*!* Ants self-defence *!*

[Chuck]

Nobody needed to know about "communication between ants", chemically or otherwise. The story is an anthropomorphic fable...

That is the bias right there. You from the get go believe it is just a fable and that is end of the story.

As far as complex communication among the ants goes, nobody can prove that they don't have complex communication skills. On the other hand, considering how complex their societies are, it is more reasonable to think that they have complex complex communication mechanisms. Not on par with humans but still higher in the animal kingdom with possible complex structures. Their sound based communication is only recently discovered. Ants are among few animals that show interactive teaching and learning behavior.

For references:

Certain species of ant use a technique known as 'tandem running' to lead another ant from the nest to a food source. Signals between the two ants control both the speed and course of the run. It is believed to be the first time a demonstration of 'formal' teaching has been recognised in any non-human animal.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060113120042.htm

Many species make tiny squeaks that people can hear if they hold an ant close enough. The rich chemical communication of ants has claimed more attention from scientists in recent decades, but a small band of researchers has been sorting out ant sounds.

Biologists have long realized that ants can hear with their knees, picking up vibrations humming through leaves or nests or even the ground. In the past 20 years, researchers interpreting the messages that thrum in substrates have revealed a sort of ant-ernet, zinging with communiqués about lost relatives, great food, free rides for hitchhikers, caterpillars in search of ant partners, and impending doom. Improvements in recording equipment are expanding the range of ant chirps and buzzes available to human eavesdroppers. Some scientists are even challenging decades of textbook truths and suggesting that ants might also be able to detect certain kinds of airborne sounds.

http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/when_ants_squeak.html

 

[Trumble]

That is the bias right there. You from the get go believe it is just a fable and that is end of the story.

You aren't paying attention. What I said was

That doesn't prove it wasn't a 'scientific' point being made in the Qur'an, of course, but it is obviously far more probable that it wasn't.

To come up with a remotely plausible case to the contrary you need to suggest a remotely plausible explanation as to why the author of the Qur'an should wish to include a lecture on "complex communication" between ants. You then need to explain why an accurate description was not given, with no cognition of complex concepts assumed on the ants' part and no need for "interpretation". Sorry, but the 'miracle' is just wishful thinking, as usual.

 

[Chuck]

You aren't paying attention. What I said was



To come up with a remotely plausible case to the contrary you need to suggest a remotely plausible explanation as to why the author of the Qur'an should wish to include a lecture on "complex communication" between ants. You then need to explain why an accurate description was not given, with no cognition of complex concepts assumed on the ants' part and no need for "interpretation". Sorry, but the 'miracle' is just wishful thinking, as usual.

What you said was clear which I responded to that you consider it a fable and you don't want to look any further than that. Your above quote doesn't change a thing regarding that. As far as what is more probable, it is more probable that it mentions an incident that happened, actually it is clear from the context that it mentions an actual incident.

And I'm not saying it was a lecture on "complex communication," however it mentions an incident that mentioned communication among ants, which is amazing in its self. Ayas in Quran generally mentions lot of things in nature which lead early muslim scholars in the right direction. For example, Abu Yusuf Ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi, a Muslim scientist, in 796 AD came to the conclusion that time, space, motion and body are all relative which was influenced by the ayas relating to time in Quran.

Like:

"But lo! a day with Allah is a thousand years of what you reckon."
(Qur'an, 22:47)

"He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that you reckon."
(Qur'an, 32:5)

"From Allah, Lord of the ascending (undulating) pathways, whereby the Angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day whereof the span is fifty thousand years."
(Qur'an, 70:4)

It was not hunky dory all the time, ayas have caused problems and debates too for example:

"And you see the mountains and think that they are stationary but they actually move as the clouds; the doing of Allah, who perfected all things. Lo! He is Informed of all that you do."
(Qur'an, 27:88)

Above aya stirred a lot of debate among the scholars in mid century about whether to interpret it in present or future tense. Most scholars tried to rationalize it with the information they had and interpreted it only in future tense, however, some with stronger faith also accepted in present tense like Al-Qurtubi who quotes a saying from Ibn Abbas that "the mountains are standing but also moving" meaning they appear standing but they are moving and believed that an unseen phenomenon has been mentioned by God. Al-kindi also discussed this with regards to his theory of relativity.
Literal translation of that aya is in present tense. However, linguistically, correct me if I'm wrong, aya is correct in both present tense and future tense.

 

[ranma1/2]

soa re we to say that the story fo the ant and the grass hopper that shows ants communicate on equal par then?

 

[Chuck]

soa re we to say that the story fo the ant and the grass hopper that shows ants communicate on equal par then?

Why?

 

[Chuck]

soa re we to say that the story fo the ant and the grass hopper that shows ants communicate on equal par then?

Why?

I think I'm not gonna have a reply, so I'll explain. Those fables are not meant to be real incident, fables employ animal or other non-human object to convey a moral lesson. As far as moral lessen goes, here Quran's verse is giving moral lesson too but through revelation of an actual incident in the past. In Trumble's opinion author of the verse did not mean it to be a real incident, however, taking into consideration the context, theme of the surah, and other related things it is a narration of real incident which came as mainly as a response to Qurash but most importantly drawing examples for believers and for those who have fear of God.

I suppose it is revelant to put the theme and subject matter of this surah here:

The Surah consists of two discourses, the first from the beginning of the Surah to the end of verse 58, and the second from verse 59 to the end of the Surah.

The theme of the first discourse is that only those people can benefit from the guidance of the Quran and become worthy of the good promises made in it, who accept the realities which this Book presents as the basic realities of the universe, and then follow up their belief with obedience and submission in their practical lives as well. But the greatest hindrance for man to follow this way is the denial of the Hereafter. For it makes him irresponsible, selfish and given to worldly life, which in turn makes it impossible for him to submit himself before God and to accept the moral restrictions on his lusts and desires. After this introduction three types of character have been presented.

The first type is characterized by Pharaoh and the chiefs of Thamud and the rebels of the people of Lot, who were all heedless of the accountability of the Hereafter and had consequently become the slaves of the world. These people did not believe even after seeing the miracles. Rather they turned against those who invited them to goodness and piety. They persisted in their evil ways which are held in abhorrence by every sensible person. They did not heed the admonition even until a moment before they were overtaken by the scourge of Allah.

The second type of character is of the Prophet Solomon (peace be upon him), who had been blessed by God with wealth and kingdom and grandeur to an extent undreamt of by the chiefs of the disbelievers of Makkah. But, since he regarded himself as answerable before God and had the feeling that whatever he had was only due to Allah's bounty, he had adopted the attitude of obedience before Him and there was no tinge of vanity in his character.

The third type is of the queen of Sheba, who ruled over a most wealthy and well known people in the history of Arabia. She possessed all those means of life, which could cause a person to become vain and conceited. Her wealth and possessions far exceeded the wealth and possessions of the Quraish. Then she professed shirk, which was not only an ancestral way of life with her, but she had to follow it in order to maintain her position as a ruler. Therefore, it was much more difficult for her to give up shirk and adopt the way of Tauhid than it could be for a common mushrik. But when the Truth became evident to her, nothing could stop her from accepting it. Her deviation was, in fact, due to her being born and brought up in a polytheistic environment and not because of her being a slave to her lusts and desires. Her conscience was not devoid of the sense of accountability before God.

In the second discourse, at the outset, attention has been drawn to some of the most glaring and visible realities of the universe, and the disbelievers of Makkah have been asked one question after the other to the effect : "Do these realities testify to the creed of shirk which you are following, or to the truth of Tauhid to which the Qur'an invites you?" After this the real malady of the disbelievers has been pointed out, saying, "The thing which has blinded them and made them insensitive to every glaring reality is their denial of the Hereafter. This same thing has rendered every matter and affair of life non-serious for them. For, when according to them, everything has to become dust ultimately, and the whole struggle of life is purposeless and without an object before it, the truth and falsehood are equal and alike. Therefore, the question whether one's system of life is based on the right or wrong foundations, becomes meaningless for him."

But the discourse, as outlined above, is not meant to dissuade the Prophet and the Muslims from calling the obdurate and heedless people to the way of Tauhid; it is, in fact, intended to arouse them from their slumber. That is why in vv. 67-93 certain things have been said repeatedly in order to produce in the people a sense of the Hereafter, to warn them of the consequences of being heedless of it, and to convince them of its coining, like an eye witness of something, who convinces the other person of it, who has not seen it.

In conclusion, the real invitation of the Quran that is, the invitation to serve One Allah alone, has been presented in a concise but forceful manner, and the people warned that accepting it would be to their own advantage and rejecting it to their own disadvantage. For if they deferred their faith until they saw those Signs of God after the appearance of which they would be left with no choice but to believe and submit, they should bear in mind the fact that that would be the time of judgment and believing then would be of no avail.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau27.html

​