Evolution in Islam

[Skavau]

Quoting Abdul Fattah again;

​

Theory or hypothesis?​

Just as with abiogenesis, common descent is closer to being a hypothesis rather then a theory. And just like abiogenesis, it's strictly speculation at this point. There's no proof, no falsifiability and no testability. The hypothesis is based on the sweeping generalization that since some organism evolved from one another, all must have evolved from the same one! This is obviously a logical fallacy. But more importantly, one could argue that since this theory speculates on what happened in the past; that this is actually a history theory build on different scientific theories rather then a scientific theory itself!

http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm

Has mr. Abdul Fattah ever typed into google "observed instances of speciation"?

He might be surprised.

I don't really care if it didn't. Sampharo made a point against abiogenesis because that's an issue which is more controversial and leads towards evolution. If he made a mistake, so what?

Because Sampharo unfairly links abiogenesis to evolution, mistakenly points out that Charles Darwin claimed abiogenesis is a part of it (with no citation, and Darwin on record said the converse) and has the audacity to claim that he has the knowledge and information to condemn evolution when he's already demonstrate that he doesn't even know what the term 'evolution' means!

 

[- Qatada -]

Has mr. Abdul Fattah ever typed into google "observed instances of speciation"?

He might be surprised.

He has indeed. And his comment still stands.

Because Sampharo unfairly links abiogenesis to evolution, mistakenly points out that Charles Darwin claimed abiogenesis is a part of it (with no citation, and Darwin on record said the converse) and has the audacity to claim that he has the knowledge and information to condemn evolution when he's already demonstrate that he doesn't even know what the term 'evolution' means!

Darwin himself did hint at abiogenesis*, so it wouldn't be surprising if someone was to think that Darwin was attempting to associate the hypothesis of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution.

* "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

written in 1871, published in Darwin, Francis, ed. 1887. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray. Volume 3. p. 18


​

 

[The Adogmatist]

Thanx for the welcome Gossamer skye

I was under the impression that empiricism IS based on experimentation, and that philosophy is based on speculation. At least I've been used to calling it "empirical evidence" when it is evidence based on observations.

And just to clarify my point of view on what one is discussing when discussing evolution:

"Evolution" is an English word that basically means "change over time". The word itself can be used for almost anything related to that, like: "Throughout the season, our cricket-team evolved into a coordinated unit of professional players"

When I come across the word evolution in biological sciences, I've actually only seen it used in two ways:

1: To describe the change we observe in living organisms as they go from generation to generation. How some rats get immune to rat-poison when most of their ancestors were not, and how some banana-flies divide into groups that can no longer breed with the other groups (also called speciation). This is just something we see, like when a rock falls to the ground and we call it gravity. Therefore it is also called "the fact of evolution".

2: Just like Newton described the falling of a rock with his theory of gravity, there are theories to describe the change of life. By far the most successful of these is the theory put forward by Darwin and Wallace, where they proposed that natural selection was the mechanism that gave direction to the process of evolution. Just like Newton's theory of gravity has since been expanded and mostly replaced by Einstein's theory of gravity, Darwin and Wallace's theory has been improved by many scientists since. It is often called "the theory of evolution through natural selection" to separate it from other theories that attempts to explain the observed evolution (like Lamarcism).

Now, regardless of what one thinks of other things like abiogenesis, creation of the universe etc. What does Islam, in your opinion, think of these two versions of evolution? How do Muslims relate to the observed changes of life, and what do they think of the mechanism that most biologists use to explain these changes?

 

[Chuck]

Certainly, Adam and Eve being made perfectly and then giving birth to other humans is problematic in light of evolution (which is btw the currently accepted model of how living things exist as you see them today by most biologists).

What would be the problem exactly? Whole life can come from a common ancestor but human species can't come from common parents? mg:

 

[جوري]

Thanx for the welcome Gossamer skye

I was under the impression that empiricism IS based on experimentation, and that philosophy is based on speculation. At least I've been used to calling it "empirical evidence" when it is evidence based on observations.

Greetings,

It is good to have you aboard:

here is the Meriam definition, I didn't render it my own meaning:

empiricism




Main Entry: em·pir·i·cism
Pronunciation: \im-ˈpir-ə-ˌsi-zəm, em-\
Function: noun
Date: 1657
1 a : a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory b : quackery, charlatanry
2 a : the practice of relying on observation b : a tenet arrived at empirically
3 : a theory that all knowledge originates in experience
— em·pir·i·cist \-sist\ noun



and here it is on word-web for a second opinion:

Noun: empiricism em'pi-ri,si-zum

1. (philosophy) the doctrine that knowledge derives from experience
   - empiricist philosophy, sensationalism, phenomenalism
2. The application of empirical methods in any art or science
3. Medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings
   - quackery

Derived forms: empiricisms
Type of: investigating, investigation, medical practice, philosophical doctrine, philosophical theory
Encyclopedia: Empiricism


Anything else on evolution I have covered in quite the expansive detail on the numerous threads here with fine examples. I really have no interest in this topic otherwise, I recognize that it is a contentious place for many people for it defines their being and purpose for their existence and philosophical inclinations.. and as stated I am not interested in philosophy or alternate theories as to how we came to be since I already accept that we were created, and I accept that we don't know how we were created as per Quran:


مَا أَشْهَدتُّهُمْ خَلْقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمَا كُنتُ مُتَّخِذَ الْمُضِلِّينَ عَضُدًا {51}
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 18:51] I made them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their own creation

This I am not interested in inane speculations or 'empirical observations' that claim to have the answers when at the same time the same 'empiricists' are having a difficult time coming up with a cure for the common cold!

all the best
[/SIZE]

 

[The Adogmatist]

Thank you for your reply Gossamer skye, I guess it is the "practice of relying on observation"-meaning of empiricism I am most used to. The wikipedia page elaborates a bit more on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

I will of course not press you to discuss a topic you have no wish to discuss further, my questions were meant for anyone who wishes to explain these things to me.

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of the Quran, as I have not read the book itself, only a Norwegian translation. However, at first glance it would seem to me that the verse you quoted implies that the Quran is not saying anything either for or against any kind of the two types of evolution I mentioned, or even different types of abiogenesis for that matter. But that is how I read it, others may read it differently.

I also fail to see how the common cold is related to this, I didn't understand that part

 

[جوري]

Thank you for your reply Gossamer skye, I guess it is the "practice of relying on observation"-meaning of empiricism I am most used to. The wikipedia page elaborates a bit more on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

I will of course not press you to discuss a topic you have no wish to discuss further, my questions were meant for anyone who wishes to explain these things to me.

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of the Quran, as I have not read the book itself, only a Norwegian translation. However, at first glance it would seem to me that the verse you quoted implies that the Quran is not saying anything either for or against any kind of the two types of evolution I mentioned, or even different types of abiogenesis for that matter. But that is how I read it, others may read it differently.

I also fail to see how the common cold is related to this, I didn't understand that part

Greetings,
It isn't that I have no desire to discuss the topic, it is that the topic has been discussed here amply you'll find threads in the way of 30~40 pages of back and forth debated, if this were as simple as all that then there wouldn't be contentions about the debate. And you are correct in understanding the verse, we don't know how God created us and I doubt we'll know, we can figure out how things function but not how they came together nor why..

the common cold was an analogy of something very simple and self-limiting eluding scientists for a 'cure' for them to take on some as grand as the keys to creation..

I don't usually think of wikipedia as a credible source but I thank you for the link..

all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of the Quran, as I have not read the book itself, only a Norwegian translation. However, at first glance it would seem to me that the verse you quoted implies that the Quran is not saying anything either for or against any kind of the two types of evolution I mentioned, or even different types of abiogenesis for that matter. But that is how I read it, others may read it differently.

These are among the verses that tell the story about the creation of humankind:


It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth. Then He directed Himself to the heaven, [His being above all creation], and made them seven heavens, and He is Knowing of all things. (QS.2:29)

And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know." (QS. 2:30)

And He taught Adam the names - all of them. Then He showed them to the angels and said, "Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful." (QS. 2:31)

They said, "Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise." (QS. 2:32)

He said, "O Adam, inform them of their names." And when he had informed them of their names, He said, "Did I not tell you that I know the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed." (QS. 2:33)

And @ when We said to the angels, "Prostrate before Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees. He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers. (QS. 2:34) [/B][/I] From these successive ayats, it is clear that humanity were already in the perfect form when created and the earth with everything on it were already created perfectly for human to live. Hence, a muslim must reject the notion of evolution that postulates human evolved from apes who in turn evolved from amino acids striked by lightning.;

 

[Lynx]

Not really

Wouldn't the children of Adam die of inbreeding due to incest?

Now to answer the question;

Mutations also aren't as common as you make it seem, and it is very unlikely that the first children already all had these mutations. It would probably take several generations.

Secondly, merely for the sake of argument, even if their children would have these mutations, it's highly unlikly for them to all have the same mutations, hence the second generation will not have an issue with this either.

And thirdly, again, as muslims we don't believe in the existence of chance, everything follows a cause and effect. And you build on the premise that indeed an omnipotent and omniscient God created them, then it seems perfectly plausible that God didn't "cause" any mutations to occur in the first few generations, untill there was a large enough population to intermingle. ​

I don't know why you thought I was talking about incest. As far as I know the problem with two parents responsible for 6 billion people besides the mathematics involved (population rates etc) is that with such a limited gene pool any disease would have wiped out humanity. Anyway, that wasn't my point; what I was saying is that the problem with Adam & Eve & Evolution is that humans didn't just appear as is according to modern evolutionary theory which contradicts the whole 'adam was the first human made out of clay'. According to evolutionary theory adam would have to be (i guess) the first homo sapien evolved from lower apes. Is that coherent with Adam and Eve? Was adam the child of an ape? explain.

 

[Ramadhan]

what I was saying is that the problem with Adam & Eve & Evolution is that humans didn't just appear as is according to modern evolutionary theory which contradicts the whole 'adam was the first human made out of clay'. According to evolutionary theory adam would have to be (i guess) the first homo sapien evolved from lower apes. Is that coherent with Adam and Eve? Was adam the child of an ape? explain.

You got it right, actually.
The evolution theory contradicts the creation of humankind (with Adam a.s. as the first human), and when something contradicts what the Qur'an says, we muslims have to reject it.

Anyway, fyi, the evolution theory is just that, a theory, and NOT A FACT.

 

[Skavau]

You got it right, actually.
The evolution theory contradicts the creation of humankind (with Adam a.s. as the first human), and when something contradicts what the Qur'an says, we muslims have to reject it.

Anyway, fyi, the evolution theory is just that, a theory, and NOT A FACT.

I take it you are not aware of the meaning of 'theory' in science?

 

[Chuck]

Has mr. Abdul Fattah ever typed into google "observed instances of speciation"?

He might be surprised.

So he doesn't exactly agree with you it means he doesn't know about those species? There is search function, he has discussed this on the forum before. Take look at it.

 

[- Qatada -]

I don't know why you thought I was talking about incest. As far as I know the problem with two parents responsible for 6 billion people besides the mathematics involved (population rates etc) is that with such a limited gene pool any disease would have wiped out humanity.

Couldn't an omnipotent God prevent such events from occuring until the human population was diverse enough and spread out? The post you've quoted addresses this already.

Anyway, that wasn't my point; what I was saying is that the problem with Adam & Eve & Evolution is that humans didn't just appear as is according to modern evolutionary theory which contradicts the whole 'adam was the first human made out of clay'. According to evolutionary theory adam would have to be (i guess) the first homo sapien evolved from lower apes. Is that coherent with Adam and Eve? Was adam the child of an ape? explain.

No, this is hypothetical and not proven. Common descent is based on a slippery slope that just because some organisms evolved from others, that ALL organisms had to evolve off each other. This then becomes an educated guess, but not scientific fact.



Here's a discussion on some examples of skulls scientists have found, and how they thought they were monkeys evolved into humans, and how it was found out that these weren't really evolved; but simply humans or monkeys. He says:

The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another. That is ofcourse uncertain.​

Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie.​

The similarity does not prove one belief to be more likely than the other. Also note that the comparisons are usually made in the wrong way. For example, many of the alleged intermediate species between ape and human, are argued to be human afterall. Here are some proposed missing links:


* Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago

* Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago

* Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago

* Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago



The false claims from Richard leakey and Donald C Johanson that the australopithecus walked erected has been refuted and it seems the Australopithecus is closely related with urangutans which according to evolutionists is from a different branch then the one mankind origenated from.*


Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago (proposed in the 60's as first humanoid that walked erecte and used tools). New discoveries in 80's showed a different picture and Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace said that this was in fact nothing more then An Australopithecus habilis. So it's just another extinct african ape.


* Homo rudolfensis 1.9 to 1.6 million years ago. It refers to a single fragmented skull found in Kenia. However most scientists have accepted it again as nothing more then Australopithecus habilis.

* Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago. Although this skeleton is exactly the same as human, evolutionists have classified it as a transendiery specie, based on the small skullcontents (900-1100 cc) and because of the big eyebrows (of the skull). However, there are humans alive today with that skullcontents (i.e. Pygmees), and that have such eyebrows (i.e. Australian aborigenals)! So there is no reason to assume these skelletons are a missing link, they are just humans. In fact the New Scientists of 1998 14 march even wrote an excelent article of how Homo erectus had the technology to build and use transport ships.

* Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago. Again there's no reason to assu?me they weren't human, in fact many researchers have even concluded that they are exactly the same as Australian aborigenals. They even found skeletons of them showing that they lived up to recently in villages in Italy and Hungary. The dramatic pictures of hary human-like apes you found in schoolhandbooks are just indulgance into imagenation, remmeber we've only found skelletons.

* Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago. Erik Trinkus, paleontologist of university of mexico writes: detailed study of the skelleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intelect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man.
​

Now I'm not going to claim there's some sort of crazy conspiracy going on here, and that evolutionists purposely create false intermediate species. But perhaps people are just looking so hard for these unfound missing links that they start to see things that aren't there.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Someone quoted a verse from the Quran that Allah has said that the creation of man is hidden from him. As such, I think as Muslims we cannot ever know how we were formed. Evolutionists can claim all they want.

Going through a nature magazine from past years, as is my hobby, came across an article which described the theories which explain why we primates are hairless compared to other primates. One theory proposed that primitive human mothers practiced infanticide and killed hairy babies at the expense of hairless babies because hairless babies seemed more "cute, fit and genetically superior." Still does not explain the growth of pubic hair.

 

[Lynx]

Couldn't an omnipotent God prevent such events from occuring until the human population was diverse enough and spread out? The post you've quoted addresses this already.

Yeh, "maybe" or maybe not I think you just made a hypothesis that requires some investigation

No, this is hypothetical and not proven. Common descent is based on a slippery slope that just because some organisms evolved from others, that ALL organisms had to evolve off each other. This then becomes an educated guess, but not scientific fact.



Here's a discussion on some examples of skulls scientists have found, and how they thought they were monkeys evolved into humans, and how it was found out that these weren't really evolved; but simply humans or monkeys. He says:

The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another. That is ofcourse uncertain.​

Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie.​

The similarity does not prove one belief to be more likely than the other. Also note that the comparisons are usually made in the wrong way. For example, many of the alleged intermediate species between ape and human, are argued to be human afterall. Here are some proposed missing links:


* Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago

* Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago

* Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago

* Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago



The false claims from Richard leakey and Donald C Johanson that the australopithecus walked erected has been refuted and it seems the Australopithecus is closely related with urangutans which according to evolutionists is from a different branch then the one mankind origenated from.*


Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago (proposed in the 60's as first humanoid that walked erecte and used tools). New discoveries in 80's showed a different picture and Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace said that this was in fact nothing more then An Australopithecus habilis. So it's just another extinct african ape.


* Homo rudolfensis 1.9 to 1.6 million years ago. It refers to a single fragmented skull found in Kenia. However most scientists have accepted it again as nothing more then Australopithecus habilis.

* Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago. Although this skeleton is exactly the same as human, evolutionists have classified it as a transendiery specie, based on the small skullcontents (900-1100 cc) and because of the big eyebrows (of the skull). However, there are humans alive today with that skullcontents (i.e. Pygmees), and that have such eyebrows (i.e. Australian aborigenals)! So there is no reason to assume these skelletons are a missing link, they are just humans. In fact the New Scientists of 1998 14 march even wrote an excelent article of how Homo erectus had the technology to build and use transport ships.

* Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago. Again there's no reason to assu?me they weren't human, in fact many researchers have even concluded that they are exactly the same as Australian aborigenals. They even found skeletons of them showing that they lived up to recently in villages in Italy and Hungary. The dramatic pictures of hary human-like apes you found in schoolhandbooks are just indulgance into imagenation, remmeber we've only found skelletons.

* Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago. Erik Trinkus, paleontologist of university of mexico writes: detailed study of the skelleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intelect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man.
​

Now I'm not going to claim there's some sort of crazy conspiracy going on here, and that evolutionists purposely create false intermediate species. But perhaps people are just looking so hard for these unfound missing links that they start to see things that aren't there.

Well I am not sure what you're getting at here. All scientific facts are generalizations; that is the nature of inductive reasoning which is the basis for scientific reasoning. Scientists claim they have a good deal of evidence to show that ALL currently existing biological lifeforms shared a common ancestor. The thing is, no lifeform has been found to disprove evolutionary theory. There are sets of things to be found that would falsify evolution and so if any of these things would be found evolution would be falsified but they are not found. So you have to take into account the positive evidence and the lack of contradicting evidence...for 150 years no less!

As for the bit about human skulls..first you should note one thing: evolution is not based on 'if they look alike then they evolved from each other'. That is completely untrue. So I think you ought to stop reading bad sources. Anyway, I'll leave you with this: evolution became a 'fact' in light of the evidence produced in fields like molecular biology and genetics. As some scientists put it, even if we had no fossils, the evidence from other fields like genetics and DNA would scream evolution at us.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

 

[Chuck]

the mathematics involved (population rates etc) is that with such a limited gene pool any disease would have wiped out humanity.

Don't exaggerate.

 

[- Qatada -]

Yeh, "maybe" or maybe not I think you just made a hypothesis that requires some investigation

As Muslims, we admit our belief that Adam and Eve were the first humans, who were created by God separately from other species.

But one thing we agree on is that there were two humans once upon a time; male and female who fathered the human race - to allow it to descend and spread. We can say its Adam & Eve, you'll just say i don't know what their name is.

Well I am not sure what you're getting at here. All scientific facts are generalizations; that is the nature of inductive reasoning which is the basis for scientific reasoning. Scientists claim they have a good deal of evidence to show that ALL currently existing biological lifeforms shared a common ancestor.

They don't

The thing is, no lifeform has been found to disprove evolutionary theory. There are sets of things to be found that would falsify evolution and so if any of these things would be found evolution would be falsified but they are not found. So you have to take into account the positive evidence and the lack of contradicting evidence...for 150 years no less!

Since the theory of a common ancestor speculates on what happened in the past; this is actually a history theory built on different scientific theories rather then a scientific theory itself!

As for the bit about human skulls..first you should note one thing: evolution is not based on 'if they look alike then they evolved from each other'.

There is many propaganda used to try to fool ignorant people.

An example of such propaganda is the below pic;

That's propaganda for you. There are too many missing links, and too much flaws in the research - as I explained in the above post - which are ignored by many pro-evolutionists.

Images like the above will continuously be shown, even when they're not true. Makes you wonder whether this is just a quest for truth, or a massive cult based on false facts?

Anyway, I'll leave you with this: evolution became a 'fact' in light of the evidence produced in fields like molecular biology and genetics. As some scientists put it, even if we had no fossils, the evidence from other fields like genetics and DNA would scream evolution at us.

I can even argue that God used a similar design for all species [because it's a good design], so their DNA and genetics are similar.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Yeh, "maybe" or maybe not I think you just made a hypothesis that requires some investigation




Well I am not sure what you're getting at here. All scientific facts are generalizations; that is the nature of inductive reasoning which is the basis for scientific reasoning. Scientists claim they have a good deal of evidence to show that ALL currently existing biological lifeforms shared a common ancestor. The thing is, no lifeform has been found to disprove evolutionary theory. There are sets of things to be found that would falsify evolution and so if any of these things would be found evolution would be falsified but they are not found. So you have to take into account the positive evidence and the lack of contradicting evidence...for 150 years no less!

As for the bit about human skulls..first you should note one thing: evolution is not based on 'if they look alike then they evolved from each other'. That is completely untrue. So I think you ought to stop reading bad sources. Anyway, I'll leave you with this: evolution became a 'fact' in light of the evidence produced in fields like molecular biology and genetics. As some scientists put it, even if we had no fossils, the evidence from other fields like genetics and DNA would scream evolution at us.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

Similarities on molecular level do not imply descent from common ancestor. If you are talking about retroviruses genome found in "exact" same locations in humans and chimps, it very well could be that these retroviruses had a bias to insert at the same/similar locations on lower primate and human genome.

 

[Lynx]

Qatada: you are seriously under-read on the topic. Not surprisingly though.

mad_scientist: Well the molecular evidence is ONE thing, there is other evidence in the DNA and genetics etc...that is NOT based on similarity. Check out talkorigins section on evidence for evolution.

 

[- Qatada -]

I find it funny how you make so much assumptions about me when i'm purposelly answering you with general answers, since you're not actually making any specific points.

Its quite easy to reply with links, but i dont think thats really an argument. Anyone can do that.