Evolution Test!

[Tony]

peace

Greetings,


Name two.

Alan Feduccia, university of North Carolina. Derek Ager. Stanley Miller. Francis Crick (Crick and Watson the discoverers of DNA). Leslie Orgel. Alexander Oparin. Ali Demirsoy. pROFF. jEREMY bADA etc)

"Therefore"? What do you mean, "therefore"?

• adverb for that reason; consequently, Oxford dictionary

Where is this book? Do you claim to have read it, if it even exists?

My mistake sorry. The reference is to a chapter in the Origin of the Species. 1859. 3 years after original in 1856. A chapter named Difficulties on Theory. I havent read it cover to cover, but have skimmed it and used it in biology papers for quotes.

Many people believe in evolution and god. They can be found in many of the evolution threads on the forum.

Thats their perogative, but considering we cannot even understand the origin of Dna, how can it be possible that we believe it can mutate in such a fashion that it produces new species. Those that beleive in evolution and the Creator are hedging their bets so to speak, there is no detraction from the Almighty, though there is still no evidence whatsoever. While I would never condemn anyone for beleiving in evolution, I personally find the theory extraordinary. In that its a genius invention but nonetheless there is no proof.

Your evidence here is basically "I say it does".

Well I am sorry my words arenot always adequate to articulate where I am trying to take a debate, this point is a matter of beleif. I believe that matter cannot exist without life, life is consciousness(in part) consciousness in my veiw has to be from a Creator. This is something that I feel and believe and not something that is easily quantifiable, more a ebd product of deductive reasoning on my part.

The majority of scientists would happily change their minds if the evidence pointed that way. What evidence could possibly change your mind?


There is none, or you would have brought it forward so the question is mute.

Peace

Much peace and respect CZGibson. I just re read my post !! I can only apologise for the sloppy presentation, hope you will forgive my inadequacies using technology, and not let it dter you from furthering this discussion. In short, Im crap at computers.

 

[Trumble]

I won't steal Tony's thunder, but can name two scientists who have written books that disagree with the Darwinian brand of evolution.

You haven't, but could you if you wanted to? The challenge was to produce suitable comments from two "prominent evolutionists" (or, presumably former prominent evolutionists) to the effect that evolution is 'almost beyond the bounds of possibility' ... with perhaps an implied assumption they haven't been dead for sixty years!

Thompson was a biologist who never was an evolutionist (the book was written over 90 years ago) and Mullen is an astronomer.

0/2.

 

[جوري]

You haven't, but could you if you wanted to? The challenge was to produce suitable comments from two "prominent evolutionists" (or, presumably former prominent evolutionists) to the effect that evolution is 'almost beyond the bounds of possibility' ... with perhaps an implied assumption they haven't been dead for sixty years!

Thompson was a biologist who never was an evolutionist (the book was written over 90 years ago) and Mullen is an astronomer.

0/2.

You are either in favor of or opposed to based on your research, but you can't be in favor of and write against it, your request here would then be flawed! It is a 60 year old book as viable as ever today, have you actually read it? or you'd prefer 200 year old unchallenged theories? evolution deals with biology & genetics (a fairly modern field as we can actually put a name on the mutations that have allegedly led to evolution) so I am not sure what your point is? but I guarantee both scientists have had more schooling and discuss science with more relevance than Darwin, if we are going to go by 'timing' alone.

Also what is the name of that fallacy when you attack the scientist rather than challenge their work as unscientific? I actually expected better from you!

all the best

 

[GuestFellow]

You haven't, but could you if you wanted to? The challenge was to produce suitable comments from two "prominent evolutionists" (or, presumably former prominent evolutionists) to the effect that evolution is 'almost beyond the bounds of possibility' ... with perhaps an implied assumption they haven't been dead for sixty years!

Thompson was a biologist who never was an evolutionist (the book was written over 90 years ago) and Mullen is an astronomer.

0/2.

You were quick to dismiss the evidence despite not reading it or having any knowledge on it. Darwin published his book in 1859 and people take his work seriously.

You have so much faith in his theory, why not read or find information about that book that critique Darwin's work? I'm sure you will be able to find flaws within it since your so confident in Darwin’s theory. : )

 

[Hamayun]

Whats the big deal?

If evolution exists it only proves that living things change over time....

It doesn't disprove the creation of all things living and non living in this universe...

Peace

 

[جوري]

changing to adapt is certain and provable.. changing to become a different specie isn't so certain or so provable!

 

[Hamayun]

I agree sister Skye.

I think I might start a new thread relating to Evolution of trees....

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Greetings,

I won't steal Tony's thunder, but can name two scientists who have written books that disagree with the Darwinian brand of evolution.

On Growth and form by Dr. Thompson, and recently Dr.Dermott Mullan, Probabilities of randomly assembling a primitive cell on Earth ..


all the best

Neither of those fit the description given by Tony as:

prominant evolutionists ... saying that evo is beyond the realms of possibility almost.

Alan Feduccia, university of North Carolina.

This is one of the world's experts on the evolution of birds. Are you claiming that he doesn't believe in evolution or something?

Derek Ager. Stanley Miller. Francis Crick (Crick and Watson the discoverers of DNA). Leslie Orgel. Alexander Oparin. Ali Demirsoy.

The fact that these scientists have raised criticisms to do with details of evolutionary theory hasn't led any of them to abandon their acceptance of evolution as a fact, and it shouldn't lead anyone else to that conclusion either.

You've clearly just found this list on a creationist website.

I have no idea who this guy is:

pROFF. jEREMY bADA

adverb for that reason; consequently, Oxford dictionary

Believe it or not, I already knew the dictionary definition of the word 'therefore'.

Take another look at what you wrote:

All darwins theories were based on observations and no proof has ever been bought forward to aid his ideas, since then we have discovered genetics and therefore itis even more damaging to his theory,

Can you see how your use of 'therefore' isn't actually validated by the dictionary definition you've given?

It's like someone saying "All green things are healthy and therefore I don't like thermometers". Just a complete non-sequitur.

The rest of your post depends on your prior beliefs. There's nothing wrong with having beliefs, but it's good to have at least some convincing reasons for them.

Also, saying no evidence could possibly change your mind is a very risky strategy. You don't know what evidence may come your way in the future and closing your mind to any other possibility is just an abdication of your intelligence.

Peace

 

[جوري]

Greetings,


Neither of those fit the description given by Tony as:

You haven't read the works of either.. and I hazard say, no one does research with that literal 'Abstract' as their specific example!
the gist of both works is just that!

all the best

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You haven't read the works of either.. and I hazard say, no one does research with that literal 'Abstract' as their specific example!
the gist of both works is just that!

all the best

Whatever you say...

Peace

 

[جوري]

Greetings,


Whatever you say...

Peace

If you want to challenge the content of their work with something more concrete than 'whatever you say' I'd be more than glad to hear it!

all the best

 

[Tony]

Greetings,


Neither of those fit the description given by Tony as:





This is one of the world's experts on the evolution of birds. Are you claiming that he doesn't believe in evolution or something?

"Ive studued birds for 25 years and I dont see any similarities whatsoever. I just dont see it... The therapod (a group of dinosuars) origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrasement of paleontology". Pat Shipman "Birds do it.... did dinosuars", New scientist 1 feb 1997, p 28

The fact that these scientists have raised criticisms to do with details of evolutionary theory hasn't led any of them to abandon their acceptance of evolution as a fact, and it shouldn't lead anyone else to that conclusion either.

I dont remember saying that they had abandoned their fields did I ?

You've clearly just found this list on a creationist website.

Nope, believe it or not some people still use books to study, and even if I had found it on a website are really trying to say that the info is any less credible just becuase you are trying to put me down to belittle the point I am making. What I have posted is knowledge and beleive me there are many more names and quotes I could add tp the list.

I have no idea who this guy is:

Proff Jefferey Bada"Origins", Earth, Feb 1998, pg 40. Molecular level defender of evolution theory. "Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century. How did life originate on earth.?"



Believe it or not, I already knew the dictionary definition of the word 'therefore'.

Take another look at what you wrote:

ok I have to admit this was unnescessary, but your question relating to the use of the word therefore also was unnescessary.

Can you see how your use of 'therefore' isn't actually validated by the dictionary definition you've given?

Well thanks for the correctionon a literary level, not my strong point, along with debating but when I feel something is right I have to tryand articulate to the best of my ability

It's like someone saying "All green things are healthy and therefore I don't like thermometers". Just a complete non-sequitur.



The rest of your post depends on your prior beliefs. There's nothing wrong with having beliefs, but it's good to have at least some convincing reasons for them.

my reasons for belief are deep and wide, if I really thought you wanted to hear them I would post, but suffice to saythat my beliefs are so solid I pray 5 times daily, I fast, I bring my children up within the belief system and amongst other things I have no fear of death. Does this sound as though I am unconvinced and that I came to Islam withiut convincing reasons ?

Also, saying no evidence could possibly change your mind is a very risky strategy. You don't know what evidence may come your way in the future and closing your mind to any other possibility is just an abdication of your intelligence.

I have been and done so many things in this life your teeth would curl if you knew, this is where it lead me, I have not abdicated from my intelligence have all the evidence I need to recognise the truth, I am not saying its all easy, but then that would mean I am brainwashed anyway, I choose to serve my Creator and follow Rasulullahs (pbuh) teachings becuase I absolutely believe it to be the truth, why should I expect to be swayed by any further evidence, its not coming.I understand this is difficult for you to ubderstand and fair enough, its what I believe and its all I will ever need

Peace

Peace and respect

 

[Muhaba]

I have agreed that the evolutionary process can explain the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, herbicide resistant weeds, insecticide resistant insects, new species of goatsbeard, etc. In these cases, I don't have an issue with evolution as being random, or "undirected by a Higher Being". I can understand this process in those terms, but I can't understand the process by which a unicellular common ancestor gave rise to all plant, animal, fungal, bacterial species that are orders of magnitude more complex.

From what i understand regarding this is that there have to be diseases, etc in the world as a test from Allah, so Allah allows these things to evolve. One should ask why bacteria, weeds, and insects evolve to resist man-made chemicals that aim to kill them. It may also be that these things (bacteria, weeds, insects, etc) are necessary for the world to be a certain way, since it is proven scientifically that the elimination of one species can affect all the species in an ecosystem. So Allah enables them to evolve to resist extinction because their extinction would affect the whole ecosystem. One must remember that nothing happens without Allah's permission, so it's not true that this evolution is random or undirected by a Higher Being. In time, science may prove that bacteria, weeds, insects etc which the chemicals fail to eliminate because of the resistance they develop are in fact very necessay for the world to be a certain way. It's already proven that the universe has a certain order.

One must ask why plants, insects, etc don't evolve to stop other animals from eating them? And why don't they evolve to keep from dying? If they can evolve to resist man-made chemicals, then they should also have been able to evolve to resist being eaten by other animals.

As for the plant goatsbeard, although i'm not an expert on this, i think its "evolution" can be explained simply. First of all, humans introduced new species; they didn't come into being by themselves. Then the new type of plant must have crosspollinated with other plants in its species (both with the newly introduced plant type as well as those naturally present). Since genes take some chromosomes from the two plants (for example aadd or AAdd) the next generation would have chromosomes both from the naturally present plant as well as the one introduced by humans. it may be that the genes from the naturally present plant were dominant so the next generation of the plant received dominant triats and ceased to be sterile.


If the goatsbeard plant which was introduced by humans and which was sterile had only been allowed to crosspollinate (in a greenhouse, not in the open) with its own kind (that is, those introduced by humans) and still over years they evolved and ceased to be sterile, then one could say it was a result of evolution. But even still that doesn't rule out that a Higher Bieng was controlling the process.

SO none of these examples really prove random evolution without the control of a Higher Being (that is God).

Note: I am not an expert on this topic (that is, genes, crosspollination, goatsbeard species, etc). what i wrote was based on my understanding of previous posts and what i remember from high school biology class.

 

[Muhaba]

MEDIA: FERTILE GROUND FOR EVOLUTION
​

It is easy to influence the man on the street with the package of "science". You draw an imaginary picture representing transfer from water to land, you invent Latin words for the animal in the water, its "descendant" on land, and the "transitional intermediary form" (which is an imaginary animal), and then fabricate an elaborate lie: "Eusthenopteron transformed first into Rhipitistian Crossoptergian, then Ichthyostega in a long evolutionary process". If you put these words in the mouth of a scientist with thick glasses and a white coat, you would succeed in convincing many people, because the media, which dedicates itself to promoting evolution, would announce the good news to the world with great enthusiasm.

true. so are there any fossils of such transitional intermediary forms of animals?

 

[Azy]

Only every fossil ever discovered.

 

[Gator]

Proff Jefferey Bada"Origins", Earth, Feb 1998, pg 40. Molecular level defender of evolution theory. "Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century. How did life originate on earth.?"

Peace and respect

A lot has happened since the late 90's.


New Glimpses of Life’s Puzzling Origins

By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: June 15, 2009
link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/science/16orig.html?scp=1&sq=rna life&st=cse


Some 3.9 billion years ago, a shift in the orbit of the Sun’s outer planets sent a surge of large comets and asteroids careening into the inner solar system. Their violent impacts gouged out the large craters still visible on the Moon’s face, heated Earth’s surface into molten rock and boiled off its oceans into an incandescent mist.
.........

In the last few years, however, four surprising advances have renewed confidence that a terrestrial explanation for life’s origins will eventually emerge.

One is a series of discoveries about the cell-like structures that could have formed naturally from fatty chemicals likely to have been present on the primitive Earth.......

 

[barrio79]

Meh. Science is the observation of Allah's creation and helps eliminate falsehood. I believe it will ultimately prove Islam, as shown in the signs in the universe and the Quran.

If evolution doesn't fit is Islam and is correct, then soon, with more discoveries it will fit Islam. If it is incorrect it will never fit Islam.

For thousands of years astronomers believed in geocentricism and people accepted the flat earth theory. Now people have disproved that. We may see if evolution stands the test of time.

In the meantime however, I find the origins of reality and the universe far more interesting. Infinite regression is hoot with atheists.

It could not be very many thousands of years that astronomers believed in any thing as the world is only 4500 years old , to quote well known theists from Alabama and other well known spokespersons from the leading universities in the US

 

[Tony]

It could not be very many thousands of years that astronomers believed in any thing as the world is only 4500 years old , to quote well known theists from Alabama and other well known spokespersons from the leading universities in the US

:laugh:

 

[barrio79]

:laugh:

TKTony

You appear to be a Yorkshire Lad , in which case you should not be worrying about life or death but something a lot more serious , Can England win the Ashes some time ( soon or whenever )

 

[Tony]

TKTony

You appear to be a Yorkshire Lad , in which case you should not be worrying about life or death but something a lot more serious , Can England win the Ashes some time ( soon or whenever )

lol. u might be right Barrio