Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Okay I shall oblige I’ll answer those 7 points (see at the bottom of this post)
But before I do that you have NOT answered MY 24 and 23 chromosome problem you THINK it was from the article you wrote this:
**{2) Even if the study is credible (which I doubt).. It shows the genetic drift between humans and chimpanzees is more than it was previously assumed. 23 or 24 chromosomes can indicate this wider drift which caused this speciation}
**… but my problem is asking about this:
**{Please explain in terms genetic drift that how 24 chromosome creatures gradually become 23 chromosome creautres … } **
I would like the mechanism by which this change happened and I want you to explain it without a sudden change that in a one generation change you have 24 chromosome and then in the next you have 23 … you cannot use that because that betrays the idea od genetic drift, or alternatively use genetic drift and explain why my reasoning is wrong.
**Now for those 7 points:
yazdi on psyah: 1) You believe evolution is possible.
psyah on psyah: 1) I believe evolution has to be proven to be acceptable to me although as a scientist I must treat it as possible because of the uncertainty principle I do not feel it is correct and the more I engage in this conversation the less appealing it is to me a viable concept. You take on me here was correct but missing essential qualifying information.
yazdi on psyah: 2) You believe in genetic drift, but not to the extent that speciation can occur. Although theoretically speaking you believe these drifts can go to the extent of speciation.. but you think current observed evidence is not enough to verify that happening. You can not accept anatomical changes in fossils as indications of these genetical drifts to the extent of speciation.. what will satisfy you is the presence of DNA evidence which is lost due to obvious reasons.
psyah on psyah: 2) I can see genetic drift and can experiment with it … I don’t care as a scientist whether it should be believed in or not. Since genetic drift has been proposed as the mechanism that determines speciation as well and there is no proof of this I reserve judgement. I personally feel that I need to be convinced that speciation can occur through the genetic drift argument so I don’t believe it, but it doesn’t mean I’m close minded to it and it doesn’t mean that I won’t change my mind if I see it. I don’t believe it is correct to use the phrase “anatomical changes in fossils” I don’t see them as changes (because that is a presumptuous statement) I see them as different fossils that some have proposed to be a sequence of changes from a lineage of a single ancestor. The different fossils I agree with … but I need more evidence than “appearance” to except that the creatures to which the fossils belong are related through parentage. However you think that my reason for asking for DNA is “genetical drifts to the extent of speciation” - no I don’t except that the fossils show genetic drifts unless you show me DNA evidence - which you cannot. Supporting my argument that evolution theory is a belief system - a faith. The question of speciation is far off … first you need to show that they are even related and by how much.
yazdi on psyah: 3) Previously you were admitting evolution to be a theory.. but now you think it’s a belief system.
psyah on psyah: 3) The theory of evolution is proposed as a scientific theory, but because I don’t accept it to be a valid scientific theory (and I know many modern scientists have disagreed with this point, but this is my stance nonetheless) I called it a belief system and only because people who build on evolution have not only failed to make it falsifiable but have also systematically started teaching this theory as though it is fact I prefer to call it a belief system - like a faith. They are less concerned with proving it scientifically and more concerned in gaining converts to the idea. So my admittance of it being a theory is purely that is what it is called “the theory of evolution” not a “law” … so scientists should treat it as that, not a law and not something that must be believed in either. You think I have changed my stance but I never have … your grammatical construction above is effectively saying theory and belief can’t both be true in some context at the same time, over the same concept … but they can.
yazdi on psyah: 4) Previously you thought that fertile hybrids could be considered as an evidence of evolution, but now you think it can not be taken as an evidence of evolution.
psyah on psyah: 4) Hybridization has to have a context to prove evolution … If we take two strains of flies and cross-breed them and they produce offspring that are fertile how do we know that we have not just taken 2 races of flies? According to the experiment they did just that … they separated two gene pools and created two races from them by genetic drift and then they mated them together this is like a Pakistani have offspring with an Egyptian … they are just races … but then to conclude that they prefer to mate with their own kind and if the experiment went on further we would reach speciation bla bla is insincere. The proper way to use hybridzation to prove evolution is this:
Take a specimen and call it Strain 0, Take a sample of Strain 0, call that Strain 1 and put the rest in cryo, subject Strain 1 to muliple generation cycles in altered conditions and selectively breed them by colour or size … After a while take a sample of Strain 0 out of cryo call that Strain 0.1 and revive the specimens. Split Strain 0.1 in to two groups call them Strain 0.1.1 and 0.1.2 allow Strain 0.1.2 to interbreed with each other to prove that the cryo has not damaged them and to prove that they are fertile with each other. Take Strain 1 and take out a portion call it Strain 1.1 and mix these with Strain 0.1.1 and see if they breed. If they do produce offspring then we name them Strain 2 and we know that Strain 1 will be either one of two things a new race of flies or a new species … to test which one we have to take Strain 2 and test them … If Strain 2 are infertile then we can say Strain 1 is a new species because the offspring are true hybrids which are infertile. If Strain 2 are fertile with each other and with both Strain 0 and Strain 1 then we have only created a race of flies in Strain 1 and Strain 2 would be a mixed race of flies of Strain 0 and Strain 1.
Then what we do is continue the experiment all Strain 1 to continue in generation cycles and do the above process again and again … even then it does not explain evolution because evolution requires true hybrids to go one step further which is to be sexually incompatible with their own ancestor which we can test because they are in cryo and at the same time sexually rife with each other. The experiments on the fruit fly were laced in technical jargon but they failed to produce a solid test for evolution according to my scientific opinion.
yazdi on psyah: 5) Previously you thought evolution was all about non humans giving birth to humans.. now you have modified your understanding of evolution.
psyah on psyah: 5) Evolution was about non-humans giving birth to humans and then some smarty came along and evolved the theory of Darwin to the neo-Darwinian variant and that has been happening since this theory was coined they now invoke genetic drift to remove one layer of complication which is so they can’t be asked to show one animal giving birth to another they ridicule and say that people who ask for this test are ignorant of evolution in terms of genetic drift … but even if we use the argument of genetic drift say there is a creature at the very edge of giving birth to something that is slightly different but enough so that its offspring is not the same species … there will come a point on delta change where you can’t call the child the same as the mother … that is what I meant as non-human giving birth to a human … I didn’t mean a cow giving birth to a dog and assert that is your fallacy together with the fallacy of pro-evolutionists. Now I did back down for a while and assumed that genetic drift may be the answer … but then I tried to reconcile the 24 chromosome pairs of chimps with 23 of humans … and I can’t explain that to myself using the idea of genetic drift … to me the jump from 24 to 23 makes it impossible to enterain genetic drift as the answer to speciation … but that is where I need you to educate me.
yazdi on psyah: 6) Previously you believed anything which can not be measured/seen can not be scientific, but now you have modified your opinion about these notions.
psyah on psyah: 6) This is the same point about theory and faith and proof and valid science … I have never changed my position on this … to me a true scientific theory must be falsifiable - in which case we can experiment over it and test it … the arguments raised by people who claim astronomy to be similar to evolution that it is not testable and erroneously use the sun that we can’t grab it as an argument are wrong … in astronomy in which I am an amature enthusiast much more than this subject that I take no real interest in we have real observations … real time data processing and then we extend that with exraploative methods … Evolution is pure extrapolation and no base measurement. However they will disagree and say genetic drift within a species is their base measurement … I say that is a belief of theirs.
yazdi on psyah: 7) You hold an opinion contrary to every reputable educational institution, nobel laureates, 99.8% of scientists with credible credentials who treat evolution as valid science.. and you claim to be right against their opinion.
psyah on psyah: 7) Without any arrogance … yes (But I don’t think you can qualify 99.8% of scientists … I think you may mean 99.8% of biological scientists of a given region or demographic and who are also mostly atheists) … There are doctors and medical professional of other kinds on this forum … Muslims ones … and they don’t accept evolution, may be because of their religion or it may be because they are better scientists who look for the truth of a matter … I am curious about atheistic scientists especially those with a mission in mind … they have everything to gain to enforce their belief of evolution and alas it may not contradict God, as they claim, but it does undermine scripture which is from God … they have a hold on you and The Word of God has a hold on me … is that fair? Yes I think it is …
**