[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Aslaamu`Alaaykum. . .

I have a Q regarding Evolution, as muslims do we deny the theory of Evolution? I have a Friend who is an Ahmadi, they do not reject Evolution, as in they believe the Qur`aan to mention Evolution and agree with it etc. they believe we evolve from Apes mg:, they believe the same things we humans have, the apes also have them too, like we are made from the same stuff, maybe even same features (apparently), so this makes us apes i think . But yeah what does Islaam really have to say about this? I dont understand InshaAllaah someone with Knowledge can clarify . . .
Jazakallah Khayr for replies will appreciate all answers given indeed! And hoope i made good sense!

Wa Alaaykum Salaam

 

[tango92]

in islam we believe that the human race started from two adam and hawa, so far their is no evidence which contradicts this but it hasnt been proven yet either.

as for the evolution of animals, this is completely for you to make up your own mind. i think most muslims who believe in evolution of animals dont consider mutations to occur by chance but rather it is the will of Allah.

it doesnt really make sense that out of a whole population in a time of environmental change, a mutation happens to occur which happens to combat the environmental change, which spreads throughout the population of which the vast majority should now be dead due to the environmental change killing those without the mutation.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Muslim Wrld: You should not have ahmadi "friends." The kufaar are friends of each other. Or did you mean acquaintance/colleague?

What else were you expecting from an Ahmadi? A person who believes that Muhammad (p) is not the last Prophet, he/she will believe in other crap too.

 

[atheistbynature]

the human race started from two adam and hawa, so far their is no evidence which contradicts this but it hasnt been proven yet either.

If all humans came from a pair whose children then inbred this would be immediate obvious in the genome there is no way there could be the amount of genetic variation that there is in humans today if this was true. How long ago do you suppose this happened? Since there is such a large amount of evidence to show humans do share a common ancestor that I can't believe you'd say that there is none, We share 98% of our DNA much of which is purely vestigal.

it doesnt really make sense that out of a whole population in a time of environmental change, a mutation happens to occur which happens to combat the environmental change, which spreads throughout the population of which the vast majority should now be dead due to the environmental change killing those without the mutation.

Thousands of mutations occur over each generation, most of which are bad or neutral for the organism, only the good ones however are passed on. They do not spread through the population, they are passed on to the next generation and over a long period of time all the species have that gene.

 

[tango92]

If all humans came from a pair whose children then inbred this would be immediate obvious in the genome there is no way there could be the amount of genetic variation that there is in humans today if this was true. How long ago do you suppose this happened? Since there is such a large amount of evidence to show humans do share a common ancestor that I can't believe you'd say that there is none, We share 98% of our DNA much of which is purely vestigal.

present your proof if you are truthful. what we are saying is that the Adam and Hawa and their children were not like us today, their gene pool and biology was suited to incestual reproduction.

Thousands of mutations occur over each generation, most of which are bad or neutral for the organism, only the good ones however are passed on. They do not spread through the population, they are passed on to the next generation and over a long period of time all the species have that gene.

sure amongst bacteria there are many mutations occuring, not higher level organisms as i indicated in my post. in a higher level organism the DNA is very stable. look at the aftermaths of hiroshima, where any of the mutations useful? or even neutral? stop being decpetive.
btw 1 single mutation even if it occured is useless. eg in order to stand upright we require many thousands of mutations.

the whole idea of evolution is, a mutation occurs which allows the survival of a species when faced with a specific threat. which is why organisms dont evolve when they dont "need" to. therefore a gradual spread throughout a population is useless.

 

[CosmicPathos]

If all humans came from a pair whose children then inbred this would be immediate obvious in the genome there is no way there could be the amount of genetic variation that there is in humans today if this was true. How long ago do you suppose this happened? Since there is such a large amount of evidence to show humans do share a common ancestor that I can't believe you'd say that there is none, We share 98% of our DNA much of which is purely vestigal.



Thousands of mutations occur over each generation, most of which are bad or neutral for the organism, only the good ones however are passed on. They do not spread through the population, they are passed on to the next generation and over a long period of time all the species have that gene.

Well how do YOU explain the variation in among humans? Its not that much though.

 

[AinEstonia]

Dan Dennett was totally right when he said that theory of evolution is dangerous to those with religious convictions.

 

[جوري]

http://www.islamicboard.com/advice-...e-white-where-did-all-other-races-come-3.html

is indeed much more scientific!

mutations have names by the way:

Single-base substitutions

• Missense mutations
• Nonsense
• Silent mutations
• Splice-site mutations

Insertions and Deletions

• Fragile X Syndrome
• Huntington's Disease
• Muscular Dystrophy

Duplications
Translocations
Frequency of Mutations


stick them in a search engine and see if 'sepciation' or 'evolution' comes up


Theory of evolution is dangerous to 'religious people' must be far more dangerous to atheists for surely it precludes them from expending any sort of thought at all on the origins of life and on the complex machinery that will take to morph an inanimate object or 'seeds' from single celled organisms to complex sentient beings.. Not only do they give ignorance is bliss a new dimension, but the only sound arguments they can come up with are by way of bullying and developmentally challenged explanations that can't get past third grade biology!

all the best

 

[CosmicPathos]

^ I love how you use that picture. I chuckle every time I see it on this forum. jazakAllah.

 

[Ramadhan]

Dan Dennett was totally right when he said that theory of evolution is dangerous to those with religious convictions.

This sentence does not make sense at all.
How can theory of evolution be dangerous?

 

[جوري]

^ I love how you use that picture. I chuckle every time I see it on this forum. jazakAllah.

I had a hilarious one for abiogenesis really wish I had saved it.. it was a dancing rock, then a dancing alligator, that turned into a dancing duck, then a dancing ape, then a dancing kid..

a shame I lost it. Hope someone makes a nice parody of it again!

 

[جوري]

This sentence does not make sense at all.
How can theory of evolution be dangerous?

Atheists have to compensate with braggart talk to make up for other area where they are apparently lacking, and sadly on top of that list is articulating science in a well 'scientific manner'... sob7an Allah.. whenever we finish with an evolution thread, another one pops up and the pugilists come a knocking!

 

[marwen]

Dan Dennett was totally right when he said that theory of evolution is dangerous to those with religious convictions.

Do you really think religious people, muslims in particular, are scared of theories that are in contradiction with islam ? That's one of the crudest atheistic convictions. But unfortunately big number of atheists (if I can't say all) do have this idea.

 

[Woodrow]

If all humans came from a pair whose children then inbred this would be immediate obvious in the genome there is no way there could be the amount of genetic variation that there is in humans today if this was true.

Oh I see if the first 2 humans were human there would have been too much inbreeding to produce the variation we have today. But if the first 2 humans were the precursors of apes the inbreeding between those proto ape/humans would have caused the variations we see today.

Did I read/understand that correctly?

 

[Dagless]

Someone else posted this in another thread. I have not made up my mind on which explanation I like best but I did find this one quite nice. It is also a good video for those eager to try some peacock

 

[CosmicPathos]

I had a hilarious one for abiogenesis really wish I had saved it.. it was a dancing rock, then a dancing alligator, that turned into a dancing duck, then a dancing ape, then a dancing kid..

a shame I lost it. Hope someone makes a nice parody of it again!

I'd stop at dancing apes, starting from dancing rocks.

 

[AinEstonia]

Do you really think religious people, muslims in particular, are scared of theories that are in contradiction with islam ? That's one of the crudest atheistic convictions. But unfortunately big number of atheists (if I can't say all) do have this idea.

It's not like the theory of evolution was greeted by devout Christians. Pretty much every scientific claim which contradicts the "accepted" views of the general population will face fierce opposition.
If religious people don't have a problem with the theory of evolution, or the only problem they have with it is the supposed lack of evidence, why should they ridicule it by claiming that evolution says humans evolved from apes, or that something came from nothing ?

 

[atheistbynature]

Oh I see if the first 2 humans were human there would have been too much inbreeding to produce the variation we have today. But if the first 2 humans were the precursors of apes the inbreeding between those proto ape/humans would have caused the variations we see today.

Did I read/understand that correctly?

Yeh that's basically what i was saying. Note that humans and modern apes both evolved from a common ancestor that is not around today, humans did not evolve from modern. apes

 

[Woodrow]

Yeh that's basically what i was saying. Note that humans and modern apes both evolved from a common ancestor that is not around today, humans did not evolve from modern. apes

So please explain why you believe that there would be a diversity problem from the origin being 2 humans but no problem if it is 2 proto humans. You would still be faced with the same inbreeding no matter what the original 2 were. In fact would not the genetic pool for humans be reduced if the origin was from 2 proto types as the genetic pool that became non-human would be lost for sharing among the human branch.

 

[atheistbynature]

So please explain why you believe that there would be a diversity problem from the origin being 2 humans but no problem if it is 2 proto humans. You would still be faced with the same inbreeding no matter what the original 2 were.

When humans evolved it was an entire population changing slowly through each generation as the less well adapted lost over a long period of time. There wasn't just one day 2 humans born from non-humans. So the everyone in that population can breed with each other and probably bred with different populations of 'proto humans' keeping the genetic variation high as happens today. In fact recent research suggests that early humans probably bred with neanderthals. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8671643.stm

In fact would not the genetic pool for humans be reduced if the origin was from 2 proto types as the genetic pool that became non-human would be lost for sharing among the human branch.

I don't understand what you mean there.