Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective

[ranma1/2]

I don't think scientists think in terms of "5 to go" either. What I do think is that they form a general idea of how many significant mutations there should have been, and the more we discover the larger the number.


No, I reject common descent in it's totality. Ape to human isn't the only step I'm having troubles with. There's also one celled organism to multi celled ones, fish to reptile, reptile to bird, cold blooded to warm blooded, ...
I even doubt much smaller classes like common descent between feline and canine. In other words. I believe that many different creatures were created independently, and that out of those many creatures an even larger number of variations on those creatures evolved.

ok so if you reject it totatlly then do you thin god poofed everything into existence at one time? Does it wait a couple years and poofs a new oneinto existence and hten another?

 

[MustafaMc]

ok so if you reject it totatlly then do you thin god poofed everything into existence at one time? Does it wait a couple years and poofs a new oneinto existence and hten another?

... and why is it important to explain away the origin of the species? The development of every single human being from a single egg fertilized by a single sperm is miraculous to me. All of the information that is required for the development of a completely unique organism is contained within a microscopic zygote. Yes, we have some knowledge of embryogenesis and how organisms of widely differing species look quite similar at the early stages and then they differentiate their own specific features. The reproduction of species over time is a self-replicating process that we have some knowledge of. We also have some knowledge about how species adapt to changing conditions in the environment. However, I contend that we have no scientific knowledge to support the macro changes that would have been required for a common ancestor to evolve into all of the divergent extant and extinct species without the direct involvement of a Creator. When I see the scientific evidence to support these claims, I will be glad to consider them.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Yes, not all animals would have to have been created at the same time. I don't really see why this is an issue. Unless you're building to bring the argument: well the occurrence in time suggests one evolved from the other.
In which case my reply is:

1. No it's the other way around, the tree of common decent is based on which time which creature occurred
2. Even if it would, that's still speculation and interpretation.
3. There's many problems with that theory (example Cambrian explosion)

 

[ranma1/2]

what is wrong with the cambrian explosion?
the cambrian explosion is well understood in science.
That explosion is when some of the first fossilizable structure had first evolved.

 

[MustafaMc]

Yes, not all animals would have to have been created at the same time. I don't really see why this is an issue.

Yes, the assumption of an instantaneous event whereby all extant and extinct species were simultaneously created is a stumbling block. Real scientific knowledge does not challenge my faith. If anything my knowledge of the intricacies of genetics and molecular biology reinforces my faith in a Creator. If we come to the same level of scientific knowledge (instead of the current speculation) regarding evolution, I am sure that believers would continue to see the direction and control over the process by a Creator - if nothing else in its establishment.

As I implied earlier, the embryonic development of animals in their mother's womb could be a parable for the origin of the species. The "missing element" is the existence of the generic, primal nurturing womb, but it does address the issue of what came first - the chicken or the egg. For that matter, there could have been multiple primal zygotic "seeds" for the establishment of male and female as well as similar yet distinct species like horse/donkey/zebra, Asian elephant/African elephant/mastodon, human/chimpanzee/orangutan, saber-toothed tiger/lion/domestic cat, and wolf/domestic dog/coyote.

We can never go back in time to refute either this hypothesis of a "generic, primal womb" any more than we can refute "evolution" over eons of time or the instantaneous "creation" of living species.

 

[MustafaMc]

We can never go back in time to refute either this hypothesis of a "generic, primal womb" any more than we can refute "evolution" over eons of time or the instantaneous "creation" of living species.

Surely someone has a comment for this post. Have you ever heard the the saying, "Dazzle 'em with brilliance, or baffle 'em with B.S." Well, sometimes it is hard to distinguish between the two.:giggling:

 

[ranma1/2]

We can never go back in time to refute either this hypothesis of a "generic, primal womb" any more than we can refute "evolution" over eons of time or the instantaneous "creation" of living species.

im not clear on what your saying here.

In general i think science goes toward the less complicated answer as well as ones supported by evidence. Since adding in a ID is an unecessary step and that there is no evidnece for ID (or even a coherent idea/theory behind it) its discarded.

"real scientific knowledge is that like true science?"

 

[MustafaMc]

im not clear on what your saying here.

I quoted only a portion of a post on the previous page that hints at why we might call the planet we live on "Mother Earth." What I am saying is that we can't observe the evolution of each species from a basic, common ancestor, nor can we collect evidence to prove that it happened.

In general i think science goes toward the less complicated answer as well as ones supported by evidence.

As I have said before, my understanding of genetics, molecular biology and embryology all tie together into a nice logical thread. In contrast, my knowledge of the components of the evolutionary theory do not tie together into a logical thread.

Since adding in a ID is an unecessary step and that there is no evidnece for ID (or even a coherent idea/theory behind it) its discarded.

Yes, at present ID/Creationism does not provide a scientific explanation or theory for the origin of species.

"real scientific knowledge is that like true science?"

Not sure what you are getting at, but knowledge is distinct from the process used to gain it.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

In general i think science goes toward the less complicated answer as well as ones supported by evidence. Since adding in a ID is an unecessary step and that there is no evidnece for ID (or even a coherent idea/theory behind it) its discarded.
"real scientific knowledge is that like true science?"

The argument of Ockham’s razor is flawed here. Although I grant that at first sight the opponents of the anthropic theory can bring up Ockham’s razor since an explanation without a design is simpler then an explanation with a design; a more in depth analysis shows the flaws. The proponents can also be defended with Ockham’s razor because a purpose minded design seems much simpler then appointing the miraculous characteristics of the universe to nothing more then coincidence. That is because the term luck is a cover up. Luck indicate that something happened against expectations. Most of the time we use the terms like "luck", "randomness" or "chance" when we fail to include all factors that play a significant role in a process when predicting the outcome. So when one says that life is the result of luck that’s just another way of saying: we fail to comprehend all the factors that play a decisive role in it. So the contra argument covered up this need for a causal chain of events going back all the way to big bang by claiming life was mere luck. Now if we assume that there actually is such a causal chain of events that explains the universe's current qualities as results of intrinsic characteristics of whatever blew up during big bang, then and only then -according to Ockham’s razor- is the contra argument the more complex one; and hence less likely to be true. If on the other hand, this hypothetical explanation fails, then Ockham’s razor fails to. Because in such a case you are comparing an incomplete theory to a complete theory. Obviously the incomplete explanation will then be less complex; that doesn't mean it's more likely to be true, but simply that it is incomplete.

However this difference in judgement is not due to a paradoxical nature of Ockham’s razor, nor due to an inherited paradox in the anthropic theory. It is much rather the result of the two conflicting paradigms. To an atheist "design" seems like an unnecessary expansion of his worldview. Whereas to a theist the notion of “coincidence” look like an uncalled expansion of his world-view. So in conclusion I think both parties have to agree that the use of Ockham’s razor in this issue is inapt.

 

[ranma1/2]

...What I am saying is that we can't observe the evolution of each species from a basic, common ancestor, nor can we collect evidence to prove that it happened..

true we cant yet time travel but i think we can deduce with the evidence at hand, fossils, (genetics) dna, geology ect.. the time in which certain species have popped up over time and which are related to which.

 

[ranma1/2]

The argument of Ockham’s razor is flawed here. Although I grant that at first sight the opponents of the anthropic theory can bring up Ockham’s razor since an explanation without a design is simpler then an explanation with a design; a more in depth analysis shows the flaws. The proponents can also be defended with Ockham’s razor because a purpose minded design seems much simpler then appointing the miraculous characteristics of the universe to nothing more then coincidence.

the additional step is now you have to show how this designer came to being, so it becomes more complicated. Also which is more likely, the formation through a natural proccess of the universe or the formation of a infini more complex superbeing?.


.....this hypothetical explanation fails, then Ockham’s razor fails to. Because in such a case you are comparing an incomplete theory (?)to a complete theory(?). Obviously the incomplete explanation will then be less complex; that doesn't mean it's more likely to be true, but simply that it is incomplete.

However this difference in judgement is not due to a paradoxical nature of Ockham’s razor, nor due to an inherited paradox in the anthropic theory. It is much rather the result of the two conflicting paradigms. To an atheist "design" seems like an unnecessary expansion of his worldview. Whereas to a theist the notion of “coincidence” look like an uncalled expansion of his world-view. So in conclusion I think both parties have to agree that the use of Ockham’s razor in this issue is inapt.

Ocams razor is by no means the end all. However it is a good general tool.
And as stated, the additional step is now you have to show how this designer came to being, so it becomes more complicated. Also which is more likely, the formation through a natural proccess of the universe or the formation of a infini more complex superbeing?.

Im also notsure what theory was complete and which was not.

God did it ishardly a complete theory it is for the most part a non answer since ti doesnt answer how.

Evolutoin only covers why we have varitey of life.
abio is a theory that tries to explain how life started.
bigbang is on theory that tries to explain how this universe started.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

And as stated, the additional step is now you have to show how this designer came to being, so it becomes more complicated. Also which is more likely, the formation through a natural proccess of the universe or the formation of a infini more complex superbeing?.

I believe he was ever existing, so didn't need to come into existence.

God did it ishardly a complete theory it is for the most part a non answer since ti doesn't answer how.

It is complete in the sense that it tels you how you got from (a) to (b). Whereas contra anthropic theory tells you we started here and ended up there, but we're not sure about the middle. Of course the method of explanation is different because one is scientific and one is theological which of course makes comparison problematic. However you are the one who started using ockhams razor to compare scientific theories with theological ones. I was the one that said you can't use ockhams razor here.

Evolutoin only covers why we have varitey of life.
abio is a theory that tries to explain how life started.
bigbang is on theory that tries to explain how this universe started.

Yes, but when you brought up the antrophic principle, you brought up abio and big bang to since they go hand in hand. If you don't want to discus these and want to stick strictly to evolution, then you shouldn't have gone to the argument of the anthropic principle.

 

[ranma1/2]

I believe he was ever existing, so didn't need to come into existence.

ah that entire no evidence thing again. i propose that the universe has always existed in someway and thus its still simpler.

It is complete in the sense that it tels you how you got from (a) to (b).
It tells us nothing. Poof is not an explaination.

... Of course the method of explanation is different because one is scientific and one is theological which of course makes comparison problematic.
Well if we are talking about scientific explainationss then no not realy. If we are going on theological then i suggest the GFSM is a much simpler explaination.


Yes, but when you brought up the antrophic principle, you brought up abio and big bang to since they go hand in hand. If you don't want to discus these and want to stick strictly to evolution, then you shouldn't have gone to the argument of the anthropic principle.

yrou the one bringing up everythign else. Im stating that evo is not related to those. And Abio, Big Bang and Evo do not go hand in hand.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

ah that entire no evidence thing again. i propose that the universe has always existed in someway and thus its still simpler.

Well not exactly. I find an infinite universe far more problematic rather then simpler. According to fourdimensionalism, an infinitely old universe is also infinitely big (since it has an infinite number of temporal segments). The Case of God ever existing is completely different though. I believe that God has always existed, not because he is infinitely old over time, but rather because he is not bound by the dimension of time in the first place. See it's a completely different thing and the comparison doesn't go.

It tells us nothing. Poof is not an explaination.

I never said it explained how, it explains why. See the difference between theological/philosophical theories and scientific theories is that the former study why something happens whereas the latter studies how something happens. That doesn't mean that one is more "complete" then the other. I could just as well claim that science tells us nothing, since it can't explain why things happen which closes the loop and brings us right back to the anthropical argument. See how circular your paradigm is? I guess that's my cue to repeat myself and say: you can't make a comparison between those two and you definitely can't weigh them off against each other with ockham's razor.

Well if we are talking about scientific explainationss then no not realy.

I've already stated before, that I never claimed my point of view is scientific, my point is simply that certain parts of evolution aren't scientific either. If you're not gonna listen to me I'm gonna have to keep repeating myself ^_^

If we are going on theological then i suggest the GFSM is a much simpler explaination.

And you're welcome to believe it if you so desire. However I know you're smarter then that. You know just as well as I do, that the GFSM is an argument ad absurdum. It's sole purpose for existence is to point out to people that theological theories don't belong in science class. I for one agree 100% on that. And as I have repeatedly told you, I never claimed my alternatives were scientific, my point is simply that some parts of evolution aren't scientific either. So that you would bring up the GFSM argument against me, is not only an insult to my intelligence, but a rather cheap shot if you ask me.

yrou the one bringing up everythign else. And Abio, Big Bang and Evo do not go hand in hand.

I never said said: Abio big bang and evo go hand in hand with eachother.
Instead what I said was: Abio big bang and evo go hand in hand with the contra anthropic principle.
And yes you did bring up the contra anthropic principle when you started using ockhams razor to try and defeat ID. Seriously, you need start reading what I'm writing. 90% of all your replies come forth from your prejudges. you're not reading what I'm telling you you're reading what you're expecting to find.

 

[Chuck]

I've nothing against evolution, but what I don't like is some people take things in it as factual when they don't seem to be factual.

I'll mention some examples:
(1) Carl Woese's third domain. Thirty years ago, in 1977, Carl Woese proposed that Archaea are different from bacteria and constitute a new super-kingdom Archaebacteria, which saw huge opposition from Darwinist and thus was not received well in the scientific community. Ralph Wolfe a friend and colleague of Carl recalls: 'One Nobel Prize winner [in medicine], Salvador Luria, called me and said, 'Ralph, you're going to ruin your career. You've got to disassociate yourself from this nonsense!". Hostility, Woese said, was shocking. He was ridiculed and made fun of, called a crackpot, being neither a microbiologist or an evolutionist. Leading biologist thought he was crazy. But with the progress in molecular biology strong evidences came 20 to 30 years later, and scientist came to know he was right after all. And that changed the shape of tree of life that leading biologists were opposing at that time.

He faced opposition because he was challenging common decent, although he believed in evolution. Woese's data showed that there is not one ancestor of all life forms, but branch of roots. So if Darwinism means one cell as an ancestor of all life then Woese refuted Darwinism.

Sources:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/276/5313/699
http://www.amazon.com/Third-Domain-Tim-Friend/dp/0309102375

(2) Non coding DNA. It was considered junk, a leftover of evolutionary progress without any function (or non essential functionality). And I remember arguments about it :rollseyes

Large swaths of garbled human DNA once dismissed as junk appear to contain some valuable sections, according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine and the University of California-Santa Cruz. The scientists propose that this redeemed DNA plays a role in controlling when genes turn on and off.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185538.htm

Genius of Junk is the story of how Malcolm Simons turned Junk into gold, enflaming one of the greatest controversies of our time - the control and ownership of our genetic material.

It is a story of triumph and tragedy. The triumph of a man flying in the face of conventional scientific thought, facing ridicule for his ideas and living to see those ideas vindicated. The tragedy of seeing his dreams come to fruition as he faces death. For he himself has cancer, Multiple Myeloma. A fatal and incurable cancer, formed in the very Junk DNA he spent 16 years exploring.

This is also a story of genius and character. Malcolm Simons had the genius to realise that the non-coding part of our DNA wasn’t in fact the junk DNA that many scientists had labelled it, but vital to the processes of life.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s898887.htm
​

 

[Tornado]

I've nothing against evolution, but what I don't like is some people take things in it as factual when they don't seem to be factual.

:? I had the impression that evolution was a fact, the mechanism by which it happened a theory. Perhaps i'm mistaken.

 

[Chuck]

:? I had the impression that evolution was a fact, the mechanism by which it happened a theory. Perhaps i'm mistaken.

Depends on what you are talking about in evolution. Evolution is a very broad subject, somethings are fact and somethings are theory.

 

[Tornado]

Depends on what you are talking about in evolution. Evolution is a very broad subject, somethings are fact and somethings are theory.

Evolution isn't really a broad subject. The happening of evolution (tree of life) I thought was a fact, while things like just how, say natural selection, specific things like graduated equilibrium and punctuated equilibrium would be the details that aren't considered fact.

 

[SixTen]

Id say natural selection is pretty factual nowadays in the scientific community. The only thing which is really in a heavy theory stage is abiogenesis.

 

[Chuck]

Id say natural selection is pretty factual nowadays in the scientific community. The only thing which is really in a heavy theory stage is abiogenesis.

Natural selection is factual, but natural selection doesn't explain everything. For example:

One class of programmed responses to stress has received very little attention by biologists. The stress signal induces cells of a plant to make a wholly new plant structure, and this to house and feed a developing insect, from egg to the emerging adult. A single Vitus plant, for example, may have on its leaves three or more distinctly different galls, each housing a different insect species. The stimulus associated with the placement of the insect egg into the leaf will initiate reprogramming of the plant's genome, forcing it to make a unique structure adapted to the needs of the developing insect. The precise structural organization of a gall that give it individuality must start with an initial stimulus, and each species provides its own specific stimulus. For each insect species the same distinctive reprogramming of the plant genome is seen to occur year-after-year. Some of the most interesting and elaborate plant galls house developing wasps. Each wasp species selects its own responding oak species, and the gall structure that is produced is special for each wasp to oak combination. All of these galls are precisely structured, externally and internally, as a rapid examination of them will show.

http://gos.sbc.edu/m/mcclintock.html
​