Allah and Camouflage...(Atheists!!,Agnostics!! and seculars!!)

[جوري]

myotonic dyst. is of mitochondrial inheritance... meaning only the mother can pass it along, as you know the portion of the sperm retained during fertilization doesn't have a mito... fragile X is indeed X linked recessive, affecting only boys.. I can go into some details of how females methylate on of their X chromosome, which would be far more expansive than the topic of this page, and lasty Huntington's Chorea is Autosomal dominant... I don't know if you know anything about the country singer 'Woody' Guthrie who died of this Dz.. certainly people were concerned that his son another country singer would suffer same plight given his chances, and of course if he had children it would be passed down to them etc etc getting successivly worst with each generation.. the point isn't to fan my feathers like a peacock, but to tell you, to be a little but critical of things you read or .. putting fossils in a show case and jumping to conclusions a leap is in and of itself a leap of faith in the guise of science.. I am not saying it can't happen.. I am saying we haven't seen beyind a reasonable doubt that a mutation has indeed led that to happen.. finally I think these two papers are excellent to describe the evolutionary process from a statistical physics point of view and another on the probability of randomly assembling cells..
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf

 

[MustafaMc]

I don't know if this may be useful, as I'm no biology expert. But I have read recently that, regardless of mutation or lacktherof, genetic traits developed after birth are never inherited; your children obly inherit your original blueprint, your genetic code at birth.

Genetic mutations to sperm and eggs in the reprocuctive organs are indeed passed to the children such that they have defects not expressed in the parents. A prime example is the exposure of parents to "depleted uranium" in anti-tank shells used in Iraq that cause birth defects in their children.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1112-01.htm

Rokke said: "Verified adverse health effects from personal experience, physicians and from personal reports from individuals with known DU exposures include reactive airway disease, neurological abnormalities, kidney stones and chronic kidney pain, rashes, vision degradation and night vision losses, lymphoma, various forms of skin and organ cancer, neuropsychological disorders, uranium in semen, sexual dysfunction and birth defects in offspring.

Like I said, I'm no expert, but I did not say that mutations are not inherited, I said that acquired mutations are not inherited. I believe the diseases you referred to are heritable via sex chromosomes, are they not? Please correct me if I am incorrect on this.

The sex chromosomes (X and Y chromosomes) are only 1 of the 23 pairs of chromosomes in humans. Yes, acquired mutations that cause cancer in one's lungs from cigarette smoking is not passed to children. Newly inherited mutations are actually not expressed in the parents as these mutations occur in the germ cells in testicles and ovaries.

 

[جوري]

one of my biggest peeves really, is someone who reads an article or two to support his views and fancies himself a cognoscente.. there is a fellow on the H&S section who is subscribed to 'New scientist ' magazine and apparently, that is a sufficient enough to enable him to distinguish the relative nuances between (P)values, attributable risk, relative risk assessment, attack rates, between subject design, bias precession and sampling, it enables him to differentiate randomization, coefficient of determination, cohorts from random double blind.

Some of my preceptors, mentors, the smartest people I have encountered who have graduated from such institutions as Johns Hopkins and Duke have more humility in their podagra diseases toes, than this man with that colossal (New Scientist) supported ego.. someone can be a pathologist for 23 years and still be tested yearly to maintain a license, how is it that a fellow who subscribes to a lay man magazine which covers various scientific by-products become the expert on any field?
It is a case of I hate religion I love science, thus G-D doesn't exist!.. What kind of logical fallacy is this? Petitio Principii?...
If I bring you some of the great bloopers in medicine as early as last century, people would be confounded, wishing to sweep it under the rug...
1- in the 1920's one doctor was awarded the Noble prize for discovering the treatment of advanced syphilis with Malaria before that around 1907 or so Arsenic was the treatment for syphilis! basically bringing people to death with fever to kill either the treponema or the infected.
2- Do you have any idea why they call taking the uterus out a 'hysterectomy'? because that is how they used to treat psychologically ill women.. they thought it was their uterus causing them hysteria, thus by taking it out they'd some how be cured !
3- in the mid 1800's Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis discovered the connection between mortality and washing your hands with chlorinated lime water before delivering babies.. it took the death of his friend Jakob Kolletschka (1803-1847), professor of forensic medicine at Vienna to make that connection...
and I don't even want to begin to tell you of the barbaric ways 'advanced science' used to treat TB, not even a century ago..
How is it that people think they can answer everything with science or make the connection somehow, that being a scientist denotes being an Atheist?.. I dare say most scientists I have encountered, are spiritual, religious and some even border upon zealot...
it is good to exercise one's brain every now and then and not just believe what is dished out there because it comes in a glossy magazine or because some scientist said so... read, learn, challenge conventional wisdom.
Science, is a field amongst many which attempts to answer some of the mysteries of our world but will never fully unlock its mysteries.. this life is beautifully interweaved with many branches.. A person should think for themselves.. arrive to the truth on their own accord, reading all they can, learning all there is to learn.. And show some humility in the process... Sometimes I get so sick reading these threads.. it lets me in on more than just the topic at hand, but really dark and sick psychology of what should be the making of humanity!

 

[CptSunbeam]

And show some humility in the process... Sometimes I get so sick reading these threads.. it lets me in on more than just the topic at hand, but really dark and sick psychology of what should be the making of humanity!

Woah! Strong stuff. You do realise, it is extraordinarily difficult to determine if a person has humilty or not in an online forum. The web builds up a cyber-wall between human beings, so such discussions tend to be prone to confrontation. I would exercise caution in making accusations of ego or psychological illness amongst non-muslims. This only serves to further alienate those who you may wish to become muslims in the future. It happens that in each forum I've posted in I've been accused of mental deficiency, each by a person who does not know me personally and, in fact, has never met me. I find this to be most discouraging and it saddens me.

 

[جوري]

Woah! Strong stuff. You do realise, it is extraordinarily difficult to determine if a person has humilty or not in an online forum. The web builds up a cyber-wall between human beings, so such discussions tend to be prone to confrontation. I would exercise caution in making accusations of ego or psychological illness amongst non-muslims. This only serves to further alienate those who you may wish to become muslims in the future. It happens that in each forum I've posted in I've been accused of mental deficiency, each by a person who does not know me personally and, in fact, has never met me. I find this to be most discouraging and it saddens me.

I assure you if I had you in mind I'd have addressed you by name and personally ( as I indeed have the fellow, that led me to write the post that saddened you!)... and indeed I agree one canNOT make a reasonable assessment of another human being's psychology or reasoning based on some post disregarding tone of voice or body language.. the subtle nuances.. However, when you have been on a forum for a while reading the same recycled rhetoric by the same people day in and day out, you can easily figure out communication that is intended to assault and indeed indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient...

peace!

 

[CptSunbeam]

I'm sorry if I didn't realise who you were referring to. Apologies

when you have been on a forum for a while reading the same recycled rhetoric by the same people day in and day out, you can easily figure out communication that is intended to assault and indeed indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient...

Quite true. I've even been known to display such behaviour myself on occasion. Let's hope it doesn't happen too often hey

 

[ranma1/2]

Question for you - What happens when closely related, as opposed to completely unrelated, people have sexual intercourse and produce children? Does this type of mating result in children that are stronger, smarter and more evolutionary fit, or is the exact opposite true?


What is the reason for children from the mating of a brother with his sister being less fit if the child survives long enough to even be born?
How can a destructive process (mutation) be the foundation for the creation of new and improved species from a single uni-cellular "common ancestor" through naturalistic evolution that is not guided by a Higher Power?

What are the chances of me even carring about yoru questions anymore when you do not care about our answers?

read a book. start with your highschool biology book go up from there.

 

[جوري]

How deep!

 

[ranma1/2]

So this species, the mighty cockroach, became completely immune to the species-creating process of mutation. Interesting, I thought evolution claimed continuous species improvement through mutation, genetic recombination and natural selection.^o)

Nope cockroaches are not immune to mutation, there are many species of cockroaches. Now many have found good niches so new mutations dont usually get put throught the population.

 

[ranma1/2]

Woah! Strong stuff. You do realise, it is extraordinarily difficult to determine if a person has humilty or not in an online forum. The web builds up a cyber-wall between human beings, so such discussions tend to be prone to confrontation. I would exercise caution in making accusations of ego or psychological illness amongst non-muslims. This only serves to further alienate those who you may wish to become muslims in the future. It happens that in each forum I've posted in I've been accused of mental deficiency, each by a person who does not know me personally and, in fact, has never met me. I find this to be most discouraging and it saddens me.

Just ignore PA, he/she? has issues and usually can only make adhom attacks.
Ignore her/him? like most of us do.

 

[MustafaMc]

How can a destructive process (mutation) be the foundation for the creation of new and improved species from a single uni-cellular "common ancestor" through naturalistic evolution that is not guided by a Higher Power?

What are the chances of me even carring about yoru questions anymore when you do not care about our answers?

read a book. start with your highschool biology book go up from there.

So you don't care for my question. Well, OK. :? I thought you could take a few minutes to defend your position on naturalistic evolution as I have defended mine on ID evolution/creationism.

I have raised many logical questions on evolution for which no one has provided reasonable answers and yet I am made fun of because I say, "God did it!". :giggling:

 

[MustafaMc]

I'm tired of this thread. I get the feeling, I talk to a wall.

I honestly didn't see any muslim who would maybe just say 'Yes, maybe there is something true in evolution'

I don't have a problem with this statement that the evolutionary process can lead to improvements within a species.

Out of this thread, I gain some new knowlegde, for sure, that there cannot exist mulsim biologists and chemists as they all think, that is the work of Satan, God or its Voodoo when cells split or mutate under a microscope.

So far

Well, I am actually a "Muslim biologist", plant breeder/geneticist to be exact, and there is no conflict whatsoever with my Islamic faith. My minor field of study for my PhD was molecular biology. But I guess that you are right that the more I learn about biology the more I grow amazed at Allah's creation. Glory to Allah! Allah is Great!

 

[ranma1/2]

So you don't care for my question. Well, OK. :? I thought you could take a few minutes to defend your position on naturalistic evolution as I have defended mine on ID evolution/creationism.

I have raised many logical questions on evolution for which no one has provided reasonable answers and yet I am made fun of because I say, "God did it!". :giggling:

its not that i dont care about your questions, its the sincerity i doubt.
we have defended our position and they have been reasonable in that they are supported by evidence.

however since you are not makky "im getting a little jaded with his type"
ill give a short reply.

What happens when closely related, as opposed to completely unrelated, people have sexual intercourse and produce children? Does this type of mating result in children that are stronger, smarter and more evolutionary fit, or is the exact opposite true?
perhaps , perhaps not. However their does come a greater chance of recessice genes to become dominate. Also with a smaller gene pool their is less variation. The evolutionary fitness depends on the situation.


What is the reason for children from the mating of a brother with his sister being less fit if the child survives long enough to even be born?
this is not true. It can create more or less fit individuals depending on the enviroment.
As stated before, mating within your immediate gene pool does reduce variation and increase the chance of recessive genes be expressed.

How can a destructive process (mutation) be the foundation for the creation of new and improved species from a single uni-cellular "common ancestor" through naturalistic evolution that is not guided by a Higher Power?

Well mutation is not just destructive. They are either, good, bad or neutral.
the simple process of selection allows for the "improvement"

 

[Makky]

Guyabano's answer​

this answer is summarized in 3 words : cumulative accidental mutations . or in other words : chance+mutation . chance should be discussed through known ratios while mutation should be discussed through know kinds of mutations. we can't separate the 2 words in our discussion. but as there are wrong assumptions scientifically in this answer I'll delay my Questions about probabilities and kinds of mutation.

Frist wrong assumption:

During evolution, some unicellular organisms improved survival via symbiosis (each cell did something that improved the survival or another). For example, one cell mutated to produce a metabolic product needed by the other...and vice versa. So the first change...as a result of mutations occurring within individual cells...was the generation of multicellular colonies.

the 1st change that was the generation of multicellular colony !!! happened as mentioned through mutation of individual cells . at this moment a cell has mutated to produce a metabolic product . its known that each cell in the human being as an example carries all the DNA codes of all the tissues and organs in the body. and its know that chromosomes are identical in each cell in the body of any organism.. the hard Question here is : as mentioned in the answer the only relationship between these cells is metabolic products exchange, so its clear that at this stage these cells aren't considered a multicellular organism , but they are in a colony in which they move and act independently and its clear then that if one of these cells mutates then the changes in the DNA wont propagate in the other cells in the colony . then why you consider it a mulitcellular organism ?

Over a great deal of time and many, many mutations, sub colonies of cells within the larger colony developed, each specializing in some new function that benefited the colony as a whole. This marked the beginning of tissues and eventually, organs. Replacement of cells sub colonies was via mitosis...or simple cell division (full 2 copies of DNA)....which yields clones of identical cells.

the same Question here will be harder to be answered...?!!^^^^ he was trying to imagine the formation of tissues and organs

If a sub colony mutates to be specialized in some new function that benefit the colony as a whole the Question is :from where the other sub colonies will recognize the change that happened to the 1st sub colony and add the change to their DNA..

maybe some will ask : why should the DNA of all cells in the colony be identical. because they claim that this kind of colonies are the 1st stage in the formation of tissues..





here are some useful facts for readers :

- DNA : Deoxyribo-nucleic acid : is a nucleic acid molecule that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms.
- Gene : is a set of segments of nucleic acid .
- Chromosome : is a single large macromolecule of DNA.
- in the simplest and the most complex multicellular organisms the chromosomes are identical in each cell all over the individual organism<<<<<<< very important to understand the falseness of their assumption .






.


This post proves the impossibility of this scenario.
being specific is better though there are 2 other wrong assumptions ( at least ) in the paragraph which talks about the formation of the genital organs. therefore I'll just concentrate on the refutation of the 1st part of Guyabano's answer , summarizing it in a question :


The Question is
Is there any scientific explanation other than this false scenario of the formation of tissues then organs ?






.

 

[Gator]

The Question is
Is there any scientific explanation other than this false scenario of the formation of tissues then organs ?​

Thank you Bob, The Symbiotic theory does have its problems and is not in favor. So lets let our next contestant COME..ON...DOWN! Your the next contestant on the "Life is Right"!

Another explanation of multicellularisation is the Colonial Theory which was proposed by Haeckel in 1874. The theory claims that the symbiosis of many organisms of the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which suggests the symbiosis of different species) led to a multicellular organism. At least some, presumably land-evolved, multicellularity occurs by cells separating and then rejoining (i.e., cellular slime molds) whereas for the majority of multicellular types (those which evolved within aquatic environments), multicellularity occurs as a consequence of cells failing to separate following division[2]. The mechanism of this latter colony formation can be as simple as incomplete cytokinesis, though multicelluarity is also typically consided to involve cellular differentiation[3]

The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been seen to occur independently numerous times (in 16 different protoctistan phyla). For instance, Dictyostelium is an amoeba which groups together during times of food shortage, forming a colony that moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then become slightly differentiated from each other. Other examples of colonial organisation in protozoa are Eudorina and Volvox (the latter of which consist around 10,000 cells, only about 25-35 which reproduce - 8 asexually and around 15-25 sexually). It can often be hard to tell, however, what is a colonial protist and what is a multicellular organism in its own right.

Most scientists accept that is by the Colonial theory that Multicellular organisms evolved.

[Ripped from the body of the human intellectual reservoir know as wikipedia!]​

 

[Makky]

Few words After the refutation of the symbiotic theory​

Praise be to Allah , The creator of seen and non-seen , by his will the hearts of Atheists are still beating , they eat and drink from his blessings , they live under his sky and on his earth while they are denying him and trying to extinguish his Light But As he Said (translation of the meaning): Their intention is to extinguish Allah's Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But Allah will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).
Praise be to him how he is patient and giving them time , maybe one day they will repent.

After the refutation of Guyabano's answer I think I should remind those Atheists who were trying to answer and even Guybano himself , I'm reminding you of this post :

ranma1/2,Trumble,dave2,wilber,and guabano himself - maybe i can exclude root- are :

1- Fanatic unjust evolutionists:

because they were claming that they were answering valid answers , yet the only scientific valid answer (valid for discussion only) was brought later by guyabano.

2- blind followers

because they Follow thier preconseptions even without any evidence in thier hands

this is a serious advice for you : most of you are atheists and you all have preconseption that evolution is your evidence on which your atheism rests on . but its very clear that you only have some general knowledge about evolution . its not difficult for a normal person to realize that he couldn't settle his beliefs - on which his fate will be determined - he couldn't settle his beliefs on general knowledge , or on assumptions and doubts. so the advise is : proof before belief .

My last advice before starting the discussion : let your priority is to find the truth , for only one reason, for your personal salvation . Don't wrong yourself inorder to look good in a debate

--------------------------
note
proof before belief belief here is not equal to faith because we are all born with faith by default yet some become Atheists and some become buddists etc

Atheists here should see the real face of their personality .
know that you have no evidence , be informed that you are wronging yourself , wake up because you are choosing the worst fate ever...Don't wrong yourself.​

Thank you Bob, The Symbiotic theory does have its problems and is not in favor. So lets let our next contestant COME..ON...DOWN! Your the next contestant on the "Life is Right"!

Another explanation of multicellularisation is the Colonial Theory

Gator!
welcome to the thread and thanks for asserting the Falseness of Guyabano's answer , but I'm afraid the colonial theory is already refuted ( read the last post carefully and see the points in which the symbiotic theory and the colonial theory meet together) ..

If Allah wills I'll discuss it in the next post.

 

[guyabano]

don´t make yourself ridiculous. Everything has been said and prooven.

and this statement ´Falseness of Guyabano's´ is already insulting

THIS IS ONLY YOUR POINT OF VIEW, never forget that!

 

[Trumble]

but I'm afraid the colonial theory is already refuted

It has not been, of course, but regardless of that you still seem to have a hopeless misconception as to why atheists believe what they do. Most atheistic belief (including my own) is not based on evolution at all. As I've said before, there were plenty of atheists before Darwin, but let's stick with the science to stay on-topic. I won't argue it as it isn't my area, but to defend an atheistic position there is simply no need to do so.

Let us assume, purely for sake of argument, that both of the theories discussed above can indeed be 'refuted'. That does not 'disprove' evolution, all it means is that there are some problems the solutions to which have yet to be found. But that is what science is, the quest to find answers to the questions that arise. To date, and probably for the forseeable future, each answer leads to more questions that need to be answered. The question for a potential atheist is therefore simply this; which of the following is most likely?

1. That evolutionary theory is basically sound, as much evidence suggests, but there are still puzzles to be solved. As with many other things, science will probably get there in the end. Even in the remote chance it doesn't, it may come up with an alternative theory that can be supported by observation, evidence and experiment.

2. Because we haven't found the answers yet it means (for some unexplained reason) we never will. The only alternative if we are to fill the gap is God.


For the atheist '1' will win over "2" every time. "God of the gaps" is no argument at all; all it amounts to is replacing something undetermined or, at worst, improbable with something that is (to an atheist) far more improbable . A believer will not see it that way as, for them, the 'improbability factor' for God obviously isn't there. It is simply a case of 'never the twain shall meet'.

If I may offer my own humble advice, it is to forget science as a means of changing atheist minds, if that is indeed your project. Providing (inconclusive) evidence against something is not the same as providing scientific evidence for something. Theism has nothing to offer in the latter sense... which makes your call for "proof before belief" utterly ludicrous. Perhaps the philosophical arena, where such inconveniences as the need for empirical evidence can be avoided, might be a more fruitful battleground?

 

[Makky]

don´t make yourself ridiculous. Everything has been said and prooven.

Its obvious that Atheists have nothing to say

and this statement ´Falseness of Guyabano's´ is already insulting

I didn't mean to offend you personally, But you know its a debate and its a fact that the answer is false

THIS IS ONLY YOUR POINT OF VIEW, never forget that!

Its not only my point of view as you mentioned , no its the only Vaild point of view...My friend your life as an Atheists is resting on a myth...WAKE UP , DON"T WRONG YOURSELF.

 

[Gator]

Gator!
welcome to the thread and thanks for asserting the Falseness of Guyabano's answer , but I'm afraid the colonial theory is already refuted ( read the last post carefully and see the points in which the symbiotic theory and the colonial theory meet together) ..

If Allah wills I'll discuss it in the next post.​

Makky! I'm going for the showcase showdown! I did not assert any falseness of the symbiotic theory, I just said their are problems with it and maybe it is right, we just don't have that full explanation. The questions you pointed out were not proved impossible to get around, they are just there.

Since you failed to prove the falseness even on the first round please tell me what I've won!

Thanks.​