Ibn Khaldun’s Evolution Theory

[czgibson]

Greetings,

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD]BBC - Earth - We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
There was once an animal that was an ancestor to both humans and apes. But what was it like?...[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

That's twice now that people have posted links to this article. How do you think it helps your case? If you read beyond the title you'll find that it describes various aspects of the debate surrounding the LCA (last common ancestor). At no point does the article suggest that evolution is not true.

Peace

 

[Good brother]

Greetings,



No individual could directly observe macroevolution happening, because the magnitude of the time involved in the process is too great. However, there is a huge amount of evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

Partial list of transitional fossils

Peace

Even if we grant that every fossil looks the way it is reconstructed and that sequences demonstrating evolution really do exist, fossils cannot count as evidence for evolution. They can merely be consistent with evolutionary theory (which they aren’t!) — not evidence for the theory.
Why is this so?
No-one can know if any fossil is related. And because of this, we cannot know if one particular fossil evolved from another. If we cannot know that one particular fossil evolved from another, we cannot use them as proof that one fossil evolved from another (aka evolution)!

Now some may say that similarities between organisms determine relationships. In other words, similar organisms are probably related. But this reasoning falls flat. Many similarities exist between the marsupial mouse and the placental mouse.However, evolutionary scientists believe that the placental mouse and the horse are more closely related than the placental mouse and the marsupial mouse. In this instance, and in many others, similarities do not equate to relatedness. The argument from similarity as evidence for relatedness is a dead end.

Moreover many supposed members of your list were found to be absolute hoax. Take these as examples: http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/search/label/whales

And because of your very smart observation, we know that : Neo-darwinism is a Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.

 

[Alamgir]

http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/chromosome-2-fusion-model.html

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD]Evolution: Fact or Myth ?!: chromosome 2 fusion model
...[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

 

[AabiruSabeel]

Have a look at some of the previous discussions on this topic linked here:

Index of useful threads

Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life yet – Science is decades behind..


Also watch this video:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD] Index of useful threads
This is an index of threads centred mainly around the theme of clarifications about Islam. Let us remember that we must give priority to acquiring sou...[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Even if we grant that every fossil looks the way it is reconstructed and that sequences demonstrating evolution really do exist, fossils cannot count as evidence for evolution. They can merely be consistent with evolutionary theory (which they aren’t!) — not evidence for the theory.

The fossil record provides evidence of transitional forms, as I said. It does not give evidence of direct descent. Until anybody can come up with a better explanatory theory that accounts for the diversity of extant fossils (and the apparent transitional forms) than evolution, then the scientific consensus will remain.

Moreover many supposed members of your list were found to be absolute hoax. Take these as examples: http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/search/label/whales

By "many", you mean three. Hoax is a bit strong; these are fossils whose characteristics appear to have been interpreted incorrectly. Why you think this in some way disproves evolution is a bit of a mystery. Scientists are usually pleased to discover that they have got something wrong in the light of new evidence, and they adjust their thinking accordingly. What is the problem here?

Peace

 

[Mahir Adnan]

salam,

Yes. I agree that the fossil record supports evolution.

then why bbc said that, there is lack of evidence

well,let's put Harun yahya aside.though Dawkins ran away from him.however,this link may help
DNA of Human and chimpanzee

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD] DNA of Human and chimpanzee
Atheists claim that chimp and human possess 98% similar DNA. But truth is,there lies a huge difference. Because, calculation of percentage is not accur...[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

salam,
then why bbc said that, there is lack of evidence

Because you don't understand what you're reading. The "missing link" or last common ancestor between apes and humans has not yet been discovered. Plenty of apparently transitional fossils have.

well,let's put Harun yahya aside.

Yes, let's.

though Dawkins ran away from him.

Dawkins didn't run away from anybody. He's a scientist. He doesn't debate any creationists, because creationism has nothing to do with science. Having said that, I think a debate between Dawkins and Yahya could be quite interesting.

however,this link may help
DNA of Human and chimpanzee

This is all a matter of different counting methods, as explained here.

Peace

 

[Alamgir]

Greetings,



That's twice now that people have posted links to this article. How do you think it helps your case? If you read beyond the title you'll find that it describes various aspects of the debate surrounding the LCA (last common ancestor). At no point does the article suggest that evolution is not true.

Peace

It says we have not found the missing link, which weakens your case that homo sapiens came from apes significantly

 

[Good brother]

It says we have not found the missing link, which weakens your case that homo sapiens came from apes significantly

Assalam alaikum

The argument that ‘These fossils are transitional’ comes up quite regularly, but it's evidently flawed. Actually, this is no argument at all. It must assume transitional fossils exist (i.e. evolution theory/Neo-darwinism is true) in the first place to conclude that these fossils are transitional. So one must assume evolution theory to prove evolution theory; this is reasoning in a circle. Of course, if Neo-darwinism is true, the fossil of every extinct creature would be transitional — but this cannot be used as evidence for evolution theory.

 

[Mahir Adnan]

He doesn't debate any creationists, because creationism has nothing to do with science.

Dawkins dare to debate priests, but not creationists! indeed, Dawkins is good at making people fool with such superb lame excuse.

As many others have already pointed out, this result is not wrong, it’s just irrelevant. Well, it might also be wrong. Others have found it difficult to reproduce his results. But even if his analysis is accurate, it is simply the wrong analysis to apply to dating the last common ancestor.

I quoted this from the you have given. it seems that,your link is supporting my post too. then what's the point of claiming ape as our ancestor!!!

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It says we have not found the missing link, which weakens your case that homo sapiens came from apes significantly

If that were true, don't you think the article would have mentioned it? Why post a pro-evolution article when you're trying to oppose it?

The argument that ‘These fossils are transitional’ comes up quite regularly, but it's evidently flawed. Actually, this is no argument at all. It must assume transitional fossils exist (i.e. evolution theory/Neo-darwinism is true) in the first place to conclude that these fossils are transitional. So one must assume evolution theory to prove evolution theory; this is reasoning in a circle. Of course, if Neo-darwinism is true, the fossil of every extinct creature would be transitional — but this cannot be used as evidence for evolution theory.

There certainly appear to be transitional forms in the fossil record, consistent with evolutionary theory. What is your alternative explanation? God created all these creatures and then made the vast majority of them exitinct? Why would an omniscient being do something as pointless as that?

Dawkins dare to debate priests, but not creationists! indeed, Dawkins is good at making people fool with such superb lame excuse.

Debating with creationists is like arguing with someone who believes the moon is made of cheese - it's just an obviously ludicrous proposition, so I can see why Dawkins couldn't be bothered to do it. However, as I say, I would still like to see him debate Harun Yahya if only to see Yahya humiliate himself in public.

I quoted this from the you have given. it seems that,your link is supporting my post too. then what's the point of claiming ape as our ancestor!!!

Again, you don't appear to understand the words you're reading. Never mind.

Peace

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

What is your alternative explanation? God created all these creatures and then made the vast majority of them exitinct? Why would an omniscient being do something as pointless as that?

Both you and I will be extinct within the next century, why would God do something as pointless as that? ;D

The question of evolution is not a big deal either way. I think the greater question is how could the universe and life come to be without a Creator God?

In the spirit of searching for God
Eric

 

[Alamgir]

Greetings,



If that were true, don't you think the article would have mentioned it? Why post a pro-evolution article when you're trying to oppose it?

They mentioned it in the title lol, was that not a good enough mention?

You don't have any concrete proof of macro-evolution, only things that are consistent with it. Fossils looking similar is not concrete proof for common ancestry, one could argue they look similar as they are adapted to carrying out similar functions, or the fact that there are many creatures that despite looking similar, are not that closely related. Genetics is not an argument either, since one could simply argue God made the creatures with similar materials or that (again) they are designed to carry out similar functions.

Anyway, I don't have a personal problem with macro-evolution as a whole since it works, my problem is saying Homo-Sapiens evolved from another creature. Unless you can give me concrete proof, I will not even entertain such a ridiculous notion, especially when you consider how unique humans are to the rest of the living creatures on the planet, especially in terms of intelligence and emotions.

 

[Scimitar]

[TR]
[TD]BBC - Earth - We have still not found the missing link between us and apes

We've got more in common with a banana

 

[Zafran]

They mentioned it in the title lol, was that not a good enough mention?

You don't have any concrete proof of macro-evolution, only things that are consistent with it. Fossils looking similar is not concrete proof for common ancestry, one could argue they look similar as they are adapted to carrying out similar functions, or the fact that there are many creatures that despite looking similar, are not that closely related. Genetics is not an argument either, since one could simply argue God made the creatures with similar materials or that (again) they are designed to carry out similar functions.

Anyway, I don't have a personal problem with macro-evolution as a whole since it works, my problem is saying Homo-Sapiens evolved from another creature. Unless you can give me concrete proof, I will not even entertain such a ridiculous notion, especially when you consider how unique humans are to the rest of the living creatures on the planet, especially in terms of intelligence and emotions.

You have to remember that evolutionary model or any scientific model for that matter will never talk about God simply because it presupposes naturalism. It has nothing to say beyond that.

 

[Ümit]

You have to remember that evolutionary model or any scientific model for that matter will never talk about God simply because it presupposes naturalism. It has nothing to say beyond that.

which is not wrong.
everything has a logical explanation...if you search and investigate you will find the answer.

Q: How does wind work?
A: Allah makes that possible.
Q: yeah, but can we understand the proces how this works?
A: of course, Allah makes a high pressure area and a low pressure area somewhere, and the wind is just air particles going from high to low pressure.
Q: how does Allah make high and low pressure area's?
A:etc.

you know where this is going right?
Of course Allah is behind every action because he makes it possible.
You can answer almost every question with "Allah makes that possible" which of course would be a correct answer, but that does not improve us understanding the logic behind it.

 

[Mahir Adnan]

Debating with creationists is like arguing with someone who believes the moon is made of cheese -

it seems,Debating with priests, is not like arguing with someone who believes the moon is made of cheese!!! :facepalm: still, I am not convinced. try other arguments.

you don't appear to understand the words you're reading.

I will be happy, if you help me to understand.. && I will be happier, if you find out any lie that I have made in my thread(in the link I gave you on dna of man and ape)
please, let me know if I miss any fossil.
https://www.islamicboard.com/health-amp-science/134349332-human-fossil-record.html#post2985651

 

[Zafran]

which is not wrong.
everything has a logical explanation...if you search and investigate you will find the answer.

Q: How does wind work?
A: Allah makes that possible.
Q: yeah, but can we understand the proces how this works?
A: of course, Allah makes a high pressure area and a low pressure area somewhere, and the wind is just air particles going from high to low pressure.
Q: how does Allah make high and low pressure area's?
A:etc.

you know where this is going right?
Of course Allah is behind every action because he makes it possible.
You can answer almost every question with "Allah makes that possible" which of course would be a correct answer, but that does not improve us understanding the logic behind it.

There is one thing understanding Allah swt Sunan of how the Universe works - a different matter on how our perception,theories and models of the way the universe works.

If these models are useful and have the best explanation of the apparent phenomena with great predictive power - then that is practical. However science keeps adapting to new data and sometimes totally ditches old models for newer models (paradigm shift).

examples of these are the Geo centric model for the Helio centric model
Explanation of gravity Newton vs Einstein.
Time fixed or Einstein theory of relativity
evolutionary Biology
Tectonic plates
Quantity mechanics
Qualitative to the Quantitative.

so we need to be careful what we state as "true" according to the data we have. Instead we should state its the best explanation of what we have of the data (abductive reasoning).

 

[Ümit]

There is one thing understanding Allah swt Sunan of how the Universe works - a different matter on how our perception,theories and models of the way the universe works.

If these models are useful and have the best explanation of the apparent phenomena with great predictive power - then that is practical. However science keeps adapting to new data and sometimes totally ditches old models for newer models (paradigm shift).

examples of these are the Geo centric model for the Helio centric model
Explanation of gravity Newton vs Einstein.
Time fixed or Einstein theory of relativity
evolutionary Biology
Tectonic plates
Quantity mechanics
Qualitative to the Quantitative.

so we need to be careful what we state as "true" according to the data we have. Instead we should state its the best explanation of what we have of the data (abductive reasoning).

Which is also not wrong. Science is just a tool for us to try to understand Allahs creation. We continously try to develop theories and formulas for every unknown phenomenon. Our formulas and theories are just an approximation of the reality. But that is good enough for us to work with...until someone comes along and develops a more accurate formula. That is how it works.

 

[Scimitar]

These threads are still trending on islamicboard

science says ‘I’m interestied in processes which is why I ask “how” and nothing else’

islam says ‘I’m interested in reason and also process which is why I ask “why” first and “how” second’

science is only a tool (as mentioned above) and science is never concerned with truth or reason, only process - a one trick pony.

now, back to my ice cream sandwich nom nom nom