I first covered this topic academically whilst in school, then again in college and finally at university level, as with all ‘evolving’ hypothesis the theory of evolution has seen many varieties and flavours over the years. From the indeterminably slow changes in species caused by gradual changes to habitat being exploited by serendipitously mutated species of Darwin to the more modern work by researches suggesting periods of accelerated evolution caused by catastrophic events lasting maybe a generation or two (Punctuated Equilibria by Eldredge and Gould and a host of others).
Now when I was back University I did some research on the Ediacara Fauna, this is a preserved chunk of Pre-Cambrian rock close to ¾ of a billion years old or there abouts, give or take a few million. Now then this chunk of rock had a great number of trace fossil imprints and actual fossilised remnants of species. The most striking things about the assemblage were the fact that a great number of diverse species were found, looking like nothing we have today. Some researches are inclined to believe that evolution of species didn’t start simple and become more diverse, but the other way around. The so called evolutionary dead enders.
**Q1:All this aside, what I want to know is that how many of you were ‘taught’ about evolution at school, in the UK/US or Pakistan, or any other country for that matter. How did it sit with your pre-conceived ideas of mans place in the great scheme of things?
Q2:And secondly what’s your view on the ever changing nature of nature, what’s the need and where’s the final destination?**
I have my own theories but am always interested in others.
good topic. did have lessons in evolution during highschool and during medical school took some extra courses in genetics and then especially genetics related to evolution etc.
hmmm..answer to question one: we've been taught various theories of evolution in school, i was under the UK A level syllabus in pakistan so we studied all the western theories of evolution...
but i dont believe in any of those theories...
the only thing i believe in is that man came from Adam as is mentioned in Quran paak...
science is not to be believed in much..after all at some point in history, everyone was totally convinced that the earth was flat...and then we later discovered it was round...there's be so many false theories which were proved wrong later...so i can't really put my beliefs in science...and definitely not when they clash with what's written in Quraan paak...
I went to school in Georgia (USA!) and my biology teacher was a Southern Baptist Christian. When we got to evolution she was clearly hesitant and always interjected her opinions on the matter, which really was pretty neat because I got a lesson in science and religion :)
As for my views, that could take up books! After all we are talking about the history of the universe.. For now, I'll just say (and hopefully not sidetrack anyone) that I think there is room in religion (any) for evolution. But there are several details to debate.
Regarding "Some researches are inclined to believe that evolution of species didn’t start simple and become more diverse, but the other way around."...
If you think about it that one is really simple.. it's not one or the other, but both. The weak in that diverse crowd die off in favor of the simple few. But also the simple few become diverse (complex) in order to compete for survival.
In USA... was taught different theories of evolution but Darwins theory is what most students ended up believing, although I did not. I believe it has some relevant points, but I dont believe it on the whole. My thoughts are also evolving on the issue, as I learn more.
I believe the universe is expanding, as it states in the Qur'an, and science. I believe the final destination to be what Qur'an states.
I couldn't agree with you more, scientific hypothesis are just that...hypothesis and only as good as the current understanding. But to say that scientific theory disagrees with the Quran is jumping the gun a little in this conversation and generalises far too much. I've yet to find sound scientific reasoning that does go against the little we understand of the Quran.
Spoon,
My bit on the Ediacara Fauna must be put into context around the time the assemblage was first encountered back in the 50's it was thought that only simple single-celled organisms such as cyanobacteria were around in any sort of abundance. What caused this sudden explosion and diversity in species then and countless other times throughout geological history?
We've all heard plenty about extinction events made popular by movies with Bruce Willis in them, but diversity booms, especially like the one in the Pre-Cambrian are yet to be satisfactorily explained.
Munni/Irem,
The Quran does indeed contain many references to the physical Earth and the processes therein, I’m sure we’ve all come across the detailed description of the water cycle and of the Earths movement relative to the Sun and in turn the Moons movement relative to the Earth. They’re also other numerous less literal references made on everyday astronomical/biological and geological processes in the Quran.
I don’t think that the evolving nature of science is anything more than our collective thought process winding towards some sort of universal truth.
Gleaning scientific knowledge from the Quran alone has only really been done in hindsight and to draw upon the Quran as the only valid source of science is to go against the premise under which it was revealed to us, IMHO it is a source of guidance and not a book of facts.
Nescio,
I'm more interested in the philosophy of science rather than the nitty gritty here.
I think Irem/Spoon and Munni have put valid points across, it would be nice to discuss them further in more depth.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by irem: *
science is not to be believed in much..after all at some point in history, everyone was totally convinced that the earth was flat...and then we later discovered it was round...there's be so many false theories which were proved wrong later...so i can't really put my beliefs in science...and definitely not when they clash with what's written in Quraan paak...
[/QUOTE]
So what does Quran say about flatness and rotation of earth? Science says it is round and rotates around sun.
Another thing, or you saying that science might be wrong about flatness /rotation of earth as it was wrong about it 500 years ago? Yes, it very well could be true that tomorrow we rediscover that earth is flat and everything else rotates around it. Right!!
I think what Irem was alluding to was the fact that science in essence is an evolutionary process itself and that proposed theories are attempts at encapsulating the present understanding of a certain aspect of the physical realm.
This leaves open the possibility of advancing and refining theories to fit newly acquired data and thought. This is not to say that the Earth will be flat in the morning but it does mean that absolute reliance should not be placed on an essentially fluid process.
I hope she’ll correct me if I failed to get her gist.
I definitely think there is an evolutionary process going on. however, i don't believe we stem from monkeys, no. I think there was a blueprint for certain species, which were created.....and once created these speices have shown evolutionary changes over time, like for example the homo sapiens
Perhaps not physical changes, let's concentrate on intellectual changes:
as ppl have put forward in the middle-ages there was this notion that the earth was flat, but centuries later ppl now think the earth is round: Here you already see the change in human thinking and the level of their thinking. If we go even back we see humans thinking of the 4 body fluids, which also constitute the world: here again notions have changed and we see the evolutionary development.
also, it is a fact that centuries ago ppl had a lower intelligence than humans nowadays: couldn't that be part of the evolutionary process?
you have chosen a good topic and asked interesting questions .
ANS NO 1: yeah in some subjects in Pak evolution is taught in skools.
ANS NO 2: i believe in evolution process.
i think the evolution process is continued from day 1st and will continue…
i also believe that there are signs in the holy quran (as far as my little brain n knowledge works )
also that the earth is round is hinted about in the quran…
EVOLUTION is a big word…the change can be in many ways…
there’s need for change in everything ( i think in our lives as well)
as we (especially i) cannot be monotnous
and surely (as muslims ) our final destiny ( u know it well) will be the end of our earthly life.
it does not mean that we will change from ashraful mukhloqat to something else , but we (our generations) surely will change character wise n emotionally.
what we think useful today may appear funny or stupid to the children of the next century like for example some machine may not be as handy for them as are today for us.
i really liked the topic.. wish i had lots of time to debate on it
Going back to your earlier comment of 'not stemming from monkeys'...can you expand on that a little. I would have thought to buy into evolution the idea is that all species originated from one?
i do think that species can evolve from other species. But i don't think there was ONE first being/organism. For me it would be more plausible that in the beginning there were perhaps a few (hundred of)thousands of 'pre'-species from which all other evolved.
As a Muslim I cannot deny that Adam and Eve existed (and even rationally i do think they existed), but then again there is overwhelming empirical proof for the evolution theory. By assuming a certain number of pre-species both these things might be compromised.
Adam and Eve might have been from the family of homo-species, but perhaps the neanderthales instead of the sapiens or something along those lines. This way the monkey is out of the way and still certain amount of evolution is possible, (like the intellectual which i spent some moments on)
Where do you suppose all these varied 'pre-species' came from then?
What event occurring simulataneously across the globe to give rise to their exitance?
And you're starting your evolution from Neanderthals to get to Homosapiens straight off the bat. Research shows they were co-eval species which interbred.
i never said they occured at once: it might be possible that due to a process certain species were created, and due to the same, perhaps slightly different, process but at a later stage an other type of species was created.
this way it might be possilbe that the human-pre-species and monkey-pre-species and other pre-animals were created by the same process but at a later stage. The first time the human-likes were created, the second time the ape-likes, the third time some bacterium or so etc (in a random order).
i can't and will not say this is true, but might be a possible alternative explanation. Of course, the classical evolution theory is more 'justified' but that's also cuz more research was done keeping that theory at the back of the mind
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
Thoughts on Evolution
I first covered this topic academically whilst in school, then again in college and finally at university level, as with all ‘evolving’ hypothesis the theory of evolution has seen many varieties and flavours over the years. From the indeterminably slow changes in species caused by gradual changes to habitat being exploited by serendipitously mutated species of Darwin to the more modern work by researches suggesting periods of accelerated evolution caused by catastrophic events lasting maybe a generation or two (Punctuated Equilibria by Eldredge and Gould and a host of others).
Now when I was back University I did some research on the Ediacara Fauna, this is a preserved chunk of Pre-Cambrian rock close to ¾ of a billion years old or there abouts, give or take a few million. Now then this chunk of rock had a great number of trace fossil imprints and actual fossilised remnants of species. The most striking things about the assemblage were the fact that a great number of diverse species were found, looking like nothing we have today. Some researches are inclined to believe that evolution of species didn’t start simple and become more diverse, but the other way around. The so called evolutionary dead enders.
**Q1:All this aside, what I want to know is that how many of you were ‘taught’ about evolution at school, in the UK/US or Pakistan, or any other country for that matter. How did it sit with your pre-conceived ideas of mans place in the great scheme of things?
Q2:And secondly what’s your view on the ever changing nature of nature, what’s the need and where’s the final destination?**
I have my own theories but am always interested in others.
[/QUOTE]
I took anthropoy coursein college.. and as much as all these theories might make sense... it doesnt all coincide with islams...
For one, i dont believe humans evoloed frm apes...
I mean.. ALLAH mian ne eik qoam ko bander bana dia tha.. but hmm.. i dont buy it... so i kinda argued that with my prof..
Well the nature of nature is gradually changing.. i think nowadays chaning more than it woulve changed if us humans dint meddle soo much.. an i dont kno the final destination but i wouldnt be surprised if new species came about...
First off, educated ppl thousands of years ago believed the world to be round. In fact, Aristotle was the first to actually provide this proof to the common man. SO the only ones to believe in the Flat earth were those without education. Even though this thinking existed well into the middle ages, the Royal Library in Alexdria had massive collections of scrolls on the Round earth.
As for the less intelligent humans centuries ago, as mentioned in this thread, I am not convinced that they were less intelligent. Going back over 2000 years, Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth with a stick and some shadows! Pythagoreas gave use his theorum; Euclid began his studies in geometry; and those are just a few examples. Now if you are speaking of the intelligence evolution since the ages of "cave man", that is different of course.
As far as evolution goes, I was taught this theory here in the US. We learned that many species coexisted - some adapted, mutated, and evolved over time, while some simply died out due to a loss of their niche in their environment.
The Ediacaran debate is quite interesting to me, as is the many massive extinctions that took place throughout geologic time, according to science. I find it difficult to understand the catastrophic extinctions - like the one at the end of the Permian Period which wiped out 95% of living organisms, and the K-T boundary extinction which involved the dinosaurs.
Of course I still believe in Adam and Eve, in God, and our spiritual reward after death. No matter how much science I learn, or how much knowledge I seek, my faith will still be my anchor in life.
So what preceded the 'pre-species’? There are a lot of evolutionary theories around these days, but most agree on initial mutation from very simple organisms. Which sort of makes sense as the Earths climate was pretty harsh about 2-3 billion years ago, not being very conducive to complex life-forms.
Deviliciousss,
You don't believe humans came from apes, yet think that they may evolve into another species...would this new species want to associate with us, i.e. would this new species view us as we view monkeys?.....and like Nes where did the apes come from?
anahndi,
Extinction events gave us the constraints to divide geological time and yes their importance cannot be underestimated.
However, it's not difficult to imagine how these came about, whether it was a meteor or super-volcanoes the results on the biosphere are pretty much the same. If the lowest rung on the food chain is decimated the effect travels quickly to dependant life forms.
Interestingly the K-T boundary extinctions didn't affect marine biodiversity as much as the P-T extinction.
So what preceded the 'pre-species’? There are a lot of evolutionary theories around these days, but most agree on initial mutation from very simple organisms. Which sort of makes sense as the Earths climate was pretty harsh about 2-3 billion years ago, not being very conducive to complex life-forms.
.
[/QUOTE]
yes i agree with this explanation, but isn't it possible that this process happened a few times from scrath. And each time different set of species were created. The classic few is that this process only happened once, and then all species were created, I'm arguing that perhaps this process happened a few time, and each time another set of species were created
Sure that’s what this Ediacara fauna find was about, the fact that we had really complex life forms these ‘Vendians’ back in the pre-Cambrian, that led to evolutionary dead-ends.
This opens up the possibility of it occurring across geological time, reasons ranging from local habitat change to global catastrophe can be thought attributable.
I think what you’re eluding to is the so-called ‘missing link’ fossil that directly ties us back to pre-historic man and proto-apes…then eventually back to amoeba.
I have no doubt all mammals sprouted from the same proto-species way back when, some shrew like creature about 70 million years ago is the current view, as we all pretty much look the same in the womb in early foetal development; everything from the blue whale to humans to a door mouse.
So I don’t think it’s really about whether we came from apes or not, it’s more to do with that shrew intermediately and then back to the simple singled celled organism all the way down the evolutionary chain.
To be a Muslim and believe in all this is really easy for me, our present knowledge or limited understanding, to me anyway, is to see a little of the intricate workings of God.
you have chosen a good topic and asked interesting questions .
)