the detail of TOE but don't challenge the overall pattern. Why not?

There are any number of ways in which the theory could have been falsified, if we had found fossils in inexplicable times or places. But that has not happened. Why not?

 

[observer]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

Useful look at some of the common misconceptions about evolution, I think pretty much all of the arguments against it used in this thread are covered.

 

[Independent]

Useful look at some of the common misconceptions about evolution, I think pretty much all of the arguments against it used in this thread are covered.

Dang! i could have saved myself the trouble.

 

[Independent]

Thus far, all that has been shown to be 'dishonest, illogical and counter-factual', has come from the evolutionists corner.

Your own posts are full of dishonest claims which you have repeated from elsewhere, such as your Foard article. You are impressed simply by an index of references as if that alone is enough to convince you. But his references are false.

Foard quotes various sources including some genuinely reputable scientists:


Foard on Leakey

Foard says this: 'Recent evidence has shown that the Taung child existed less than 900,000 years ago, yet Mary Leakey reportedly found footprints that indicated the presence of modern, bipedal humans as old as 3.5 million years ago'

But when we check the actual words of Leakey, that's not what she says:

'Dr. Louise Robbins of the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, an anthropologist who specializes in the analysis of footprints, visited Laetoli and concluded: “The movement pattern of the individual is a bipedal walking gait, actually a stride—and quite long relative to the creature's small size. Weight-bearing pressure patterns in the prints resemble human ones ...”

She does not say they are modern human. She does say the footprints reveal functional bipedal evolution that enable a human-like gait (unlike any species of living ape). This fits with other fossils showing developments relating to bipedality in hominids - creatures which for some reason (unexplained by Creationism) have all disappeared. It is actively stupid for Foard to suggest that Leakey thinks modern humans date back 3.5 million years, a view not held by any TOE scientist.

You can read Leakey's full essay here: http://www.esaonline.org/classes/Godoy/worldhistory/01-EarlyHumans/Leakey-Footprints.htm


And another example:

Foard on Zuckerman

Lord Solly Zuckerman's heyday was a long time ago but he remains a popular figure among Creationists. Foard describes him as 'one of the most eminent anatomists of the twentieth century, pioneered a scientific application of metric measurements to fossils (this should have been accepted practice all along with paleontologists) instead of the often spectacular (and embarrassing) subjective judgements pronounced by field workers with no scientific tools at hand.' Zuckerman studied Australopithicus for 15 years, leading to the publication of his book 'Beyond The Ivory Tower', which is often quoted by Creationists.

Foard exaggerates the objective quality of this research. The results depended on which specific features you chose to measure - itself a subjective act. Subsequently a serious mathematical error was discovered in his calculations which essentially invalidated his work in its own terms and lost him the argument. But that's not the only thing that's wrong here.

To quote Foard again: 'It was Zuckerman's considered opinion that all classes of Australopithecines, from the Taung child all the way to Lucy, were nothing more than apes, virtually identical to the pigmy chimpanzee, known as the Bonobo. So Lucy wasn't so unique after all. Oxnard along with others have said the same thing, Australopithecines were simply apes that walked upright at times.'

What Foard neglects to tell us is that 'Beyond the Ivory Tower' was published in 1971. But the famous Lucy fossil wasn't found till 1974. Zuckerman is not even discussing Lucy.

Just one year later in 1975 hundreds more fossils of Australopithecus afarensis were found in Ethiopia which at a stroke rendered Zuckerman's book obsolete. (Except in the memories of Creationists like Foard.)

Foard should not be quoting from Zuckerman as if this were still a credible viewpoint.

More here: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-8-what-creation-book-says-about.html


And another example:

Foard on Jim Foley:

Foard tells us this: 'Ken Weaver; Thus Zinj (Zinjanthropus) was probably a contemporary of robustus . . .He now bears the name Australopithecus boisei. Like robustus, boisei is believed to be a dead-end branch of the hominid line." This still has not kept evolutionist Jim Foley from listing Zinjanthropus and Robustus on his Website in the supposed pantheon of human evolution.'

This is incorrect - Foley does not say they are human ancestors, he says the opposite:

'Australopithecus aethiopicus, robustus and boisei are known as robust australopithecines, because their skulls in particular are more heavily built. They have never been serious candidates for being direct human ancestors. Many authorities now classify them in the genus Paranthropus.'

More here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/invalidtaxon.html

In conclusion:

Foard quotes from scientists, but out of context. He references other works, but when you look at the work it says something different. He is both dishonest and incompetent, which you should have been able to tell from one reading.

 

[Muhaba]

post deleted

I'm not asking you to write it up yourself. You're free to get it from wherever you like. But it should answer my questions.

Surely you have the fossil record of the different animals that evolved, where they were found, what time period they were related to? Surely there's a description of the different animals and how they evolved differently, whether they lived in the same place and time and how and why they evolved differently. Surely something explains why there is cattle which is herbivore and why there are carnivores like lions and wolves. Surely there is something to show whether lions lived in the same forest with deers but one evolved in one way and the other in a different way? Or if they or their ancestors didn't live in the same forest / the same time period then there's proof of this too?

 

[Muhaba]

There is so much missing details that need to be filled. Just placing fossils next to each other and saying "these come from the same place and time period' and these others are just above them, so they evolved from each other," isn't going to do the trick. But a lot of it is taking advantage of people's ignorance and playing with words. Just like sister Zaria showed in that really informative and scientific post of hers (much more scientific than what's our evolution-promoter members, independent and observer have been posting). Because most people are ignorant of the facts, therefore they might fall into the evolutionist trap. But despite all the evolutionist and atheist struggle and the fact that evolution is taught in schools, still fewer than 12% of Americans believe in evolution. You know why? It's because each of our cells has been programmed to know the existence of God. That is why in every age people believed in God. This is stated in Chapter 7 of the Quran. God raised all the people (before our birth) and asked whether He was our God and we all accepted it. And that statement is programmed into our minds.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer;

Too many separate components have to come together, in order to make a full skeletal system, 500 muscles, 200 bones. 500 ligaments and a 1000 tendons. Each and every new component would need to be under the command of a brain, nervous system, sensors like eyes, radar, smell.

I read your links for the formation of bones, it said what HAD to happen, in order for evolution to work, but it did not say HOW it happened.

It read very much like the explanation of how the eye might have evolved, it overlooked the need for a brain, the nervous system, to evolve at the same pace, it overlooked how the eye would have to influence movement in the limbs. For a scientific paper, it seemed sadly lacking in detail.

It was this huge amount of detail in the skeletal system, that convinced me years ago, that God had to be in control, it could not happen without God.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

To be fair to TOE, the evidence I would be looking for, is over four hundred million years old; and up to 1.5 billion years old, I know this is a problem finding this evidence. Even if this evidence is found, I am not sure how it will explain HOW the skeletal system formed?

There are laws that govern how Chemicals work in the same way, under the same conditions. Currents move chemicals about in the sea, thermal vents, give temperature change, lightening produces electricity, the sun produces heat. All these forces of nature seem very crude to make the changes in life, that would eventually produce a full working skeletal system, over a billion or so years.

Life is just a heap of chemicals that can reproduce, but there needs to be order.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

 

[greenhill]

"Evolution does not have anything to do with god(s).
Evolution does not require a god. There could be a god guiding evolution, but we don't know.
There is no scientific evidence for or against god(s), so we don't know if there is one."
Quote from Science from the other thread that is now closed.

That's the thing. Science is a man made subject. Trying to understand Allah's laws. Everything requires Allah's Will. 1400 years ago came a revelation that asks man to use his ability to reason. And the revelation also classifies people into 2 categories; those who submit to the message and those who reject the message. In essence, the term kafir comes from this, rejectors of the message.

If we are required to use 'reason' as opposed to having access to absolute proof, it would follow that Allah will have made it in such way that we will never be able to discover Him 'physically' in our present state.

 

[Independent]

Surely you have the fossil record of the different animals that evolved, where they were found, what time period they were related to?

That's what the timeline I posted earlier is derived from.

Look at the start of it. Why do we see prokaryotes followed by cyanobacteria followed by eukaryotes? Why is the order simple to more complex? Why does it take the best part of 2 billion years to get this far? This is understandable with TOE but it's inexplicable with Creationism. Why don't we see something else at this time, like a fish or a cow? What is your explanation?

 

[جوري]

prokaryotes followed by cyanobacteria followed by eukaryotes

Do they follow one another or do they all still exist separately? I am not sure why you're so dishonest about your beliefs, least of which when asked to provide a working model by which one speciates into the other!

best,

 

[Muhaba]

That's what the timeline I posted earlier is derived from.
Look at the start of it. Why do we see prokaryotes followed by cyanobacteria followed by eukaryotes? Why is the order simple to more complex? Why does it take the best part of 2 billion years to get this far? This is understandable with TOE but it's inexplicable with Creationism. Why don't we see something else at this time, like a fish or a cow? What is your explanation?

'Timeline of Human Evolution'

That timeline is not very reliable in that there are different beliefs regarding the origin of various lifeforms. For example, Wikipedia says the following about prokaryotes:

Evolution of prokaryotes


The current model of the evolution of the first living organisms is that these were some form of prokaryotes, which may have evolved out of protobionts. In general, the eukaryotes are thought to have evolved later in the history of life.[29] However, some authors have questioned this conclusion, arguing that the current set of prokaryotic species may have evolved from more complex eukaryotic ancestors through a process of simplification.[30][31][32] Others have argued that the three domains of life arose simultaneously, from a set of varied cells that formed a single gene pool.[33] This controversy was summarized in 2005:[34]


There is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes in the overall scheme of cell evolution. Current opinions on the origin and position of eukaryotes span a broad spectrum including the views that eukaryotes arose first in evolution and that prokaryotes descend from them, that eukaryotes arose contemporaneously with eubacteria and archeabacteria and hence represent a primary line of descent of equal age and rank as the prokaryotes, that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing an endosymbiotic origin of the nucleus, that eukaryotes arose without endosymbiosis, and that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing a simultaneous endosymbiotic origin of the flagellum and the nucleus, in addition to many other models, which have been reviewed and summarized elsewhere.

The oldest known fossilized prokaryotes were laid down approximately 3.5 billion years ago, only about 1 billion years after the formation of the Earth's crust. Eukaryotes only appear in the fossil record later, and may have formed from endosymbiosis of multiple prokaryote ancestors. The oldest known fossil eukaryotes are about 1.7 billion years old. However, some genetic evidence suggests eukaryotes appeared as early as 3 billion years ago.[35]

While Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist, some have suggested that there is evidence on Mars of fossil or living prokaryotes;[36][37] but this possibility remains the subject of considerable debate and skepticism.[38][39]

Prokaryotes have diversified greatly throughout their long existence. The metabolism of prokaryotes is far more varied than that of eukaryotes, leading to many highly distinct prokaryotic types. For example, in addition to using photosynthesis or organic compounds for energy, as eukaryotes do, prokaryotes may obtain energy from inorganic compounds such as hydrogen sulfide. This enables prokaryotes to thrive in harsh environments as cold as the snow surface of Antarctica, studied in cryobiology or as hot as undersea hydrothermal vents and land-based hot springs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote

 

[Independent]

Do they follow one another or do they all still exist separately?

Both. What's your point?

 

[جوري]

Both. What's your point?

The point is clear, show us how they speciated from one another and why they still exist separately!

best,

 

[Independent]

The point is clear, show us how they speciated from one another and why they still exist separately!

The point is not clear because once again you fail to understand even the simplest aspects of TOE - despite your science qualifications which you endlessly tell us about.

TOE does not say that one species replaces another, merely that it evolves from another. Whether the earlier species continues or becomes extinct is dependent on the environment and competition. This is basic stuff.

 

[Independent]

That timeline is not very reliable in that there are different beliefs regarding the origin of various lifeforms. For example, Wikipedia says the following about prokaryotes:

These are interesting questions for biologists but they don't change the overall picture which is simple forms first, then the gradually increasing possibility of more complex forms.

I repeat: from a Creationist point of view, why do we not see a fish or a cow in the early history of life? Why is it simple first, then more complex?