Not as funny as those who believe their ancestors were monkeys.
Evidence for evolution is immense and awesome both. Spend sometime on youtube. You will be amazed.
I've studied theory of evolution in both college and university. Even professor's there never endorsed as fact, but presented it as information only.
Re: Do you beleive in Darwinism or Intelligent Design ?
Evolution is a proven fact. The different is micro, and macro evolution. Micro evolution is what we observe in the natural world (survival of the fittest). Macro evolution is the evolution of an entire species from a lesser form to a higher form.
I believe in both macro evolution and intelligent design.
Not as funny as those who believe their ancestors were monkeys.
You obviously have no clue about evolution. Monkey's aren't our ancestors, they SHARE a common ancestor with us.
Even your BLOOD type is based on a genetic marker which relates you to the rhesus monkey. If you're rh + (O+, A+ etc), then you are related to the rhesus monkey. If you're rh- then your blood type indicates that your ancestors experienced a mutation theorized to have happened around 20,000 years ago in Europe.
And yes, every ethnicity and race in the world has members who are rh-.
Re: Do you beleive in Darwinism or Intelligent Design ?
So far archeological remains have not proved any theory about evolution correct. Which is why they are still caled theories and to date are still be researched because as more and more research is happening the past assumptions related to these theories keep getting falsified as research progresses. Those who claim it is fact are living in Lala land who probably have never picked a book on DNA genealogy and read it properly. Even in DNA genealogy lineages traced beyond the scope of 30,000 years are based on very inaccurate assumptions because that is the extent of radio carbon dating and the methods applied after that are not precise till after 80,000 years. All the research in DNA genealogy has proven that there are no relations between homo sapiens and other homonid species. The most DNA genealogy has been able to trace back human lineage is 50,000 years to parts of Africa and that data along with geological data has been put to use for reconstructing human migration patterns. As new research brings new facts, new assumptions are made and old ones discarded and theories take different facets. Setting all other religions apart me being a muslim can say none of this scientific discovery conflicts with what Islam says i.e. God created Adam, no timeline given. However those who use the scientific discoveries as ways to replace the theories put forth by by Chrsitianity and Judaism are correct to in so far as the biblical versions of human lineage and incorrect. And those people who use these theories to say God had no hand in creation of us are jusr surmising and have their own agendas.
So far archeological remains have not proved any theory about evolution correct. Which is why they are still caled theories and to date are still be researched because as more and more research is happening the past assumptions related to these theories keep getting falsified as research progresses. Those who claim it is fact are living in Lala land who probably have never picked a book on DNA genealogy and read it properly. Even in DNA genealogy lineages traced beyond the scope of 30,000 years are based on very inaccurate assumptions because that is the extent of radio carbon dating and the methods applied after that are not precise till after 80,000 years. All the research in DNA genealogy has proven that there are no relations between homo sapiens and other homonid species. The most DNA genealogy has been able to trace back human lineage is 50,000 years to parts of Africa and that data along with geological data has been put to use for reconstructing human migration patterns. As new research brings new facts, new assumptions are made and old ones discarded and theories take different facets. Setting all other religions apart me being a muslim can say none of this scientific discovery conflicts with what Islam says i.e. God created Adam, no timeline given. However those who use the scientific discoveries as ways to replace the theories put forth by by Chrsitianity and Judaism are correct to in so far as the biblical versions of human lineage and incorrect. And those people who use these theories to say God had no hand in creation of us are jusr surmising and have their own agendas.
I already explained the difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution has already been proven. By extension, macro evolution has a very strong leg to stand on.
And I do believe you're referring to anthropologists, not archaeologists. While the two are similar, anthropology deals more heavily in human remains and biology.
There is no "agenda," in surmising that God had nothing to do with the world. When you believe that God must have created the world because you lack evidence to the contrary (regardless of how strong that evidence is), that's your confirmation bias. And that is your agenda, no one elses.
To reject evolution pretty much provides a distinct religious bias on behalf of the individual rejecting it.
I have also studied evolution in college and you know what? Darwin initially did not say anything about "evolution" when he exposed his findings; he merely pointed out that he noticed that animals and plants adapted to their environment in different ways. If a rabbit that is white lives in a snowy area, it'll be able to camouflage with the surrounding snow and thus by natural selection it will be able to live prosperously in that environment. However, if you take that same rabbit and put it in some grassland, it's previous advantage won't be an advantage anymore and it'll become an easy prey. It was Darwin's colleagues and contemporaries that deemed such a phenomenon as "evolution." In fact, Darwin was himself hesitant to refer to such a course of nature as "evolution" because natural selection doesn't make organisms better, it just makes them better adapted to their local environments. But from the above example, you'd think "evolution" was a relative thing. It doesn't make an organism more advanced overall, but only maybe for that specific environment. How does this suggest in any way that organisms "evolved" from some chemical elements, to proteins, then to to single-celled organisms, and to finally what they are now, as is claimed?
You obviously have no clue about evolution. Monkey's aren't our ancestors, they SHARE a common ancestor with us.
Even your BLOOD type is based on a genetic marker which relates you to the rhesus monkey. If you're rh + (O+, A+ etc), then you are related to the rhesus monkey. If you're rh- then your blood type indicates that your ancestors experienced a mutation theorized to have happened around 20,000 years ago in Europe.
And yes, every ethnicity and race in the world has members who are rh-.
When did I say monkeys were our ancestors? I know about this common ancestor concept. If you paid attention to what I say about the topic, I don't deny the possibility that animal species might have evolved from other animal species. However, I reject the idea of us (humans) having a common ancestor with any other species.
I already explained the difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution has already been proven. By extension, macro evolution has a very strong leg to stand on.
And I do believe you're referring to anthropologists, not archaeologists. While the two are similar, anthropology deals more heavily in human remains and biology.
There is no "agenda," in surmising that God had nothing to do with the world. When you believe that God must have created the world because you lack evidence to the contrary (regardless of how strong that evidence is), that's your confirmation bias. And that is your agenda, no one elses.
To reject evolution pretty much provides a distinct religious bias on behalf of the individual rejecting it.
I am refering to archeologists and yes anthropologits also play a role, who else would provide the human remains for DNA analysis.
I am not rejecting evolution within a species or as someone else pointed out more accurately, adaptation. However there are no concrete facts about species evolving into other species. There are only concrete assumptions to the theories and they are accepted as fact based on faith in the theory. If this faith would not be extended to the assumptions the theories would have no legs to stand on as you say is the case with religious beliefs. None of the theories can be verified because there exists no framework to recreate them. So in either case, whether it be belief that God created the natural phenomenon which gave rise to this universe and us or that single cell organisms evolved into complex organisms such as us and other living beings, both require an element of faith at its grass roots because you cannot prove either at that level. And it may very well be that we see Gods handy work as evolution based on the time scale that we perceive things though for God it is instantaneous. So for us to achieve certains that God did for us may require millions or billions of years of human effort. Many people are unable fathom God acting as the catalyst power to form the universe. A catalyst which is instantaneous from our perspective. God doesn't work at human speed or time. If our basic constituents are from this planet, that is quite believable for me because again as a muslim I know Allah created humans from the soil of this earth, which obviously must contain the basic organisms that scientists claim to have evolve into complex organisms as humans. The difference being God has the power to mold those basic ingredients into a complex organism as us instantaneously, we just fail to acknowledge that, thinking that God cannot work faster than nature.
Re: Do you beleive in Darwinism or Intelligent Design ?
USResident
There exists a better explanation than the one presented above with regards to the nature of Creation and its apparent developmental process.
Firstly, the Qur’an does allude to stages in the establishment of the Universe. Also, this life that we live is said to be a deception. In that we think the knife cuts, the fire burns, we walk etc when in fact it is done by Allah (SWT).
Also, we perceive continuity when we are told this is the act of Divine Sustaining. I would be loathe to claim we are living in a time frame which seems to be like fast forward for Allah (SWT) rather I believe Allah (SWT) pervades both eternity and the infintesimally minute moment between moments.
Just like we perceive motion from animation of many frames flicking past quickly, in the same way we perceive time. Just like each frame has to painted seperately brought to the fore and then taken away in a similar way every moment of our existence is a cascading series of Universe Creation, Destruction and Re-Creation which is equivalent to Sustaining.
What I am saying here is that things may have developmental patterns, but that is because that is how we are supposed to see them.
Bro Psyah
Yes Akhi I am sure there will be better explanations than what I have written depending on what aspect of a subject we are discussing.
Yes the Quran does allude to 6 periods in which the heavens and earth was created. However we humans are the subjects of that timeline not Allah SWT. However since we are discussing human evolution here there is no reference in the Quran for Adam being created during an interval of time.
3:59 The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.
I did not mean to say that Allah SWT experiences time as we do. Though time can be perceived as the progression of frames I do think it would simplistic to put it that way given the concept of predestination. After all a progression of frames would only animate what you want to be seen, no free choice or free will.
I think you might have misunderstood what I was intending to say. Since we as humans experience time it is necessary for us to perceive things along a progression as would be case in evolution of humans (whatever theories exist today) whereas for Allah SWT, the creation of a human is not time dependent however can science provide a framework for testing the tiniest moment in time which could be called an instant. It will always be bounded by a starting and ending point because we do not experience timelessness. This is why science cannot elaborate on ‘be’ as given in the Quran.
So far archeological remains have not proved any theory about evolution correct. Which is why they are still caled theories .
The scientific definition of the term "theory" is very different from the common use of the term.
When a scientist uses the term, as in the "theory" of evolution, they mean somthing very different from the way the term is used by non scientists.
The scientific definition of the term "theory" is very different from the common use of the term. When a scientist uses the term, as in the "theory" of evolution, they mean somthing very different from the way the term is used by non scientists.
Yes theory is not facts confirmed by experimentation. Facts do not change, theories do as they are intended to explain certain phenomena which are not readily understandable. Theories are replaced by other theories.
Re: Do you beleive in Darwinism or Intelligent Design ?
theory has it basis and is not made out of thin air..........I cannot say the same for religion with the same mindset.......Religious stories can be made out of thin air and if I can find little loop holes in theories than I can find craters in religious stories.
theory has it basis and is not made out of thin air..........I cannot say the same for religion with the same mindset.......Religious stories can be made out of thin air and if I can find little loop holes in theories than I can find craters in religious stories.
Your statement would be true of all history that you have not witnessed yourself. However your statement is also stereotypical. Not just religious any story can be made out of thin and it is infact popular business in Hollywood to make stories out of thin air and you even pay to watch them. And since you do not believe in divine help or a God, it would understandable that miraculous stories in religious texts would appear fantasy to you. Theories such as evolution are just as fancy because there is no proof for them as well, no facts just theories to support another theory. Faith in religion does not come solely from ones blind belief (for many but not all) but sciences today play and significant role in unraveling statements especially in the Quran which the earlier muslims could not have fathomed. It only goes on to prove the miraculous nature of the Quran even better. So science has only but complimented the Quran. In the days of revelation it was not the verses which can be scrutinized scientifically that lend themselves to the people for fascination but rather the linguistic uniqueness of the Quran in Arabic, why, because that is what was the norm of the day. The revelation established itself superior to any possible linguistic qualities any other text could have, which is why people believed in its message because they understood such language cannot be composed by men. Nowadays, most people dwell on translations and give little attention to the linguistic quality of the Quran. Today, sciences occupy much of our norms and we scrutinize everything against scientific discoveries and data, which is why verses of the Quran undergoe all sorts of scrutiny and yet they are in agreement. Now its amazing that an illiterate person could have composed verses which allude to theories or facts which can only be confirmed by sciences 1400 years later. This is not humanly possible. So what happened then???????? Can you explain to me how such verses were composed and on what basis??????? And we are not discussing miracles, miracles by their very nature are breaches of natural law which is why they are atrributed to divinity not human feats. Sciences cannot explain anything other than observable and recreatable facts. All else is theory. Sciences are not at a stage where they can define or quantify miracles. They can however discover evidence for the occurence of miracles.
Not the case with the Bible. So when you discuss religion please separate the religions you are talking about. Use a prism to separate the religions from one another because they are not all the same.
Yes theory is not facts confirmed by experimentation. Facts do not change, theories do as they are intended to explain certain phenomena which are not readily understandable. Theories are replaced by other theories.
Again, you dont understand that the way you are using the term theory is not the same as how scientists use the term...
Calling evolution as a mere theory and thus not fact, is a very old argument and one that scientists have addressed.. You need to do some reading.
Wikipedia has a good definition of the Scietific use of the term "theory."
Theory:
A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions.
Its a term to describe a process that has not been refuted and is supported by all available evidence.
Evolution is as much a theory as the theory of gravity, but im sure you believe in gravity...
evolution will trump intelligent design any time. but then you can not argue with the faithful. they are so full of faith they wont listen to your arguments.
there is plenty of room in what is known about evolution. some fill that with random chance and a trust in undiscovered process, others fill God in the gaps. both are as scientifically valid.
for the record, there is no "chance" in the theory of evolution. the second option also does not qualify as science.
faithful's answer to anything is God. what is so scientific about that? have you ever seen a paper in which every question has the same answer? well, in theology it has.
Again, you dont understand that the way you are using the term theory is not the same as how scientists use the term... Calling evolution as a mere theory and thus not fact, is a very old argument and one that scientists have addressed.. You need to do some reading.
Wikipedia has a good definition of the Scietific use of the term "theory."
Theory: A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions.
Its a term to describe a process that has not been refuted and is supported by all available evidence.
Evolution is as much a theory as the theory of gravity, but im sure you believe in gravity...
I perfectly understand. However the fact that people keep saying a theory is not a theory such as evolution is what is presenting it as a fact which it is not. It cannot be proved. Give me evidence.
Based on your posted definitions, what predictions have been made about evolution. What life form are we going to morph into next?
Gravity is no longer a theory. The fact we are sitting and typing on our keyboards is due to gravity keeping us in place. Zero gravity chambers exist today to prove gravity. Tell me what laboratory recreatable proof for evolution exists today. It is based on mere observations. Can you explain at what point and by what process we became human from apes? How our cerrebral development took such a massive leap? The variations in genetic markers for humans and apes do not indicate any commonality. Even DNA analysis has proven neaderthals were not the same species us humans because the genetic marker variations are quite different.
Tell me what laboratory recreatable proof for evolution exists today.
evolution happens in Aeons. in other words it takes millions of years. how is it possible to carry out such an experiment.? the only thing available to prove it are the fossils. but the fossil record is not perfect. one should be thankful that such a minute amount of fossils are available.
its