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.
Okay... I am an applied Microbiologist, so.. I will try to help on the issue of evolution.

Evolution could be defined as the hierachal process where by life began on earth and from one small life form man evolved as a higher being.

Tricky area as some scientist beleive this began with a big bang, like a spontaneous reaction and others think it began by a slow process that was almost unnoticed and then single celled and multicellur organisms evolved then multicellular organisms developed specialised mechanisms and functions and so on.

From a religion based perspective, in hearing this , one could easily be quick to say hey now way did I evolve from a nematode.

That is fair.

Let us however consider the important aspects of the study and applications of evolution today.

  • I can confirm that there are singe celled and multicelled organisms, I know and can confirm that there are multicelled organisms and single celled organisms who have a very complex and multidisciplinary genetic structure and functionalism. We use them and benefit from them in everyday life right down to the water we drink, the oxygen in the air we breathe, the food we eat and digestion of our food as well as waste control and management to mention a few.
  • If one stops to consider the evolutionary theory in a nuclear environment, then it exists eg every individual is inherently endowed with genetic components that are selectively, randomly selected and segregated during the conception process, i.e you get half of your mum and half of your dad and your mum and dad are half their mums and dads and so on.. ..... This process is one that is random and selective and some rely on what scientists call Darwinian laws to try to expantiate on this i.e Charles Darwin. The simplicity of this is that the above is the process of evolution in todays world and it is proven to be correct within scientific parameters but because I beleive in Almighty Allah, I refer to what is known as random selection and independent assortment, independent segregation and so on as the power of Allah as no man has yet worked out how each individuals genetic makeup is selected except that some are traits that are common to women and men and this is only because women genetically inherit a different set of chromosomes to men. XX vs XY, so if you only find a genetic trait on a Y chromosome, you can easily deduce that there is high probability it does affect or influence that trait in a woman and only a man and or can only be passed to a man and not to a woamn etc.
  • The advances to science mean that we are now able to pin down certain traits which are genetic and can cause disease. The thing to remember here is that although some people are more predisposed to a disease or illness due to carrying a trait which may increase their risk it does not necessarily mean they go on to have that illness and likewise others may develop similar illnesses and diseases due to other reasons sometimes referred to as environmental influences.
  • Advances in science also teach us that if we all have chromosomes eg XX and XY then imagine a great big Y and a great big X that is made up of little dots, each dot is a trait, like skin colour, eye colour, hair texture, hair colour, size of hands, size of feet, ears nose shape, nose size, lip size and so on and these are independently sorted, randomly passed on by chance during conception then evolution becomes an important area of study for use in control of illness and disease.
By the way,.... interestingly, microoganisms do the same and they have powers stronger than humans as a collective to mutate at a more rapid rate, that is when they adapt and change certain genetic traits in their cellular structure to prevent them from dying out like becoming heat or anitbiotic resistant and here I should also say that microorganisms are responsible for good things too like ecosystem maintennance, food production, study of and control of disease and much more.

Overall .... I would say evolution is a viable and existing aspect of life and there is a lot of evidence to give credence to this phenomena and it is worthwhile to note that in the scientific community, there are varied and very different thoughts, ideas, philosophies and so on regarding this matter. and to be quite honest, during my first years of study, in class we were asked to indicate if we beleived evolution, genetic inheritance, Mendellian law etc, I did not put my hand up to indicate anything and no one noticed.

Now that I have finished undergraduate study, I still won't, but I will and have explained as best as I can bits of what I remember right now as I am writing of what I know.

I hope it helps those who are in the dark on the topic.

Masalaam

Fair enough. How you define random though? Is independent assortment of genes during meiosis purely random? Just because we cannot measure the pattern in which the chromosomes assort, can we say its random? Many factors play a role in assortment of chromsomes, ranging from their weight to the interaction of kinetochores with spindle fibres. How can "randomness" be maintained one so many different parts of diverse processes unite together to create gametes?

SubhanAllah. its like an orchestra. One protein messes up, the whole process gets messed up. Not only that, then Allah (swt) had endowed the system with the ability to monitor mistakes and correct them in most of the cases. When the correction does not work, atheists say its not a perfect corrective system. I see it as willed by God.
 
Its not a perfect corrective system. Some cells copy each other to the detriment of the system.
Cancer.

If evolution is willed by god then its a extremely circuatious route he has chosen, building a multifaceted mechanic that only points to a lack of his own input!
 
Its not a perfect corrective system. Some cells copy each other to the detriment of the system.
Cancer.

If evolution is willed by god then its a extremely circuatious route he has chosen, building a multifaceted mechanic that only points to a lack of his own input!

Cancers replicate due to the error in the replicative system. So its a defect a system, not a system itself.

Evolution on its own will go nowhere.
 
Yeah, diddnt say it was not a defect. I said it wasnt perfect.

Evolution on its own has carried it, backed by genetic, embrological, geological, fossil and anatomical evidence in such a bun dance as to not really brook any serious arguement,as it dosnt amongst 97% of scientists, from single cells to trillion cell creatures of staggering complexity.

Islam is quite adaptable to Evolution, more so than christianity with the heavy weight of Genologys and six days of creation.

I would encourage you to study it. its a facinating subject.
 
Yeah, diddnt say it was not a defect. I said it wasnt perfect.

Evolution on its own has carried it, backed by genetic, embrological, geological, fossil and anatomical evidence in such a bun dance as to not really brook any serious arguement,as it dosnt amongst 97% of scientists, from single cells to trillion cell creatures of staggering complexity.

Islam is quite adaptable to Evolution, more so than christianity with the heavy weight of Genologys and six days of creation.

I would encourage you to study it. its a facinating subject.

I've studied it more than you probably.

The evidence only points out similarities. There is no evidence that all life is connected sequentially. That is just an imaginary connection created by the "97%" of the scientists to provide the best naturalistic explanation to what they perceive through their two senses (sight and hearing). Scientists are no gods. I've grown up in their company. I know that they are wrong. 97% of them can be and are wrong. I stand unconvinced by the irrational argument of descent through modification for which there is no evidence.
 
Last edited:
Well we probably studied different books.

I studied secular books written by biologists with no connection to preconcieved beleif in Creationism.
I also studied the creationist arguements attempting to debunk evolution with Dinosaurs on Arks and selective measuring of isotope dating. I even visited a Creationist musem.

The balance of evidence was creationism 0% Evolution 99%.
Appels, snakes and clots of blood along with burning bushes arks and "god did it" explainations offer nothing. Not a scrap of palpable evidence.

Evolution offers a seamless endlessly tested and biologically sound explaination.
I'd encourage you to read a proper non-religious scientists book to get an actual look at how it works. Dawkins "the Greatest Show on earth" is a good starter.
 
Well we probably studied different books.

I studied secular books written by biologists with no connection to preconcieved beleif in Creationism.
I also studied the creationist arguements attempting to debunk evolution with Dinosaurs on Arks and selective measuring of isotope dating. I even visited a Creationist musem.

The balance of evidence was creationism 0% Evolution 99%.
Appels, snakes and clots of blood along with burning bushes arks and "god did it" explainations offer nothing. Not a scrap of palpable evidence.

Evolution offers a seamless endlessly tested and biologically sound explaination.
I'd encourage you to read a proper non-religious scientists book to get an actual look at how it works. Dawkins "the Greatest Show on earth" is a good starter.

The fact that you suggested me to read Dawkins highlights the kind of books you have studied. You talk about reading books without pre-conceived notions of creationism, Dawkins starts each of his book with the presumption of atheism. For a philosophical critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion, check this out http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/2010/01/dawkins-delusion-response-to-richard.html

I've read peer-reviewed primary papers, review papers, and text books on this issue. All of them propose evolution as an "explanation" of the available evidence. In other words, evolution is a man-made concept which fits in with the observed evidence. I just take evidence as it is without putting any interpretations on it for the time being as I have not conducted each of these experiments myself. Perhaps that is the difference between me and you. I do not get indoctrinated by the theoretical ideas of evolutionists while you do.

And just because something is peer-reviewed, it does not confirm the reality. Its a logical fallacy to resort to such measures of proving something and known as argument from authority. That is, just because scientists say so, it is true.
 
Last edited:
Actually Dawkins is agnostic. He professes no beleif in Gods but a lack of knowlage that non exist with the caveat that all evidence points against their existance.

The fact that i pointed you to the until recent professor of public understanding of science highlights the kinds of books I've studied :)
Your claiming that mainstream science is wrong and the tiny fringe of pseudoscience is the correct position.

This isnt a point we are going to further without reams of post and counterpost dumping Worldwide mainstream science against vidieos of Kent Hovind and Harun Yahya's book of fishhook fossils.
Not much point in that so we will have to agree to disagree for now. Of course not without pointing out, i'm right your wrong! :p
 
Actually Dawkins is agnostic. He professes no beleif in Gods but a lack of knowlage that non exist with the caveat that all evidence points against their existance.

The fact that i pointed you to the until recent professor of public understanding of science highlights the kinds of books I've studied :)
Your claiming that mainstream science is wrong and the tiny fringe of pseudoscience is the correct position.

This isnt a point we are going to further without reams of post and counterpost dumping Worldwide mainstream science against vidieos of Kent Hovind and Harun Yahya's book of fishhook fossils.
Not much point in that so we will have to agree to disagree for now. Of course not without pointing out, i'm right your wrong! :p

Straw man fallacy. I never claimed that I believe in Harun Yahya's pseudoscience? That is what atheists like you do. You are trying to prove that I am an idiot that I believe in Harun Yahya's works? I never said that yet you made an assumption about it? Way to go, not-so-smart atheist.

Proposing that evolution is the ONLY explanation of evidence is pseudoscience. Evidence =/= Evolution of Man from primitive life.

Dawkins is a self-proclaimed atheist. You can find his video on youtube in which he says that 'God most probably does not exist.' An agnostic, on the other hand, maintains that he does not know whether God exists or not.
 
Straw man fallacy. I never claimed that I believe in Harun Yahya's pseudoscience? That is what atheists like you do. You are trying to prove that I am an idiot that I believe in Harun Yahya's works? I never said that yet you made an assumption about it? Way to go, not-so-smart atheist.

Proposing that evolution is the ONLY explanation of evidence is pseudoscience. Evidence =/= Evolution of Man from primitive life.

Dawkins is a self-proclaimed atheist. You can find his video on youtube in which he says that 'God most probably does not exist.' An agnostic, on the other hand, maintains that he does not know whether God exists or not.

All agnostics have a 50% beleif in god? Nahh. you are mistaken.Dawkins says he is 6/7ths Atheist in The God delusion. Or was it 5/6ths he said, i dunno, it's not like I memorise it!

As for Harun, this is the best creationists have got. if you have some other explaination of life apart from Allah, then I'm very happy to hear it!
 
All agnostics have a 50% beleif in god? Nahh. you are mistaken.Dawkins says he is 6/7ths Atheist in The God delusion. Or was it 5/6ths he said, i dunno, it's not like I memorise it!

As for Harun, this is the best creationists have got. if you have some other explaination of life apart from Allah, then I'm very happy to hear it!

Allah's involvement is the only explanation. Even if I, for the sake of argument, accept evolution as the mechanism of origin of man, it does not explain how elements came to being. How universe came into being? Why universe came into being? Its a loop of infinite explanations and if you are so adamant to stick to non-God invoking explanations then I am afraid that you are running in infinite circles of explanations. Evolutionist's explanation is half baked, they only explain how man evolved from lower organisms, they dont explain how the things necessary for life evolved such as elements. that duty is thrown on the geologists? Then whatever geologists cannot explain, that duty is given to astronomers. So on and so forth.

Btw my life involves more than sitting on IB and hence I am off.

Good luck reading Dawkins.
 
Sure, no probs.

Geometry theory will give us nothing into everything as a theory,and explains Big Bang, though its a bit quantum, i like it. Fills a lot of gaps and avoids the "who created god" pitfall.

The Clay pastes at earths cooling provide molecular structures for RNA polymers to turn into DNA. You probably already know this but just discount it.
As i say, one side has all this stuff.
The other side has talking snakes and flying donkeys.
 
as one geneticist put it: How could the 2 sexes have evolved from an asexual, amorphic amoeba regardless of an even infinite time scale without a Creator. How could the process of meiosis have eveloved to produce male and female gametes when having the 2 sexes are worthless without that reductionary division? The male is reproductively worthless without the female and vice versa.

I love that clay pastes the earth turning RNA to DNA thing, you hold your breath for that..

btw taking a ten months theology course at a second rate institution doesn't make you a scholar in any field least of which science!

all the best
 
as one geneticist put it: How could the 2 sexes have evolved from an asexual, amorphic amoeba regardless of an even infinite time scale without a Creator. How could the process of meiosis have eveloved to produce male and female gametes when having the 2 sexes are worthless without that reductionary division? The male is reproductively worthless without the female and vice versa.

I love that clay pastes the earth turning RNA to DNA thing, you hold your breath for that..

btw taking a ten months theology course at a second rate institution doesn't make you a scholar in any field least of which science!

all the best

You will find the answer in transitory species. Those that are both male and female. I know biology isnt your thing Skye,and you prefer talking snakes and donkeys that fly, so I wont tax you with it.

The Clay to RNA type polymers dosnt need "waiting" for, it's already lab replicated in the 1970's.
Sorry again.
 
You will find the answer in transitory species. Those that are both male and female. I know biology isnt your thing Skye,and you prefer talking snakes and donkeys that fly, so I wont tax you with it.

Care to elaborate rather than reference me to some vague terms? In fact my undergrad and masters are in molecular bio. So go ahead nurse man, teach me all about it!

The Clay to RNA type polymers dosnt need "waiting" for, it's already lab replicated in the 1970's.
Sorry again.
That is funny, a human manipulated experiment that yielded no outcome proved something?

you know as the saying goes.. if a fool persists in his folly he'll become a wise man.. so you keep at it, at some point you'll be really convincing to like minds!

all the best
 
You will find the answer in transitory species. Those that are both male and female. I know biology isnt your thing Skye,and you prefer talking snakes and donkeys that fly, so I wont tax you with it.

The Clay to RNA type polymers dosnt need "waiting" for, it's already lab replicated in the 1970's.
Sorry again.

LOL.

RNA already has been shown to have enzymatic (Ribozymes) and replicative ability. RNAs still require a protein for their replication (For example Group II Introns when they insert into a new target sequence).

Conclusive evidence has yet to be provided that RNA can replicated on its own without the use of proteins! How the heck is that possible, I cannot imagine right now as a single stranded RNA (with some partial self- base pairing in the form of hair-pin loops) would need an external source to get its information copied.

Mr not-so-smart-atheist, please explain to me how likely is it for RNA and proteins to evolve independently from their constituents (ribonucleotides and amino acids) in a fashion in which a protein can be utilized by that evolved RNA to replicate itself. ...
 
Last edited:
LOL.

RNA already has been shown to have enzymatic (Ribozymes) and replicative ability. RNAs still require a protein for their replication (For example Group II Introns when they insert into a new target sequence).

Conclusive evidence has yet to be provided that RNA can replicated on its own without the use of proteins! How the heck is that possible, I cannot imagine right now as a single stranded RNA (with some partial self- base pairing in the form of hair-pin loops) would need an external source to get its information copied.

Mr not-so-smart-atheist, please explain to me how likely is it for RNA and proteins to evolve independently from their constituents (ribonucleotides and amino acids) in a fashion in which a protein can be utilized by that evolved RNA to replicate itself. ...


:sl:

I'd take it down a few notches, a few months ago, the guy couldn't do basic math.. kept quoting me articles about sun yrs and moons yrs, because he didn't understand the concept that having more day in a week makes you have a longer year.. so I'd carry that thought through to fundamentals of genetics and molecular bio.

atheists are happy convincing themselves of their own brand of truth, because simply they are unlearned in the sciences but are learned in verbal diarrhea .. and as the saying goes, if you can't dazzle them with science baffle them with bull ****..
 
:sl:

I'd take it down a few notches, a few months ago, the guy couldn't do basic math.. kept quoting me articles about sun yrs and moons yrs, because he didn't understand the concept that having more day in a week makes you have a longer year.. so I'd carry that thought through to fundamentals of genetics and molecular bio.

atheists are happy convincing themselves of their own brand of truth, because simply they are unlearned in the sciences but are learned in verbal diarrhea .. and as the saying goes, if you can't dazzle them with science baffle them with bull ****..



Cant remember anything about sun years and moon years. Dosnt make much sense so unless you want to drag it out for display, I'll call you on it.
Time within our scope of space is a constant, so thats simple baseless ad-hom.

I do recall however that you beleive that The USA sells Exploding tanks to Saudi in order to kill muslims. Oh and that Horses fly.;D

So if you want a battle of beleifs, you might have to carry on inserting false propaganda

We do not know how life started. We have excellent theorys. We have some tested and testable concepts, the Clay Paste RNA polymer being one. If the science falsified such concepts, I'd abandon them as credible.

You have a magical explaination founded on nothing at all but which you hold to with fevered conviction.Nothing would convince you to abandon the idea. Even a new prophet arriving displaying miracles!:p
 
Cant remember anything about sun years and moon years. Dosnt make much sense so unless you want to drag it out for display, I'll call you on it.

Of course you can't.. I too would repress such a public humiliation of not being able to reason like a third grader at your age. We were discussing ahel al-kahf and the lunar calendar. I don't have the thread but as soon as I find it, I will post it for all to see, the more folks figure out exactly the level of intellect they are dealing with!
Time within our scope of space is a constant, so thats simple baseless ad-hom.
?
I do recall however that you beleive that The USA sells Exploding tanks to Saudi in order to kill muslims. Oh and that Horses fly.;D
It isn't far fetched to sell folks devices that can self-destruct. I have no idea what flying horses mean? care to share that thread?
So if you want a battle of beleifs, you might have to carry on inserting false propaganda

I don't battle with nurse who had a ten month course, as the saying goes:

Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience!
We do not know how life started. We have excellent theorys. We have some tested and testable concepts, the Clay Paste RNA polymer being one. If the science falsified such concepts, I'd abandon them as credible.
You couldn't discuss science in a lucid manner if you had someone whisper it in your ear as you mouth it out.

You have a magical explaination founded on nothing at all but which you hold to with fevered conviction.Nothing would convince you to abandon the idea. Even a new prophet arriving displaying miracles!:p
There is nothing 'magical' about God.
There is however something rather amusing about:

amongst others...

I think you do your clan a great disservice, and I think that tends to be the problem with most atheists. No social deportment or common sense.. but a caustic tongue that spews obscenities!

all the best!
 
Of course you can't.. I too would repress such a public humiliation of not being able to reason like a third grader at your age. We were discussing ahel al-kahf and the lunar calendar. I don't have the thread but as soon as I find it, I will post it for all to see, the more folks figure out exactly the level of intellect they are dealing with!

?

It isn't far fetched to sell folks devices that can self-destruct. I have no idea what flying horses mean? care to share that thread?


I don't battle with nurse who had a ten month course, as the saying goes:

Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience!

You couldn't discuss science in a lucid manner if you had someone whisper it in your ear as you mouth it out.


There is nothing 'magical' about God.
There is however something rather amusing about:

amongst others...

I think you do your clan a great disservice, and I think that tends to be the problem with most atheists. No social deportment or common sense.. but a caustic tongue that spews obscenities!

all the best!

Blimey!

Thats a cut and cookie response. Its what I would have actually typed for you! Which i will thus post below!
1) No I wont prove my ad Hom. But Barney really and truely does think that the moon bleeds custard, isnt he the silly one? Take no notice This is the chap who thinks that air is water, lol, cos it has Oxygen in it! Heh. (Add some basic facts to make it plausible like hydrogen contained in both mediums)
2) My delusions are plausible and indeed true! The flying Horses. i speak of the Burak! The horse with a womans head and its strides were mighty!
3)....and finish with a spew of baseless ad hom that will grace both our deleted item boxes!

Y'know Ambrosia, we really ought to just /ignore each other. I can argue for ever, and beat you every time, but ...my humanity really grates against such a drubbing.
Cya tommorow!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top