Evolution Test!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr.Trax
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 445
  • Views Views 62K

Do you believe in Evolution?


  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gossamer, it is good that you do not blindly follow the science crowd. But with the way JaffaCake made it real easy by saying the following, I was hoping you would do better on that one!

Why would a designer create a structure that looks exactly like a fusion event?
You can just say because "that is how the Creator works". And no matter what science discovers in the future "that is how the Creator works" which is a good thing because the best from science is yet to come. Some are following a mystery where there is very real intelligence in where we came from that goes right into consciousness and everything beyond. But it requires readjusting to the idea that the genome of Adam and Eve is in all of us right now, which is better than their not being there anyway.

On the previous page I linked to the human and chimp genomes that are in the NCBI database showing chromosomes with markers at HOX genes which help control limb structure. And hope I can nominate Sanguis (welcome to the forum!) to figure out how to get markers on some of the ERV's or something so that none here have to take the word of someone else they can see it in as much detail as they want.

And I liked the picture of the chromosomes and the links to the NCBI genomes so much I added my response to you into the subsection of the theory that has Chromosomal Adam and Eve in it then rewrote some so it will all together explain more detail about what I think is happening. So at least you helped advance the intelligence theory! Thanks for that. I'll post the improved explanation of the very conclusive evidence that cannot be ignored by changing the subject to what none yet know. We must all honestly focus on what science does very clearly show, then go from there. So here's what I have so far. If you have any scientific evidence to the contrary or adds detail then I will change accordingly.

From:
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

Chromosome Speciation (fast - Human, Fruit Fly, Mosquito)

There is chromosome fission speciation which is the result of a chromosome division where they break apart. Chromosomes are also able to relocate parts of themselves on or in other chromosomes (translocations). And the origin of human chromosome #2 is from our chromosome fusion speciation[17] where two joined to become our second largest which in turn led to the 46 chromosome human genome that only humans have.

Phylogenetic evidence indicates a good number of successful chromosome fusions and rearrangements as well as duplications of whole or parts of chromosomes so that complexity increases by starting with what works then readapting for use in another area of the cell nucleus (not leaving it up to random chance). The intelligence mechanism is here taking good guesses. What worked before in a similar situation is copied. Or memory can be moved around which in 3D changes physical location (in nucleus) addressing characteristics.

In human chromosomal fusion speciation there was a "head-to-head telomeric fusion". Telomeres at each end of the 2 chromosomes likely became sticky, possibly by removal of repeating code that forms a protective layer which makes the ends not-sticky. Then when not-sticky ends are in close enough proximity molecular forces of attraction take over then fusion occurs as shown below in Human Chromosome #2.

humanChimpChromosomes-1.gif


Side by side comparison of Human and Chimpanzee chromosomes.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=69

When the locations of HOX genes that help determine bone size/shape are highlighted we find that some were involved in the fusion allowing the inference that the rearrangement would cause some immediate morphological change to limb structure[26]:

Human:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/map_search.cgi?taxid=9606&query=HOX**&qchr=&strain=All

Chimp:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/map_search.cgi?taxid=9598&query=HOX**&qchr=&strain=All

Even though there was not a significant amount of gene scrambling at the fusion site the rearranging of the chromosome territories alone could produce a noticeable enough of a morphological change that the adults would know there was something special and different about them.

The first fused chromosome is in either allele (mother or father) of the haploid (has one of two sets of chromosomes) germ cell (egg or sperm) that divides down to develop into a 47 chromosome heterozygote (alleles are different not homozygous where allele pair each the same) humanoid that has the human chromosome #2 being expressed along with copy of the two chromosomes with no fusion that provides all that the cell had before so it is not a sudden unsurvivable change. The new fused chromosome is controllable through epigenetic systems to immediately reregulate genes to a successful balance. We now have the first human Chromosome #2.

Next, the fused chromosome replicates in the population as follows:

48 and 48 parents produce a 48 offspring only.
48 and 47 parents produce a 48 or 47 offspring.
47 and 47 parents produce a 48 or 47 or 46 human offspring.
47 and 46 parents produce a 47 or 46 human offspring.
46 and 46 parents produce a 46 human offspring only.

The first 46 chromosome humans who were born to the existing 47 chromosome lineage may have right away been fertile, or at first had sterility problems in which case human chromosome #2 had to first learn to survive to replicate without the unfused chromosomes of the other allele there to help maintain proper cell functions. It would then become increasingly difficult for a 46 to reproduce with 48 and possibly 47 in part because along with the new genome design came a new self-image that made the 48's look "apish" and 47's relatively "unattractive" to 46's.

Where "human" is defined as having the unique 46 chromosome genome design that separates us from 47 and 48 ancestors there was a first human couple in our ancestry that was already fully human. There is here a human man and a woman Chromosomal Adam and Eve who together could only produce 46 chromosome descendants whose children would prefer to be with their own kind as would their children's children through time, all the way from them to us.

BandTshirt-1.bmp
 
Gossamer, it is good that you do not blindly follow the science crowd. But with the way JaffaCake made it real easy by saying the following, I was hoping you would do better on that one!

Oh forgive me, after a day of fasting and work and very little sleep that is all the enthusiasm I can muster for atheists!
I am sure you'll go for the jugular with your snazzy sketched shirts!

all the best
 
Oh forgive me, after a day of fasting and work and very little sleep that is all the enthusiasm I can muster for atheists!
I am sure you'll go for the jugular with your snazzy sketched shirts!

all the best

I did not know you were so stressed out! And I hope you're not thinking that I'm an Atheist. My work has me labeled a Creationist, nutter, IDiot, thumper and all that. I am already having enough of an identity crisis!

To be more informative I'll post the monkey-to-man type image that the one above is to help correct:

kp44gb-082909scbandshirt.jpg

http://www.sedaliademocrat.com/news/0px-18740-span-font.html

When you carefully compare the two the differences should become noticeable. In what I drew we so suddenly appeared, it is like making fun of this design (even though other is only being more precise).

I would rather make one that has both man and woman so that Chromosomal Adam and Eve will be in the picture. But this is a good start towards changing long held scientific perceptions. So hopefully you'll soon be rested and recharged then right away notice what is different about it. I'll be patient.
 
Last edited:
I did not know you were so stressed out! And I hope you're not thinking that I'm an Atheist.


I lost my uncle today.. isn't life the exception? it evanesces before we can make sense of it.. I am not aggrieved by anything atheists or creationists believe or do. Each person has to make sense of his or her own life, it isn't a communal effort!

6:68 When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our Signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.


74: 35 This is but one of the mighty (portents),
36 A warning to mankind,-
37 To any of you that chooses to press forward, or to follow behind;-
38 Every soul will be (held) in pledge for its deeds.


all the best!
 
I lost my uncle today.. isn't life the exception? it evanesces before we can make sense of it..

My condolences to you and the family. It is so sad that life is so short, sometimes so uncertain. Almost like a price we must pay for there to be life at all. I hope we eventually find out is the only thing we can ever forever experience. My best will be with you and all through your crises.

I am not aggrieved by anything atheists or creationists believe or do. Each person has to make sense of his or her own life, it isn't a communal effort!

6:68 When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our Signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.

74: 35 This is but one of the mighty (portents),
36 A warning to mankind,-
37 To any of you that chooses to press forward, or to follow behind;-
38 Every soul will be (held) in pledge for its deeds.

all the best!

That is what I was hoping for, a great reply! And in a funny way "intelligence" is such a "controlling" thing that we cannot help share ideas in hope of making others think like us. It's in a way bad to be so inherently controlling but then again if we were not then none of us would be here wanting to share ideas that help us make sense of life. Have to take the good and the bad, again. Be glad for what we have...
 
For the original post:

Yes.

It's not a "belief in" as much as an "acceptance of".

Anatomical/molecular vestiges
endogenous retroviruses
mitochondrial DNA
...


Probably mentioned, but it has nothing to do with the existence of a "creator".


All the best,

~Faysal
 
Do people who vote 'yes' or 'no' do so based on preconceived personal beliefs, or based on evidence?

I have a feeling personal inclinations affect the choice for both swings.
 
Do people who vote 'yes' or 'no' do so based on preconceived personal beliefs, or based on evidence?

I don't think it's quite either. Existing beliefs prejudice, at least to some extent, the evidence that is selected for consideration.
 
I don't think it's quite either. Existing beliefs prejudice, at least to some extent, the evidence that is selected for consideration.

Usually its the faithful who are notorious in selecting evidence which supports their belief and discarding everything else.
 
Usually its the faithful who are notorious in selecting evidence which supports their belief and discarding everything else.

True, but the honest atheist must almost admit they are not immune!
 
I think I said yes but I can't remember. But to be honest I'm not a scientist, I am just a mere mortal, and therefore half of this thread makes no sense to me whatsoever. Secondly, the existence or lack of existence of evolution has no bearing on my religion or my belief that God exists, therefore I honestly couldn't care less from a religious standpoint.
 
An atheist doesn't necessarily have to accept evolution. That's the problem with categorizing "the others". There are people who do not believe in god but hold views of other supernatural forces at work as if there was some cosmological constant that kept everything in balance. Some atheists are willing to believe in homeopathic cancer medication or astrology.

Honesty wouldn't be the right word for someone who can admit they can be wrong. Some people honestly think they couldn't be wrong. There is a degree of critical thinking required to realize that dogmatic predispositions will affect one's ability to assess new information. Whether that takes the form of religion or other new/old age dogmatism makes no difference in my view.

All the best,


Faysal
 
Trumble - Atheists at times can be notoriously snobbish. This is also understandable at certain times when the people they are speaking to are almost child like in clinging on to their faith. No one is immune as you said. It is only when people believe in absolutes that problems occur.

Omar - scientists too are mere mortals! I think your standpoint is the best to adopt. Faith is faith. Only when people bring in pseudo science garbage to "disprove" evolution do things become embarrassing.

Tetsujin - everyone has a religion, maybe not in the conventional sense. Religion is essentially used to dictate peoples thought, and the proof is all around this forum, and any other religious forum. This is not a trademark of religion- although they are its founders.
 
Tetsujin - everyone has a religion, maybe not in the conventional sense.

Everyone? Please define your use of the word 'religion' in the non-conventional sense.


If by religion you mean 'principles' or 'social values' I wouldn't disagree. But as with many other words, 'religion' has several connotations which are reserved for certain purposes.


I think it benefits the believers to withhold the use of the word 'religion' when referring to non-believers as that inevitably erases the lines which divide believers and non-believers based on incompatible principles. Otherwise, you have the circuitous route of trying to argue that all religion is not bad, and that certain religions are good, and the counter-balancing arguments waste more time than necessary when the believers really didn't mean "religion" at the start. I think we're better off recognizing that the differences exist, and try to label them as such.

If you meant that everyone is susceptible to doctrinal dogmatism, then I've already conceded that.

What did you mean by 'Religion is essentially used to dictate peoples thought'? Are our thoughts not our own, even if they conform to another ideology to which we are already predisposed?


All the best,


Faysal
 
any institution that expresses a belief in something is a religion.. atheists contend the belief that there is NO GOD, however haven't established substantial scientific proof to account for anything in existence sans the divine in essence holding on to a universal negative as any unlearned religious zealot .. wouldn't you classify that as dogmatic?
When they become organized or even hold atheists state (such as with Enver Hoxha) they in fact are dictators and dictate to the people their thoughts and actions minus the all important altruism factor that at least most religions feign for a foundation, as a result you get 15 million dead, 20 million dead, five million dead without the blink of an eye...

so yes, Atheism is a religion and a belief system as any other with many sects and deviations, only its foundations and principles are undignified, and strip humanity of something very essential rendering them at a level no higher than mere animals while insinuating themselves in every portal not so much to cast doubt, rather from what appears to the rest out of being in a state of total discontent and having the desire for everyone else to be in the same dissatisfied state along side them..

all the best indeed..
 
any institution that expresses a belief in something is a religion..
Really? Have you changed your mind? I hope you don’t recall the our recent discussion regarding Scientology as a new religious movement vs cult, maybe it slipped your mind.
The definitions of cults vs. religion has several criteria, and unfortunately for 'Scientologists' their practices and numbers doesn't qualify them as a religion.
The number of adherents is a factor in what goes into the definition of cult vs. religion but not all that goes into that def...

...there are at least some basic tenets that are universally accepted and pass not only as pillars of religion but acceptable social mores which this particular cult exempts itself from...

...religion isn't a catchall phrase to describe any adherents, anymore than an aspirin cures all kind of headaches... all the best

I don't bring this up to be pedantic, this is very important. Is Scientology an institution? If so, did you change your mind about its status as a religion, or do you have some other definition of “institution” as well? If not, what am I (or your fellow believers) to make of your statements when you are willing to butcher a language to make some inconsequential point?


atheists contend the belief that there is NO GOD, however haven't established substantial scientific proof to account for anything in existence sans the divine in essence holding on to a universal negative as any unlearned religious zealot .. wouldn't you classify that as dogmatic?
It is during discussions like these when I wish we didn’t need a word for non-belief in god. Atheism is not a “contention”. Atheists withhold belief in a deity until sufficient evidence is provided. Do people who withhold a belief that Elvis Presley is alive also fall under the category of religious zealots? They haven’t come up with any substantial scientific proof to account forthe death of “sans Elvis Presley”.
Do we also call those who don’t believe in astrology, karma, chakras, or telekinesis, until sufficient evidence is provided, religious zealots or dogmatists? I hope your answer is that we wouldn’t.
When they become organized or even hold atheists state (such as with Enver Hoxha) they in fact are dictators and dictate to the people their thoughts and actions minus the all important altruism factor that at least most religions feign for a foundation, as a result you get 15 million dead, 20 million dead, five million dead without the blink of an eye...
This is an entirely different argument. First of all, I haven’t said that atheism necessarily leads to a particular type or form of government or a particular social ideology or anything other than a lack of belief in god.
There are many different ways in which people can argue for religion. You can argue that it is true, or that it is useful or necessary, or that non-belief or the rejection of god/religion is also religious or dogmatic. Even if atheism lead to a totally corrupt society (which is not inherent or obvious) or that atheism is another religion or dogmatic (again not inherent or obvious), how does that help your argument in any way?

What do you achieve by charging atheists with religion-like dogmatism? What do you achieve by charging particular atheists with murder or oppression?
I don’t see how that helps your argument in any way.

so yes, Atheism is a religion and a belief system as any other with many sects and deviations, only its foundations and principles are undignified, and strip humanity of something very essential rendering them at a level no higher than mere animals while insinuating themselves in every portal not so much to cast doubt, rather from what appears to the rest out of being in a state of total discontent and having the desire for everyone else to be in the same dissatisfied state along side them..

Your opinion is irrelevant. Again, if you’re arguing that you find contentment in religion that does not mean it is true.

All the best,


Faysal
 
Really? Have you changed your mind? I hope you don’t recall the our recent discussion regarding Scientology as a new religious movement vs cult, maybe it slipped your mind.

How is this of relevance?
I don't bring this up to be pedantic, this is very important. Is Scientology an institution? If so, did you change your mind about its status as a religion, or do you have some other definition of “institution” as well? If not, what am I (or your fellow believers) to make of your statements when you are willing to butcher a language to make some inconsequential point?

one factor that differentiates cult from religion is the number of adherents, but I am game calling atheism a cult given the other factors that come to play such as being authoritarian, exploitative and possibly dangerous all which I find to be in concert with atheism..so please allow me to retract my previous view and indeed label atheism as a cult growing, perhaps over the next few decades it will soften its image to become more religion like!
It is during discussions like these when I wish we didn’t need a word for non-belief in god. Atheism is not a “contention”. Atheists withhold belief in a deity until sufficient evidence is provided. Do people who withhold a belief that Elvis Presley is alive also fall under the category of religious zealots? They haven’t come up with any substantial scientific proof to account forthe death of “sans Elvis Presley”.
Your analogy falls short. on what basis are the two subjects alike? to digress I can say with some certainty that Elvis is indeed dead given his would be current age and drinking/eating habits.. but again I fail to see what this has to do with God or religion? would you like to take this plane in for a landing?

Do we also call those who don’t believe in astrology, karma, chakras, or telekinesis, until sufficient evidence is provided, religious zealots or dogmatists? I hope your answer is that we wouldn’t.
I have defined for you in my previous paragraph my new view on the cult of atheism and its sub-groups-- I haven't shared my view of your new addendum, though, I am glad you can broaden your horizon so we're less bored here but yet again, i fail to see any semblance of atheism to chakras or karma? One is concerned with spirituality and the other is concerned with materialism!

This is an entirely different argument. First of all, I haven’t said that atheism necessarily leads to a particular type or form of government or a particular social ideology or anything other than a lack of belief in god.
There are many different ways in which people can argue for religion. You can argue that it is true, or that it is useful or necessary, or that non-belief or the rejection of god/religion is also religious or dogmatic. Even if atheism lead to a totally corrupt society (which is not inherent or obvious) or that atheism is another religion or dogmatic (again not inherent or obvious), how does that help your argument in any way?
I wasn't going for an argument, I was making an assertion, there is a difference!
and further let me clarify, though you are a guest on this Islamic forum, and subject to its rules if you desire membership here, I really have no interest in discussing or convincing you of religion or with other atheists or non-Muslims in general..I don't think I have touched upon anything Islam least of which in the health and science section.. Mild references to religion and God really have very little to do with making an argument for a religion.. and to be quite blunt, I don't give a **** what you believe or what becomes of you.. atheists have a way of forcing themselves to be akin to animals and generally that is how I tend to feel about them-- and I shouldn't have to apologize for my feelings!

What do you achieve by charging atheists with religion-like dogmatism? What do you achieve by charging particular atheists with murder or oppression?
I don’t see how that helps your argument in any way.
See previous, history so tells us that atheists have had more death on their hands than all the religions combined! any spin on that isn't really going to change the fact of the matter!


Your opinion is irrelevant. Again, if you’re arguing that you find contentment in religion that does not mean it is true.

All the best,


Faysal

Then we alas have something in common as I find your opinion equally irrelevant and almost always out of place!

all the best
 
salam alaikum first brothers selam to all non muslims

a few week ago an scientist came with theory that exept matter and energy it's information too a component of the world...its like an empty cd and full cd they both have same weight...but the empty cd cant load anything....so i dont remebred name of scientist but he left open mouth too all others...

also genetic proved that man came first from water...-this is written in qur'an 1400 years before...
trully you have to read qur'an first than read other theoris

also Darvin said that if there is better theory mine doesnt serve anything....

somepeople says that biology is all evolution...nope all...
i dont belive for myself in evolution...
i life in world is created ...why we exist so smart couldnt we be like animals...or animals evoluate and speak they languages bring they discoveries...why non of the planet in gallactic dont have life in it...why the world is created so perfect...how could this world bee so perfect...why is that amount of oxygen in world? why is this temperature if there is no god probably now could be more than 100 degree...but it stay constant? why the atmosphere have that distance did u know that if atmosphere would be more closer to world life woulndt exist ...also muslims discoverys are wow amazing...

number(arabians)
trigonometry(arabian scientist discoverid)
lunar calendar(arabians too)
big bang(explonation in qur'an)
relativity theory(if you search deep more you will find it to but only u need to understand)
black seed(miracle of this are now discovered)
brakeage of moon(now discovered)
sun orbit(written in qur'an 1400 years ago)
two seas they dont mix (written in qur'an 1400 years ago)
man created from water(genetic proves now after 1400 passed from qur'an came)
mountains are seal of world(now proven that mountains save world for earthshake)
winds are warns for bad weather(proved)
everything is pair(now proven that exept matter exit it exist anti-matter to)

and more more more more thing keep searching
 
number(arabians)
trigonometry(arabian scientist discoverid)
lunar calendar(arabians too)
big bang(explonation in qur'an)
relativity theory(if you search deep more you will find it to but only u need to understand)
black seed(miracle of this are now discovered)
brakeage of moon(now discovered)
sun orbit(written in qur'an 1400 years ago)
two seas they dont mix (written in qur'an 1400 years ago)
man created from water(genetic proves now after 1400 passed from qur'an came)
mountains are seal of world(now proven that mountains save world for earthshake)
winds are warns for bad weather(proved)
everything is pair(now proven that exept matter exit it exist anti-matter to)

and more more more more thing keep searching

Hmm Let us check this out.

number(arabians)
Nope Indians.

trigonometry(arabian scientist discoverid)
Nope Ancient Greeks, plus Babylonians and Egyptians (hence the Greek derived name)

lunar calendar(arabians too)
Nope Chinese

big bang(explonation in qur'an)
Only if you torture the translation.

relativity theory(if you search deep more you will find it to but only u need to understand)
Give me the Surah number so I can check, please..

black seed(miracle of this are now discovered)
And ancient herbalists many of whom were very skilled did not know of this?

brakeage of moon(now discovered)
Really? When and where scientific papers please?

sun orbit(written in qur'an 1400 years ago)
As written the phrases seem more to link the orbits of sun and moon with day and night not with the galactic centre (if not then why are day and night and the orbits of the sun and moon in the same surah?)

two seas they dont mix (written in qur'an 1400 years ago)
Which two seas, where are these two seas indentified in the Qu'ran?
And if it refers to the Mediterranean and Atlantic what makes you think that nobody had ever discovered the differences in salinity between the two?

man created from water(genetic proves now after 1400 passed from qur'an came)
Genetic proof? Man is made up of much more than water, but then was there not mention af man also being made of dirt?

mountains are seal of world(now proven that mountains save world for earthshake)
Then why are there earthquakes in mountainous areas?

winds are warns for bad weather(proved)
And the ancients had not observed this for themselves?

everything is pair
Including amoebas? Viruses? Bacteria?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top