evolution refuted simply

[Abdul Fattah]

I disagree with you, I bring scientific data to the debate, you bring nothing

Oh really? Where is that scientific data then? Just saying a certain scientists thinks the same as you do does not make that thinking scientific. Or are you perhaps referring to the article you linked to? Yes that had scientific data. But it did not prove your point. The only thing you proved by posting that is that you do not know what you’re talking about and that you are in way over your head but to stubborn to admit it.

Again, it's not about popularity. You simply cannot bring supporting evidence because you cannot find credible sources to support your position.

Listen up, I don’t care how many times you present the same argument; my answer will always be the same: The reason I don’t bring any evidence up is because ‘till today whether it is random or orderly is unknown. Some just assume it is random because it goes along well with evolution. And that is exactly why this cannot be used as an argument in favor of evolution. You can try and discredit me by challenging me to present evidence. But joke’s on you, ‘cause as far as I know:

[PIE]Score is still 0-0[/PIE]

If we observe a retro-virus inserting it's dna randomly within it's host, (this evidence was provided) it is logical to assume that the virus does not require to insert at a specific point thus conclude it's insertion is random.

There is no such evidence. When has this been witnessed who observed it. Where’s this evidence? Not only are you unable to present this so called evidence, but you just admit that it is an assumption in the very next sentence. That there is no proof. And why is it logical that it does not require a specific point to be inserted in? And how does such a reasoning give us certainty of that assumption?

your arguement by comparisom claims that it is ordered on the basis that we cannot prove it to be random?

NO, you are wrong! I said that nobody knows that it could be either one. You are the only one making assumptions here. You are the one jumping to conclusions. You are the one who assumes it is random because we cannot proof it is organized.
So in conclusion; number one still stands:
1. General relativity is built on arguments logic and tests.
Your theory is based on the absence of a noticeable order.

It is![testable]

Yes sure, and if you reapeat that long enough and believe real hard eventually that statement will be true! Regardless of that miracle, it would still be insufficient in a debate to proof your point! so objection 2 also still stands.
2. General relativity is testable.
Your theory is not testable.

As to falsification, if you were able to find a sequence shared by gorillas and humans that was not found in chimps then the theory of evolution would be in serious doubt. Additionally, find an ERV only shared by orangutans and humans and not chimps or gorillas, you would again cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution. However, these potential falsifications have never been observed. Only recently has the human genome been decoded, and even more recently the chimp genome. Soon, the gorilla genome will be complete, so even more ERV?s may show up. As more genomes are completed this test can be continually applied as new ERV?s are discovered in other primate and ape species, not to mention other non-primate species. Therefore, ERV?s are a fine example of a repeatable and falsifiable data set that can be used to test the theory of evolution.

Very true. But until the day those genes are decoded the theory is still not falsifiable. So until then, argument three still stands.
3. General relativity is falsifiable.
Your theory is not falsifiable.

Correct, though misleading since you are simply talking the ability to predict. Fine, What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of DNA?

[MOUSE]Not to split hairs, but I think you mean loci rather then letter. The whole DNA consists only out of four letters. Difrent genes are created by difrent combinations of those 4. When refereeing to a specific place on the DNA thread that’s a loci (from the latin locus, which means “place”)
…
Just to avoid confusion…[/MOUSE]

Given the improbable event of two separate infections leading to the same ERV the most likely scenario is that the two species share a common ancestor. Taxonomy, through the study of fossils, has come to the conclusion that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Therefore, knowing the implications of ERV production, we should find ERV?s at the same letter of DNA in each of these species. This is a prediction made by the theory of evolution. Not only that, but the patterns of similarities should also match cladistics. Cladistics is what many call ?the tree of life? which show species branching off from one another. One such clade, constructed through the study of fossils, proposes that humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans all share a common ancestor. The first species to branch off were orangutans, the second were gorillas, the third were chimps, and the final branch resulted in humans. This allows us to make very precise predictions. If humans and orangutans share a common ERV at the same letter of DNA, then chimps and gorillas should also have that same ERV at the same letter of DNA because all of these species share one common ancestor. Since orangutans branched off before the other three, we should see ERV?s occuring after this branching. That is, there should be ERV?s common between gorillas, chimps, and humans that orangutans do not have. Since gorillas split off next, we should see ERV?s shared between chimps and humans that are not seen in gorillas or orangutans. In fact, there are seven ERV?s between humans and chimps that can only be explained by common ancestory, as well as the other ERV?s shared by humans and other apes.

That is all very interesting but as you already hinted to with your opening does not defeat argument 4. The theory is still not usable to make calculations of future insretions of retroviri. It does not enable us to send a rocket to the moon.
4. General relativity is used for calculating future events which turn out accurate.
Your theory cannot give us any predictions or calculations.

Of course it conflicts with religion, creationists cannot explain same ERV sequences at the same point (unless like the mosquito example you claim the virus infected the ape & human separately but at the precise same location) to which you have no evidence to support this because it is FALSE!!!!

That’s a very stupid way of thinking root. Something is not false because of a lack of evidence.

Survival of the fittest/luckiest has nothing to do with this.

Yes it does. According to the survival of the fittest any mutation that is a benefit will higher the possibility of survival whereas any mutation that is unbeneficial would lower it. Although ERV’s aren’t really harmful by nature; they do inhibit some enzymes of the body thus lower production of necessary enzymes, and on top of that, when being inserted can damage a gene. So if anything, ERV’s would bring down survival rates. Yet an entire population acquired this ERV through a single insertion. That is pushing “luck”.
So I think it’s safe to say:
5. General relativity does not seem to be conflicting with any other worldly knowledge.
Your theory is not only conflicting with most mainstream religions but is also conflicting with survival of the fittest and even defying logic!

And so is Evolution, what is your point?

My point is that there’s a big difference between the “theory” of general relativity; and your “theory”. My point is that both need to be looked at with different standards. That the word “theory” has a much heavier meaning in one case then it has in the other. In other words my point is that:
6. General relativity is a theory.
Your theory is nothing but an assumption dressed in a fancy word.

I don't see the difference. Do you?

Yes I do see it, and it comes in the shape of six differences why the two shouldn’t be compared. I even put them in red typing. If you don’t see it, than you are either blind or unwilling.

Why don't you show me a virus that inserts itself at the same letter of a dna sequence!!!! if it is ordered it woulkd happen again and again!!!!!!
OK, if thats true again, show me a virus that inserts at the same letter of dna and I will convert to Islam instantly. Fact is you can't.[/

Well first of all, the absence of evidence does not proof the opposite assumption. So you dodged my request smoothly, but not smooth enough. Second of all; your counter request does not make any sense. Different viri would have different affinities for different loci (letters as you would say). So it would be absurd to assume that they insert at the same place where there is already an ERV present. Also take under consideration that by infecting the DNA the retrovirus altered the state of the DNA thread and thus the loci also changes. Perhaps in a less preferable place for insertions.

To draw upon the example of a mosquito, I could simply state that it bites a human host in a set order, the only reason no scientist shows us the evidence is that we assume it to be random by default. Like your position, it's pure gibberish.

Well first of all the randomness of mosquito bites hasn’t been proven either, as absurd as that might sound. But, when it comes to ERV’s the absurdity stops. Because here there is an assumable possibility. It is not absurd to imagine an order behind it for reasons that I already mentioned more then enough such as delta charges which give affinity for certain loci. Or certain loci being weak and easily spitted for insertion.

I agree it is lame, similar to finding a pattern of random mosquito bites on a human host and claiming an order to it's bite point. But that is about the strength of your debate.

First of all it’s not the strength of my debate, but the weakness of yours. You are the one talking about proof and scientific facts. I am the one saying we simply don’t know. Second of all, I do have reasons to believe that it is not random, I presented them and all you could say in response was: show me. I told you, we don’t know. Neither my p.o.v. nor yours is accepted. I could say yours is just as weak and lacking of evidence as mine.
But just for fun. Lets consider that a mosquito is drawn to certain areas just as a virus could be drawn to insert in certain areas. A mosquito does not bite randomly. Be it either by the smell of sweat of by body heat. It is drawn to certain flesh. How come I can sleep in the same room of my sister and wake up without a single bite while my sister is full of bites? Let’s also consider that certain areas of skin aren’t preferable for biting just as certain areas of DNA wouldn’t likely split. A mosquito wouldn’t bite me in a place on my hands where I have lots of corn, because it would be to hard to go trough. But if you want to think of this as totally random just because nobody ever made a serious study involving the order and places in which mosquito’s bite, well be my guest then.

Yes it is a nightmare, the evidence suggests I have nothing to beleive that creationist accounts driven by religous doctrine will ever be taken seriously and confined to the religous education classes. Hence, you cannot find any supporting data for your belief that insertion points are orderly.

This is nuts, all the evidence shows it to be random similar to why a mosquito bites at a random point.

WHAT EVIDENCE???? I’ve asked you thousand of times… and Mr. PIE is still saying the same thing:
[PIE] score: 0-0 [/PIE]

The odds of an effective viral insertion occurring at the same letter of DNA in two different infections is 1 in 50 million

That is, assuming it is random. I do not assume it’s random, so I do not have to answer to this luck calculation. My problem with luck, the odds of an entire population acquiring this ERV as the result of a single infection still stands though.

I’ve seen dogs who got tired from running in circles a lot faster then you do Root.

 

[muslim dude]

Sub-Topic : Science strengthens the emaan of the believers...
(post might be a little off-topic)

May Allah bestow His peace on these who are guided and may Allah bestow His peace on these who are not guided by guiding them to the straight path.

Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim

Actually, Evolution is for the science class and creationism/ID is for religous education. (nuff said).

It's like this for a reason and contradicts what you blindly "claim"

In addition to Sistah Sumayah's response, I would like to state that Evolution is not an argument against creation, but simply another possible process of creation that is disputed.

The general meaning of creation is that something did not exist at a point in time and then existed after a point in time. And obviously, there is a certain implication by the existence of creation...

(Qur'an, Chapter 52 (At-Tur: The Mount): 35-36)
"Were they created by nothing, or were they they themselves the creators?"
"Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay but they have no firm Belief."

The various science classes (of the nature of the world) becomes important by providing verifiable evidence that objects in this world and in the universe did not exist in a certain point in time.

For example, at the time of Abraham (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), there was no verifiable evidence that the sun and the moon was created, which science has verified for us now.

So when he (pbuh) argued with his people that were misguided, he (pbuh) had to debate with them from a different angle. He (pbuh) told them, look how the sun and moon operates, by appearing and disappearing i.e. why would anyone be foolish enough to not recognise that these are mere objects that are following a fixed course (and hence is not acting out of its own accord).

(Qur'an, Chapter 6 (An-An'am: The Cattle): 77-78)
"When he saw the moon rising up, he said: 'This is my lord.' But when it set, he said: 'Unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among the erring people.'"
"When he saw the sun rising up, he said: 'This is my lord.This is greater.' But when it set, he said: 'O my people! I am indeed free from all that you join as partners in worship with Allâh."

So we can also see, that science also helps in understanding that the sun and moon operates in a non-random manner and not according to the objects own "will". They have even given a name to this as the "Law of Gravity". The fact that scientists (of the nature of the world) have given us verifiable evidence that objects are simply following a predictable order that is in harmony with other objects (e.g. the moon does not overtake the sun). Obviously the existence of "natural" laws has a certain implication...

(Qur'an, Chapter 16 (An-Nahl: The Bee): 12)
"And He has subjected to you the night and the day, the sun and the moon; and the stars are subjected by His Command. Surely, in this are proofs for people who understand."

So, in summary, the more our understanding of science (of the nature of the world) increases, the more it leads to the conclusion there is One that created and sustained all that exists.

Also, it is worth noting people are capable of making mistakes, due to their limited understanding of science, as people are themselves creations and subject to "natural" laws, they will only discover and deduce as much as the effort they put in, both physically (gaining knowledge, experimentation etc.) and spiritually by asking of the One that has full knowledge (science) of what He Creates and Sustains.

(Qur'an, Chapter 2 (Al-Baqarah: The Cow): some of 255)
"... And they will never compass anything of His Knowledge except that which He wills. ..."

And as muslims know, "actions are only by intentions", therefore if intentions are not sincerely for seeking the truth, then even conclusions based on truthful evidences can be false. For example, Darwin took the scientific evidence of "natural" variation within the same species (i.e. humans come in all shapes, colours and sizes) to conclude something false (i.e humans descended from a different species) so that he can say the bible is wrong, perhaps to reduce the authority of priests (note: his motives for reaching the false conclusion is speculation on my part).

Ok, you guys probably will not remember all that I have written here, so if you only remember one thing from this piece, just remember this; Evolution is not an argument against creation, but simply another possible process of creation that is disputed.

 

[muslim dude]

Re: !!

Not only that, but the patterns of similarities should also match cladistics. Cladistics is what many call ?the tree of life? which show species branching off from one another. One such clade, constructed through the study of fossils, proposes that humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans all share a common ancestor. The first species to branch off were orangutans, the second were gorillas, the third were chimps, and the final branch resulted in humans. This allows us to make very precise predictions. If humans and orangutans share a common ERV at the same letter of DNA, then chimps and gorillas should also have that same ERV at the same letter of DNA because all of these species share one common ancestor.

Even taking into account the "scientific data" you have provided, the conclusion that is assumed is not necessarily accurate. Firstly, all the mentioned species orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans are called "branches" from a "tree of life". Then what happened to the species that represents the "trunk" of the so called "tree of life". Completely disappeared?! Shouldn't logic and scientific reasoning dictate that the species representing the "trunk" be far more numerous than the "branches" - where are the "trunk" creatures that all the others branched from?! Where are the fossils of the "trunk" species?! At the moment, all we know about are the "branch" species, but no one mentions the "trunk" species. Probably, the same reason they do not mention fairies and unicorns either...

Hey, you know what? I too can provide an alternative conclusions to the "scientific data" (note, big assumption is that the "scientific data" is valid).

So another conclusion could be that perhaps the the "trunk" species are the humans and the some of the various apes are the "branch" species that descended from the "trunk".

5:60 Then say: "Should I inform you [People of the Book] of those, who will have even worse recompense from Allah than the transgressors? They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under His wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine; who worshipped taghut [the devil or idols]; those are the people who are in a far worse plight and who have turned farthest away from the Right Way."

I called it the Theory of Devolution

Another theory that could be concluded from the provided "scientific data" is that the common traits between different species would most likely be due to the fact that they are made from the same "materials". However, being made out of the same "materials" does not mean that they evolved from the same "object".

For example, a Ford Escort and a Ferrari are made out metal and consist of similar parts like, engines, exhausts, steering wheel etc. but no one is going to say Ferrari evolved from a Ford Escort just because of the similar nature of these two "motor species". So to me, it's even more illogical to say that humans evolved from apes, bearing in mind that organic material is far more complex than metallic and electronic materials.

Since, both species are made from the same material, then most likely they would share similar properties. So, continuing with my analogy, if one were to crash the Ford Escort and the Ferrari (no man!, not the Ferrari ) by driving it head-on against a wall for example, then it should not surprise anyone that the damage inflicted in both cars would be similar (i.e. crumpled bonnet etc.)

Similarly, if a human and ape were to get bitten by the same virus, then due to the fact they are made up of the same materials, it would not be that surprising to conclude they will suffer infections in similar locations without having to conclude one is the common ancestor of the other.

Some! could you at the very least show me a credible scientist in this field that supports your opinion? I don't think so.......

Honestly Root, I sometimes think you would not know a credible scientist if one were to come and hit you on the head :hiding: (just a figure of speech ) but someone I would class as credible, is if they have demonstrated knowledge of the field under discussion, and al-hamdulilah, Steve fits the bill nicely!

 

[root]

Oh really? Where is that scientific data then? Just saying a certain scientists thinks the same as you do does not make that thinking scientific. Or are you perhaps referring to the article you linked to? Yes that had scientific data. But it did not prove your point. The only thing you proved by posting that is that you do not know what you’re talking about and that you are in way over your head but to stubborn to admit it.

Slightly derogative in that you try to reduce it to "Certain Scientists". Actually it's the integrated text-based search and retrieval system used at NCBI for the major databases, including PubMed, Nucleotide and Protein Sequences, Protein Structures, Complete Genomes, Taxonomy, and others. It's a service of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of health.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11731495&dopt=Abstract

Genomic characterization of recent human LINE-1 insertions: evidence supporting random insertion.

The data has been directly cited additionally by:

Nucleic Acids Research
Genetics:http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/

Genetics
http://www.genetics.org/

Moleculor Biology and Evolution
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/

Science
http://www.sciencemag.org/

Genome Research
http://www.genome.org/

Proceedings of the national acadamy of sciencee
http://www.pnas.org/

NO, you are wrong! I said that nobody knows that it could be either one. You are the only one making assumptions here. You are the one jumping to conclusions. You are the one who assumes it is random because we cannot proof it is organized.
So in conclusion; number one still stands:
1. General relativity is built on arguments logic and tests.
Your theory is based on the absence of a noticeable order.

So you disagree with all these organisatations and main-stream science, your free to do so. At least we now know that Islam is NOT in harmony with mainstream Science despite the contrary often being stated in this forum.

Well first of all the randomness of mosquito bites hasn’t been proven either, as absurd as that might sound. But, when it comes to ERV’s the absurdity stops. Because here there is an assumable possibility. It is not absurd to imagine an order behind it for reasons that I already mentioned more then enough such as delta charges which give affinity for certain loci. Or certain loci being weak and easily spitted for insertion.

I think the absurdety of your position still remains. How do you prove the bite of a mosquito is random? loci and delta charges are true, but it's a smokescreen your blowing since even within "hot spots" insertion remains random? As stated earlier you are free to believe it's ordered.

 

[czgibson]

Hi Steve,

Sorry for the late reply - I've been busy at work as usual.

Yes that’s cute, but lets try not to waste our time in beating around the bush.

This was in response to my statement that saying there is evidence supporting something is different to saying it's been proven. I don't see how that can be classed as beating around the bush. I don't see what's cute about it either. They're clearly two quite different assertions!

Example: there is evidence to suggest that determinism is true, but it certainly hasn't been proven.

Well that’s not very logical is it? Since all these world views refer to the same world, at places were they disagree obviously only one can be true. So you’re saying your view is more likely true because it fits both with the accurate world view as with the inaccurate one? Is your point of view better because it’s compatible with an inaccurate theory? Yes you can mix the two up theories up, and it still seems to make sense, but that doesn’t mean one is better then the other.

My point was simply that if you accept creationism, you are closing your mind to so much. After all, evolution is the foundation of modern biology, is it not?

Well you don’t “have to” be a Muslim against your will.

That's the kind of tolerant view I've come to respect from the majority of Muslims I've met. Sadly, many people only hear about the intolerant form of Islam that has been in the news frequently over the past few years.

See, here it’s shown nicely how it’s just two people looking at the same thing from different angles. Try to follow my view for a second. I could say, when you start from an obvious fact: some centuries ago there suddenly appeared a book. Now in it is a theory, which is very advanced for it’s time.

What theory are you talking about and in what way is it advanced?

The third one is absurd. The second one lacks a motive. Why would you assume that alternative explanation? But the first one is still –by occams razor- correct. Now you may feel like the second is more likely because you’re not inclined to believe the metaphysical part of the theory mentioned in that book. But that’s a matter of personal preference, and is not by occams razor.

Occam's razor can be used to support all sorts of personal views; I think we've already established that. It says, essentially, "the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct". Now, of course, that means "whichever explanation seems simplest to you".

Both contain worship? That’s the strongest criteria you can come up with to show similarity? It’s not because some worship has been proven futile and even silly that all kind of worship is as such.

Worshipping something nobody can see or detect seems odd to me and always has done. Hence my belief-system.

In fact many Muslims experience the result of their worship on a frequent basis.

That's an interesting point. Are you thinking of feelings of comfort and peacefulness or perhaps something else? I'd be interested to hear what sort of results you're talking about. While we're on the subject, would you say that these results are similar for people of all religions, or are the Muslim results unique?

Well speaking for myself, I did not revert out of a lack of knowledge; no it was quite the opposite I reverted because I acquired new knowledge. Before that I was an atheist, and I had it pretty much all worked out and found an answer to any question that soothed my mind. So there were no open questions. And another major contributor to peoples believes which cannot be underestimated is personal experience; that goes a long way. As for your so called diminishing need for religion, how would you explain for the many believing people? They all lack your knowledge?

There's nothing special about my knowledge, I can tell you that for certain!

What I'm referring to is that in the past, say, the Middle Ages, everyone in the West believed in god. Everyone. Of course, if they announced publicly that they didn't, the punishment would be severe, so that was unthinkable. However, as science and philosophy have progressed, the number of non-believers has increased dramatically. I think there's a clear connection there, that's all.

One would hope so yes, and most people do, or appear to do so at least. But some will try to “talk some sense” in this poor “brainwashed” soul as if their life depended on it. The free was sarcastic. Because I do not believe the west is free.

I agree that the West is not completely free, though I suspect we have very different reasons for saying that.

The highest degree of freedom is gained as slave of Allah.

That's what I'd call a paradox, or a self-contradiction. How can a slave be free?

Would you mind having a heart to hearth with my mother?

I take it she doesn't approve of your new religion? That's a real shame, but surely she realises you've become a Muslim for what you believe are very good reasons?

But you will show them why you believe your view to be accurate, and you would also tell them why you find other views unlikely, right?

I'm sure I would, but what would be more important would be for them to question all these different views, including mine.

"Question everything", said Socrates.

Peace

 

[Abdul Fattah]

@ Root:

Slightly derogative in that you try to reduce it to "Certain Scientists". Actually it's the integrated text-based search and retrieval system used at NCBI for the major databases, including PubMed, Nucleotide and Protein Sequences, Protein Structures, Complete Genomes, Taxonomy, and others. It's a service of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of health.

Not all scientists believe this is random hence “some” believe it. It’s as simple as that. It doesn’t matter which one is mainstream and which ones isn’t. It’s not a popularity contest. What matters is that there are difference opinions regarding it.

Ok regarding the first link you put up:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

It immediately struck me as very familiar when I started reading it. It’s the first paragraph of the previous site you linked to.

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/GR-1947RRv1

And as I already told you, this is not about ERV’s! The insertions they are talking about are mutations not endogenous retro viri. Take a good look at that article, perhaps you could even try to read it. The word virus, the word endogenous, the word retro, ERV, none of these things are even mentioned in the article! This is not what you claim it to be!

And then you post up a whole bunch of sites who supposedly back up this unrelated article. Fine, so what, that article doesn’t discus ERV’s. But you don’t even bother to search for it. You just give the home page, and we have to believe your word for it or look it up ourselves.

And another thing. Although the article talks about mutation of DNA (strands of DNA who get cut and paste at a difrent loci) rather then virus insertions it still helps my case. See the article is named random insertions, but in the article its actually suggested that they are not that random. That certain loci have a high probability of breaking up. This confirms what I’ve been saying all along because if a certain area lends itself for breaking up, it has a higher probability of retro virus insertion to.

Here it is:
Historically, several different observations indicated that human and mammalian L1s are not distributed randomly in the genome. These studies concurred that L1s are found more frequently in genomic regions characterized by relatively low average levels of G + C nucleotides and less commonly in regions of high GC (Soriano et al. 1983 ; Korenberg and Rykowski 1988 ; Moyzis et al. 1989 ; Boyle et al. 1990 ; Baker and Kass 1994 ). The recently completed draft human genome sequence confirms these results (Lander et al. 2001 ). The distribution of L1s in human DNA stands in marked contrast to the distribution of Alu elements in the human genome. Alus are most concentrated in genomic regions of high GC and less concentrated in DNA low in GC. These differences are most perplexing in light of the major similarities between these two types of transposons. Both L1s and Alus transpose via an RNA intermediate. Both elements insert into the genome followed by poly(A) tails and the production of short target site duplications, and both are believed to transpose by making use of the L1-encoded transposition machinery (Dombroski et al. 1991 ; Jurka 1997 ).

So you disagree with all these organisatations and main-stream science, your free to do so. At least we now know that Islam is NOT in harmony with mainstream Science despite the contrary often being stated in this forum.

No, science is still in perfect harmony with Islam. Those theory’s you suggested are contradicting Islam. But then again, those theorys lack any form of proof and are nothing but opinions. I’ve asked more then 5 times. Bring me a single proof. Let’s ask Mr. PIE again.
[PIE] score: 1-0 in favor for Steve[/PIE]

I think the absurdety of your position still remains. How do you prove the bite of a mosquito is random? loci and delta charges are true, but it's a smokescreen your blowing since even within "hot spots" insertion remains random? As stated earlier you are free to believe it's ordered.

Hot spots? Who ever mentioned hot spots. Again you proof that you do not know what you are talking about. Delta charges are caused by electrons and are very confined to a certain area. DNA doesn’t break just anywhere for a virus to get inserted. It can only break at certain points. The distance between these insertion points is much bigger then the span of a delta charge. So to suggest that a certain delta charge could result in two different insertions depending on luck is absurd. I’m not blowing any smokescreens. I’m sticking to the facts, you are the one with a vivid imagination.

 

[sumay28]

Science vs. Religion.

The scientific method leaves no room to prove the existence of God. We have our science book-- the Qu'ran-- and many well-respected, world renown scientists can agree that it is a scientific phenominon. There are scientists who are former athiests, who have come to believe in a God based on their own personal experiences. Proffessor Keith L. Moore, co-author of Essential Clinical Anatomy, Joe Leigh simpson, author of Genetics Obstetrics & Gynecology.... are these guys a couple of chumps? I've known many scientists who believe in God and they enjoy their jobs a hellava lot more. Why argue with it??

 

[Abdul Fattah]

@czgibson:

Hi Steve,
Sorry for the late reply - I've been busy at work as usual.

That’s quite alright. I am neither impatient by nature nor did I had an unsatisfied need for your answer so there’s really no need for apologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve
Yes that’s cute, but lets try not to waste our time in beating around the bush.

This was in response to my statement that saying there is evidence supporting something is different to saying it's been proven. I don't see how that can be classed as beating around the bush. I don't see what's cute about it either. They're clearly two quite different assertions! Example: there is evidence to suggest that determinism is true, but it certainly hasn't been proven.

Well from a down to earth perspective, evidence is directly linked to proof. If evidence exists, it can proof something. Unless you look at it from an agnostic-philosophic point of view, where everything’s possible and there are no certainties in life. According to the first point of view you were beating around the bush, and according to the second one you were being cute. My point was, when you come to a thread that discusses evolution, and claim that a certain site has proof, you’re bound to hear someone saying that they aren’t evidence since they proof nothing. You can call them arguments at best. But unless they proof something they aren’t evidence.

My point was simply that if you accept creationism, you are closing your mind to so much. After all, evolution is the foundation of modern biology, is it not?

I don’t agree with your point, but first of all, my point is, that if you accept evolution, you are closing your mind to so much. After all, creation is the beginning of religion, is it not?
I said I tend to disagree. Why? Well first of all I need to clarify that I do believe some animals evolved from one another, I just don’t believe in abiogenesis (the theory that life arose out of lifeless matter spontaneously) nor do I believe in common descent (the theory that all animals evolved from a single ancestral animal). This being said; I think it’s clear that my point of view does not close my mind but is 100% compatible with modern biology.

That's the kind of tolerant view I've come to respect from the majority of Muslims I've met. Sadly, many people only hear about the intolerant form of Islam that has been in the news frequently over the past few years.

Yes that is sad indeed. At the risk of sounding paranoid, don’t trust the image the news portraits. Throughout history the powerful have always used information as a weapon. Ask any American what the civil war was about. Either they won’t know because they don’t care, or they’ll tell you it was a war against slavery. What they don’t know is that the north only forbid slavery after 3 years of war. It was a strategic sacrifice, knowing that the south relied on slavery to work at the plantations, without it they had no economy. There were even black soldiers fighting for the south front. See After winning, the victor always decides what gets into the history books and what is conveniently left out. After WWII Communists were public enemy number one. Why? Because sharing just scares the Hell out of Americans? No, simply because the Russians were communistic and the Russians had power. Now it’s the Muslims. I’m glad at least some people take the time to look what’s behind the lies, for that I congratulate you.

steve:See, here it’s shown nicely how it’s just two people looking at the same thing from different angles. Try to follow my view for a second. I could say, when you start from an obvious fact: some centuries ago there suddenly appeared a book. Now in it is a theory, which is very advanced for it’s time.
Cgibson: What theory are you talking about and in what way is it advanced?

I wasn’t referring to a specific theory. What I meant was that it suggests a life style, it gave us Islam, which was advanced for the time in which it was revealed.

Occam's razor can be used to support all sorts of personal views; I think we've already established that. It says, essentially, "the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct". Now, of course, that means "whichever explanation seems simplest to you".

Yes I agree. In fact. When I first started this discussion -by arguing that religion is true by occams razor- I intended to guide the discussion to that particular point. The motive for doing so was: A lot of atheists and agnostics tend to see believing as contradicting with the obvious. As if people believe “despite” their logic reasoning. At least that is the view of believers I had back when I was atheistic. So provoking you with “occams razor” was to try and show you how it’s the other way around. That we believe because we think that our religion is more likely to represent the truth then any alternative explanation you, or anyone else for that matter, can give us.

Worshipping something nobody can see or detect seems odd to me and always has done. Hence my belief-system.

I can perfectly understand that, in fact a few years back from now, I thought exactly the same. Yet I’m confident that common sense will allow you to admit that such a chain of reasoning is not by logic but rather by feeling. A feeling opposite to the feeling believers have regarding this.

That's an interesting point. Are you thinking of feelings of comfort and peacefulness or perhaps something else? I'd be interested to hear what sort of results you're talking about.

Well it’s the sum total of many things. Comfort and peacefulness are in fact two things I immediately and actively experienced upon accepting Islam. Not only piece of heart, also piece of mind. I quit smoking, I no longer needed alcohol to set my mind at ease. I lost my paranoid nature. But next to that there is also a sense of guidance. Events happening in your life that seem to defy expectations in such an elegant way that it seems as someones looking out for you. Now I hear you thinking out loud: you just changed from one paranoid point of view to another. No the difference is paranoia inhibits the acceptance of anything. It stands between theory and truth. That’s why paranoid people are often described as conspiracy theorist; because they just keep an open mind to very single possibility because they cannot accept either one. So believing is like the most difficult step to take. Now did I start to believe because I fought back my paranoia, or did I start fighting back my paranoia because I started believing… Well I don’t know, and quite frankly, I don’t care. What I know is that Allah guides who he wishes. And I am most gratefull because Alhamdoelillahi I feel guided.

While we're on the subject, would you say that these results are similar for people of all religions, or are the Muslim results unique?

Well I do think people of different religions can have similar experiences. But in my limited knowledge I tend to think not at the same level a Muslim has. See Lets assume Islam is the true religion and let’s say a pious catholic person prays to God. Now don’t think just because he has some false Ideas that Allah leaves him hanging, maybe this person is just confused, or hasn’t heard the true message of Islam.

What I'm referring to is that in the past, say, the Middle Ages, everyone in the West believed in god. Everyone. Of course, if they announced publicly that they didn't, the punishment would be severe, so that was unthinkable. However, as science and philosophy have progressed, the number of non-believers has increased dramatically. I think there's a clear connection there, that's all.

Well that reminds me of this quote, the biggest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince mankind he doesn’t exist. It’s true that there are many atheists. But I don’t think there’s a direct relation with growing knowledge. At best it could make people vain, thinking they have all the answers. But as you can see on this forum, upon closer inspection Islam is still very alive and goes hand in hand with this newly acquired knowledge.

I agree that the West is not completely free, though I suspect we have very different reasons for saying that.

Well besides freemasonry and those kind of things. The REAL inhibition to the freedom of the west is atheism from my point of view. I believe the mind can only obtain freedom of the causalityof the processes in the brain if it starts listening to the soul. Only IF you choose to ignore certain impulses have you acquired freedom. To quote the prophet’s (pbuh) son in law: As slave of Allah you have the highest degree of freedom.

That's what I'd call a paradox, or a self-contradiction. How can a slave be free?

So the freedom lies in the fact not being bound to the casuistic nature of physics laws that regulate our body. To deny certain urges, to reach a higher level then animals have.

I take it she doesn't approve of your new religion? That's a real shame, but surely she realises you've become a Muslim for what you believe are very good reasons?

Well she still loves me very much and respects me, but she’s having a hard time accepting that I chose to revert, and I’m sure that she’d take up any opportunity she sees to convince me away from Islam.

I'm sure I would, but what would be more important would be for them to question all these different views, including mine.

"Question everything", said Socrates.

Fair enough. In that case I gladly admit misjudging you. It seems you are truly agnostiastic. So would It be correct to assume that when you raise questions here you do so only in an attempt to finding and listing the different possible answers rather then to suggest a single one?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

The highest degree of freedom is gained as slave of Allah.

That's what I'd call a paradox, or a self-contradiction. How can a slave be free?

First, a paradox is completely different from a self-contradiction. A paradox seems self-contradictory, but is actually true.

I would agree that the paradox of true freedom is to submit oneself as a slave of Allah; this is how a soul achieves true liberation. I do not think this is a contradiction, although it may initially appear to be such until one thinks it over carefully.

Regards

 

[root]

Here it is:
Historically, several different observations indicated that human and mammalian L1s are not distributed randomly in the genome. These studies concurred that L1s are found more frequently in genomic regions characterized by relatively low average levels of G + C nucleotides and less commonly in regions of high GC (Soriano et al. 1983 ; Korenberg and Rykowski 1988 ; Moyzis et al. 1989 ; Boyle et al. 1990 ; Baker and Kass 1994 ). The recently completed draft human genome sequence confirms these results (Lander et al. 2001 ). The distribution of L1s in human DNA stands in marked contrast to the distribution of Alu elements in the human genome. Alus are most concentrated in genomic regions of high GC and less concentrated in DNA low in GC. These differences are most perplexing in light of the major similarities between these two types of transposons. Both L1s and Alus transpose via an RNA intermediate. Both elements insert into the genome followed by poly(A) tails and the production of short target site duplications, and both are believed to transpose by making use of the L1-encoded transposition machinery (Dombroski et al. 1991 ; Jurka 1997 ).

what you are actually pointing out here is regarded as a "Hot Spot", of which several thousand exist in the human genome. where the odds of a virus being inserted are slightly higher than other places, there is no reason why multiple infections would result in the same ERVs being inserted in the same locations with the same crippling errors and showing the same pattern of change with time.

As for your 1 : 0 score, the whistle blows. Your off-side, goal disallowed!

Hot spots? Who ever mentioned hot spots. Again you proof that you do not know what you are talking about.

You did.............

 

[czgibson]

Hello Ansar,

First, a paradox is completely different from a self-contradiction. A paradox seems self-contradictory, but is actually true.

I'm afraid not. Some paradoxes are true, some aren't. Also, most paradoxes appear to contradict themselves, as you say - hence my yoking of them with self-contradictions. Take one of the most famous ones of all:

"All Cretans are liars," said the Cretan.

That's clearly self-contradictory, no?

See here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

I would agree that the paradox of true freedom is to submit oneself as a slave of Allah; this is how a soul achieves true liberation. I do not think this is a contradiction, although it may initially appear to be such until one thinks it over carefully.

I'm still stuck on that one, I'm afraid. I suppose it depends on what your view of freedom is. Perhaps it's your view that anyone who is not a slave cannot be truly free. In my view, however, a slave is not free by definition - it's as simple as that.

Peace

 

[Pk_#2]

Peace (salaams),

For those who go against Islam ....May Allah (swt) help you

Fi Amaan Allah

peace (w/salaamz) xx

 

[root]

Hi Muslim Dude

Even taking into account the "scientific data" you have provided, the conclusion that is assumed is not necessarily accurate. Firstly, all the mentioned species orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans are called "branches" from a "tree of life".

I can accept your definition and in essence.

Then what happened to the species that represents the "trunk" of the so called "tree of life". Completely disappeared?! Shouldn't logic and scientific reasoning dictate that the species representing the "trunk" be far more numerous than the "branches"

If you construct a family tree, I doubt anyone would propose such a question? One could easily become bogged down in philosophy. For example, if you followed the "tree of life" then the different species abundent today may well increase or decrease (working backwards). However as you travel down the "trunk" evolution predicts that species variation would decline eventually back to single celled organisms, to go further back you would come to just two that we know of.

- where are the "trunk" creatures that all the others branched from?! Where are the fossils of the "trunk" species?!

protobionts would be the trunk (which are still around today, I think)

At the moment, all we know about are the "branch" species, but no one mentions the "trunk" species. Probably, the same reason they do not mention fairies and unicorns either... Hey, you know what? I too can provide an alternative conclusions to the "scientific data" (note, big assumption is that the "scientific data" is valid).

You might be on your way to being a top scientist. Only problem you have is that fairies and unicorns (if they exist) are multi-celled life, the trunk would be only a simple single cell life.

So another conclusion could be that perhaps the the "trunk" species are the humans and the some of the various apes are the "branch" species that descended from the "trunk".

As I said, multi-celled species probably don't appear on the trunk.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Callum,

I'm afraid not. Some paradoxes are true, some aren't. Also, most paradoxes appear to contradict themselves, as you say - hence my yoking of them with self-contradictions.

Yes, you're right, but this does not negate the fact that a paradox may refer to something that appears self-contradictory but is actually not, correct?

I'm still stuck on that one, I'm afraid.

I'm not surprised. As a matter of fact, I would find it very strange if an atheist agreed that true freedom comes in being the salve of God! :happy:

Regards

 

[Pk_#2]

salve...?

Asalamualaykum, (peace)

people in this forum write a lot Allah must've put barakah (blessings) in your time.. mashaAllah

Fi Amaan Allah (In Allahs faith)

Walaikumsalaamz (peace be with you)

 

[bluff master]

whe those mad scientist talks about evloution just ignore them. If we were monkey than why is that, we human hearts cant be replaced with monkeys. why is it with pig?

If we were monkeys than their heart should be perfectly be fit for human when he has heart opertion.

 

[Pk_#2]

AsalamuAlaykum,

Bro chill...let them show their point of view..its not like they can prove it...

Jazakhala'khairun for reply


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

whe those mad scientist talks about evloution just ignore them. If we were monkey than why is that, we human hearts cant be replaced with monkeys. why is it with pig?

If we were monkeys than their heart should be perfectly be fit for human when he has heart opertion.

Good analogy MashaAllah..

Fi Amaan Allah

Walaykum Salaamz Brother Tc

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Yes, you're right, but this does not negate the fact that a paradox may refer to something that appears self-contradictory but is actually not, correct?

Quite right - but I'm sure you can see why I yoked paradoxes and self-contradictions together. I did not mean to imply that they are identical, merely similar. As an English teacher I feel I must apologise profusely for my lack of clarity...

whe those mad scientist talks about evloution just ignore them. If we were monkey than why is that, we human hearts cant be replaced with monkeys. why is it with pig?

If we were monkeys than their heart should be perfectly be fit for human when he has heart opertion.

I have to say, I think that's the most masterful bluff I've ever seen.

Peace

 

[sumay28]

I'm telling you.. Everytime I hear Jeff Corwin call these monkeys our cousins just makes me laugh, dude. I guess we should all have a "Primate Reunion"... I'll bring my cuz's Pepito and Donkey Kong. We'll all have a BBQ of bananas.


It's a minor point on the pig-thing. They've done plenty of transplants with the heart of a pig. Chimps are supposed to be our closest genetic "kin", sharing more than ninety-nine percent of our genome, which minimizes the chance of rejection. But since they are an endangered species, that leaves heart xenotransplantation two options. One being the baboon and, yes.. as disguisting as it is to even think of having this animal's heart in me (let alone any animal's heart)... a pig (oink oink).

Now unfortunately, the ridiculous idea of the baboons being our closest "kin" rant, it poses risks of transmitting human pathogens (supposedly). However, it has been done before, several times, and the cause of rejection was not due to this factor. The real deal: not enough offspring. Long gestation periods. Not enough baboons! Since pigs are a dime a dozen.. BAM! Aparantly they pose concerns due to the fact that they are not closely related to us blah blah blah, HOWEVER, it has been proven that the pig heart has had fewer rejections.

SO. There's a little snafoo, here.

 

[mansio]

Sumay

What is a human ? He is an ape-like animal that became endowed with reason by God and nothing else.
As I know you like to answer questions you provoke (wittingly or unwittingly), I ask you the following one:

What is in the animal called the human, that is not in the animal called the ape ?

Of course, everything related to reason (call it superior intelligence if you like) being excluded.

If case you are an ethereal being, not concerned by hunger, pain, cold, your bowels, sex urge, maternity, children, rest, quarreling, home, physical attractiveness, good food, drinking, sickness, play, you do not need to answer the question.