In order to ascertain if anything is a fact you need to provide a test, that test will have only two results proof or disproof. So look at it either way … we need to work together on this … if you are correct the test will prove you right, but if you are not correct then I will be proven right … it will not be a suitable test if there are third or fourth possibilities of results - such as suggestive or evidence for or against - those would not be proofs, just data and interpretation. So help me formulate a test please!
Diwana. Battle/settle the issue? You know we’re not going to get this settled right?
If God is being offered as the alternate reason behind the data, then I’d assume that religion does play a part in the discussion. I’ll refrain for now though.
The eye. Cropping the entirety of that passage in to that short quote serves no purpose.
I’m pretty sure there was more to that passage. Since you seem to have it to hand, may I request that you post the rest of it? It’ll save me from having to trudge through Project Gutenberg. Much obliged.
It may also be worth pointing out that Darwin died in 1882, science didn’t die with him.
Is it credible that peptides in the shape of the isomers that are found in living organisms can be created and perpetuated artificially? If so, how credible is this?
Please read this article … See how complex it is to even create the conditions to simulate the biased synthesis of amino acids found in living organisms. There are no end of complex theories being confounded to such a simple idea - that of spontaneous amino acid formation. Not only is it necessary to have activiation, but control is also necessary to maintain the synthesis … Note: Living organisms utilise only L-isomers of proteins … certain life destroying organic microbes use d-isomers. When synthesised the d and l forms are in 50:50 proportion.
How can anyone argue this is not designed? The d-amino acid oxidase is a special enzyme that destroys d-amino acids … what would it take to create that enzyme … can it be that d-amino acid is a chance development or was it designed? Surely the time required to create life by statistics would result in a universe far older than we live in today.
First you asked me to provide full context if any so you can understand. Next you say Science did not die with Darwin in 1882.
Hence anyhting provided to yo by default will not be admissible since Darwn the ‘father’ of evolution theory died in 1882.
Even if his full paragraph be presented, he came out as **not so sure **of his theory and just made his assumptions. Read his own words again.
"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
________________________
Evolution theory when it takes the position of gradual increase in complexity of organ and/or function has the biggest flaw.
Complexity exists even in small organisms, even science admits.
Someone in 1880 died with his wild imagination which he could not prove and neither his followers.
And same goes to this thread, OP brought the idea 285 posts ago and could not prove a single point including making religion go hand in hand with evolution theory.
Hey Psyah. Thank you for the article. It’s all very fascinating, especially the part about Bonner’s experiments in California.
Here’s something related;http://www.imperial.ac.uk/college.asp?P=5343
Atheists, theists, everyone brings up Occam’s Razor. Simplicity and complexity are relative terms.
Theory of evolution doesn’t offer an explanation for the origin of life. That’s probably a subject worth a new thread, for purposes of clarity.
No, it was not to understand it, merely a polite reprimand for posting a quote conveniently cropped to emphasise the ‘absurd.’
Um. What you talking 'bout, Willis?
Says you. The point about his death was to highlight that advances have been made since then, we have more information than he did. None of it has disproved his assertions.
How so?
He was the “man with the wild imagination”, so you don’t accept natural selection at all?
This is getting tedious, my interest is beginning to wane.
Thanks for the link. I already understand that there are ‘theories’ about why the amino acids chosen by life processes is the L amino acid. The idea of proline being a catalyst for this is also a great breakthrough. However proline itself needs to be biosynthesised. And it is only another theory upon which other theories are made and all theories are put together in a sting to create the complex theory of evolution. My point in raising Occam’s Razor is that this theory of evolution is itself too complex to be given the status of being called scientific let alone being called fact. I mean why are ‘we’ (scientists) putting so much effort towards saying one thing came from another when we have not actually SEEN that happen yet … We are obsessed about finding the way it could have happened and after seeing a possibility of it we take it as gospel. That is not science.
Peace philosophy
It’s up to you how sincere are you to take this topic to its real testing limits … All you have to do is say that it is a belief and not a scientific fact and I’ll leave it alone.
Because all the evidence so far aligns itself with the side of evolution. How many times does that need to be said?
Science observes a phenomenon, finds evidence that goes for or against said phenomenon and if the evidence discovered is solid enough, proclaims a certain phenomenon or behaviour as a theory. To date, all evidence and observations have ‘proven’ evolution.
How can I as a man of science deny the truth in that?
Sure enough, as more evidence is gathered proving or disproving evolution, I will either keep trusting this theory or distance myself from it.
I have posted plenty of times in this thread and this is heading nowhere. I was out after my last unanswered post. Peace!
The beauty of science is that it is not obstinate; it is not blurred by passion, it is not maligned with emotion. It is based on evidence and observable data.
All the evidence aligns itself with a number of said theories including evolution so it is no big feat for this claim. In fact the said evidence does not refute nada! Furthermore on each new twist and conflict a modification to the ‘e’ theory is presented. This is an irrational bias with the basic theory - that something complex can develop and create itself without intervention. You see the premise of evolution is anti-theistic and is itself a belief system.
To date all evidence that you have been allowed to see have only supported evolution not “proven” it and collectively they don’t support the original idea of it but a modified many times over version of it. Too many theories confounded … Statistically even if we take each theory to have a 50% chance of being true the net effect of confounding the theories diminishes the chance of it being true.
The OP asked why Muslims are against evolution … I hope even though we can’t agree on whether evolution is or is not scientific at least we can agree that Muslims are justified in having a problem with it. It undermines the need for a Creator - that is why it is supported by scientists because today the ones allowed to make a name for themselves are secular atheists.
Please look again at what you wrote above … I have made it red for you … what does that mean exactly?
As a scientist, I know how much we bull****, gloss over and veer what we observe in the direction to suit our hypothesis.
Having worked in publishing, with a very famous biology journal (although I’m not a biologist), I’ve seen first hand that anything with the word ‘evolution’ in it is jumped all over like a tramp on chips, even though the science in it leaves a lot to be desired.
Ask any physicist what they think of biologists and their methods.
I don’t quite understand what these other options are, but I do agree with the rest. I just can’t get myself to vehemently and passionately side with one view or another.
… Evidence for evolution … NOT 